Page 6 - BV1

...ten days were dropped from the calendar. But they were dropped only from the number
of days in the MONTH, not from the number of days in the WEEK! (Has Time Been
Lost, p.6).

The Catholic Encyclopedia concurs with this when it says, "Thus, every imaginable
proposition was made, only one idea was never mentioned, viz., the abandonment of the seven-day
week" (vol. 9, p.251, under article "Lilius"). The same encyclopedia (volume 3, p. 740) under the
article "Chronology," states that "it is to be noted that in THE CHRISTIAN PERIOD, the order of
days in the week has never been interrupted." Notice here that in "THE CHRISTIAN PERIOD" the
order of days in the week had not changed. This insinuates that prior to this period the order of
days in the week had indeed been changed! We will see shortly what the "Christian period" of the
old Julian calendar was.

However, while the order of days in the week were apparently not changed during "The
Christian Period," the seventh day in the Gregorian calendar DOES NOT match the seventh day in
the old Hebrew calendar! Notice --

What happened when the new Gregorian calendar, the one now used, came into exis-
tence? While the number of days in the week remained the same, the NUMBER of the
day the Bible God designated as the seventh WAS LOST FOREVER in the rearrange
ment of the months. While Saturday remained the seventh day of the week, the SEV-
ENTH day in the old Hebrew calendar was NOT the SEVENTH day in the Gregorian
(The Ten Commandments, by Joseph Lewis).

"The 'New Julian' Calendar, however, did much more than merely shift the immovable
Feasts by thirteen days," states the Orthodox Christian Information Center. "It achieved a far more
INSIDIOUS goal -- it laid waste to the historical validity of the Festal cycle altogether. Recall
that the Vatican sought to remove the difference of eleven minutes and fourteen seconds between
the Julian Calendar and the tropical year. It did so by the introduction of 'common centesimal
years,' i.e., centesimal years indivisible by four hundred (e.g., 1700, 1800, 1900, etc.), which are
reckoned to have only 365 days."

"This is why," continues the article, "the Papal reformers claim that approximately every
128 years the Julian Calendar falls behind the Gregorian Calendar by TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.
Even if the Gregorian calculations were correct (let us not forget that the length of the tropical year
randomly fluctuates), nonetheless the difference between the Julian Calendar year and the tropical
year should have been accounted for gradually over the centuries. This is even more obvious for
the 'New Julian' reformers, who, abruptly and with a boorish lack of sophistication excised the
'cumulative error' of thirteen days from the Church Calendar. Had the 'Pan-Orthodox Congress'
been intelligent and consistent in applying its calendric principles, the Feasts introduced into the
liturgical cycle of the Holy Church in the nineteenth century should have been adjusted by only
twelve days the Feasts from the eighteenth century should have been adjusted by only eleven days
and so forth."

Chides the article: "If 'accuracy' had really been such a concern, then only the Feasts dating
from the twentieth century should have been shifted by a FULL THIRTEEN DAYS, since this

6