Christmas is an arbitrary date. The Church really doesn't know the exact date of his birth, so as such it is not critical. Resurrection is a different story. It is an exact date and it is by far more important in the Church then the Lord's birthday.
The problem with the New Calendar is twofold: (1) the way it was initiated and (uncanonically) implemented, and (2) why it was initiated.
The Ecumenical Patriarch, a shady character suspected of being a Freemason, convened a Synod to which only four (out of fourteen) Patriarchs responded. He then wanted to implement a number of changes, including clean-shaven clergy, and the New Calendar, etc. They all failed, save for the Calendar. But, because there was no Synod, there was no proclamation either. The changes accepted have no binding authority and are dictates of the EP's personal choice.
Although the Calendar (put together by a Serbian astronomer contracted by EP) is technically not Gregorian because in a few hundred years it will begin to diverge from the Gregorian, so the coincidence of dates is only accidental and temporary.
Of course, with the majority of patriarchs not attending no such change could have been implemented. The rule is that the Synod can do nothing without the Patriarch and the Patriarch nothing without the Synod! Clearly, the New Calendar is not canonical and therefore illicit.
But for reasons unknown to me, the supposedly independent and auctocephalous Church of Greece set out on a pogrom-like mission to shove the New Calendar down everyone's throat. Whether in those areas of Greece under EP's jurisdiction (about 30% of the territory) or not, those who resisted the Patriarch were removed and punished.
The only enclave that remained defiant is Mount Athos (the Holy Mountain), an autonomous monastic republic of sorts (which considers even the current EP a heretic even though it is under his jurisdiction!).
The second problem with the New Calendar is why it was implemented (1921). The Old One served the Eastern Christians since the beginning and was for a good many centuries the Calendar of the whole albeit divided Church.
It is profoundly accurate when it comes to Easter, and this is what matters the most. The Old Calendar is based on the Jewish lunar as well as the Roman solar methods of calendar keeping. The Jewish lunar part ensures that Easter always falls after the Passover.
Pragmatism, vis-a-vis the West could have been the reason the EP wanted it but, for he also instead on clean-shaven clergy, so that they "look western" in which he was not far from Peter the Great and his meddling into the Church affairs with a western agenda.
This EP character actually unilaterally proclaimed "re-union" with the Anglicans and recognized Anglican clergy as duly ordained!
Bottom line is: the Old Calendar served us for 2,000 years and has no reason to be fixed. It establishes Easter accurately and that is the most important day in the liturgical calendar of the Church. It really makes no difference if it coincides with the Gregorian Calendar. Church fasting rules interfere a lot more with a "normal" life in America the the Calendar.
The forthcoming all-Orthodox Synod in Cyprus (in June) will address the issue of the Calendar. It would be good if the Church as whole agreed to a single Calendar if for no other reason than for the sake of unity.
I am afraid, however, that the Serbian Church may have second thoughts as many of her "progressive" vladykas have been brainwashed in Greece, and because of Serbs' tendency to imitate things western. This may leave only the Moscow Patriarch as the sole defender of the Old Calendar against 12 others.
Kosta:
We are in agreement. I do hope this synod will correct a lot of things, like the EP’s interfering in other jurisdictions, using the “barbarian lands” canon as an excuse......
Thank you very much for clarifying these intra-Orthodox divisions for me.