This article examines the role of church councils in reaching a common date for Easter in the first millennium (the Quartodeciman debates, the First Ecumenical Council and after), as well as attempts towards a pan-Orthodox solution of the calendar issue in the 20th century (with a special focus on Russia). The author shows that the calendar and paschal issues were repeatedly placed on the church agenda with different emphases: the desire for a common date for Easter in the first millennium; confessional differences after the Gregorian reform in the 16th century; and the search for a pan-Orthodox response to the changed socio-political conditions of the 20th -21st centuries. None of these efforts offered a fast, implementable, and commonly acceptable "formula" for solving the issue. The conciliar process has always played an important role in achieving unity and was an important counterweight to attempts at imposing a particular model "from above". The starting point for the considered discussions was liturgical variety, whose legitimate existence (not just in relation to the calendar and Easter tables) does not divide the Church, but, on the contrary, reveals its inner unity in the variety of liturgical forms. In this regard, the study of the calendar and paschal issues in the broader context of achieving and maintaining Church unity can contribute to the successful solution of other issues on the agenda of the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council.

Keywords: calendar, calendar reform, Pan-Orthodox Council, council, conciliarity, Orthodoxy, Orthodox Church.

page 182
SPEAKING about the prospects of the Pan-Orthodox Council, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, emphasized its importance for expressing the fullness of pan-Orthodox unity: "If today the Local Churches manage to overcome their internal differences and" with one mouth and one heart " bear witness to their inherent unity, this will be an important and significant event. This will certainly strengthen inter-Orthodox cooperation, it will help to formulate and voice a pan-Orthodox position on a number of topical issues, it will make the Orthodox Church more consolidated and able to respond to the challenges of the time. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church can become a true Celebration of Orthodoxy-provided, of course, that it takes into account the beliefs, traditions and views of all local Orthodox Churches in a spirit of genuine brotherly love and mutual respect."1 One of the issues that has caused and continues to cause inter-Christian and inter-Orthodox discussions is the issue of a single calendar and Easter. Currently, a number of Orthodox Churches (Jerusalem, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, and Polish) use the Julian calendar in their lives, while others use the so - called "New Julian" calendar, and the Finnish Orthodox Church also uses the Western Gregorian Paschal calendar. This article examines the role of cathedrals in solving the Easter problem of the first millennium, the most important epoch in the life of the Church, when the conciliar tradition was formed and developed, as well as an overview of the main steps towards the Orthodox solution of the calendar issue (with an emphasis on the Russian situation) in the XX century, which was the centenary of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox Council. The scope of the article does not allow us to present a detailed historical picture of the development of the church calendar and Paschal calendar, or to analyze the underlying astronomical realities, but the study of the calendar-Paschal problem in the broader context of achieving and preserving church unity can also contribute to the successful resolution of other issues on the agenda of the upcoming council.

1. Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Church and Time. 2012. N 1 (58). pp. 51-52.

page 183
Chetrenadesyatnichesky disputes

The dispute over the date of Easter celebration in the second century was the first non-dogmatic issue that led to a serious internal church conflict, but at the same time demonstrated the existence of different approaches to solving the problem. The clash occurred between the so-called "Lenten believers", i.e. Christians who celebrated Easter on the Jewish date of Nisan 14 regardless of the day of the week, and the church majority, who celebrated the holiday on the Sunday following this date.2 The two traditions were expressed by the bishops of the province of Asia (Western Asia Minor) and Rome, and the problem was first raised around 155 when St. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Bishop Aniketos of Rome. Neither side was able to persuade the other to abandon their practice, and yet the church communion was not interrupted: "Aniket... He allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his church, and they parted in peace with one another and in peace with the whole Church "(QI V 24.16-17). It is obvious that such direct contacts in conflict situations were a natural means of resolving problems, but at the same time they had their own limits, being closely connected with the personality of a particular bishop, his desire for church unity and understanding the criteria for this unity. In this case, the primates of the two cathedrals eucharistically demonstrated that the Paschal divergence is not a doctrinal one, and the liturgical issue should not divide the Church, in which different practices of celebrating Easter can peacefully coexist.

However, a few decades later, when the powerful Bishop Victor ascended to the Roman see, a new serious conflict occurred. Around 195, he tried to "excommunicate the Asiatic and neighboring churches for dissent; he branded all the brothers there in writing, indiscriminately declaring them excommunicated" (QI V 24.9). It is during this period of increasing escalation that we find references to "councils and conferences" convened in various ecclesiastical areas to address the problem. Not only Western cathedrals (Rome, Gaul), but also eastern cathedrals (Jer-

2. The main source for the history of the Easter controversies of the second century is the Ecclesiastical History (CI) of Eusebius of Caesarea, which contains a number of important documents of that era (Eusebius Pamphilus. Church History, Moscow, 1993).

page 184
salim, Caesarea, and others) "unanimously decided - and communicated this ecclesiastical decision in writing to all the faithful - to celebrate the sacrament of Christ's Resurrection on no other day, but only on the Lord's Day" (CI V 23.2), i.e., they supported Roman practice. The Council was also assembled in Asia, also" unanimously " expressing support for its Lenten tradition, as Polycrates of Ephesus reported in his epistle to Bishop Victor (CI V 24.8).

In the context of the Easter controversies of the second century, councils were obviously seen as an instrument for confirming the unity of the liturgical practice of a particular ecclesiastical area and legitimizing the bishop's authority as its representative. They were called when the problem ceased to be local, reached the inter-church level and was perceived as a tangible violation of church unity. Eusebius especially emphasizes that the decision at local councils was made on the basis of consensus: they "unanimously made the same decision and voted for it", "the decision was unanimous" , etc. (CI V 23.4). Thus, the unity of the local church was considered as the basic level of church unity - only after it reached a consensus at its council did it start discussing the issue with other church regions. However, the scope of influence and tools of these councils were naturally limited, since their position was primarily to preserve their own tradition and was not characterized by a desire to understand the logic of the other side.3 There was no mechanism for convening broad representative meetings of bishops from various ecclesiastical regions, and personal contacts between the primates (including through the exchange of messages) were communication-deficient.

3. It is likely that the Lenten Passover was an older eschatological holiday, during which Christians expected the Second Coming of Christ, and their fast was a "fast for the Jews", so its date could only be Nisan 14 (see, for example, Lohse, B. (1953) Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner. Gutersloh). The Passover of the rest of the Church (in Rome, the annual feast of Passover appeared at the beginning of the second century) had a more historical character, so within the framework of the gospel chronology, it was inextricably linked with the "first day after the Sabbath" (Mt 28: 1 par.). It is possible that the problem arose due to the existence of Lenten communities in Rome and was initially local in nature, as a result of the bishop's attempt to unify liturgical practice within the same city.

page 185
It is obvious that the simple arithmetic "unanimity" of the majority of local churches did not guarantee the automatic achievement of church unity if the position of each church, including those in the minority, was not taken into account. Thus, no local church could go beyond the boundaries of its canonical competence and impose its position on others. However, Bishop Victor perceived the support of the majority as a carte blanche to apply harsh pressure on dissenters, even to the point of breaking off Eucharistic communion with them. This first historically recorded claim of the Bishop of Rome to interfere in the affairs of other churches, in effect, instrumentalized the councils in order to elevate his own see and provoked a wide reaction of rejection. After an unauthorized attempt to break off communion with the Asians, "Victor was persuaded to think about peace, unity with his neighbors, and love"; even bishops who adhered to Roman practice wrote "epistles with sharp attacks on Victor", and St. Irenaeus of Lyons "persuaded Victor not to excommunicate entire churches of God for observing the ancient law transmitted to them." custom" (QI V 24.11). Probably, the Roman primate made just a demonstrative gesture, so we have no reason to assume that inter-church communication was really complicated or interrupted.

I Ecumenical Council

In the third century, an important event in the history of Paschalia occurred: in the main Christian centers of the empire - Rome and Alexandria - they began to calculate the date of the Paschal full moon independently, regardless of the Jewish 14 Nisan, but in such a way that it always happened after the spring equinox 4. This led to the creation of new Christian Paschal systems, but in various ecclesiastical areas the process took place several times.-

4. Christians reacted in this way to the introduction by the Jews of a new system of calculating Passover, in which the spring equinox no longer played any role. If in the Easter disputes of the second century the actual date of the Easter full moon was not in doubt (both the Lenten Calendar and Rome agreed that it was necessary to follow the Jewish calculation in this matter), a century later the question was whether Christians should have their own Easter tables. Equinox and the emergence of Christian Paschalia / / Annual Theological Conference of PSTBI: Materials of 2003, Moscow, 2003, pp. 146-151.

page 186
at a steady pace. Some communities (the so-called "proto-Paschites" of the Patriarchate of Antioch) continued to celebrate Easter on the Sunday after the Jewish holiday (including when it occurred before the spring equinox), so the difference in dates between them and other ecclesiastical regions could reach five weeks in some years. However, in turn, the Easter tables of Alexandria and Rome were based on different lunisolar cycles and therefore often gave different dates for the holiday. Eusebius of Caesarea describes the situation with the celebration of Easter at the beginning of the fourth century as follows: "All nations had been at odds for many years on this subject, and the divine decrees were thrown into confusion, when the perversion of time in relation to the same holiday aroused the greatest discord among the celebrants... In these circumstances, there was no one who could find a cure for such an evil. " 5 The problem at that time, obviously, fell into three components: the main question of the need for the joint celebration of Easter by all Christians (general Christian unity); the principle of independence of the Christian Paschal calendar (independent calculation of the date of the Easter full moon); the choice of the most perfect Christian Paschal system, which all churches (Alexandrian or Roman) should have been guided by. The answers to these questions required a church-wide decision, the instrument of which was intended to be the First Ecumenical Council. It is obvious that the Emperor Constantine was aware of the need to solve the problem not only to pacify the internal church life, but also for political purposes to achieve unity of religious practice throughout the Roman Empire.

However, among the rules of the Council of Nicaea, there is not a single canon dedicated to determining the date of the celebration of Easter. The epistle of the Emperor Constantine to the bishops who were absent from Council 6, quoted in Eusebius, gives the following account of the solution of the Easter question:: "There was a study on the most holy day of Easter, and the general opinion is recognized as a blessing: everyone and everywhere should celebrate it on the same day." The text emphasizes that church unity and the date of Easter celebration are closely linked.

5. Eusebius. The Life of Constantine III 5 (Eusebius Pamphilus. The Life of the Blessed Basileus Constantine, Moscow, 1998).

6. Cf.: Socrates. Church History I 9; Theodoret. Church History I 10.

page 187
They are related to each other: "it is not lawful to maintain a disagreement about such a feast of faith, for our Savior has given us one day to celebrate our deliverance... and He was pleased that His universal Church should be one and the same... Therefore, divine Providence favored that this should be properly corrected and brought to one order" (LK III 18). Certain agreements appear to have been reached in Nicaea, but they did not take the form of a binding rule 7. The adoption of a formalized decision had to include a church-wide mechanism for its implementation, which at that time did not exist due to the high degree of independence of local churches. Therefore, strict regulations on the need to unify practices (especially those containing church penalties for non-compliance) would have the opposite effect and would only aggravate the situation. The Council considered the achievement of church unity not as a result of pressure and the imposition of certain practices "from above", but as a consultative process, to which all local churches were invited as equal participants.

With regard to the independence of the date of the Christian Easter, the epistle notes that the participants of the council "found it indecent to celebrate that most holy holiday according to the custom of the Jews", since "the Savior has shown us another path", which we must "enter with one mind" (LC III 18). Probably, the reasoned position of the majority of churches was voluntarily accepted by the representatives of the Antiochians during the conciliar discussions: "the order followed in this respect by all the churches of the Western, southern, northern, and some eastern dioceses of the Empire is indeed well-behaved and is therefore now recognized by all as one "(LC III 19).8. These few ecclesiastical regions that followed the proto-Paschitic tradition, which they quite sincerely considered apostolic.-

7. "No firm resolutions have been issued... The biggest thing is that they [the Cathedral fathers. - Approx. Author's note: This is an unwritten, unformed decree, which has the character of a friendly agreement" (Bolotov V. V. Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church, Vol. II. SPb., 1910, p. 436).

8. The council's message to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops at the end of its activities reported on the results achieved: "The matter has also been decided on the concordant celebration of Easter, so that all the Eastern brothers who previously celebrated Easter together with the Jews will henceforth celebrate it in accordance with the Romans, with us and with everyone else, who have kept it in our way since ancient times " (Socrates. Church history. I 9).

page 188
However, they were not as strong as the old Church (or at least more ancient), and they came into conflict with the church centers, where the best computist and ecclesiastical administrative forces were concentrated. However, even in this case, it was neither a simple unconditional "preservation of tradition", nor a position of forceful introduction of a single practice with the support of the imperial government. The Council became a platform for a free dialogue between equal parties, in which they had the opportunity to express their position, hear a different point of view and come to a common decision. The very tone of the imperial message shows ("what I think everyone will agree to").; "your prudence will also please you" - LC III 18-19), that the state authorities did not use their administrative resources to force the unification of practice, but only provided an external framework for the Church to make an independent and independent decision.

Church unity was the main goal of the council, but it did not propose concrete steps to achieve it. The problem of designing or choosing a single Paschal calendar was very complex (including from the point of view of astronomical realities), so the participants refrained from making a mandatory prescription, limiting themselves to a declaration on the need for unity and independence of Christian Easter tables. In the course of discussions with the Antiochians, the differences between Rome and Alexandria were obscured, and their practice was presented as supposedly uniform in comparison with the "eastern"ones. Of course, the council was aware of the differences between the Alexandrian and Roman Paschalia, 10 but its participants, who were striving to achieve unity, did not focus on the contradictions and did not try to answer the question of which of them is more "correct". Therefore, the First Ecumenical Council cannot be considered as final-

9.Prof. Bolotov notes in this regard: "If it is not easy to discuss numerical values now, then it was all the more difficult at that time, and moreover for people with senile gray hair" (Bolotov V. V. Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church, p. 436).

10. Both were based on the principle that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, but the difference lay in the date of the vernal equinox, the underlying Paschal cycle (8 and 19-year cycle), and the Paschal boundaries, i.e., the limit dates for celebrating Easter. Therefore, it could occur in the West from March 20 to April 21, and in the East - from March 22 to April 25. At first glance, these differences are insignificant, but in practice they were very noticeable. (See Mosshammer, A. (2008) The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era for more information on the devices of these Paschals. Oxford, p. 109-203).

page 189
Rather, it was the first church-wide attempt to approach this issue, demonstrating the complexity of the problem, the need to differentiate the issues under consideration by degree of importance, and pastoral prudence in their solution.

Post-conclave situation

Despite the solemn announcement by Emperor Constantine of the decision of the Council of Nicaea on a single Christian celebration of Easter, it did not have tangible results. A number of Antiochian communities continued to follow the proto-Paschitic practice for a long time, which encouraged the councils to continue discussing Paschal topics. Thus, the Council of Antioch in 341 was forced to address this issue again in its 1st rule, but already introducing canonical prohibitions against those who continued to celebrate Easter "with the Jews"11: "All who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great council of Nicaea formerly... on the holy feast of the Saviour's Passover, let them be excommunicated from communion and rejected from the Church... But if any of the primates of the Church, bishop, presbyter, or deacon, after this designation, dare to corrupt people, and to provoke the churches to revolt, especially to celebrate the Passover with the Jews: the Holy Synod now condemns such a person to be alien to the Church. " 12 The Council of Nicaea could not have decided on such rhetoric or such strict measures at the time, because it sought to reach an agreement in principle on the issue. But even this restrictive conciliar approach did not immediately put an end to the practice of Protopaskhites.13
11. The rule deals precisely with the fundamental independence of the Christian calculation of the holiday, and not with the impossibility of its fulfillment on the same day as the Jewish one. The dates of the Jewish and Christian Easter repeatedly coincided: for example, in the IV century there was such a coincidence 10 times, in the V century-9 times, and the last time it happened in 783 (Report of Prof. Bolotova V. V. at the meeting of the Commission on the reform of the calendar of May 31, 1899 // Journals of the meeting of the Commission on the reform of the calendar at the Russian Astronomical Society. Appendix 5. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 44).

12. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations by Nicodemus (Milash), Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria. Vol. II. Moscow, 1996, p. 50.

13. The 7th Apostolic Rule (2nd Gen. First and fifth centuries) is formulated even more harshly: "If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, celebrates the holy day of Easter with the Jews before the vernal equinox, let him be cast out of the holy rite" (Ibid., Vol.I. P. 65). Most likely, the problem was solved.-

page 190
However, the churches that had their own Easter tables also continued to celebrate Easter on different dates: for example, a year after Nicaea, in 326, Alexandria and Rome celebrated Easter on April 3 and 10, respectively. 14 A compromise attempt to solve the problem was proposed by the Council of Cerdica (343), at which St. Athanasius was rehabilitated The city of Alexandria. Together with the "Western" saints, the saint adopted and approved a special Paschal table, in which, by mutual concessions, Paschal dates were set for the next 50 years. 15 The conciliar compromise in Serdik was not only Paschal, but also ecclesiastical and political in nature; its fundamental importance lay in the fact that the Church conciliatingly recognized the possibility of parallel coexistence of two Easter cycles when agreeing on disputed dates, even if for a short period of time. Ecclesiastical unity thus stood above adherence to the Paschal rules of one of the cathedrals, and Paschalia was considered as a technical means for determining Easter, which, if necessary, could not be followed. It is characteristic that at the same time, the Council of Serdik did not try to introduce a single Paschal feast as a general obligation, since it clearly understood its canonical boundaries.

However, since the fifth century, the situation has changed. The Alexandrians wanted to make their Paschalia generally binding, so the East, having received the support of the emperor, steadily celebrated Easter according to its own principles and did not pay attention to what was happening in the West. 16 No conciliar mechanisms for solving the problem were proposed and used during this period, so the Roman Paschalia gradually began to give way. Through the Easter tables of Victorinus (ser. V century) and Dionysius the Small (525), the Alexandrian principles of calculating Easter were developed.

In a similar way, when the Alexandrian Paschalia gradually became widespread in the East.

14. Bolotov V. V. Lectures... P. 444.

15. " An agreement has been reached in Cerdic regarding the celebration of Easter. A period of fifty years was determined for which the Romans and Alexandrians everywhere would announce this holiday according to custom " (Athanasius of Alexandria. Table of contents of holiday messages / / PG. 26. Col. 1354).

16. См. об этом периоде: Schmid, J. (1907) Die Osterfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche vom I. Allgemeinen Konzil zu Nicaa bis zum Ende des VII. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg i. Br.

page 191
They are also accepted in the West. Final unification was achieved only during the reign of Charlemagne (742-814), 17 after which Easter was celebrated on the same day in the East and West for eight centuries. The Alexandrian Paschalia became widespread not on the basis of a conciliar decision of the East and West, but because of its greater accuracy and simplicity compared to the Roman cycle.

Unity in the celebration of Easter was broken in 1582 by the reform of Pope Gregory XIII. It was primarily a reform of Paschalia, but the change in the calendar was a necessary consequence. At the same time, the pope did not just implement his own individual decision, but acted in the spirit of discussions and in compliance with the decisions of the Councils of Constance (1414-18), Basle (1431-1449), V Lateran (1512-1517) and Trident (1545-63) .18 The new Easter calendar and calendar were intended only for the Roman Catholic Church, so they initially caused sharp hostility in the Protestant world, but gradually became widespread in the West. Orthodox Christians also strongly condemned this innovation at the Council of Constantinople in 1583,19 However, it was from this period that the issue moved from the "Paschal" to the "calendar" plane, since it was the difference between the "old" and "new" styles that was most noticeable in everyday life, becoming a new important factor in confessional and state self-identification.

Orthodox discussions of the first half of the 20th century

The beginning of the last century demonstrated the first attempts of pan-Orthodox understanding and solution of the calendar problem, which then began to take concrete forms. Discussions on the possibility of reform of the Julian calendar and Alexan-

17. Ideler, L. (1883) Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. Breslau. Bd. II. S. 298.

18. The Pontifical Commission decided to restore the astronomical realities that formed the basis of the Alexandrian Paschal calendar of the First Ecumenical Council: March 21 as the date of the vernal equinox and the Easter boundaries of March 22-April 25. For the background and implementation of the reform, see: Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate Its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1982. Ed. G. V. Coyne, M. A. Hoskin, O. Pedersen. Vat., 1983.

19. См.: Peri, V. (1967) Due date, un'unica Pasqua: Le origini della moderna disparita liturgica in una trattativa ecumenica tra Roma e Constantinopoli (1582-1584). Milano.

page 192
The Dryas Paschalia began in the Orthodox environment at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. due to the fact that in a number of states with a predominant Orthodox population, the question of switching to a new style was increasingly raised. Thus, in Russia during the 19th century, it was repeatedly proposed to carry out a calendar reform in the state (for example, in 1830 and 1864), but no practical steps were taken in this direction.20 In 1899, a special commission for calendar reform was established under the Russian Astronomical Society. This collegial body included representatives of various departments, but its decisions were not implemented either. The Commission supported the introduction of a "new Russian calendar" based on the Medler Amendment, which would reduce leap days by one every 128 years, although prof. Bolotov, a representative of the Holy Synod, argued for the preservation of the Julian calendar 21. The very fact of creating such a discussion platform with the involvement of a wide range of secular (including D. I. Mendeleev) and church specialists testified to the need for a preliminary comprehensive discussion of the possible reform and its consequences for various aspects of public life.

The first attempt to collect and analyze the opinions of Orthodox Churches was made in 1902, when Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople sent a message to all the Local churches, which contained a question about the possibility of reforming the church calendar. The Russian ecclesiastical view of the problem was expressed in the message of the Holy Synod of 28.02.1903, which spoke about the complexity of the issue and its study in the framework of the aforementioned Commission on Calendar Reform, and emphasized that "the use of a new style in one civil calendar, without changing Easter and without moving church holidays... it will not particularly affect church interests.-

20. See: Naek E. L. Kalendarnyi vopros v dorevolyutsionnoi Rossii [Calendar issue in pre-revolutionary Russia]. 2009. N 3. pp. 35-40.

21. Prof. Bolotov noted: "I myself find the abolition of the Julian style in Russia by no means desirable. I still remain a determined admirer of the Julian calendar... I think that the cultural mission of Russia on this issue is to keep the Julian calendar alive for several more centuries and thereby facilitate for Western peoples the return from the Gregorian reform that no one needs to the unspoiled old style" (Journal of the eighth meeting of the Reform Commission calendar of February 21, 1900 St. Petersburg, 1900. p. 34).

page 193
the Julian calendar will remain in full force in church practice." The Synod called for treating " with great caution the desire of some to change the calendar, if this means changing both Paschal and the entire church calendar, "and spoke in favor of" preserving the Julian calendar in church practice, allowing only formal ones in extreme cases... changes"22. The attitude of other Local Churches to the calendar reform in response to the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople was not clear. The Churches of Jerusalem, Greece and Serbia cautiously expressed the possibility of adopting a new calendar in principle if a pan-Orthodox agreement is reached on this issue; the Romanian Church and the Montenegrin Metropolia supported the preservation of the Julian calendar together with Russia.23 In this case, the Patriarch of Constantinople initiated the creation of a catalog of issues (among which there were others - on inter-Christian / pan-Orthodox unity), without offering any specific and, moreover, generally binding solution, in fact, only monitoring the church-wide situation. The exchange of views resulted in another letter of the Synod of Constantinople dated 12.04.1904, which stated that it was unacceptable to change the Paschal principles of the Nicene Council era, that it was impractical to simply remove the difference of 13 days between the Gregorian and Julian calendars without reforming the latter, and that it was premature to switch to a more perfect calendar.24
However, in Russia, the calendar issue soon took on a completely different tone at the Local Council of 1917-1918 and demanded an early solution due to the changing political situation in the country. The Soviet government adopted the "Decree on the introduction of the Western European calendar in the Russian Republic" of 24.01.1918, which introduced the Gregorian calendar in February 1918. Therefore, the council was faced not just with the theoretical question of the possibility of calendar reform, but with the practical need to respond quickly to the introduction of a new calendar.-

22. Sokolov I. I. Report "The attitude of the Orthodox East to the issue of calendar reform" at the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-18 / / BT. 1998. Sb. 34. pp. 284-285.

23. For the official responses of the Churches to the epistle of the Patriarch of Constantinople, see: Ibid., pp. 282-285.

24. Ibid., p. 285.

page 194
the difference was 13 days in the same style. Consideration of the problem was referred to the general assembly of the two departments of the Council - "On Divine Worship" and "On the legal status of the Church in the State", which prepared a draft conciliar act on the calendar. During the presentation of the results of the work of the departments to the participants of the council on January 30, 1918, Professor S. S. Glagolev pointed out that "the introduction of a new style in the civil life of the Russian population should not prevent church people from preserving their church way of life and leading their religious life according to the old style", thereby fundamentally recognizing the possibility of In the case of an immediate calendar reform, due to the liturgical realities of 1918, a number of unsolvable statutory problems inevitably arose (for example, the duration of Lent), and therefore it was concluded that " The Church... currently can't switch to the new style." It is characteristic that the calendar reform was not considered as an internal matter of one Local Church, but was included in the broader context of the general pan-Orthodox response on the challenges of the era: "The introduction of a new style has a different goal - to establish unity... But at the present time, the transition of the Russian Church to a new style would primarily entail not unification, but separation. All Orthodox Churches lead their church circle in the old style... Therefore, the introduction of a new style in the Russian Church would in some respects break it from other Orthodox Churches. The issue of changing the style should be discussed and resolved jointly by all Orthodox Churches." After criticism of various components of the Gregorian calendar, the opinion was expressed that "a new calendar is needed, and it is desirable that it become a common calendar of peoples, but it is in vain to think that the Gregorian calendar meets the requirements of an ideal calendar." The Julian calendar was seen as an important sign of Orthodox identity, since during the Western expansion, "the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in different countries was far from peaceful." The final decree read as follows: "1) during 1918, the Church will be guided in its everyday life by the old style, 2) instruct the Liturgical Department to develop in detail the application of styles in the entire life of the Church."25. Obviously,

25. Holy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. Book 6. Moscow, 1918, pp. 186-188.

page 195
in the current situation, this was the most correct decision, since it presupposed the refusal to automatically follow the changing state realities and the need for a conciliar development of one's own church position.

On January 21, 1919, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow addressed Patriarch Herman of Constantinople with a message in which he announced the introduction of a new style in the state and asked to address the primates of all Orthodox Churches with a question about the possibility of introducing the Gregorian calendar in church life. The text suggested four possible solutions to the problem: 1) keep the Julian calendar with minor modifications (for example, move the beginning of the year to the civil January 1), which "is easily applicable only where and as long as the ruling classes find it necessary to take into account the needs and opinions of the Orthodox population", but " all those difficulties and difficulties remain completely unresolved and unresolved. the dangers of which... the very question of a new style has also been raised"; 2) completely switch to a new style (including with regard to Paschalia), which would be most convenient to implement on June 3, 1919. however, this is "capable of creating great confusion of minds among people who are zealous, but little informed in matters of faith and church discipline"; 3) celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar, fixed holidays - according to the new style (this would cause statutory problems, but the solution of some of them was proposed); 4) give the opportunity to each Local church choose the second or third way out of the indicated ones, while "this or that decision should not be considered a ground for breaking church communion" .26 Thus, Patriarch Tikhon indicated the existence of various approaches to solving the calendar problem within the framework of preserving church-wide unity, largely anticipating further steps in this area in the XX century.

On May 10 - June 8, 1923, Patriarch Meletios IV of Constantinople convened the so-called "Pan-Orthodox Congress", 27 which, among other things, was to discuss the possibility of implementing a calendar reform, the need for which was explained by the introduction of a new calendar system.

26. Epistle of Patriarch Tikhon to Patriarch Herman of Constantinople on the transition to a new calendar style / / " In the year of God's Wrath..." Epistles, words, and speeches of St. John the Baptist. Patriarch Tikhon / Compiled by N. A. Krivosheeva, Moscow, 2009, pp. 81-85.

27. See: Yakimchuk I. Z. "Pan-Orthodox Congress" / / Orthodox Encyclopedia. Volume IX. Moscow, 2005, pp. 680-683.

page 196
a new style in public life. Despite the obvious lack of representation (only 5 bishops, 1 archimandrite and 4 lay representatives from Constantinople, Cyprus, Serbia, Hellas and Romania took part in the meeting), a "Decree on the style of time calculation"was adopted. The document stated that "the elimination of the difference between the church and state time calculation is absolutely necessary and... there are no canonical obstacles to correcting the church time calculation according to the data of astronomical science." In this regard, it was proposed to "unanimously correct the Julian calendar", discarding the difference of 13 days on October 1, 1923, and introducing the so-called "New Julian" calendar proposed by the Serbian scientist M. Milankovic. 28 It was also suggested that Easter should not be calculated from the Alexandrian Paschal calendar, but rather that the Paschal full moon should be determined "on the basis of astronomical calculations, taking into account the progress achieved by science", i.e., that new astronomical Easter tables should be compiled.29 Of course, this congress cannot be considered as a "pan-Orthodox" one, since there was no full Orthodox representation, and the calendar issue was not previously discussed in council at the level of each Local Church, and therefore the participants in the meeting did not have the appropriate powers. In fact, the Patriarchate of Constantinople tried to carry out a function not delegated to it by anyone - to reform the calendar and Paschal calendar in all Local churches.

It is not surprising that such an unprepared reform and the lack of proper reception on the part of the faithful led to serious problems - in a number of countries there were so-called "Old-style schisms" caused by the rejection of the new calendar. 30 Thus, the unity that the meeting participants were striving for-

28. It has a period of 900 years, during which the number of leap years decreases by 7, and up to 2800. coincides with the Gregorian calendar.

29.Cit. by: Khariton (Dunaev), Jerome. Introduction of a new style in the Finnish Orthodox Church and the causes of disorders in monasteries according to the documents and records of the monk. Arensburg, 1927. pp. 130-131.

30. They primarily affected the churches of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. See for more details: Slesarev A.V. The Old-style schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924-2008). Moscow, 2009. It is characteristic that no other decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Congress were implemented (allowing marriage after the ordination and remarriage of clergy, reducing worship and fasting, etc.).

page 197
In fact, this turned into new church divisions. However, gradually in the course of the 20th century, all Local Churches except the Jerusalem, Russian, Georgian, and Serbian Churches (as well as the monasteries of Mount Athos)adopted the New Julian calendar31. However, the reform remained half-hearted, as the new calendar was introduced only for fixed holidays, and plans to change the Paschal calendar were not implemented (the exception was the Finnish Orthodox Church, which switched to the Gregorian Paschal calendar).

This calendar reform soon echoed in Russia. In June 1923, the new style was adopted by the state-controlled "renovationists". The message of Patriarch Tikhon on the reform of the calendar dated 01.10.1923 referred to "the need to correct the church time calculation, caused by its inconsistency with modern data of astronomical science, as well as the inconvenience for Orthodox people to celebrate their holidays on those days that are not considered days of rest according to Soviet legislation." The reform of the calendar was justified by the decisions of the Local Council of 1917-18 and the "Pan-Orthodox Congress" of 1923, while the Paschal calendar was to be changed only after pan-Orthodox approval of the issue. Patriarch Tikhon emphasized: "The correction of the church calendar is carried out by us in a different spirit and with a different purpose than by the leaders of the so-called "renovationists"... We are obliged to agree in church time reckoning with all other Christian Orthodox Churches"32. However, the reform carried out under state pressure was rejected by believers: the new style, compromised by the renovationists, was introduced only in Moscow parishes 33. The patriarch was dez-

31. On 18 March 2014, the Council of Bishops of the Polish Orthodox Church, where the new style was introduced in 1924, decided to return to the Julian calendar "due to the fact that the majority of parishes (96%) celebrate holidays in the old (Julian) style... Where necessary, a new style can be used" (Komunikat Sw. Soboru Biskupow PAKP // Oficjalna Strona Polskiego Autokefalicznego Kosciola Prawoslawnego. 19.04.2014 [http://www.orthodox.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Komunikat.pdf, accessed on: 15.12.2014]).

32. Epistle of Patriarch Tikhon to the Orthodox people on the reform of the calendar in the Russian Orthodox Church / / Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon, Moscow, 2000, p. 362.

33. See: Safonov D. Was Patriarch Tikhon a proponent of introducing a new style? // Orthodoxy.Ru. 17.01.2003 [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/archiv/patrtikhon-newstyle.htm, доступ от 15.12.2015].

page 198
He was informed that the new calendar was allegedly adopted unanimously by all Orthodox Churches, so, having received information about the true state of affairs, in a message dated 08.11.1923, he decided:: "We recognize the need to temporarily postpone the widespread and generally binding introduction of a new style into church use."34 This change of position clearly showed that a reform carried out under pressure or on the basis of inaccurate information can be canceled for the good of the church.

The Pan-Orthodox Conference of heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, held in Moscow in July 1948, also addressed the issue of the calendar, which continued to be on the agenda. The resolution" On the Church calendar " expressed "the desire to preserve the unity of the whole church", the participants came to the conclusion "that the value of the calendar for the Orthodox Church is determined mainly by its relation to the time of the celebration of Holy Easter... This ecclesiastical requirement is fully satisfied by the Alexandrian Paschalia." It was recognized as "obligatory for the entire Orthodox world to celebrate the feast of Holy Pascha only in the old (Julian) style, according to the Alexandrian Paschalia". The meeting did not address the details of a possible calendar reform, but stressed that "until the most advanced calendar is developed and approved... for fixed feasts, each Autocephalous Church can use the calendar that exists in that Church." At the same time, it was considered "obligatory for clergy and laity to follow the style of the Local Church within which they live"35. Thus, the Meeting pointed out the need for a joint celebration of Easter, confirmed the legitimacy of the coexistence of different styles and the freedom of each Local Church in calculating the dates of fixed holidays, while at the same time preserving the possibility of creating a new unified calendar.

34. The order of Patriarch Tikhon on the cancellation of the decree on the introduction of a new calendar style into church use / / Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon, Moscow, 2000, p. 363.

35. Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in connection with the celebration of the 500th Anniversary of Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church on July 8-18, 1948. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1949. pp. 432-433.

page 199
On the way to the Pan-Orthodox Cathedral

If the first half of the 20th century can be considered as the initial stage in the formation of pan-Orthodox responses to current issues, then in the 1960s the pre-conciliar process itself was initiated, with the aim of preparing a Pan-Orthodox Council. 36 The first Pan-Orthodox Conference on Rhodes in 1961 included the topic " Calendar problem. Its study in the light of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council on Paschalia and the search for ways to cooperate between the churches in this matter " 37. The catalogue of topics was approved by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on 28.12.1961, 38 and a special theological commission was formed in 1963 to develop positions on them, headed by Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) . In 1968, it prepared draft resolution documents.

The draft opinion on the issue of "The calendar problem" emphasized that " it would be extremely unprofitable to perpetuate the existing differences between the Local Orthodox Churches on the issue of the calendar and Easter." The Commission pointed out that there are no canonical rules on the calendar, and that the canonical rules for Paschalia are limited to simultaneous church-wide celebration on the Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, and regardless of the date of the Jewish Passover; there are "currently no good reasons"for changing these rules. The calendar should be "as accurate as possible in tropical terms", and as "the most natural way to solve the calendar-Paschal problem", it was proposed "the transition of all Local Orthodox Churches to a corrected (New Orthodox or Gregorian) calendar - both in terms of months and Paschalia", which would also lead to a significant coincidence in time.-

36. See about the main stages of preparation: Skobey G. N. Vsepravoslavny sobor / / Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya. Volume IX. Moscow, 2005, pp. 683-685.

37. This issue was already included in the list of topics by the 1930 Vatopedi Inter-Orthodox Commission for consideration at the Pre-Council of Orthodox Churches (Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings from 1923 until 2009. Basel, p. 113).

38. Definitions of the Holy Synod [1962.12.28: on the work of the ROC delegation at the Pan-Orthodox Meeting on Rhodes] / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1962, No. 3, p. 11.

page 200
waste and western paschal. If a pan-Orthodox decision is adopted on a single calendar and Paschal calendar, it should be binding on all churches, but"much should be left to the discretion of the Local Churches regarding the implementation of this decision (its methods and pace)." 39
The Inter-Orthodox Commission for the Preparation of the Council in 1971 considered the proposals of the Local Churches and drew up drafts of relevant documents.40 As part of the work of the First Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting in Chambesy (21-28.11.1976), one of the commissions dealt with the question of the expediency of including calendar topics in the agenda of the upcoming council. It was noted that "the celebration of Easter on various dates by Christian Churches is a challenge to the entire Christian world", and is also a serious problem for Orthodox people living in countries where they are a minority. While proposing to "align the church calendar with astronomical data," the commission members simultaneously pointed out various components of the problem: 1) the pastoral dimension of the issue, which includes the risk of "causing unrest and adding new divisions in the bowels of the people of God", since "many believers are not psychologically and generally pastorally prepared for this change"; 2) concern for the integrity of the Orthodox Church, which implies that the celebration of Easter according to the Julian calendar "is presented as a sign of a change in the the search for identity and loyalty to Orthodoxy for some Local Churches that are directly related to the serious problem of proselytism"; 3) the need for loyalty to the First Ecumenical Council, which should be expressed in the immutability of the principles of Easter celebration; 4) the non-Orthodox origin of the requirements for the general Christian celebration of Easter, since-

39. Commission under the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church for the development of a catalog of topics for the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council. Proekty rezol'ativnykh dokumentov 1968 g. [Draft resolutions of 1968] / / Mitropolit Nikodim i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo. To the 30th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod / Comp. prot. V. Sorokin, St. Petersburg, 2008, pp. 181-182.

40. As part of the preparatory work, important theological studies for the Russian Orthodox Church were conducted and published: Voronov L., prot. Calendar issue. Its study in the light of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council on Paschalia and the search for ways to cooperate between Churches in this issue / / BT. 1971. Sat. 7. pp. 170-203; Ogitsky D. P. Canonical norms of Orthodox Paschalia and the problem of dating Easter in the conditions of our time // Ibid., pp. 204-211.

page 201
ku " Orthodox Churches began to discuss this issue under the pressure of factors alien to its church life. Orthodox Christians do not currently feel the need to change the date of the Easter celebration. For all these reasons, some delegates believe that the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church should not make decisions on this issue." The Meeting stressed the need to seek "a balanced approach on this issue and avoid any haste in making pan-Orthodox statements", as well as to hold a conference of experts in this field.41
The Second Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference, held in 1982 in Chambesy, recognized the astronomical calculation of Paschalia as a possible "contribution to the solution of the problem", but at the same time pointed out that the problem "is a question of ecclesiological (ecclesiastical) self-consciousness of the one and indivisible Orthodoxy, the unity of which should not be shaken in any way or way". Pastoral realities are such that "in the current state of church affairs, the faithful people of God are not prepared or, in any case, were not sufficiently informed to accept changes in the determination of the date of Easter." In this regard, it was suggested that the revision of Paschalia should be " left for a more favorable time, pleasing to God." The Meeting participants emphasized the need to overcome the calendar-based schisms, calling on "those who disagree with their canonical Church to accept the sacred principle of obedience to the canonical Church, sanctified by Tradition, and to be reunited in its bosom in Eucharistic communion."42
A meeting organized by the World Council of Churches became an important part of inter-Christian discussions on the issue

41. Pervoe Predsobornoe Vsepravoslavnoe sobranie [The First Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Meeting]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarhii, 1977, No. 2, pp. 10-12. This conference was held in Chambesy in the summer of 1977 and reached the following conclusions: 1) the calculation of Easter based on astronomical data "would be in full accordance with the letter and spirit of the definitions of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea regarding the time of Easter celebration"; 2) the difference between the Paschal and astronomical equinoxes is 13 days, between the Paschal and real full moons - 5 days; 3) " the astronomical determination of the date of Easter does not depend on a special calendar or any formulas, but based on accurate observations and astronomical calculations"; 4) when calculating the date of Easter astronomically, it will be performed after the Jewish holiday (Filaret, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, Patriarchal Exarch of Ukraine. On the decisions of the Second Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Meeting / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1983. No. 9. p. 48).

42. Ibid., pp. 48-49.

page 202
in Aleppo, Syria, in 1997, and proposed that all Christians should jointly start celebrating Easter in 2001 according to special astronomical Easter tables, 43 but no further practical steps were taken in this direction.

On February 17, 1997, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a special resolution on the calendar issue: "To bear witness that in our ecclesiastical and social environment, the Julian calendar (old style) is identified with a part of the national spiritual tradition, adherence to which has become the norm of religious life for millions of people. In this regard, it is clear to state that there is no question of changing the calendar in our Church. " 44 Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church, summed up the current situation in Russia in the framework of the TV program "Church and World" (30.12.2012).: "I believe that there is no need for us to switch to the New Julian or Gregorian calendar. Perhaps later this need will arise and will be realized. Indeed, there are certain discrepancies between the Julian calendar, according to which our church lives, and the astronomical calendar, and over the centuries these discrepancies accumulate, but I think that the issue of the calendar is not so acute that we need to take some urgent measures-especially since our church people do not ask for it and, most likely, will perceive such measures negatively. I do not see any prerequisites for the transition to a new style, although I do not rule out that in the future - most likely, very distant - some calendar reforms will be carried out."45
43. Towards a Common Date for Easter. World Council of Churches/Middle East Council of Churches Consultation in Aleppo, Syria (March 5-10, 1997) // World Council of Churches. 10.03.1997 [https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/faith-and-order/i-unity-the -church-and-its-mission/towards-a-commondate-for-easter/index, accessed on 15.12.2015].

44. Definitions of the Holy Synod [1997.02.17: on the discussions on the calendar issue that have arisen in the church environment] / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1997, No. 3, p. 4.

45. Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Every New Year - both church and civil-is an opportunity to thank God / / Russian Orthodox Church. Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 02.01.2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2686699.html, accessed from 15.12.2015].

page 203
Conclusion

The presented historical review shows that the calendar and Paschal issues repeatedly appeared on the church-wide agenda, and they could take on different sounds: the desire for a common date of Easter in the first millennium, inter-confessional differences after the Gregorian reform in the XVI century, the search for pan-Orthodox answers to the changed socio-political conditions of the XX-XXI centuries. None of the epochs could offer a quick-to-implement and acceptable "formula" for solving the problem. Nevertheless, the conciliar process has always played an important role in the search for ways to achieve unity, being an important counterweight to attempts to impose this or that model "from above". The starting point of these discussions has always been liturgical diversity, the legitimate existence of which (not only in relation to the calendar and Paschal calendar) does not divide the Church, but, on the contrary, reveals its inner unity in the diversity of liturgical forms. The models for achieving and preserving unity may vary, but its highest point is Eucharistic communion, which allows different traditions to coexist peacefully and complement each other, as the example of St. John the Baptist shows. Polycarp of Smyrna and Pope Anicetus in the second century. The reduction of church unity to global unification distorts its nature, violates the rights of individual Local Churches and leads to new divisions. The calendar reform of 1923 showed that the steps taken towards the declared ideal of pan-Orthodox calendar unity can actually lead to new schisms that destroy the internal unity of Local churches.

That is why the main mechanism for decision-making at the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council should be the principle of consensus, which implies respect for the position and opinion of each Local Church, and also does not allow automatic adoption of certain decisions based on a majority vote as generally binding. The position formed by a particular church within its conciliar or synodal structures should be voiced and heard by other participants in the council. At the same time, the high status of the council does not automatically guarantee a solution to the problem, because even the First Ecumenical Council could not solve the Easter issue; moreover, it wisely did not introduce a mandatory canonical order into the universal and universal law.-

page 204
constant use of certain unified Easter tables.

As can be seen from the review of events and documents of the twentieth century, the process of understanding the calendar issue went from an ill-advised attempt to carry out a universally binding reform in 1923 to an increasing understanding of pastoral responsibility and the specific situation in each individual Local Church. Therefore, if a calendar issue is put on the agenda of a Pan-Orthodox Council, it is necessary to understand the goals and objectives of conciliar acts in this area. In fact, all possible ways to solve the calendar problem can be reduced to three ways:: 1) uniform reform of the calendar and Paschal calendar, taking into account astronomical realities in all Local Churches; 2) independent choice by each church of the calendar and Paschal calendar that it considers the most optimal; 3) preservation by all churches of the common date of Easter according to the Alexandrian Paschal calendar and the possibility of choosing between the Julian or New Julian calendar for the circle of fixed holidays. Currently, the third way seems to be the most optimal, as it combines unity and diversity, and also allows avoiding the extremes of authoritarianism of the first and voluntarism of the second options. It was this point of view that was unanimously approved at the 1948 Moscow Conference.

Cathedrals cannot be considered in isolation from their pre-conciliar preparation and post-conciliar reception. Preparing for the council involves understanding the historical experience, which will help, on the one hand, not to repeat the mistakes already made, and on the other-to better understand modern problems. The Russian Orthodox Church is well aware of the sad experience of the unprepared liturgical reform in the 17th century, which led to the Old Believers ' schism. Pastoral responsibility for the faithful in its canonical territory is an important criterion when making decisions in this area by a particular church. The calendar is a significant component of the Orthodox identity, and therefore its preservation for many is a matter of religious or confessional self-identification in modern society. In this regard, the Holy Synod in 1997 clearly formulated the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the calendar issue. In the event that in the future, for one reason or another, it needs a new discussion and understanding, a special tool has been created for this purpose.-

page 205
ment is an inter-council presence, where a broad church discussion can take place if necessary.

If in the first millennium Orthodox Paschalia developed within the framework of the Church's proactive activity, in the twentieth century the position of Orthodox Churches was rather reactive, being an attempt to respond to new social realities that arose without taking into account church opinion. The solution of the calendar issue is often simplistically presented as a "one-way street" in the direction of pan-Orthodox calendar reform, but the return of the Polish Orthodox Church to the Julian calendar in 2014 shows that the situation is more complex and that its understanding requires a differentiated approach. That is why the Pan-Orthodox Council's consideration of the issue of the calendar and Paschal Calendar can be an impetus for more active development in church academic circles of an Orthodox-based theological and theoretical position on the topic, taking into account both historical and pastoral realities, as well as suggesting possible concrete steps in this area in the future.

Bibliography / References

"In the year of God's wrath..." Epistles, words, and speeches of St. John the Baptist. Patriarch Tikhon / Compiled by N. Krivosheeva, Moscow: PSTSU Publishing House, 2009.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Table of contents of holiday messages / / PG. 26. Col. 1354.

Bolotov V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. In 4 volumes St. Petersburg: Merkushev Publishing House, 1910.

Voronov L., prot. Calendar issue. Its study in the light of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council on Paschalia and the search for ways to cooperate between Churches in this matter. 1971. Sat. 7. pp. 170-203

Proceedings of the Conference of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in connection with the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church on July 8-18, 1948. In 2 volumes, Moscow, 1949.

Eusebius Pamphilus. The Life of the Blessed Basileus Constantine, Moscow, 1998.

Eusebius Pamphilus. Church History, Moscow, 1993.

Journals of the meeting of the Commission on Calendar Reform at the Russian Astronomical Society. St. Petersburg, 1900.

Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Every New Year - both church and civil-is an opportunity to thank God / / Russian Orthodox Church. Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 02.01.2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2686699.html, accessed from 15.12.2015].

Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Church and Time. 2012. N 1 (58). pp. 17-52.

page 206
Metropolitan Nicodemus and Pan-Orthodox unity. To the 30th Anniversary of the Death of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008.

Naek E. Kalendarnyi vopros v dorevolyutsionnoi Rossii [Calendar issue in pre-revolutionary Russia]. 2009. N 3. pp. 35-40.

Ogitsky D. Kanonicheskie normy pravoslavnoi paskhali i problema datirovki Paskhi v usloviyakh nashego vremeni [Canonical norms of Orthodox Easter and the problem of dating Easter in the conditions of our time]. 1971. Sat. 7. pp. 204-211.

Definitions of the Holy Synod [1962.12.28: on the work of the ROC delegation at the Pan-Orthodox Meeting on Rhodes] / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1962, No. 3, p. 11.

Definitions of the Holy Synod [1997.02.17: on the discussions on the calendar issue that have arisen in the church environment] / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1997. N 3. P. 4.

The First Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Meeting / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1977, No. 2, pp. 4-14.

Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations by Nicodemus (Milash), Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria. In 2 volumes, Moscow: Otchiy Dom Publ., 1996.

Safonov D. Was Patriarch Tikhon a proponent of introducing a new style? // Orthodoxy.Ru 17.01.2003 [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/archiv/patrtikhon-newstyle.htm, доступ от 15.12.2015].

Holy Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church. Acts. In 10 vols. Moscow: Soborny Sovetov Publishing House, 1918.

Skobey G. Vsepravoslavny sobor [All-Orthodox Cathedral]. Volume IX. Moscow, 2005, pp. 683-685.

Investigative case of Patriarch Tikhon, Moscow: PSTSU Publishing House, 2000.

Slesarev A. Starostylny schism in the history of the Orthodox Church (1924-2008). Moscow: Krutitskogo podvorya Publishing House, 2009.

Sokolov I. Report "The attitude of the Orthodox East to the issue of calendar reform" at the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-18. 1998. Sat. 34, pp. 279-286.

Filaret, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, Patriarchal Exarch of Ukraine. On the decisions of the Second Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Meeting / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1983, No. 9, pp. 46-49.

Khariton (Dunaev), Jerome. Introduction of a new style in the Finnish Orthodox Church and the causes of disorders in monasteries according to the documents and records of the monk. Arensburg, 1927.

Khulap V. Vernal equinox and the emergence of Christian Paschalia / / Annual Theological Conference of PSTB I: Materials of 2003, Moscow: PSTBI Publishing House, 2003, pp. 146-151.

Yakimchuk I. "Pan-Orthodox Congress" / / Orthodox Encyclopedia. Volume IX. Moscow, 2005, pp. 680-683.

Athanasius of Alexandria. "Oglavlenie prazdnichnykh poslanii" ["Contents of celebratory messages"], PG. 26. Col. 1354.

Bolotov, V. (1910) Lektsii po istorii Drevnei Tserkvi [Lectures on the history of the Early Church]. 4 vols. SPb.: Tip. im. Merkusheva.

page 207
Coyne, G.V., Hoskin G.V., Pedersen O. (eds.) (1983) Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate Its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1982. Vatican: Specola Vaticana.

Coyne, G.V., Hoskin, G.V. and Pedersen, O. (eds.) (1983) Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate Its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1982. Vatican: Specola Vaticana.

Deianiia Soveshchaniia glav i predstavitelei Avtokefal'nykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei v sviazi s prazdnovaniem 500-letiia avtokefalii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 8-18 iiulia 1948 goda [Acts of the Meeting of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches for the Celebration of the Quincentenary of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church on 8th-18th July 1948]. 2 vols. M., 1949.

Iakimchuk, I. (2005) "Vsepravoslavnyi congress" ["Pan-Orthodox congress"], Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia 9: 680-683.

Ideler, L. (1883) Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner.

Alfeyev, H. (2012) Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v ramkakh podgotovki k Sviatomu i Velikomu Soboru Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi ["Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the context of the preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church"], Tserkov' i vremia 1 (58): 17-52.

Alfeyev, H. (2013) Vsiakii Novyi god - i tserkovnyi, i grazhdanskii - eto vozmozhnost' poblagodarit' Boga [Each New year - ecclesiastical as well as civil - is an opportunity to thank God], Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov'. Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskogo Patriarkhata. 02.01.2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2686699.html, accessed on 15.12.2015].

Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Meetings since 1923 until 2009. Basel: F. Reinhardt.

Khariton (Dunaev), ierom. (1927) Vvedenie novogo stilia v Finliandskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi i prichiny nestroenii v monastyriakh po dokumentam i zapisiam inoka [Introduction of the new style in the Finnish Orthodox Church and reasons for troubles in the monasteries according to the documents and notes of a monk]. Arensburg.

Khulap, V. (2003) "Vesennee ravnodenstvie i vozniknovenie khristianskoi paskhalii" [Vernal equinox and the origins of the orthodox Easter tables], in Ezhegodnaia bogoslovskaia konferentsiia PSTBI: Materialy 2003 g., pp. 146-151. M.: PSTBI.

Komunikat Sw. Soboru Biskupow P A KP 19.04.2014, Oficjalna Strona Polskiego Autokefalicznego Kosciola Prawoslawnego [http://www.orthodox.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Komunikat.pdf, accessed on 15.12.2015].

Krivosheeva, N. (ed.) (2009) "V godinu gneva Bozhiia..." Poslaniia, slova i rechi sv. Patriarkha Tikhona ["In the year of God's wrath". Messages, speeches and addresses of Patriarch St. Tikhon] M.: PSTGU.

Lohse, B. (1953) Das Passafest der Quartadecimaner. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag.

Mosshammer, A. (2008) The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Naek, E. (2009) "Kalendarnyi vopros v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii" [The calendar question in pre-revolutionary Russia], Prepodavanie istorii v shkole 3: 35-40.

Ogitskii, D. (1971) "Kanonicheskie normy pravoslavnoi paskhalii i problema datirovki Paskhi v usloviiakh nashego vremeni" ["Canonical norms of the Orthodox Easter tables and the problem of Easter dating in contemporary conditions"], Bogoslovskie trudy 7: 204-211.

page 208
Pamphilus, Eusebius (1998). Zhizn' blazhennogo vasilevsa Konstantina [The life of blessed Basileus Constantine]. M.

Pamphilus, Eusebius (1993). Tserkovnaia istoriia [Churh history]. M.

Peri, V. (1967) Due date, un'unica Pasqua: Le origini della moderna disparita liturgica in una trattativa ecumenica tra Roma e Constantinopoli (1582-1584). Milano: Vita e pensiero.

Pravila Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi s tolkovaniiami Nikodima (Milasha), episkopa DalmatinskoIstriiskogo [Canons of the Orthodox Church with explanations of Nicodim (Milash), bishop of Dalmatia and Istra] (1996). 2 vols. M.: Otchii dom.

Safonov, D. (2003) Byl li Patriarkh Tikhon storonnikom vvedeniia novogo stilia? [Was patriarch Tikhon a supporter of introducing the new style?], Pravoslavie.Ru 17.01.2003 [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/archiv/patrtikhon-newstyle.htm, accessed on 15.12.2015].

Schmid, J. (1907) Die Osterfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche vom I. Allgemeinen Konzil zu Nicaa bis zum Ende des VII. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder.

Skobei, G. (2005) Vsepravoslavnyi sobor [Pan-Orthodox council], Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia 9: 683-685.

Sledstvennoe delo Patriarkha Tikhona [Investigation dossier of patriarch Tikhon]. M.: PSTGU, 2000.

Slesarev, A. (2009) Starostil'nyi raskol v istorii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (1924-2008) [The old-calendar schism in the history of the Orthodox Church (1924-2008)]. M.: Krutitskoe podvor'e.

Sokolov, I. (1998) Doklad "Otnoshenie pravoslavnogo Vostoka k voprosu o reforme kalendaria" na Vserossiiskom Pomestnom Sobore 1917-18 gg. [Paper "Attitude of the Orthodox Orient to the question of calendar reform" at the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-18], Bogoslovskie trudy 34: 279-286.

Sorokin, V. (ed) (2008) Mitropolit Nikodim i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo. K 30-letiiu so dnia konchiny mitropolita Leningradskogo i Novgorodskogo Nikodima (Rotova) [Metropolitan Nicodim and pan-orthodox unity. For the 30th anniversary of the repose of Nicodim, metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod]. SP b.: Kniaz'Vladimirskii sobor.

Sviashchennyi Sobor Pravoslavnoi Rossiiskoi Tserkvi. Deianiia [Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church. Acts]. 10 vols. M.: Sobornyi Sovet, 1918.

Towards a Common Date for Easter. World Council of Churches/Middle East Council of Churches Consultation in Aleppo, Syria (March 5-10, 1997), World Council of Churches 10.03.1997 [https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/faith-and-order/i-unity- the-church-and-its-mission/towards-acommon-date-for-easter/index, accessed on 15.12.2015].

Voronov, L. (1971) "Kalendarnaia problema. Ee izuchenie v svete resheniia Pervogo Vselenskogo Sobora o paskhalii i izyskanie puti k sotrudnichestvu mezhdu Tserkvami v etom voprose" [The Calendar Problem: its study in the light of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council on Easter tables and the search for the way to cooperation between the Churches on this question], Bogoslovskie trudy 7: 170-203.

Zhurnaly zasedaniia Komissii po voprosu o reforme kalendaria pri Russkom astronomicheskom obshchestve [Proceedings of the sessions of the Commission on calendar reform at the Russian astronomical society]. SPb., 1900.

page 209

Permanent link to this publication: