E RETURN to the arcane code of the definition list. Yes, I think I shall have to codify this in the future in to categories, etc. But for now, just a DL tag and off we go:

Eastern Rite Anglicans FAQ (pt 2)

Which calendar do you use?

This is a two-part question, although only Eastern Orthodox folks (and Church-geeks) will realise it. Both questions were hit on in the earlier post when asking about “Russian” Easter and Christmas.

Eastern-Rite Anglicans do not use the Julian Calendar. Thus, following Modernist Orthodox fashion, Saints are observed on the regular, Gregorian days. The Feast of the Nativity falls on 25 December – not on 7 January as in Russian and other “Old Calendarist” traditions. Why? Because there is nothing special about using the calendar invented by Julius Caesar. Further, old-calendarist claims that “this was the calendar that Jesus used” are totally false: Jesus would have used a very out of sync Hebrew Calendar if he used any at all.

The Roman oppressors of Jesus would have used Julian calendars, yes. Except they would not say that today is February 21st but rather Ante Dies 9 Kalends Martius (9th day before the calends of March). It *does* create a different concept of time, I think – where today is placed in relationship to the future rather than the past. But that is my own bias.

The other calendar issue is the date of Easter. There are several mythological reasons for the difference between the (western) date of Eastern and the (eastern) date of Pascha: most importantly the claim that Pascha must fall “after Passover”. This is proven untrue by two things: on the one hand the issue of the date of the festival was caused by a change in the Jewish calendar. Prior to that, Pascha was simply celebrated every year on the schedule of Passover (in those ecclesial communities that celebrated the Resurrection on a yearly basis). When the Jewish calendar was changed, the issue of when to celebrate was raised in the Churches. The result were several set dates that had nothing to do with Passover and, finally, the canonical setting was the Sunday after the full moon after the Equinox. Since there was no way to ensure the date of the full moon, the church published tables with dates calculated on the Metonic Cycle in a method none as “Computus“. Dates are assigned for the hypothetical full moons. In the west these dates are corrected occasionally to bring the hypothetical date in line with observed reality. This is not so in the east. Additionally, the date “March 21st” on the Julian calendar falls 13 days after the Gregorian equinox. Ergo, Pascha can fall several weeks after Easter… bad form, really.

Eastern Rite Anglicans use the Gregorian Calendar for feast days and use the corrected Computus to calculate the celebration of Pascha.

Then why call it Pascha?

Because that’s the Eastern Rite name for the feast. But they do, really, get used interchangeably. Just not in liturgy (when we sing “Pascha, precious Pascha!” etc).

Any other liturgical changes or modifications?

Yes: 1 Western Saints are recognised and the use of the Revised Common Lectionary

Western Saints is easy to understand, but why the RCL?

The Eastern Lectionary is doubly limited: it does not use the Old Testament at all (save the Psalms) during Eucharistic worship and, during the daily offices, only rarely. The Daily lectionary readings do not use the Old Testament at all. The theological claim is that “the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New”. This is, essentially, traditional, gentile Christian anti-Semitism at work. The other way it is limited is in being only a one-year lectionary. Always the Sunday lections are the same. This limits preaching: some clergy actually have the same sermons to preach every year on the same Sunday! The RCL uses the OT and provides three years of readings covering nearly the entire Bible (but not all of it, truth be told).

Won’t this create liturgical conflicts?

No – for two reasons. 1) There are very few Sundays in the year when the assigned readings are reflected in Liturgical Changes. (On Feast Days the RCL doesn’t usually have assigned readings.) The main reading-liturgy connections are in Matins and Vespers where the RCL would not interfere. 2) on those few Sundays (only those prior to Lent and those just after Pascha) where there is a reason for a specific reading on a specific day, the Slavic tradition provides for multiple Gospels or Epistles to be read, thus the RCL can be read along with the traditional Gospel of the day (the Publican, the Prodigal, Myrrh-Bearing Women, etc).

When visiting an ER-Anglican church would I know I wasn’t in an Orthodox church?

Yes: there would probably be women serving, even women clergy. There might very well be other signs and one minor liturgical modification: the RCL provides a Psalm of the Day. This is used during the Little Entrance as a processional, with an Alleluia response.

What in what Anglican Church are you thinking about doing this thing?

No Anglican Church you would recognise. Actually, I don’t need “An Anglican Church” but rather a community with an Anglican Attitude. Yes, this will drive some conservatives crazy, but ok. That’s not my issue – it’s theirs. I have considered ECUSA as well as several groups within the Independent Sacramentalist Movement. In the latter I’ve found some (but not all) with the “Anglican attitude” of which I speak. I’ve found some more conservative, some, essentially, that were congregationalist. Etc. I think this community is, however, where I might find my best possibilities.

Are there no Orthodox Churches for you to play in? / Why not just be Orthodox?

There are Indy Orthodox churches. Yes. The odd thing is that even the ones that would be classified as “really liberal” get worried about things like “the old calendar” or “ecumenism”. I don’t have time to put up with that silliness. And the other Orthodox “Episcopi Vagantes” (which are usually referred to as being outside of “Canonical Orthodoxy”) are even nuttier. And I mean that in Christian Charity: they are nutcakes. Nearly all of them claim either that “Orthodoxy” is the true church to the exclusion of Protestants and Roman Catholics or, even worse, that only their select few Orthodox folks are the “True Church” while all the other “World Orthodox” are just as bad as the Heretics. The advantage of the Indy Sacramentalist movement over these folks is that it does *not* claim to be the one true Church (although, sadly, some within it do claim…) The final reason not to claim to be “Orthodox” is because I’m not, most simply in the fact that I’m a sexually active gay man in a committed relationship.

I do believe and confess everything else ever taught to me by the moderates within Orthodox church and almost everything taught to me by conservatives within the Orthodox church. I would be Orthodox again in a heartbeat, as I have written here many times – although following the path of the moderates, I’d be an ecumenist modernist. But to claim I am Orthodox whilst “living in sin” – most especially the One Huge Sin du Jure – would cause scandal for most people, Orthodox or not.

Wait! “Moderates” within the Orthodox Church?

Yes. I count some of them among my closest friends and it pains me to be out of communion with them.

So what about Orthodoxy’s Holy Tradition? Will Anglo-Byzantines accept the Tradition?

When I was listening to a recent series of podcasts on Fr Alexander Schmemann, the penultimate presentation, by Dr. David Fagerberg, cut me to the core. For he successfully defined Tradition as over and above (t)radition.

And for a minute I felt cut off from Tradition.

That is, until I realised who was speaking.

Dr Fagerberg was a Roman Catholic standing in a room full of Eastern Orthodox (and others) who, at least in their more conservative modes, would have denied that he, himself, was part of the Tradition. In his definition, the professor was using a recent series of statements from the head of the Roman ecclesial community that reversed rather a lot of teaching about “eastern schismatics” and allowed that they – along with Romans – were the only real churches out there. So, the irony of Dr Fagerberg’s claim that I don’t share in the Tradition simply because I’m in the wrong Institution suddenly made me burst out laughing.

His definition – which I agree with – that to be in the Tradition is to assume the same hypothesis in reading scripture and traditions, in writing theology. To assume a different hypothesis is to be outside of the Tradition. I agree. But part of that hypothesis is to reserve Judgement to God – not to the nutcases of this world. Another part of that hypothesis is the nearly-universal redemption of all of us nutcases by the God in his Divine Human Son.

I think my claims in the series on the Big Three put me in line with Tradition – all else, it seems, is adiaphora. But I know those who would disagree with me in Anglican and Orthodox communities.