During September 22-24, 1988 in New Valaam in Finland there was an international conference devoted to the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus. Local and invited clergy and scholars were present: A paper was presented on "The Julian Calendar -- the 1000-Year-Old Icon of Time in Rus" by Lyudmila Perepelkina (from Finland), an expert on the subject. The following is an excerpt from the printed text of the paper, taken from the unofficial Leningrad journal, Nevskiy Dukhovnyy Vestnik (no. 1, 1989).
". . . The modern ecumenical movement is looking for a solution to the issue of the church calendar. Among the various proposals there were two which are discussed most frequently: (1) To celebrate Easter on a specific date of the Gregorian calendar (the first or second Sunday of April). This proposal, which is totally at odds with the determination of the Council of Nicaea, was supported by the Second Vatican Council. (2) To set the date of Easter by taking literally the astronomical terms 'equinox' and 'full moon'.
According to A. Zelinsky (see his excellent study in Kontekst, Moscow, 1978), both of these proposals are unacceptable. The first is unacceptable because of the astronomical and canonical deficiencies of the Gregorian Calendar and its modified version- the second is unacceptable because "astronomical accuracy", taken literally, would make the Church constantly dependent on the progress of astronomical science. In addition, this decision ' would not be canonical, since it would permit simultaneous occurrence of Easter and Jewish Passover, i.e. would go completely against Church tradition.
"If the Christian faiths are ever to unite," writes Zelinsky 'this unification, from the point of view of the liturgical Church calendar, must be based on a firm, unshakable foundation. This foundation can only be the sacred calendar-cosmological system of the Great Circle of Creation-the brilliant compilation of the works of unknown laborers of science and faith.'
The Russian Church did not deviate from the instructions of the Holy Fathers. The Julian calendar remains unaltered in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Julian calendar was supported in Russia by many famous scholars, including professors V. V. Bolotov, and E. A. Predtechensk_ the great Russian theologian professor N. G. Glubokovsky, the reverend D. A. Lebedev . . . and the entire devout Russian nation. Because of the decisive resistance of the people it became impossible to adopt the 'corrected Julian calendar' in Russia in 1923, despite the resolution which had been adopted concerning this.
"…The Gregorian reform of the calendar is a truly 'new' approach, a witness to the new, rationalistic approach of man to the category of Time. Beginning with the Renaissance, man wants to become the ruler of Time. Time loses its mystical dimension for him, ceases to be the Time of hope and becomes the Time of progress. But 'progress . . . noticeable accelerated progress, is always a symptom of the end.' And, perhaps, then, there will be no more Time... for repentance."
'Time is God's creation. As with all creatures, after the Fall, Time lost its original perfection and now, together with all creatures, hopes for its salvation. God sanctifies creation, which partakes of His life in Heaven. Time is sanctified in the same way. For this reason one can speak of the Church calendar as of an icon of this sanctified Time. Obviously, there is also unsanctified Time which has no place in this icon. Cosmic Time, with all its rhythms, is not of itself a subject for iconography and is sanctified only through communion with sacred history. From this flows the incomparability of sanctified and unsanctified Time, of the feasts of the Church and the feast, of the unholy. The profanation of the Church calendar is a sacriligeous attempt to desecrate that which is holy, an attempt to cast the sanctified from the Kingdom of Heaven into the kingdom of the unholy.
In coming out against the Julian calendar and the Alexandrian Paschalia, which had been sanctified by the ages, the primary aim of the creators of the Gregorian calendar was to strengthen the authority of the papacy and of Rome, which had been weakened after the Reformation. The Gregorian reform, which permitted the 'elimination' of ten real days, reflected the general state of soul and mind in the West, in accordance with which Time became dependent on the will of man. Rationalism, having conquered the minds of men, began to mechanize the universe and wished to control the laws of nature and Time. 'The flowers of evil' sown in those times yielded their bitter harvest in our age.
At the end of the twentieth century people began to look more skeptically at the 'achievements' of the Renaissance. A contemporary thinking person, looking at that which followed the Renaissance--secularization, dechristianization, together with the total decline in human society-begins to look at the Renaissance anew. In studying the genealogy of the degradation of contemporary man, one can note that its roots can be found in the time of the Renaissance time of an uncontrollable urge in man to rise up and to establish himself above everything: above nature, above those like him, and finally, above the Lord God Himself.
What will the Time of the future, the Time of the Eighth Day, be like? We know only that it will be sanctified and not that Time which is calculated according to the sun and moon. One probably cannot categorically juxtapose Eternity and Time. Perhaps sanctified Time is already Eternity.
The Church of Christ unites the temporal and the eternal. This takes place, first of all, in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Existing in time, the Church, through the real presence of Christ, transforms time, as she transforms the world. The time of prayer is the entry into eternity, into the Kingdom of God where 'Christ is in everything and everyone.' Those who live in prayer know from experience that in church services or prayers in monks cells, during the reading of the Gospel or the Book of Psalms, the boundaries of time seem to vanish. This occurs when one feels united with God, when the merciful Lord seems to visit us in a special way. Then the heart replies to this divine call of Love and forgets everything and finds itself outside of time. We find this mystical experience of the Church in the works of the Holy Fathers; it is especially clearly expressed by St. Simeon the New Theologian in his Sermons and Hymns.
With regard to the differences of opinion about the Julian calendar, it seems to us that the main argument in its favor is the annual descent of the holy flame on the Tomb of the Lord-a miracle which occurs in the presence of thousands of pilgrims during Holy Saturday according to the Julian calendar. This shows the mystical sanctification of this thousand-year old icon of Time.
In conclusion, we cite the words of an Orthodox monk: "Time is a great mystery and one can approach a mystery only through symbols. The Julian calendar is an Icon of Time. If we want to naturalize the concept of Time as icons were naturalized, to turn it into a portrait, then why do we need the Gregorian calendar? There are even more precise calendars. There is the calendar of the Incas, the calendar of Omar Khayam, which is mathematically brilliant, and perhaps tomorrow a new calendar will appear which is even more precise from the astronomical point of view. We should not stand with hands outstretched to the observatories. We, the Church, possess those mysteries of Time which are written in the Bible and in the works of the Holy Fathers. We are the bearers of these mysteries and must reveal them to the world."