1. In my opinion, both sides of the Old Calendar(Julian)/New Calendar("revised Julian") debate in Orthodoxy have valid points, but neither position goes far enough. Only the full embrace of the Gregorian calendar in Orthodoxy makes any real sense, liturgically and theologically.

2. The New Calendar position is correct that the Julian calendar doesn't wield any inherent theological preeminence just because it was the calendar (some) church fathers happened to use (conveniently forgetting about the Syriac, Armenian, etc fathers who didn't use it)

3. The Old Calendar position is correct that the New Calendar mangled the liturgical year by aligning only the sanctoral (fixed) cycle with the Gregorian calendar, while leaving the temporal (movable) cycle in the Julian calendar.

4. The best solution is to reconcile the two: restore the original order of the two liturgical cycles (fixed and movable) to their original place, as reflected in the Julian calendar, but move everything to the more accurate, Gregorian calculation of time.

5. But it also needs to be said that the practical and pastoral roadblocks to such a reform are real. Ritually speaking, calendars structure communities, shaping the ways they experience time and cosmos, and provide a deep-rooted context for worship and prayer. Uprooting is messy

6. Nevertheless, I believe what's needed is for leaders in both "camps" to exhibit leadership and enact reform, not for the sake of "adaptation to the times" or even for church unity, but because such a reform would be, simply, liturgically and theologically correct.