OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: Karamazov on November 18, 2003, 02:34:35 PM

Title: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Karamazov on November 18, 2003, 02:34:35 PM
CONTEXT NOTE:  Seeing that the Great Calendar Controversy comes up so often in Faith Issues discussions, I have merged all the previous recurrences of this debate into this one master sticky thread in an effort to consolidate all past and future dialogues on this dispute.  Please keep this thread focused on the substance of the Calendar Controversy in and of itself and discuss such connected but separate issues as relations between the Old Calendarist churches and the rest of the Orthodox world on other threads.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut



Just being snoopy!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Innocent on November 18, 2003, 02:41:01 PM
Old. ROCOR!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 18, 2003, 02:48:55 PM
Mayan!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 18, 2003, 02:49:45 PM
BTW, not all heterodox are new calendar: Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine and parts of Canada are all Old Calendar! :-)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Karamazov on November 18, 2003, 02:52:16 PM
BTW, not all heterodox are new calendar: Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine and parts of Canada are all Old Calendar! :-)

OOPS!  You're right.  Forgive my omission.

Anyway, mostly concerned about Orthodox jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: the slave on November 18, 2003, 03:14:06 PM
Ukies in the UK are Old Calendar  but in France are New  - weird :)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on November 18, 2003, 03:27:27 PM
Gregorian.  All the Orthodox in India have been on the Gregorian calendar since 1953.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on November 18, 2003, 03:34:30 PM
Old, as are most of the world's Orthodox Christians. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Justinianus on November 18, 2003, 05:24:33 PM
New calendar, but would prefer it on the Old.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: LatinTrad on November 18, 2003, 06:02:36 PM
Funny how you guys call us heterodox. :smiley6:
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Elisha on November 18, 2003, 06:11:46 PM
Funny how you guys call us heterodox. :smiley6:

Well, that's because you are.  You believe differently - what the word means.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: carpo-rusyn on November 18, 2003, 06:44:25 PM
[Funny how you guys call us heterodox. ]

I like the little smiley shaking it's finger.  Yes Latin Trad in the East's eyes we are heterodox.  But we are very good at it. :)

Carpo-Rusyn
 
 

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: JoeS on November 19, 2003, 11:52:46 AM
New and not hung up on it!

JoeS

Sorry, my vote was in error, I meant to vote Gregorian.

  :-";"xx
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: nicodemus on November 19, 2003, 07:57:05 PM
New calendar, but would prefer it on the Old.


Exactly.  My reason for wanting old calendar is that it would help get away from the commercialism of the holiday.  I love the fact that Pascha rarely matches up with western Easter.  Especially when they are weeks apart and you can celebrate without all the distraction.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on November 19, 2003, 09:16:24 PM
Just a note on my "Julian" vote.
A.C.R.O.D. is split "about 50/50 in Julian/Revised. Older parishes are on Julian with a one-time option to change to the 'New'. Newer parishes are all on 'Revised'.
Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on November 21, 2003, 04:23:55 AM
I went to vigil last night for the Entrance of the Virgin Mary at the church of the Holy Trinity here in Thessaloniki. Obviously this is New Calendar. The reason I went to this particular church and not my own (we had vigil there too) was that a number of monks from Mount Athos were leading the service (two of whom I know). They are Old Calendar and will be celebrating the same vigil in another 13 days on Mount Athos.

Just thought you might appreciate this.

John.

P.S. I didn't stay until it finished at 4:30am but left at 1:30am as I had to come to work today. Falling asleep on my keyboard is frowned upon, especially when the buffer fills up and the computer starts beeping
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on July 15, 2004, 03:40:40 PM
Quote
7) That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.

Signed by:

Jeremiah of Constantinople
Silvester of Alexandria
Sophronius of Jerusalem

In the presence of the rest of the prelates at the Council.

How do New Calendar Orthodox respond to this encyclical?

Greg

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ambrosemzv on July 15, 2004, 06:37:53 PM
By placing faith in the intelligence and discernment of our bishop, his Eminence Arbp. Dmitri; our metropolitan, his Beatitude Herman; and all the Orthodox patriarchs, none of whom (including those who have retained the Julian calendar) have excommunicated those who have adopted the Revised Julian (or whatever you want to call it) calendar.  In short, by not overreaching, and making myself out to be fit to stand in judgment over men much holier than myself, with much greater spiritual responsibility than me.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 15, 2004, 06:49:13 PM
"Atheist Astronomers"?!?  

Ambrosemzv, Your post is a breath of fresh air.  Thank you.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on July 16, 2004, 01:39:33 AM
I agree with Ebor - very well said Ambrosemzv!

In Christ,
Aaron
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 16, 2004, 02:08:46 AM
Yeah, let's throw out the fathers when they are inconvient!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 16, 2004, 08:06:17 AM
Yeah, let's throw out the fathers when they are inconvient!

Well, I'm certainly willing to throw out the opinions of those who engage in cheap slurs such as "the Pope's atheist astronomers". I don't notice the fathers throwing out Ptolemy, when it comes to that.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on July 16, 2004, 08:36:36 AM
BTW, I am on the New Calendar (OCA).

Quote
By placing faith in the intelligence and discernment of our bishop...

Okay, but how do they respond to this?

Quote
Well, I'm certainly willing to throw out the opinions of those who engage in cheap slurs such as "the Pope's atheist astronomers". I don't notice the fathers throwing out Ptolemy, when it comes to that.

But can this be so easily dismissed because you do not like the language used? Keble, you seem to always make it a point to hold fast to the church you are in, to accept the teaching of one's bishop, elders, etc. As an Anglican, I am sure your bishops have said, perhaps not "cheap slurs", but things very questionable concerning the Faith. Are you now willing to throw out their opinions?

I believe my initial question in this thread is perfectly vaild, regardless of the language used by Jeremiah of Constantinople.

Greg
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 16, 2004, 11:10:54 AM
Sometimes the language a person uses can show that he/she does not understand what they are talking about.  And that's what "atheist astronomers" might seem to indicate.  Working from real astronomical observations is somehow dedicated to destroying dogmas?  

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ambrosemzv on July 16, 2004, 11:29:06 AM
Well, I have to agree with Greg, that one cannot "throw out" the opinions of the fathers, just because they happen to have used intemperate language.  St. Jerome was notorious for it, but I doubt either Keble or Ebor are prepared to dismiss him, in general.  On the other hand, his opinions expressed in highly intemperate language, when they involves, e.g., rabid anti-semitism, are widely ignored even by faithful Orthodox theologians.

But, Greg, not being Protestants, don't we have to recognize that those chiefly responsible for interpreting the Fathers and applying them to the modern circumstances of the Church, are the bishops, to whom we owe obedience?  Certainly, we need to read the Fathers, too, but, if my interpretation of the Fathers does not reach the same conclusion as my Bishop's, don't I still need to give him the benefit of the doubt?  Especially, when that opinion (i.e., that the following of the Revised Julian calendar need not, at least, render one excommunicate) is shared by all the current patriarchs of the Orthodox Church nd the vast majority of her other bishops?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on July 16, 2004, 12:21:09 PM
Quote
But, Greg, not being Protestants, don't we have to recognize that those chiefly responsible for interpreting the Fathers and applying them to the modern circumstances of the Church, are the bishops, to whom we owe obedience?

Yes.

Quote
Certainly, we need to read the Fathers, too, but, if my interpretation of the Fathers does not reach the same conclusion as my Bishop's, don't I still need to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that we ought not to assume that we as individuals are the final discerners of truth. On the other hand, sometimes bishops are wrong and we need to recognize this. What would a Roman Catholic's response be to this? In other words, he is trusting in his bishops, yet we as Orthodox know that their teaching is not correct.

Greg
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 16, 2004, 01:56:16 PM
But can this be so easily dismissed because you do not like the language used? Keble, you seem to always make it a point to hold fast to the church you are in, to accept the teaching of one's bishop, elders, etc. As an Anglican, I am sure your bishops have said, perhaps not "cheap slurs", but things very questionable concerning the Faith. Are you now willing to throw out their opinions?

Well, for an Anglican layman, the question is very easy. The calendar is a matter of discipline, not of faith. Nobody in the west has a calendar issue at the moment, except for the East/West descrepancy. If the Aleppo solution or some other ecumenical resolution is adopted in the west, all will adopt it, I expect. If not, well, I go to church as the current calendar dictates.

Anglicans are not bound to agree with every fool thing their bishops say. Whether or not this is too loose is another matter.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on July 16, 2004, 02:20:26 PM
Quote
Well, for an Anglican layman, the question is very easy. The calendar is a matter of discipline, not of faith.

Fair enough for you and the West. But for the East the Calendar is much more bound up with the Faith (if this is a good thing is another question, but for the time being...).

Quote
Anglicans are not bound to agree with every fool thing their bishops say.

Again, aside from the language used, what are your thoughts concerning the anathama of the Sigillon?

Greg

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on July 16, 2004, 03:03:45 PM
Yeah, let's throw out the fathers when they are inconvient!

Or, better yet, let's individually seek to apply woodenly everything said at any point in time to today's situations!  That's much better!   ::)

Okay, but how do they [the bishops] respond to this?

My understanding is that they have kept the Julian Paschalion in order to keep the Feast of Feasts with the rest of the Church.  As for the rest of the year, the point of a Church's calendar, as has been noted before now, is to redeem the civil one with which it is supposed to correspond.  My guess, Anastasios (to bunny trail a bit), is that, were the seven-day week or some other calendar issue to arise, the Church would wait it out to see if it were a permanent change, rather than one merely associated with a revolution, as were these short-lived upheavals.  

      This "Gregorian" calendar is now universally accepted (AFAIK) and used; the logic is, therefore, that we "redeem the time" in a way that will be relevant to all living in the area where the calendar is used, both the faithful and those outside the Church.

If I read the encyclical correctly, it seems that a major part of the problem with the Gregorian change was that it arbitrarily changed the date of Pascha without regard to the Eastern practice, which, granted, was adherence to the traditional (albeit, less astronomically correct) calendar.  The date of Pascha was the main reason for establishing a calendar; as the New C-ists keep Pascha with the date of the Church, it would seem as if we do not fall under its anathema as some would so eagerly claim.

Just my thoughts.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 16, 2004, 03:16:33 PM
Fair enough for you and the West. But for the East the Calendar is much more bound up with the Faith (if this is a good thing is another question, but for the time being...).

Well, to me it seems that it isn't a faith issue, but that it is being claimed to be a faith issue because it helps justify the East/West separation.

Quote
Again, aside from the language used, what are your thoughts concerning the anathama of the Sigillon?

How can you separate it from its language?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 16, 2004, 06:07:34 PM
Quote
How can you separate it from its language?

How can you understand it when it was written in a language that (I pressume) you are not overly faimilar with?  From my guess at the wording of this "ungodly" would be a better translation that athiest.  But why a couple of prots so ardently defend a calendar that has done nothing but bring schisms into the Church, is intersting.

Quote
As for the rest of the year, the point of a Church's calendar, as has been noted before now, is to redeem the civil one with which it is supposed to correspond.

But the Church has never stricly followed the secular calendar.  Midnight (i.e the start of the new day) begins at sundown and thus the new day opposed to starting at 12:00 AM secular time.  The first day of the new year in the Church is September 1st - the frist day of the secular year is January 1st.  And the fact remains that even in our modern society the vast majority of Orthodox Christians still use the Church Calendar, not the secular one for the dating of feasts.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 16, 2004, 06:15:23 PM
Broken record time:  Could we please not use "prots"?


Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 16, 2004, 06:45:28 PM
Well, I have to agree with Greg, that one cannot "throw out" the opinions of the fathers, just because they happen to have used intemperate language.  St. Jerome was notorious for it, but I doubt either Keble or Ebor are prepared to dismiss him, in general.  On the other hand, his opinions expressed in highly intemperate language, when they involves, e.g., rabid anti-semitism, are widely ignored even by faithful Orthodox theologians.

You are quite correct in this, Ambrosemzv.  It seems to me that not ever word written by, say, St. Jerome, is utterly to be followed and on a par with the Scriptures, your example being a case in point.  One does not dismiss all of a person's works because of language, but that doesn't mean that everthing is swallowed wholesale either.  

Nektarios, since this portion was posted in English, how are we to know what it is in another language?  You guess that the word is more like "ungodly" but you do not state this as a fact.  And why would "ungodly" be better?  What is ungodly about an astronomer making observations and finding out real true data about astronomical phenomenon?  It reads like the writer(s) didn't know much about astronomy and calendar shifts and were throwing invective.

I think the Gregorian Calendar has done more then "bring schisms to the Church". ymmv. And it would seem that Ambrosemzv and Pedro and Arystarcus can also discuss and see other sides of the question, not just Keble and me.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on July 17, 2004, 01:17:46 AM
But the Church has never stricly followed the secular calendar.  Midnight (i.e the start of the new day) begins at sundown and thus the new day opposed to starting at 12:00 AM secular time.

Correction: The Church never followed modern-day reckonings of "days."  This evening-starting-the-new-day was the common way of seeing the ends and beginnings of days in much of the ancient world, both religious and secular (if such a division can be made in the world at that time).  The problem is that we've been attached to one culture's reckoning of time for so long that we've made it inseperable from our idea of "God's manufacturing" it.  Not that I'm advocating we change Vespers to 11 PM every night so we can welcome in the new day, but let's get some bearings on where this came from, humanly speaking, at least.

Quote
The first day of the new year in the Church is September 1st - the frist day of the secular year is January 1st.  And the fact remains that even in our modern society the vast majority of Orthodox Christians still use the Church Calendar, not the secular one for the dating of feasts.

I have no problem with the Church seeing September first as the beginning of the liturgical year while the world outside the Church commemorates January first.  The two have little to do with each other.  What I do find a bit odd (and tedious) is having to explain to someone that their New Year's Day -- what they call January first -- is "in reality" December 20th!  Or that "September first" -- what they would suppose would be our liturgical New Year's -- is actually "August 20th."  The commemoration of different things for different purposes on different days is fine.  But let's at least get our days straight!  Let's call September first "September first" and not some other day because we're stubbornly clinging to a "day" that, in reality, has long since shifted out of sync and today lies in an entirely different revolution of the Earth's yearly cycle.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 19, 2004, 03:23:45 AM
Quote
Nektarios, since this portion was posted in English, how are we to know what it is in another language?

My point is that it is very imprecise and mere guess work to attack the wording of something when all you are working with is a translation. Also the style of modern English speech is precision that is light on the "extras."  In an official type statement like this though from that era bombast and extra adjectives were just norm.

The science of astronomy is not ungodly and no one has called it that.  The point of the canons in matter is that replacing what the church was already using for the sake of astronomy is not right.  Also the history of the calendar change in the West is very intersting and thre were some parts of it that indeed were ungodly.  In the end though it is largely an issue of church order - the typikon and other such stuff is wreaked havoc upon by the new calendar.  

Quote
The two have little to do with each other.  What I do find a bit odd (and tedious) is having to explain to someone that their New Year's Day -- what they call January first -- is "in reality" December 20th!  Or that "September first" -- what they would suppose would be our liturgical New Year's -- is actually "August 20th."

It really is not that tricky to add and subtract 13.  I don't get where the confussion really lies.  The gregorian calendar is not absolute, like you are treating it to be.  All I can do is recomend the book Anastasios has already recomended on the entire calendar issue.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 19, 2004, 08:27:56 AM
How can you understand it when it was written in a language that (I pressume) you are not overly faimilar with?  From my guess at the wording of this "ungodly" would be a better translation that athiest.

You know, Nectarios, when you are reduced to having to pick at the details of the translation, you've conceded my point about the language. Whatever word they originally used, the intent was a slur upon the religion of those astronomers. But you know, that's a false standard. Astronomy is a science, and as a science is indifferent to the morals and religion of its practitioners when done properly. The use of such language is an indication that those who use it aren't entitled to opinions about astronomy.

Quote
But why a couple of prots so ardently defend a calendar that has done nothing but bring schisms into the Church, is intersting.

The point behind the point is that it's Orthodoxy's own fault. The west uses a single calendar, and the west is willing to change to an even more accurate paschalion in order to resolve all the various schisms. The schism problem is strictly an Eastern problem.

Quote
But the Church has never strictly followed the secular calendar.

What is the Julian calendar, if not a secular calendar? The Dionysian paschalion was specifically arranged to fit the secular calendar of its day.

Quote
The first day of the new year in the Church is September 1st - the first day of the secular year is January 1st.

Well, no-- the first day of the church year is 1 Advent. And the first day of the calendar year has moved around quite a bit.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: The young fogey on July 19, 2004, 10:04:24 AM
Stepping in for a sec.

Excellent points, Keble, but:

Quote
Well, no-- the first day of the church year is 1 Advent. And the first day of the calendar year has moved around quite a bit.

In the Byzantine Rite (http://home.att.net/~sergei592/East.html) it begins the 1st September.

Stepping back out.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 19, 2004, 10:27:35 AM
Broken record time:  Could we please not use "prots"?


Ebor

Sorry I didn't catch that, Ebor.  I agree, do NOT use that term.  First of all it is rude. Second of all all my family and half of Mor Ephrem's family is Protestant and we would be highly embarassed if one of them signed onto this site and saw that term and thought we approved of it.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 19, 2004, 11:08:53 AM
Quote
You know, Nectarios, when you are reduced to having to pick at the details of the translation, you've conceded my point about the language. Whatever word they originally used, the intent was a slur upon the religion of those astronomers. But you know, that's a false standard. Astronomy is a science, and as a science is indifferent to the morals and religion of its practitioners when done properly. The use of such language is an indication that those who use it aren't entitled to opinions about astronomy.

No, the issue is placing astronomy over already established church practice.   That is what is ungodly.  

Quote
What is the Julian calendar, if not a secular calendar? The Dionysian paschalion was specifically arranged to fit the secular calendar of its day.

The Church does not strictly follow the Julian calendar.  The Church calendar is basicly the same, but as has already been mentioned the Church borrowed it and made it its own with slight adaptations and modifications.  

Quote
Well, no-- the first day of the church year is 1 Advent. And the first day of the calendar year has moved around quite a bit.

It might just be better to admit you have no idea what you are talking about than to continue making a fool of yourself.  The Menaia begin at September 1st in Orthodoxy.  

I'm curious if anyone has read the book Anastasios suggested, that would be a good starting point for a real discussion on the calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 11:31:15 AM
There are different ways of getting one's point across or letting someone know something that they didn't before, that may contribute to communicating, without the use of insults.  Perhaps, Nektarios, you didn't notice that Serge had already provided the information.

"In the Byzantine Rite it begins the 1st September."

is quite different from

"It might just be better to admit you have no idea what you are talking about than to continue making a fool of yourself"

Not having knowledge of everything is not the same as "no idea" or "making a fool".  In the Western Church the Liturgical year begins with Advent; in the East in September.   Now the knowledge is shared.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 11:34:26 AM
As a side question:  Wasn't the church using Astronomical observations to set the date of Easter anyway?  Were they used for Julian reckoning?  

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 11:35:54 AM
Sorry I didn't catch that, Ebor.  I agree, do NOT use that term.  First of all it is rude. Second of all all my family and half of Mor Ephrem's family is Protestant and we would be highly embarassed if one of them signed onto this site and saw that term and thought we approved of it.

anastasios

Thank you, Anastasios.  I appreciate it.  Sorry to harp, though.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 19, 2004, 11:40:13 AM
I said something without polemics or rudeness - that the church year starts at Sept. 1st.  then Keble responded with a very arrogant tone and was even incorect.  So he thus got my response.  If he can dish it out (which he readily does here) he better be able to take it.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 19, 2004, 11:59:28 AM
It might just be better to admit you have no idea what you are talking about than to continue making a fool of yourself.  The Menaia begin at September 1st in Orthodoxy.  

It begins September 1st in the East. And I already knew that, actually. I'm sorry I'm getting a bit cranky about this, but it's about time for the admission that the fixed part of the church calendar has never been uniform. The east and west have diverged on the observance of All Saints Day since, um, pretty much forever. (The current western date was fixed in the 800s.)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TomS on July 19, 2004, 12:06:50 PM
CAT FIGHT!!!!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

(Time in a Bottle) HA!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 19, 2004, 12:13:50 PM
No, the issue is placing astronomy over already established church practice.   That is what is ungodly.

See, "ungodly" is simply not the proper word here. In fact, I think I'm going to have to take a stronger tack: it not only is wrong, but it commits the sin of demanding obesiance to the church as a proxy (if not idol) of the godhead.

It's just a fact that the Julian calendar has a continually increasing error with respect to the seasons. No amount of church authority can make that go away, and it would be hubris on the part of the church to claim some sort of priority there. The Jewish calendar has the ultimate priority here, because the determination of 14 Nisan is the starting point of everything. And the Jewish calendar, as with all ancient Middle Eastern calendars, is astronomical in basis. And if you'll look at the canons of Nicea, they defer the problem to Alexandira because that's where the best astronomers were.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 19, 2004, 12:39:11 PM
Quote
CAT FIGHT!!!!!!

Thanks as usual, Tom for your insight.

Quote
It begins September 1st in the East. And I already knew that, actually. I'm sorry I'm getting a bit cranky about this, but it's about time for the admission that the fixed part of the church calendar has never been uniform. The east and west have diverged on the observance of All Saints Day since, um, pretty much forever. (The current western date was fixed in the 800s.)

Your example of  All Saints Day is off since it is not a fixed feast in Orthodox Church.  If memory serves correctly the Western date comes from the date of the consecration of a church in Rome to "All Saints."  The development in the East of the same feast was seperate - I think but will look up later to see for sure.  But the same feast falling on different days even within the East is not uncommon, and not really a big deal.  But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar.  I'm done with this thread, if someone wants to seriously look at the calendar the book Anastasios recomended is a good place to start, but there are also many other good sources.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 01:10:17 PM
I don't recall reading anyone calling *you* a fool or comparing you to a dog, Nektarios.  "And unto him that smite you on one cheek, offer also the other..."
But this isn't even smiting, but a disagreement.

The book Anastasios cited does not seem to be one that is available on  every corner or even in a few. I've been looking for it.  None of bookfinder.com's over 60,000 sellers have a copy.  Amazon has it listed as "Currently Not Available".   So this could take some time before a copy materializes.  Have *you* read it?
 What other sources might there be besides an obscure  hard to find book?

Oh, and I looked up Feast of All Saints in the EO church.  From th GOARCH site:

"2. Pentecostarion is the book which includes the services of the other movable feasts from the Sunday of Holy Easter to the feast of Pentecost. A list of the Sundays following Easter Sunday; Ist-Easter Sunday; 2nd Sunday of St. Thomas the Apostle; 3rd-Sunday of the Myrrh-Bearers; 4th-Sunday of the Paralytic; 5th-Sunday of the Samaritan Woman; 6th-Sunday of the Blind Man; Ascension Day (Thursday); 7th-Sunday of the 318 Holy Fathers, 8th-Sunday of the Pentecost; (9th-Sunday of All Saints)."
Footnote at the bottom of this page
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8432.asp

Emphasis added

I don't have time to make a deeper search at the moment.  Please correct me if this is not right.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 19, 2004, 01:28:19 PM
But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar.

Hmmmm..... there's a message here. As I was walking back from lunch today it occured to me that the calendar is not a source of schism, but an instrument of schism. The only source of schism, after all, is the sinful attitude of men's minds.

Likewise, you've jumped from the external sign of my statments into making assertions about what is going on inside. It's not that I can't distinguish; it's that the calendar problem is, really, the issue of local custom writ large.

The west, as I said before, was worked out the calendar problem within the context of its isolation from the east, an isolation which is now being erased. It took a long time, but we are all on one paschalion and one basic pattern of fixed feasts (modulo "local" observance). The west-- rightly-- is going to opt out of any solution to the greater problem of ecumenical calendar conflict that doesn't involve ecumenical effort. But that effort is, for the nonce, impossible because of Eastern hardheads who demand a unilateral imposition of the Dionysian/Julian paschalion and calendar on everyone. Until they recant-- yes, recant-- the calendar question is always going to be a problem in the East, because the rest of Orthodoxy is going to always be faced with the choice of being held hostage by the hardheads, or causing a paschalion rift across the East.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 19, 2004, 01:33:28 PM
Does anyone have a link to this "Sigillon of 1583" in the Original Greek?

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 19, 2004, 02:33:42 PM
Quote
Have *you* read it?

Yes.  And others as well - unlike others here if I am going to talk about the calendar and have a strong opinion I actually know what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 02:58:03 PM
Just because others do not support your side does not mean that they do not know what they are talking about.   Why do you feel the need to cast slurs at those who do not agree with your view?  And have you read works from the "other side" that support the Gregorian Calendar?

I ask again, what other "sources" besides a hard to find book?

Good question, Demetri re: a link.  If someone finds it in Greek, you can read it/translate?


Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 19, 2004, 03:57:15 PM

Good question, Demetri re: a link.  If someone finds it in Greek, you can read it/translate?


Ebor

If we get the text in the next 24 or so hours while I am still on vacation among many Greek speakers who possess considerably more command of Greek than I (especially the dialect(s) prevalent in official church documents of 400 years ago), yes.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 04:26:59 PM
Well, I just googled and only found it in English here:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx

It's not just about the calendar btw.

I'll have to think if there's another way to go.  

I certainly don't have it in any of my books.  Sorry.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 19, 2004, 08:18:27 PM

It's not just about the calendar btw.


Yes, I am aware that the calendar is only a tangential issue in this thread.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 19, 2004, 08:27:29 PM
I'm sorry, Demetri.  I meant that the Sigillon isn't just about calendar issues.  I think maybe Twentynine only meant this thread to be about the seventh point that was posted.  

Still haven't found it in Greek.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on July 20, 2004, 12:52:41 AM
But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar.

And the fact that you can't see your error in describing Keble's answer to you...

Quote
Quote
Quote: (From Nektarios)
The first day of the new year in the Church is September 1st - the first day of the secular year is January 1st.
 

Well, no-- the first day of the church year is 1 Advent. And the first day of the calendar year has moved around quite a bit.

...like this:

Quote
I said something without polemics or rudeness - that the church year starts at Sept. 1st.  then Keble responded with a very arrogant tone and was even incorect.  So he thus got my response.  If he can dish it out (which he readily does here) he better be able to take it.

shows you either don't have a very good memory or a good grasp of tone.  What was arrogant here?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 22, 2004, 08:26:07 PM
I wish that perhaps the whole of the 1583 Sigillion had been reproduced, it would have set the context of continual undermining by the Papacy and the rejection of 'false' teaching by Greeks who had forsaken their faith for that of the Latins.

The language used by one contributor, at least, who finds the reference to Pope Gregory's astronomers is as intemperate as that used in the Sigillion. However, I think that from the authors of the Sigillion point of view the astronomers were denying something very important. They were truly seen as athiests.

The objections to the Latins covered much more than a calendar. Nor were those objections confined to the Orthodox. When much later the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England it lead to severe rioting, the Gordon riots. The rioters were not Greek kebab house owners or Russian fur traders but English protestants.

As has already been pointed out the 1924 adoption of the Gregorian calendar was carried out in a truly appalling manner and for a number of reasons, not just to do with early ecumenism but commerce and trade. Orthodoxy was too hard, not pretty enough. The subsequent imprisonment, harassment, forcible stripping of monks and nuns, beatings and deaths as well as defilement of churches leaves one speechless. A supposedly unifying action lead to a great rent and ruptured the liturgical unity of the Orthodox. This unity had been painfully achieved over centuries.

Patriarch Jeremias 11, was called the Illustrius. What among the Faithfull will be title of honour held by any who so readily rubbish what he had to say without first finding out a little more?

Again many of us who adhere to the Church calendar do not regard either it or the Gregorian as being more or less astronomically perfect. Neither is perfect.

Of course, the Gregorian is more convenient but Christianity is a life of ascetic struggle not one of ease. Remember the rich young man who approached Our Lord and asked what else he must do?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Augustine on July 23, 2004, 04:41:21 PM
Keble,

Quote
The west, as I said before, was worked out the calendar problem within the context of its isolation from the east, an isolation which is now being erased. It took a long time, but we are all on one paschalion and one basic pattern of fixed feasts (modulo "local" observance). The west-- rightly-- is going to opt out of any solution to the greater problem of ecumenical calendar conflict that doesn't involve ecumenical effort. But that effort is, for the nonce, impossible because of Eastern hardheads who demand a unilateral imposition of the Dionysian/Julian paschalion and calendar on everyone. Until they recant-- yes, recant-- the calendar question is always going to be a problem in the East, because the rest of Orthodoxy is going to always be faced with the choice of being held hostage by the hardheads, or causing a paschalion rift across the East.

Fundamentally, arriving at a "single calendar" for use by all Christians, before much more basic agreement on doctrinal matters is a wasted effort - or least it is an attempt at achieving the most superficial "peace" possible, the one founded primarily upon appearances.  This is what was fundamentally misguided about the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 (http://www.patriarchate.org/encyclicals/patriarchal_encyclicals/Encyclical_1920), and is basically what is wrong with the ecumenical movement in general - the belief that fraternal activities will smooth over real dogmatic differences.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 23, 2004, 05:48:10 PM
However, I think that from the authors of the Sigillion point of view the astronomers were denying something very important. They were truly seen as athiests.

Atheists as in denying that God exists?  How could observations of what the planet and the Sun are actually doing deny that there is God?

Perhaps the authors point on view on that was, in fact, incorrect.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 23, 2004, 09:53:56 PM
Ebor,

I will try to answer your query. In opposing the Church's calendar the papal astronomers were seen as denying something that was part of Sacred Tradition, and therefore were by extension denying something God given.

As it says in the third paragraph of the Sigillion

From old Rome have come certain persons who learned there to think like Latins; and the bad thing is that from being Byzantines (that is, Greeks) born and bred in our own parts, they not only have changed their faith, but they also battle the Orthodox and true dogmas of the Eastern Church which Christ Himself and the divine Apostles and the Holy Councils of the Holy Fathers delivered to us........

In 2004 we would, perhaps, not use the term 'atheist' in the the way it was used in 1583. Never the less I share unequivically the message given to us by the authors of the Sigillion.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 23, 2004, 11:18:07 PM
Yes, I read the whole Sigillon in English when I was looking for it in Greek for Aristocles/Demetri, and saw that part.  Ymmv.

Just for information's sake I have dug up the Documents from the First Council of Nicea from the Fordham University site:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

A letter on the dating of Easter discussed there is near the bottom.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 24, 2004, 07:41:11 AM
Ebor,

Thank you, found the letter of the Emperor to those not present at the Council on the keeping of Easter.

Especially interesting from a 'hardhead' point of view is the line, "We could not imitate those openly in error". Patriarch Jeremias 11 and the Emperor seperated in time by some 1100 years appear to be in agreement. Like another contributor it appears to be putting the cart before the horse to try to agree a common date for Easter when there is so much else that seperates us. Indeed when the gap appears to be widening rather than closing?

There was much else that others might like to scrutinise including those interested in the role of deaconesses and who could be a deaconess. A very interesting reference point.

Once again, Sir, my thanks.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 24, 2004, 08:43:46 AM
You're welcome. I thought it might be useful if someone tried to post the *actual* writings from Nicaea, albeit in English translation.  Having primary materials can be helpful.

The passage that you found interesting is refering to the Jews.  Here it is in more context:
Quote
"... We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error.
How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error?
emphasis added

It is referring to using the Jewish Calculations, it would appear.

I found this line earlier in the letter interesting: "When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day...."

It was not set by a canon.  And according to the commentary in the posted link it was not universal even then, due to disagreements between Rome and Alexandria regarding using an 84 year cycle vs. the observations/calculations from Alexandria.

Here is the entry on Dionysius Exiguus from the big on-line RC Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm

The last paragraph mentions his looking at the Easter date question about 200 years after Nicaea.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 24, 2004, 09:54:09 AM
Ebor,

I will try to answer your query. In opposing the Church's calendar the papal astronomers were seen as denying something that was part of Sacred Tradition, and therefore were by extension denying something God given.

As it says in the third paragraph of the Sigillion

<---snipped--->

In 2004 we would, perhaps, not use the term 'atheist' in the the way it was used in 1583. Never the less I share unequivically the message given to us by the authors of the Sigillion.

Very well stated, Etienne; and much more succinctly than I could have done. Apparently we have a mini-brouhaha over the sensitivities of some here to the use of the word atheist. As an Orthodox I have no problem with the use of this adjective in the context of the Sigillon of 1583. Simply put, adjusting the Church to fit 'observed' phenomena in the physical world is, by definition, outside (or denying), spiritual Truth.
An analogy might be appropriate- the adjective moral is opposed by amoral, not by immoral. Amoral denotes the lack of morals. So to would Atheist denote a lack of Godliness or something outside of the Church. Given that ALL that is outside of the Church is meaningless to a Christian, I see no problem with the wording so used.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 24, 2004, 11:08:05 AM
An interesting 'analogy' but that's not what the word "atheist" means or denotes.

From Merriam-Webster online:

"Main Entry: athe-+ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity"

Link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist

And 'sensitivities' have nothing to do with it.  How is it 'sensitive' to want to know how seeing and reporting astronomical observations denies God?"  

"ALL that is outside the Church is meaningless to a Christian"?!?   Would you please explain what is meant by "meaningless"?

Ebor

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 24, 2004, 11:55:10 AM
An interesting 'analogy' but that's not what the word "atheist" means or denotes.

From Merriam-Webster online:

"Main Entry: athe-+ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity"

Link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist

And 'sensitivities' have nothing to do with it.  How is it 'sensitive' to want to know how seeing and reporting astronomical observations denies God?"  

"ALL that is outside the Church is meaningless to a Christian"?!?   Would you please explain what is meant by "meaningless"?

Ebor



I see a little pendantic jousting is in order here. What theologian uses Webster?
Liddel and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford):
+¦+++¦++-é - without god; ungodly
+¦+++¦++-ä++-é - godlessness

Not exactly the same as Webster's English, as I suspected when asking for the Greek text.

Scientific theory or observation does not over-ride the Truth. Changing the Faith to fit the theory du jour taints the Church. Such temporal considerations are meaningless. If one does not understand that, I can't help it.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 24, 2004, 12:01:46 PM
How is the calendar part of "the Truth", "the Faith"?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 24, 2004, 12:35:20 PM
Liddel and Scott's definition is without God making no reference to a Church.

Translating from one language to another, or from an older to a more modern can be tricky, since words change in meaning and connotation.

Since God created all things, including the stars and planets in their courses,  I think that the rotation of the Earth around the Sun  and observable, calculable equinoxes counts as True and not some 'theory du jour'.  


Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 24, 2004, 02:34:16 PM
How is the calendar part of "the Truth", "the Faith"?  

Because it is part of the tradition handed down to us by the Fathers.  It can be altered by conciliar authority but not willy-nilly by one or two patriarchates at a time.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 24, 2004, 02:38:01 PM
Liddel and Scott's definition is without God making no reference to a Church.

Translating from one language to another, or from an older to a more modern can be tricky, since words change in meaning and connotation.

Since God created all things, including the stars and planets in their courses,  I think that the rotation of the Earth around the Sun  and observable, calculable equinoxes counts as True and not some 'theory du jour'.  


Ebor

Which is one reason why a claim that the Gregorian calculation of the Paschalian is
"More accurate" is absurd, because it fixes the equinox at March 21, which is not when the equinox falls every year.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 24, 2004, 03:18:23 PM
Because it is part of the tradition handed down to us by the Fathers.  It can be altered by conciliar authority but not willy-nilly by one or two patriarchates at a time.

While I agree with you that the Orthodox Calendar is something that, ideally, should only be altered by conciliar authority and that it is something which we have received from generations past and should be respected at least for that reason, I have a problem saying the calendar itself is a matter of faith.  I don't understand that.  If it is a matter of faith, then how could it ever be altered, even by conciliar authority?  If it can be altered, then how is it a matter of faith?  

I think the calendar issue is important, but exactly how important it is in Eastern Orthodoxy* depends on who you're talking to and what view they're trying to push.  If you're talking to an "ecumenist", it's a disciplinary matter.  If you're talking to a "hard core traditionalist", it's irrevocable dogma.  In either case, the calendar does not seem to be the issue, it's just what is being used in order to make a point.  



*The calendar is not a major issue in the Oriental Orthodox Churches to my knowledge.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 24, 2004, 03:33:51 PM
There are some who would argue that the Church Calendar can't be changed.  I don't agree with this. But they seem to be the most consistent, you are right.  However, the question is why is it being changed? Is it because there is some spiritual benefit to the Orthodox? Fine.  Is it to "unite" the separated churches? That is folishness, because a unified Calendar will do nothing to unite separated Christians: the Anglicans and Catholics have much of the same Calendar and they are as separated as ever.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 24, 2004, 04:01:52 PM
Right, which is why I said that the calendar is not really the issue here.  Push an Old Calendarist, and he may very well admit that altering the calendar itself is not a problem, provided it is done correctly.  The real problems lie elsewhere.  Unfortunately, it seems that at times people focus too much on the calendar and not enough on the major issues they really ought to be working on, and I think their cause suffers for it in the end.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 24, 2004, 06:11:59 PM
But for some the Calendar IS the issue and for others it is a symptom of the issues.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Augustine on July 24, 2004, 07:00:59 PM
Greg,

Quote
How do New Calendar Orthodox respond to this encyclical?

Well, basically, they don't - they don't reply to it, since the whole enterprise of trading the Church Calendar for the Gregorian Calendar (under the sophism of actually adopting a "revised Julian Calendar") was done from a mindset which really did not obsess about fidelity to ecclessiastical tradition, even one obtained only after so much effort and confusion and which manifested the liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church across the world.

While we (who are conditioned by an extremely pluralistic, and egalitarian culture - arguably one which often embodies these two values unto absurdity) may not like the "language" of the Sigillion of 1583 and it's latter confirmations in the following centuries, the fact is it's on the books - and to treat this and the reality it defends with levity, is wrong-headed in the extreme.

As bad as the disunity which the calendar change has introduced into the Orthodox world, I think worse yet was the intention underlying it, as made clear in the EP's 1920 encyclical itself; namely that it was the first "ecumenical gesture" of those proclaiming to speak for the Orthodox Church, an "ecumenism" which in it's very name is misleading (since the Church has always used the word "ecumenical" in a way opposed to how it was used by the "ecumenical movement" started amongst the Protestants in the late 1800's - yet this incorrect definition has now been assumed by Orthodox Christians themselves.)   Indeed, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that the only "union" that will ever be effected by these "ecumenical activities" is the kind of the ill fated unia of Florence - nay worse, since the parties besides the Orthodox thrown into this current soup are even more diverse, and unfortunately even further removed from the truth.

Frankly, they're working to build the church of the anti-Christ, whether they realize it or not (?).   None of this is going to bring a single soul into the Orthodox Church, or create a Godly peace.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 24, 2004, 08:36:43 PM
Liddel and Scott's definition is without God making no reference to a Church.

Translating from one language to another, or from an older to a more modern can be tricky, since words change in meaning and connotation.

L&S's definition is just fine; Attic and Koine are the same in this instance - The Sigillon of 1583 is in ecclesiastical Greek I'll wager, not modern.
I agree about the 'tricky' part which is why I rely on the word's use as an adjective not the noun you seem to be using.
Quote
Since God created all things, including the stars and planets in their courses,  I think that the rotation of the Earth around the Sun  and observable, calculable equinoxes counts as True and not some 'theory du jour'.  

And I'm sure that 100 years ago you would fall on your sword to defend Newtonian celestial mechanics as "true", yet that has been superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity which itself is still unfinished. I guess when we colonize the moon we will adjust the liturgical calendar there to reflect its monthly equinoxes? The best your temporal observations can be, Ebor, is valid.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 25, 2004, 10:57:44 AM
Very well stated, Etienne; and much more succinctly than I could have done. Apparently we have a mini-brouhaha over the sensitivities of some here to the use of the word atheist. As an Orthodox I have no problem with the use of this adjective in the context of the Sigillon of 1583. Simply put, adjusting the Church to fit 'observed' phenomena in the physical world is, by definition, outside (or denying), spiritual Truth.

It's about time you cracvked a dictionary yourself here; you are throwing words around platitudinously and inaccurately.

It's an unremarkable but necessary property of the truth that it be true.

Let's take that word "atheist". If one can see in the Greek text that it was not meant to signify the English meaning of the word, then it's simply a bad translation. (Mind you, Orthodoxy is not a legitimate qualification to be an astronomer, but that's a later point.) But if it was intended to signify the English meaning, then it's not only untrue: it's a malicious lie.

Let's rewind this a bit. Passover is supposed to work from observed phenomena. It says that in the Torah; this is not a negotiable point. The intent of Nicea is to put Easter on the Sunday after Passover; therefore Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

For various practical reasons, we are now working off of mechanical calculations instead of actual observation. If we let the astronomers run things, they would be announcing each year whether or not there would be a leap day so as to fix the equinoxes on the same day. Ancient communications simply didn't permit such a method.

The Gregorian calculation isn't perfect; it does allow the actual equinox to move back and forth by a day, and there is a infinitesimally increasing error which some day in the quite distant future will require a correction.

Quote
An analogy might be appropriate- the adjective moral is opposed by amoral, not by immoral. Amoral denotes the lack of morals. So to would Atheist denote a lack of Godliness or something outside of the Church.

That's nice, but that's also not the way English works.

Quote
Given that ALL that is outside of the Church is meaningless to a Christian, I see no problem with the wording so used.

Speaking of platitudinous-- this statement is so far over the top that I don't for a moment believe that you actually live this way.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 25, 2004, 01:36:59 PM
.And I'm sure that 100 years ago you would fall on your sword to defend Newtonian celestial mechanics as "true", yet that has been superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity which itself is still unfinished. I guess when we colonize the moon we will adjust the liturgical calendar there to reflect its monthly equinoxes? The best your temporal observations can be, Ebor, is valid.
Demetri

LOL! That's not the way that the Scientific Method works though. If new data or a theory comes along that may prove an earlier one wrong or inaccurate, the new one is tested and studied to see if it's True. Sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is. If it *is* true then it's accepted and the previous idea is shown to be not correct.  

Real science doesn't hang on to a hypothesis that's proven wrong just because they like it.  Dr. Stephen Hawking just last week announced that he'd been wrong for 30 years on an aspect of what Black Holes do.   See:
http://www.iop.org/news/783
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/news/35244.html

Einstein's Theory "superseded" Newtonian Mechanics?  Not hardly, in ordinary space and time.  Here's a quote from Cornell Astrophysics:

"It is important to note that Einstein did not prove that Newton was wrong in his understanding of ordinary space and time. Newtonian mechanics applies in weak gravitational fields (the normal condition) and when velocities are low relative to the speed of light. In normal circumstances, the increased accuracy in predicting, for example, orbits offered by Einstein's theory over Newton's is insignificant. "

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/relativity.htm

Oh I'm sure when there is a Moon Colony and some EO go there that there will be some discussion about time, the calendar and liturgy. (Seems like that's traditional.  :) )
"Monthly equinoxes" on the Moon?  Since a Lunar Day (if you're on the Moon) averages 29.53059 Earth Days, could you please explain what you mean?

Here's a data page on the Moon for information's sake:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 25, 2004, 02:42:24 PM
What I fail to see--and I am in no way trying to discourage Keble and Ebor, whom I count as personal friends, from posting on whatever subject they wish--is why they care what calendar Orthodox use? And why do Orthodox need to change their calendar to be involved in intra-church relations? If the Churches unite in one faith, fine, then we can talk calendars.  Until then, what's the point?

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 25, 2004, 02:58:42 PM
Keble,
Rather than do a lengthy "cut, paste, & quote" reply, let me state that I'm glad you are impressed with my efforts to interpret the offending word for you. Nevertheless, the translation is not bad; but how you choose to intrepret it is.
As to how I live my Faith, I am certain you know me even less than you know Orthodoxy.

Ebor,
Thanks for the lecture. If I have time I'll read the links, but I haven't played in that field since leaving training as an observer at Pitt's Allegheny Observatory.
You are correct - no equinoxes on the moon, despite its 6.5 degree axial tilt. Guess I should change my argument in this case to having no Pascha on the moon   ;)

To you both, your good friend, anastasios, has got it right.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 25, 2004, 05:46:44 PM
I agree. No point having a knock-about session on the calendar when there are so many other 'issues' between us.

Now a lunar Pascha, that does conjure up images....................
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 25, 2004, 08:30:19 PM
What I fail to see--and I am in no way trying to discourage Keble and Ebor, whom I count as personal friends, from posting on whatever subject they wish--is why they care what calendar Orthodox use? And why do Orthodox need to change their calendar to be involved in intra-church relations? If the Churches unite in one faith, fine, then we can talk calendars.  Until then, what's the point?

Well, turn it around: if we can't resolve a pure praxis problem such as the calendar, what hope is there for any other issue?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 25, 2004, 09:08:05 PM
Well, turn it around: if we can't resolve a pure praxis problem such as the calendar, what hope is there for any other issue?


I see your point but I think we should be addressing the real issues that divide us first, instead of resolving other, more peripheral issues.  We need to work out the filioque, apostolic ministry's nature, women's ordination, etc, etc, etc.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on July 26, 2004, 03:19:16 AM
Quote
Well, turn it around: if we can't resolve a pure praxis problem such as the calendar, what hope is there for any other issue?

Because some of us have graduated from seeing things only superficially.  Diversity of praxis existed in the Orthodox Church in early times, and even now there is a certain level of diversity.  But you still fail to see that the main objection to the new calendar is because it was implemented for ecumenism - which denies one of the major points of the creed.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 26, 2004, 06:12:53 AM
I do not want to be contentious for it's own sake, but just why a some people so very keen to have everyone on a single calendar?

Let those that are so very keen put forward an indepth and reasoned argument. What would it achieve, what benefits would it bring, etc, etc.........?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 26, 2004, 08:33:06 AM
Meet you in Free-for-all......
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 26, 2004, 09:12:00 AM
Well, Mr. Keble, I wondered how long it would take you to again trot out the "Aleppo Solution" for a periodic airing.

Apparently your favored status as a personal friend of an owner of this forum insulates you from criticism. In the past many Roman Catholic participants here have been thoroughly censured for a display such as yours...
Orthodox arrogation?, Orthodox hardheads?, tradition of jackass-ism?.

The rules of this forum prevent me from typing here my real feelings about your input.

You don't like the explanation of "atheist" because you PREFER to be offended. Too bad. Why are you  here?

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 26, 2004, 11:45:03 AM
Demetri, you wrote:

"Apparently your favored status as a personal friend of an owner of this forum insulates you from criticism."

This is hardly the case.  I mentioned that he is my friend peripherally in one post *where I disagreed with him* because I believe in being polite and assuasing my posts in any way possible.  That doesn't mean I don't totally disagree with Keble and find some of his posts to be arrogant as well.  You can say anything you want to him, as long as you are polite.  And if you think he is being rude, use the post-report system which practically speaking is the only way we see posts that are offensive to other posters unless we read each and every post, especially given that we can't read other people's minds and we don't always know what offends other people.  For instance, does Keble really say "tradition of jackassism"?  If I had seen that, I would have removed it.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on July 26, 2004, 11:51:06 AM
OK I found the offensive comment in another thread (after searching for it) and edited it.

anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 26, 2004, 01:57:11 PM
What I fail to see--and I am in no way trying to discourage Keble and Ebor, whom I count as personal friends, from posting on whatever subject they wish--is why they care what calendar Orthodox use?
anastasios

Well, frankly, the EO could use any calendar they care to for all of me.  *I* don't, as they say, "have a dog in this fight". and I have no power to make anyone change calendars.  I have not said once that the EO HAVE to be on the Gregorian Calendar.  

But there *are* people I've read who do care Very Much.  This thread was started with a quote from a document and what comes across as a challege to "New Calendar" EO that could be construed as suggesting that N.C.s are disobedient to a long dead patriarch, possibly canon-breakers  and so forth. It read like a gauntlet was being thrown at "N.C" Christians.   I have read adherants of the Julian Calendar who said flatly that using the "N.C."/revised Julian was heretical or schismatic or without Grace.    Well so much for "we don't know where the Church isn't." and they're therefore declaring, for example, that the EO church in Finland is without Grace because they (as I recall) are on a full Gregorian.

Are there any NC fulminations against some jurisdictions using the OC?  Please point out any, if there are.  I should be interested in reading their thoughts.

Well, I have seen no Creed that includes believing in the Julian Calendar.  I do not understand how calendars which are man-made could be equal to believing in the Holy Trinity.  I *have* seen many charitable, faithful, humble EO people (in real life) who are in jurisdictions on the Revised Julian and who don't decide that they know better then their bishops and Metropolitans for enacting it.  But apparently there are other EO who would deem them heretical.  

Yes, I questioned the use of "Atheist Astronomers" and why making astonomical observations is "ungodly".  Why "ungodly" would mean outside the EO Church as opposed to against God?  There's a lot of Universe out there that isn't the EO and I believe that God made all of it and it isn't meaningless.  

To be blunt the passage reads to me as the Patriarch heard that some RC's found that *His* calendar was off and took deep offense at any suggestion that anything EO could be incorrect.  Yes, I know it's part of a group of declarations.  I read it.  But it was the calendar point that started this thread.

 I confess I was wondering at a declaration from a Patriarch on this subject seeming to be treated as "infallible" in someway.  ("He said the Gregorian Calendar was Ungodly back then so it applies forever and can't be changed.")  Being from the late 1500's is he included in "The Fathers"?  (Nektarios' post early on in the thread spoke of throwing out the fathers if they're inconvenient.) If so, is there a cut-off date since it was a Patriarch who did the calendar change in the 1920's?  Yes, I have read how it was done badly and in an autocratic manner. The 1584 Patriarch doesn't read as irenic either.  

So I will question statements and ask for explainations.    

I hope that this clarifies things, at least in part, Anastasios.

Respectfully,

Ebor


edited for spelling and punctuation
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 26, 2004, 02:07:09 PM
Ebor,
 but I haven't played in that field since leaving training as an observer at Pitt's Allegheny Observatory.

Interesting.  Did you work in the field?  If you prefer to not swerve to that, I understand.

Quote
You are correct - no equinoxes on the moon, despite its 6.5 degree axial tilt. Guess I should change my argument in this case to having no Pascha on the moon   ;)

Sure there could be.  Why would the Moon use a different set of months?  Inside the lunar day, time would be kept likely along the same hours and 'days' as on Earth.  So when it's April 5th or whatever on Earth, it's the same on the Moon.  That sort of thing has been covered in Science Fiction long ago.  :)

Quote
To you both, your good friend, anastasios, has got it right.

For the record, I claim not any 'special' treatment from Anastasios or any of the other admins or mods.  I try to always recall that there are other human beings on the other end of these posts.  But, it is possible to disagree with them.  

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 27, 2004, 10:20:53 AM
Lunar calculations are a bit more challenging, Ebor; Such as there would be a different set of months. Ask your partner Keble; I'm sure he can fill you in on how to account for the old "Blue Moon".

Sorry, I don't have much time for Fantasy or "Science" fiction.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 27, 2004, 12:33:07 PM
Thanks, but I know about the "Blue Moon".   :)

I think I"m capable of understanding a challenge now and again.  Can you give a link for this idea that there would be different months on the moon?  Since the Moon is in Earth orbit and the whole Earth is July right now (even on the Julian Calendar), it's July on the Moon.  Once we're out of Earth orbit (like Mars with a Martian year of 687 Earth days or not quite 2 Earth years) things would be harder.

It's too bad you don't have the time.  SF is different from Fantasy and I assure you that Science Fiction *can* have real science in it and the good works *do*. (It's not all schlock with ray guns  ;D)   Also, some interesting ideas from SF are now real.  Robert Heinlein wrote of mechanical hands controlled by people in his short work "Waldo". That's why they're named 'waldoes' in real life. He also had a story with "slidewalks" and now those are real.    

It's not just readings for nerdy teenage boys.   ;)

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 27, 2004, 01:33:10 PM
More calendar fun:

This page (http://www.lespenner.com/cal_hist_and_rules.htm) explains the current Jewish calculation. The Christian calculation is simple in comparison.

One should also note that the Jewish calendar is quite emphatic that the calculated calendar is an expedient. If, in 358, a more perfect calculation could have been devised, it might well have been used.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 27, 2004, 02:07:54 PM
Thanks, but I know about the "Blue Moon".   :)

I think I"m capable of understanding a challenge now and again.  Can you give a link for this idea that there would be different months on the moon?  Since the Moon is in Earth orbit and the whole Earth is July right now (even on the Julian Calendar), it's July on the Moon.  Once we're out of Earth orbit (like Mars with a Martian year of 687 Earth days or not quite 2 Earth years) things would be harder.

I don't think anyone's seriously worried about lunar months -from the vantage of a Lunaite. Sure you COULD use terran months and have a moving day and month on the moon, but then one would be timing respective to earth-sun, not the moon-sun, relationship.
Quote
It's too bad you don't have the time.  SF is different from Fantasy and I assure you that Science Fiction *can* have real science in it and the good works *do*. (It's not all schlock with ray guns  ;D)   Also, some interesting ideas from SF are now real.  Robert Heinlein wrote of mechanical hands controlled by people in his short work "Waldo". That's why they're named 'waldoes' in real life. He also had a story with "slidewalks" and now those are real.    

It's not just readings for nerdy teenage boys.   ;)

Ebor

Shoot, Ebor, I'm so old my nerdy boy days were spent reading Tom Swift...as in "senior", not Tom Swift, Junior. SF writers are very creative and I imagine if they weren't writing SF they would still have novel, useful ideas.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 27, 2004, 03:18:27 PM
Well, I suppose part of it would be that humans are used to running on a 24 hour (roughly) clock for awake/sleep modes.  So within any Lunar day would be some demarkation of that 'days' inside a Day as it were.  I'd quess that someone would decide what time zone the moon was on for marking midnight/'day' changes.  Or have 'shifts' since some people would sleep while others were working.

Or eventually if they really *had to have* a separate calendar for 'loonys" (see "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" Robert Heinlein for the sobriquet iirc)  there would be a converstion program.   But now the thread has wandered so I should stop the speculations for now.

Well, I looked at your profile, Demetri and we're not so far apart then.  I'm 48 you're 54 according to it. I'm not one of the youngsters on this forum.  I knew some of the old "Tom Swift"s, too.  

You don't like SF, and that's OK.  I've heard an old Irish saying "If we all liked the same things, there wouldn't be enough to go around."  :)


Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 27, 2004, 03:30:15 PM
Stop, why stop?

We'll need a new term for "lunatic" as I'm sure our fellow members here figure we're already "loony"...
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tikhon29605 on July 27, 2004, 04:37:25 PM
What, exactly, is a "Sigillon" to begin with? It sounds like some snooty French food, as in "Sigillon au vin" or something.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 27, 2004, 06:10:24 PM
I've looked for a definition online but haven't found one.  I'll check the OED next.  

Frankly, it reads like it's supposed to be a Significant Document of Instruction, something along the lines of a Papal Bull, but that's just an impression.  More research is needed.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Augustine on July 28, 2004, 10:25:42 AM
There seem to be many people who believe (or at least try to justify) the new calendar on the grounds of scientific accuracy, or for purely pragmatic, secular reasons (the "when in Rome" argument - after all, it is the modern western world, which is on the Gregorian calendar, which is the hub of commerce, no?)

However, either argument is found wanting in the extreme.

Scientific Accuracy - No calendar can claim to be 100% "scientifically accurate".  This is true of both the Gregorian calendar, and it's sophistically titled clone, the "revised Julian calendar."  Also the question should be asked, "just how important is this 'accuracy' to begin with?, particularly for an obviously ecclessiastical calendar?  Particularly within the degrees of "accuracy" which we are told the adoption of the "revised calendar" will bring us all?

Commerce Argument - How does the current arrangement/dominion of the western nations in such matters have a thing to do with an ecclessiastical calendar?  Since when do such things have anything to do with the celebration of fixed feasts?  Orthodox Christians would not be the only religious people finding themselves with a religious calendar that differs from the secular one - how are Jews and Muslims suffering, by using the secular calendar for business matters, while using another for religious purposes?

However, what ultimatly needs to be recognized is that both arguments (scientific accuracy, and commerce) point to reasons which had nothing to do with why the EP (and a few others, later on) adopted the "new calendar" to begin with.  If one reads the Patriarchal Enyclical (http://www.patriarchate.org/encyclicals/patriarchal_encyclicals/Encyclical_1920) of the EP from 1920, it is very clear why this disruption was introduced into the life of the Church - to facillitate the ecumenical movement.  This document sets into motion a line of thinking which has caused nothing but chaos in the Orthodox world, a bad momentum which is still "snow balling" so to speak.

The text embodies the very sort of "bad ecumenism", if only in seed form, which would come to be recognized as an ecclessiological heresy by any number of 20th century Orthodox confessors, including those who for their own reasons did not opt to cease commemorating the EP or refuse communion with him and those with him (thus to avoid the conclusion of some that only "schismatic" nut jobs think in this way.)  It's precisely this heretical ecumenism which would decades later, after much suffering and admonishment, would be anathematized by the Holy Synod of the ROCOR in 1983.

The text is addressed to the "Churches of Christ everywhere" in it's title, yet is clearly addressed to all heterodox bodies of every degree of estrangement, thus creating a stated equivelency between schisms and heresies with the Orthodox Church which is simply not a reflection of reality.  The document also reduces the seperation of these groups from the Orthodox Church to a break down of charity and nastiness on all sides, rather than state the truth that fundamentally these divisions persist because of dogmatic differences.

Indeed, the change of the calendar is the first thing suggested by this unfortunate document, in pursuing this misguided agenda.  So there should be no mistake; the new calendar was hatched, and imposed on many Orthodox faithful, to pursue a movement whose Orthodox participation from the begining was imbued with falsehood.

Besides the more fundamental "muddying" of the real distinctions which exist between the Orthodox Church and those outside of Her, the document takes for granted that unity can be achieved by "pretending" everyone is closer than they really, objectively are - that somehow the indulgence of anti-canonical activities (and they are so for a reason - they were not simply the bigotry of the ancients),  or "going through the motions" would of itself help solve dogmatic differences, rather than simply cast them into the oblivion of lukewarm neglect.  Sadly, if anything, the non-Orthodox parties involved in the various ecumenical congresses since that time, have if anything moved further away from the truth, not closer to it in the course of these dialogues, joint prayers, co-liturgizing, etc.

I also dare say, with a great deal of sadness, that it can also be said that many who pride themselves as being in the canonical unity of the Orthodox Church have also themselves "moved away" from the truth, from the clarity and purity of the Orthodox confession, in the time that they have associated themselves with this movement.  This is precisely why the Holy Fathers and our Canons have forbidden the activities which play such an important part of the ecumenical movement - because such equivocating and comprimises endager Orthodox Christians themselves, and as bad, do nothing to motivate the heterodox to get their affairs in order, and return to the unity of the one Church of Christ.  If anything, they are legitimized by such activities.

So it is this rotten ecumenism, which explains the calendar change - not scientific scruples, or commerce related issues.  And this is precisely why no luminary of the Church in the 20th century that I'm aware of had a good thing to say about it, including those who chose to remain in communion with the EP.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on July 28, 2004, 11:05:45 AM
Scientific Accuracy - No calendar can claim to be 100% "scientifically accurate".  This is true of both the Gregorian calendar, and it's sophistically titled clone, the "revised Julian calendar."  Also the question should be asked, "just how important is this 'accuracy' to begin with?, particularly for an obviously ecclessiastical calendar?  Particularly within the degrees of "accuracy" which we are told the adoption of the "revised calendar" will bring us all?

Two answers:

First, I don't agree with the statements about accuracy. Setting a standard of 100% accuracy, first of all, is unscientific on its face. The best accuracy that can possibly be achieved astronomically is to keep all the astronomical events on the dates on which they actually occur and derive everything else accordingly.

Accuracy is, when all is said and done, a relative measurement. In the case of the paschalion, it can be measured against the date of Passover, or it can measured against its astronomical predictions. Both paschalions have failures against the Passover standard because they use a different astronomical basis than the Passover calculation. But as far as the astronomical basis itself is concerned, the Gregorian formula is more accurate than the Dionysian formula. And one can (as the Aleppo solution itself recommends) dispense with the approximate calculations entirely and, in this age, use astronomy directly. It is easy enough to show that this gives dates much closer to the Gregorian pattern than the Dionysian pattern.

As to why accuracy matters, well, it obviously mattered enough to go to the trouble of working out the paschalion in the first place.

I'm tired of antiecumenism fulminations, so I'm just not going to bother with that part.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 28, 2004, 11:16:11 AM
Augustine, have you got your kevlar helmet and jacket on? You have set out a very coherent answer to this 'vexed' question. For me there is simply the Church calendar and other calendars. As has already been written the so-called revised Julian calendar  sees the Apostles Fast virtually disappear some years. This novel innovation has born precisely what fruit? Has unity been promoted? NO!

The unity the so-called ecumenists are so active to promote seems far more appropriate to international trade, politics and diplomacy. Chambesy has more in common with the UN and international institutions like the World Trade organisation.

First, we as Orthodox must embrace Christ and our brother Orthodox. If we cannot or will not do this we will not be able to embrace anyone else.

To embrace others we need to be clear and united. Anglicanism is riven with splits and division. Rome has the 'facade' of unity but in reality is not united. Other groups have their own 'difficulties, too. Many of these appear to be moving further and further away from anything one might see as Christianity, based on Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

There are out there good and genuine people, seeking or yearning for 'something'. All the division and pseudo 'ecumenical' activity robs them of a chance to encounter an answer, a pathway toward the God-man, Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin, suffered and was crucified and rose again on the third day.

Oddly, I know Moslems who have no problem acknowledging the concept of a virgin birth, but many so called 'Christians'. Like many supposed 'Christians' who do not believe the earthly Christ was both God and man. Others still who do not believe in the resurrection.

We can and should be good neighbours, and peoples with different beliefs, different holy days and calendars may live together in a neighbourly way. This has happened and should continue. I simply do not see what so-called 'ecumenism' is meant to achieve other than to lay down the foot-work for either a delusion and/or the church of the anti-Christ!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on July 28, 2004, 03:19:19 PM
Scientific Accuracy - No calendar can claim to be 100% "scientifically accurate".

True, yet this does not mean that we are therefore to stay with one that is less accurate.  Insisting on being more accurate does not logically lead to a claim to be completely so.  The GC may not make room for a floating equinox, yet overall, it is off only by about 20 seconds/yr, compared to about 11 minutes (JC).

Quote
Orthodox Christians would not be the only religious people finding themselves with a religious calendar that differs from the secular one - how are Jews and Muslims suffering, by using the secular calendar for business matters, while using another for religious purposes?

Not too much, as this is a "Christian nation" (supposedly), and no one's shutting things down for a nationwide holiday on Yom Kippur or Ramadan.  There's no social awareness, really, of these religious festivals as there is for Christmas, so to determine these dates is really left up to the religious community itself, with little or no ramifications outside it.  Not the same animal, I'm afraid.

Quote
However, what ultimatly needs to be recognized is that both arguments (scientific accuracy, and commerce) point to reasons which had nothing to do with why the EP (and a few others, later on) adopted the "new calendar" to begin with.

Agreed.  Neither of these reasons were the reasons for its initial adoption.  Some OC-ists are therefore willing to overlook the reasons for the calendar based on this reason alone.  Well and good.  Would it therefore be reasonable to insist that NC-ists be taken seriously in their insistence that ecumenism and the seeking of an admittedly false, superficial union with heterodox churches is no longer our main reason -- indeed, not a reason at all, AFAIK -- for using the calendar, but rather the former two that were mentioned above?  As Keble said:

Quote
As to why accuracy matters, well, it obviously mattered enough to go to the trouble of working out the paschalion in the first place.

Here, here.  If we're going to use the Julian reckonings, fine.  But let's at least do something to stop the slipping further and further back in the year.  No sense in "planting our crops in January"!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on July 28, 2004, 03:22:58 PM
<places tongue firmly in cheek>

Of course, we all COULD just switch to the Aztec calendar -- said to be the most accurate calendar ever made -- but then the world would end in 2012.  Never mind.

<removes tongue from cheek>
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 28, 2004, 03:24:10 PM
Anathema!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on July 28, 2004, 03:29:21 PM
<places tongue firmly in cheek>

Of course, we all COULD just switch to the Aztec calendar -- said to be the most accurate calendar ever made -- but then the world would end in 2012.  Never mind.

<removes tongue from cheek>

LOL!! Pedro.  In my explaination to Anastasios, I'd thought of writing "the EO can use the Mayan Calendar, if they like" but didn't.  Thanks for a laugh.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ExOrienteLux on July 28, 2004, 03:59:44 PM
Anathema!  

Thus saith his All-Holiness Pope Mor Ephrem.  Many years, Master!

;)

Josh
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 29, 2004, 11:24:45 AM
What, exactly, is a "Sigillon" to begin with? It sounds like some snooty French food, as in "Sigillon au vin" or something.

LOL! The simplest questions...

As soon as I saw a transliterated, instead of a translated, word I knew there'd be trouble ahead. As near as I can figure, it's a Greek word with no English equivalent (alas, there are so many).
Its apparent root words, -â-à ++ and +¦++++++-å++-é, do not even lend much help. Sort of "a bill (or document) together" , but that's not quite right; or "agreed opinion", but that's just a description and not a translation at all, or , er,...sigillon. Sorry.
It still would help to read it in Greek, including, now, the title, so I can better check the word.

Just for you, I'll name some of our vinting product this year "Sigillon of Punxsutawney-2004"   :D

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: JoeS on July 29, 2004, 04:35:05 PM
Ah, the Druids, now thats a calendar.  Or, maybe the Mayans.

Hmmmm.  Which one will save me?

JoeS   ???
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Etienne on July 29, 2004, 06:22:19 PM
Come on, let's be a bit more up to date. Perhaps, the French revolutionary calendar........................ ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Jennifer on November 19, 2004, 10:25:18 PM
So what exactly is the deal with the 'calendar' controversy?  Are all of the SCOBA jurisdictions on the new calendar?  

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on November 19, 2004, 11:51:02 PM
Kicking the hornet nest, eh?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Jennifer on November 20, 2004, 12:00:43 AM
No actually I'm serious.  I really don't get it.                                

Edited to add that when I say that I don't "get it."  I don't mean that I think  it's a stupid controversy.  I mean that I honestly don't get it.  I've been reading Orthodox stuff for years but have totally ignored the calendar issue.  I suppose as an RC, it didn't make any sense to me so I never concerned myself with it.  

When did the calendar change?  Why did the old calendarists object to it?  And what does it mean exactly?  When did the old calendar originate?  Was it secular at one time?

And am I spelling calendar correctly?  It looks weird but I'm the world's worst speller so am not sure of how to spell this 5th grade word.  :(
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TomS on November 20, 2004, 12:30:48 AM
It's not important.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 01:42:18 AM
I concur.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 20, 2004, 01:49:31 AM
It's important, but can be blown out of proportion.  I believe the New Calendar leaves much to be desired for the following reasons:

(Sources:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx)

Note: I do not always agree with the polemics. But the arguments are in my opinion sound. They include:

1) The Revised Calendar (aka New aka Revised Julian) creates a problem with the fixed feasts being set according to the Gregorian and the Paschal cycle being set according to the Julian.  In around the year 8000, for instance, Pascha will actually fall on Christmas on the Revised Julian Calendar.

2) The Revised Calendar creates some feast day possibilities that are unforseen in the typikon.

3) The Revised Calendar is not historically accurate; all saints' feast days were moved by 13 days, whether they died in 1800 or 300; this is not a proleptic correction (saints dying in the 19th century should be adjusted by 12 days, saints dying in the 18th century by 11 days, etc., IF we are trying to be "accurate").

4) The adoption of the Revised Calendar created disunity in the Orthodox world and was originally condemned by the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria when it occurred.

5) The Revised Calendar destroys the unity of the Solar and Lunar cycles that are perfectly harmonized in the Julian Calendar, and also destroys the indiction cycles.

6) A miracle, which can't be used by itself for proof but which is interesting: when Jerusalem switched to the New Calendar in 1969, the Paschal fire did not come at Pascha in 1970.  Hence, it switched back.

And many other issues that can be learned about from that website.

:)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 02:17:20 AM
Anastasios,

It may be ill-advised, but I will dive into this murky pool.

1) The Revised Calendar (aka New aka Revised Julian) creates a problem with the fixed feasts being set according to the Gregorian and the Paschal cycle being set according to the Julian.  In around the year 8000, for instance, Pascha will actually fall on Christmas on the Revised Julian Calendar.

 So you`re suggesting that the Julian calendar will need no adjustments over the next 6,000 years?  May I point out that the Julian calendar has a problem similar to this right now, albeit much less spectacular.  You are no doubt aware that every so often the feast of the Annunciation falls in Holy Week or at Pascha itself in churches that use the old calendar.

3) The Revised Calendar is not historically accurate; all saints' feast days were moved by 13 days, whether they died in 1800 or 300; this is not a proleptic correction (saints dying in the 19th century should be adjusted by 12 days, saints dying in the 18th century by 11 days, etc., IF we are trying to be "accurate").

The Julian calendar isn't accurate, period, as far as I know.  Correct me if  I'm wrong, but the calendar used to be a rotating calendar, and was stopped dead in its tracks in 1903.  ( With the exception of determining the date for Pascha, of course. )  Do you know why?

4) The adoption of the Revised Calendar created disunity in the Orthodox world and was originally condemned by the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria when it occurred.

Up until now, the way in which the new calendar was adopted by some is the only reason why I have felt sympathy for some old-calendarist groups, particularly Greek ones.  So I see your point here.

5) The Revised Calendar destroys the unity of the Solar and Lunar cycles that are perfectly harmonized in the Julian Calendar, and also destroys the indiction cycles.

How can they be "perfectly harmonized" if the rotating calendar was stopped dead in its tracks in 1903?

6) A miracle, which can't be used by itself for proof but which is interesting: when Jerusalem switched to the New Calendar in 1969, the Paschal fire did not come at Pascha in 1970.  Hence, it switched back.

It's hard to take issue with this point.


Bob
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 02:42:40 AM
Of course, one thing that all Orthodox can agree about is that it's a bad thing that the Finnish Church celebrates Pascha at the same time as the Western Church every year.  I heard that this is because of a law in Finland that basically makes it impossible to celebrate it at a different time.   Anyone have any info about that?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Brendan03 on November 20, 2004, 10:22:24 AM

When did the calendar change?

The Pope changed the calendar in the middle ages.  The change was made to make it more accurate in terms of the astrological data that was available at the time.  The secular Western calendar was then based on this papal or "gregorian" calendar.

The Orthodox remained on the old, or "Julian", calendar until the 20th Century.  The change was first made in Greece.  Old calendarists objected to it because (1) the Julian calendar was adopted by a church council and there was no church council held to change that and (2) the change resulted in adopting the papal calendar for fixed feasts (that is, feasts tied to a certain date), and of course "papal = bad" for many ueberdox.

In North America, the SCOBA churches are mixed.  The GOA is new calendar as is, I believe, the AA.  The OCA is mixed -- the Bishop can allow parishes to be on the old calendar, and I know of a couple of old calendar OCA churches here in the DC area.

The calendar issue doesn't impact Pascha.  All Orthodox (other than the Church of Finland, I believe, which was made to change it in order to retain ecclesiastical status there) observe Pascha and the related movable feasts (Pentecost, Lent etc.) on the same calendar, the old calendar or Julian calendar.  As Anastasios points out, this creates anomalies for churches that follow the new fixed calendar, such as the practical elimination, in some years, of the Apostles Fast because Pentecost season can fall very late vis-a-vis the new fixed feasts calendar.  Over time, the anomalies will worsen because Pascha will tend to creep forward because the two calendars (old for Pascha, new for fixed feasts) are out of synch.  That is not an issue for today, but it will eventually become an issue.

Quote
When did the old calendar originate?  Was it secular at one time?

Yes, it was the secular Roman imperial calendar.

And now my editorial:  Nothing has served to divide Orthodox from each other more effectively than this calendar issue.  The Greeks should have known that, and they should not have changed the calendar.  It was a big, big mistake.  Having said that, the reaction of those Orthodox who used the calendar to rush into an ill-advised schism is only an indication of one of our greatest temptations as Orthodox:  the tendency to make mountains out of molehills.  From the Old Believer schism about how many fingers to use when crossing oneself to this silly schism about the calendar we seem to be very prone to divide ourselves from ourselves based on issues that are not weighty ones, and not questions of faith.  We should recognize this tendency in ourselves and resist it, because it is surely the will of the evil one that we divide ourselves, and the fact that we allow ourselves to be divided over issues like this one must make him LOL.  These days it seems practically hopeless to heal this schism because the "Old Calendar Resistance" movement has now made the calendar itself into an icon of their more general dispute with the modern world and their desire to create an alternative reality.  It's no longer about the calendar itself, but about what the calendar represents to these people.  The only good thing is that the Old Calendar Resisters are a very small group, while the remainder of the Orthodox Church (which outside of North America is mostly on the Old Calendar) moves along in communion with different churches using different calendars.  That situation is far from ideal, but it is  far better than rushing into schism over an issue like the church calendar.

B
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on November 20, 2004, 10:30:33 AM
Are all of the SCOBA jurisdictions on the new calendar?  

While everyone else tackles your first question, Jennifer, the answer to your second question is "no". At least two are on the Julian Calendar (one of those only partially)- ACROD and the Ukrainian Orthodox. As to the others I am not sure but have assumed they're on the "Revised".

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 11:55:34 AM
Very eloquently put, Brendan.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: The young fogey on November 20, 2004, 12:30:14 PM
Quote
The Pope changed the calendar in the middle ages.

Later - the Renaissance, late 1500s I believe or maybe the 1600s at the latest.

Different calendars can be nice - sort of a cultural badge ('I am Russian; my church does it this way') but not a matter of faith or worth dividing over.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 20, 2004, 12:37:13 PM
Quote
So you`re suggesting that the Julian calendar will need no adjustments over the next 6,000 years?  May I point out that the Julian calendar has a problem similar to this right now, albeit much less spectacular.  You are no doubt aware that every so often the feast of the Annunciation falls in Holy Week or at Pascha itself in churches that use the old calendar.

Hi Bob! Thanks for your well thought-out response. I enjoy this kind of discussion!  No, the Church Calendar will need no changes over the next 6000 years.  It is perfectly suited to the Orthodox cycle of services, etc.  That the feast of the Annunciation falls during Holy Week or Pascha is not an issue at all given that the typikon forsees this and creates a very special holy day--Kyriopascha--for the concurrence of Pascha and Annunciation, which falls every 76 years. Unfortunately, Kyriopascha is eliminated on the mixed calendar, which is sad, in my opinion.

Quote
The Julian calendar isn't accurate, period, as far as I know.  Correct me if  I'm wrong, but the calendar used to be a rotating calendar, and was stopped dead in its tracks in 1903.  ( With the exception of determining the date for Pascha, of course. )  Do you know why?

I'm not sure what you mean about this. The Julian Calendar is not as "inaccurate" as some people say (a day is not always 24 hours, a year is not always 365.25 days, and the equinox is NOT always on March 21), so to correct it for the sake of accuracy alone seems superficial to me. Now there are better arguments that I have heard for the Gregorian, such as "it syncronizes our Church life and our secular life allowing us to baptize the time" and I kind of like this argument but I don't buy the thing about the Julian Calendar being "less accurate."  That is a very subjective assessment for our church purposes.

Quote
Up until now, the way in which the new calendar was adopted by some is the only reason why I have felt sympathy for some old-calendarist groups, particularly Greek ones.  So I see your point here.

After reading the book, Resistance unto Blood, which is a history of the adoption of the New Calendar in Romania, I realized they had it the worst. Sometimes, police would fire shots into the crowds of people leaving Churches. Ugh.

Quote
How can they be "perfectly harmonized" if the rotating calendar was stopped dead in its tracks in 1903?

Please elaborate.

I find this a very profitable discussion!!

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 01:29:28 PM
Hi Anastasios,

I confess that I don't know much about the calendar question.  This is just one reason why my participation here may be "ill advised", as I put it.  Nevertheless, here goes....


"No, the Church Calendar will need no changes over the next 6000 years.  It is perfectly suited to the Orthodox cycle of services, etc.  That the feast of the Annunciation falls during Holy Week or Pascha is not an issue at all given that the typikon forsees this and creates a very special holy day--Kyriopascha--for the concurrence of Pascha and Annunciation, which falls every 76 years. Unfortunately, Kyriopascha is eliminated on the mixed calendar, which is sad, in my opinion."

I'm not sure if I share your enthusiasm for this special feast.  However, I could be converted to share your view if I took more time to examine the typikon, I suppose.  From my cursory examination of it, it all looks rather hodge-podge and strung-together, from where I stand.  You didn't address the other part of the question, where the Annunciation falls in Holy Week.  This I find quite unfortunate.  For me, this is simply a big incompatibility.    How can you have a feast like the Annunciation during such a solemn time?  


"After reading the book, Resistance unto Blood, which is a history of the adoption of the New Calendar in Romania, I realized they had it the worst. Sometimes, police would fire shots into the crowds of people leaving Churches. Ugh."


Wow.  I had no idea about this.


"Please elaborate."

That's just it, I can't.  I have heard that the Julian calendar used to be a movable calendar, and that around 1900, it was stopped for some reason.  Perhaps I am totally out to lunch on this issue.  Sorry, I was actually hoping that you or someone else could help fill in the gaps here.


Bob


PS Being something of a luddite, I have yet to figure out how the quote thing works....:)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 20, 2004, 02:11:48 PM
If I may, Bob, here is a good book on the subject:

The Old Calendar and Science by Hieromonk Cassian.

Sometimes he stetches a point too far but this is a good primer on the issues from a "traditionalist" point of view.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: CatholicEagle on November 20, 2004, 02:14:25 PM
Year 8000!! Are you guys kidding me.. Orthodox are planning for the year 8000 alreayd!

It's important, but can be blown out of proportion.  I believe the New Calendar leaves much to be desired for the following reasons:

(Sources:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx)

Note: I do not always agree with the polemics. But the arguments are in my opinion sound. They include:

1) The Revised Calendar (aka New aka Revised Julian) creates a problem with the fixed feasts being set according to the Gregorian and the Paschal cycle being set according to the Julian.  In around the year 8000, for instance, Pascha will actually fall on Christmas on the Revised Julian Calendar.

2) The Revised Calendar creates feast days that are unforseen in the typikon, such as St George falling in Lent; what is to be done with all of the hymns in the service books addressing the Paschal resurrection "we have just celebrated"?  There are several other examples.

3) The Revised Calendar is not historically accurate; all saints' feast days were moved by 13 days, whether they died in 1800 or 300; this is not a proleptic correction (saints dying in the 19th century should be adjusted by 12 days, saints dying in the 18th century by 11 days, etc., IF we are trying to be "accurate").

4) The adoption of the Revised Calendar created disunity in the Orthodox world and was originally condemned by the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria when it occurred.

5) The Revised Calendar destroys the unity of the Solar and Lunar cycles that are perfectly harmonized in the Julian Calendar, and also destroys the indiction cycles.

6) A miracle, which can't be used by itself for proof but which is interesting: when Jerusalem switched to the New Calendar in 1969, the Paschal fire did not come at Pascha in 1970.  Hence, it switched back.

And many other issues that can be learned about from that website.

:)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TomS on November 20, 2004, 02:20:08 PM
What? No way! We will be Raptured by then! :0)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on November 20, 2004, 03:02:31 PM
Old calendarists objected to it because (1) the Julian calendar was adopted by a church council and there was no church council held to change that and...

I agree with almost exactly what you wrote, Brendan.  One correction here - no council adopted any calendar.  A Paschal formula was adopted in the First Ecumenical Council, though it was never put to paper and we only know about it through second person references.

(Sources:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_calendar.aspx)

There are many edifying articles on this site and I enjoy reading them over and over again, but one must remember it is from an Old Calendarist position, and some of the articles dealing with ecumenicism and the calendar not only contain some misstatements (i.e. that the 1st EC adopted the Julian Calendar), but are of a highly polemical and uncharitable nature towards 99% of the Orthodox faithful.

2) The Revised Calendar creates feast days that are unforseen in the typikon, such as St George falling in Lent; what is to be done with all of the hymns in the service books addressing the Paschal resurrection "we have just celebrated"?  There are several other examples.

This is one of the interesting factoids brought up by Old C's, because it's really a glaring problem for the Julian Calendar.  Under the JC, Pascha can fall as late as April 24th or 25th.  So what happens when St. George's feast, on April 23rd, arrives on those years?  The OC parish either ignores it or most likely moves it forward after Pascha.  No canon law or tradition sets a standard for how to handle this, yet the Old Calendarist gives himself a pass to change the festal cycle when these anomalies arise, but declares the New Calendarist as engaging in unlawful behavior.  It's a double standard.  What this proves is that the feasts and fasts are not a means unto themselves, and making accomodations for chronological errors isn't a big deal, especially when solidly Orthodox Christians celebrated major holidays like Pascha and the Nativity at different times of the year for many centuries, and I believe that parts of Africa (like Ethiopia - correct me if I'm mistaken) never followed the same festal cycle as the rest of the Orthodox Church.  There's never been a time when all Orthodox Christians celebrated the exact same festal cycle at the exact same time.  The Apostles Fast falls off in some years?  So what, it happens.  We have to use digital timekeeping mechanisms in an analog universe and lost gaps of time are a fact of life.

St. Paul warned about making too much about fasts and holidays, and it might be best to heed his words.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 20, 2004, 03:30:32 PM
I believe the typikon says if St George falls on Holy Week or Pascha, it is just to be moved to Bright Monday.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 20, 2004, 07:45:35 PM
If I may, Bob, here is a good book on the subject:

The Old Calendar and Science by Hieromonk Cassian.

Sometimes he stetches a point too far but this is a good primer on the issues from a "traditionalist" point of view.

Anastasios


Thanks, Anastasios.  I'll have to check it out.

Bob
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on November 20, 2004, 11:53:57 PM
Quote
What? No way! We will be Raptured by then! :0)

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on November 21, 2004, 12:52:22 AM
Both books I mentioned can be found here:

http://users.sisqtel.net/sgpm/ctos/Catalogue/oldcal.html
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: bojan on November 21, 2004, 06:25:02 PM
Serbian Orthodox Church use  Old Calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gregory2 on November 21, 2004, 11:20:46 PM
calendar issue = big can o' worms for Orthodox :)

By far, most Orthodox Christians in the world are on the Old Calendar, since most of the world's Orthodox Christians are in the Russian Orthodox Church, which is Old Calendar.  Most news outlets still report January 7th as "Orthodox Christmas."  

I had read that the RJC ("new" calendar) was a way to help Western Christians convert to Orthodoxy more easily and was adopted around the time that many thought the Anglican Church might come back to Orthodoxy.  Obviously, that didn't happen.

I think deep down I prefer the Old Calendar.  I don't follow it because my church is on the New Calendar.  If at some point the OCA decided to become Old Calendar, I wouldn't care. It's sort of a non-issue for me.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on November 22, 2004, 12:58:40 AM
Quote
I think deep down I prefer the Old Calendar.  I don't follow it because my church is on the New Calendar.  If at some point the OCA decided to become Old Calendar, I wouldn't care. It's sort of a non-issue for me.

I feel the exact same way.

In Christ,
Aaron
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on November 22, 2004, 03:33:23 AM
I would be very pleased if our church changed back to the Old Calendar. It would actually make life a bit more difficult initially but it is something I would be happy to put up with.

John
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on November 22, 2004, 10:31:03 AM
I would be very pleased if our church changed back to the Old Calendar. It would actually make life a bit more difficult initially but it is something I would be happy to put up with.

John

I with you all the way here, John. I do not think the transition back would be as difficult as many think. And I have stressed this to my GOAA priest (to his surprise) and our ACROD priest and to Metropolitan Nicholas directly (asking him not to force ACROD's Old Calendar parishes to change.) Not that my opinion matters, but ya' never know...

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on November 23, 2004, 03:19:00 AM
Besides the jurisdictions already mentioned in the United States the MP parishes here and the JP use the Church Calendar (i.e the Julian Calendar).  And of course there is ROCOR.  

The Calendar isn't going to save anyone, and perhaps for some people being "Old Calendarists" just feeds into the super-correctness problem that Father Seraphim of Platina very harshly condemned.  The old calendar movement has had its far share of problems with many groups bordering on schism and others in outright schism (at least IMO).  But someone taking an honest look at the implementation of the new calendar in Greece or Romania would be appalled at it.  FWIW I follow the Old Calendar for fasting and feasting and attend both ROCOR and GOA churches.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on November 23, 2004, 02:00:56 PM
To finish Bojan's thought and answer Jennifer's question, the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA is a member of SCOBA.  

So there are old and new calendar jurisdictions.  Having come from Byzantine Catholicism and trying to use a newer calendar, I prefer the older.  Not because I like old things, but because when living the church year it became obvious to me that the life of the Church was developed around this calendar (or one closer to it than the Gregorian or almost Gregorian or not quite Gregorian calendars) and that the dates of things seem to fall into place.

That's my impression.  Others have other impressions and prefer the newer calendar.  There are obvious difficulties with celebrating Christmas later than the rest of your co-workers, family members, etc.

I personally think the controversy is downright silly.  ISTM that those who like the newer calendar prefer it for purposes of convenience, which I understand.  If it's a real stumbling block for your brothers and sisters, however, I think it needs a lot of thought.  

Cheers!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on December 07, 2004, 10:26:54 PM
I'm sorry I'm bringing this back up but I need help. Does anyone know when the Antiochian Patriarchate went New Calendar? I haven't been able to find out though I am lazy and busy at college.
I couldn't find any info when I looked at the terrible events of the early 1920's when this New Calendar was forced on many for the sake of a few Ecumenists in the Church and Greek govt.
I am a catechumen in the Antiochian Archdiocese at www.straphaelorthodoxchurch.org but have been unable to find out.

As to some peoples objections to the 'Old' Calendarists consider this.
The majority of New Calendar Orthodox churches in America have adopted pews! happily St.Raphaels does not. May I ask how you are supposed to prostrate in church with pews? or even bow properly? Most New Calendar churches in America are paving over what they call small t traditions for the sake of capital T Tradition, sounds like I'm back in 3rd grade Sunday School it's so watered down.

Strelets, whom I have no problem with as I don't know him well enough, wrote regarding www.orthodoxinfo.com
Quote
There are many edifying articles on this site and I enjoy reading them over and over again, but one must remember it is from an Old Calendarist position, and some of the articles dealing with ecumenicism and the calendar not only contain some misstatements (i.e. that the 1st EC adopted the Julian Calendar), but are of a highly polemical and uncharitable nature towards 99% of the Orthodox faithful.

Ninety-nine percent! The majority of Orthodox world-wide do not follow the modernistic Orthodoxy that is becoming more common throughout America. The mission I go to has some of this modernism with regards to the congregation saying Amen during the Epiclesis, which gives no consideration to the fact that the deacon has said this for hundreds of years, though I admit this is a throw back to St.Justin Martyrs account of the Liturgy. Other than this I don't experience it much when at St.Raphaels, however I've been to other New Calendar churches in America, many ethnic, and they have totally caved in to modernism!

Orthodox need to be Orthodox again! I am thankful I go to a New Calendar mission that is very much in tune with both small t tradition and capital T Tradition, yet I feel for the plight of many who want to be Orthodox but go to the church only to find that most of the congregation talks throughout the Divine Liturgy and don't take their faith seriously. The Traditionalists are passing it down undefiled. If the New Calendar jurisdictions get much worse I think we may see another great falling away as disasterous as the West falling away into heresy.

Having said that I want you to remember I am just being honest and probably will stay in the New Calendar Antiochian Archdiocese as long as possible because I think things can get better and that many Orthodox will wake up to the INCREDIBLE DEPTH that there is in Orthodoxy.

Asking your Prayers
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 07, 2004, 10:44:04 PM
The Antiochian Patriarchate went New Calendar in 1941.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 07, 2004, 10:46:25 PM
I believe the typikon says if St George falls on Holy Week or Pascha, it is just to be moved to Bright Monday.

Anastasios

Exactly.  The problem with this typ of polemic literature is that is sometimes lacks integrity in its attempt to combat what it sees as lacking integrity.  Or perhaps it is lack of education, in either event it is not good.

The Slavonic Sabbaite Typikon forsees the possiblity of the feast of St. George falling as early, IIRC, as Holy and Great Friday.  It has rules for how the feast is to be relocated to a later date.  With the new calendar, the feast of St. George just falls earlier, so why can't the same principle already elucidated in The Typikon be applied?

It is because of these inaccuracies that I find some of this literature suspect.  

It is unnecessary to resort to this type of accusation to slander the new calendar.  There are plenty of points to argue, why keep dragging St. George into this?

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on December 07, 2004, 11:11:59 PM
Thank you for your quick reply anastasios
Do you know any info why? or a source with more info?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 07, 2004, 11:46:43 PM
Tony,

I don't think you can slander a calendar :) (smiley)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 07, 2004, 11:49:04 PM
"The problem with this typ of polemic literature is that is sometimes lacks integrity in its attempt to combat what it sees as lacking integrity.  Or perhaps it is lack of education, in either event it is not good."

I would like to see the citation from the typikon that you cite, just so I can see what it says for myself.  At any rate, literature against the New Calendar is generally accurate.  If there is an error, I think it needs to be pointed out, but I don't think we need to assume malice.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 07, 2004, 11:50:18 PM
Also, the thought came to mind that one could read New Calendar propoganda, such as the outrageous book by Fr John Morris "Orthodox Fundamentalism" which is filled with half-truths, and find errors there.  I think honesty on all sides is key.  But really, the St George issue is not the major argument for the Old Calendar.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 12:49:02 AM
Anastasios,

Honesty at all times must reign supreme.  That is why when I see things like the mention of the feast of St. George it bugs me.  And for those on the other side of this argument, if they employ falsehoods, that is just as bad.

You may check this with The Typikon in the library or I can show you my own.  The entry is for April 23.  After the initial entry which provides the incipits of the texts, etc, there follows an entry called "Oukaz o velikom muchenikom Georgii."  I will provide the citation in full resolving all abbreviations.  "Nachinaetsia ot dne velikago piatka, i voskhodit do chetvertka piataia nedeli po pastse. I ashche sluchitsia velikomuchenika Georgia v velikii piatok, ili v velikuiu subbotu, ili na samuiu paskhu, poiutsia stikhiry sviatago, i kanon, i prochaia sluzhba, v ponedel'nik svetlyia nedeli, s sluzhboiu dnevnoiu."

Emphasis mine for clarity.

Any questions?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 12:59:57 AM
Thanks Tony (smiley face)!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 01:15:43 AM
This is one of the interesting factoids brought up by Old C's, because it's really a glaring problem for the Julian Calendar.  Under the JC, Pascha can fall as late as April 24th or 25th.  So what happens when St. George's feast, on April 23rd, arrives on those years?  The OC parish either ignores it or most likely moves it forward after Pascha.  No canon law or tradition sets a standard for how to handle this, yet the Old Calendarist gives himself a pass to change the festal cycle when these anomalies arise, but declares the New Calendarist as engaging in unlawful behavior.  It's a double standard.

Strelets,

As Anastasios replied and as I quoted from The Typikon, there are rules for this.  

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 01:20:05 AM
But really, the St George issue is not the major argument for the Old Calendar.

Anastasios

Agreed.  Yet, it is number 2 in the list you quoted, presumed by me to be the second most important element.  Further the list you quote says "there are several other examples" like this one of St. George, I would like to see them, I tend to think they are ofthe same nature.  

This issue of the feast of St. George keeps getting mentioned when the calendar is discussed, perhaps everyone is quoting the same erroneous author.

It's a shame isn't it?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 01:44:01 AM
Agreed.  Yet, it is number 2 in the list you quoted, presumed by me to be the second most important element.  Further the list you quote says "there are several other examples" like this one of St. George, I would like to see them, I tend to think they are ofthe same nature.  

This issue of the feast of St. George keeps getting mentioned when the calendar is discussed, perhaps everyone is quoting the same erroneous author.

It's a shame isn't it?

Tony,

I don't think out my internet postings and ramblings that well  LOL.  So please don't assume that because it was #2 on a list that it was #2 in importance.

I think everyone is quoting Hieromonk Cassian in his book on the Old Calendar.

It is a shame that erroneous info is getting mentioned. So I will go back and edit my original post.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2004, 09:28:19 AM
Quote
The entry is for April 23.  After the initial entry which provides the incipits of the texts, etc, there follows an entry called "Oukaz o velikom muchenikom Georgii."


-ú-¦-¦-+ -+ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-+ -+-â-ç-¦-+-+-¦-+-+ -ô-¦-+-Ç-¦-+-¦: 'Order regarding the great martyr George'.

(Modern Russian spelling as that's the only typing option.)

Quote
"Nachinaetsia ot dne velikago piatka, i voskhodit do chetvertka piataia nedeli po pastse. I ashche sluchitsia velikomuchenika Georgia v velikii piatok, ili v velikuiu subbotu, ili na samuiu paskhu, poiutsia stikhiry sviatago, i kanon, i prochaia sluzhba, v ponedel'nik svetlyia nedeli, s sluzhboiu dnevnoiu."

-¥-¦-ç-+-+-¦-¦-é-ü-Å -+-é -¦-+-¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦-+ -+-Å-é-¦-¦, -+ -¦-+-ü-à -+-¦-+-é -¦-+ -ç-¦-é-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦ -+-Å-é-¦-Å -+-¦-¦-¦-+-+ -+-+ -+-¦-ü-å-¦. -ÿ -¦-ë-¦ -ü-+-â-ç-+-é-ü-Å -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-+-â-ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦ -ô-¦-+-Ç-+-Å -¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦ -+-Å-é-+-¦, -+-+-+ -¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-â-Ä -ü-â-¦-¦-+-é-â, -+-+-+ -+-¦ -ü-¦-+-â-Ä -+-¦-ü-à -â, -+-+-Ä-é-ü-Å -ü-é-+-à -+-Ç-ï -ü-¦-Å-é-¦-¦-+, -+ -¦-¦-+-+-+, -+ -+-Ç-+-ç-¦-Å -ü-+-â-¦-¦-¦, -¦ -+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-+-î-+-+-¦ -ü-¦-¦-é-+-ï-Å -+-¦-¦-¦-+-+, -ü -ü-+-â-¦-¦-+-Ä -¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä.

-ƒ-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦: 'It starts from the day of Good Friday and continues until the Thursday of the fifth week after Easter. And if the ? of the great martyr George falls on Good Friday, or on Holy Saturday, or on Easter itself, the verses of the saint, the canon and the ? service are sung on Monday of Bright Week with the service of the day.'

(Translated by me on the fly with no dictionary or computer-translator help. Russian translation sites don't always work with Slavonic anyway.)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on December 08, 2004, 10:01:58 AM
All of this timing talk about St. George has got me dizzy.  

I would really like to hear someone who is a new calendar apologist address my primary concern.  That is:

ISTM that those who like the newer calendar prefer it for purposes of convenience, which I understand.  If it's a real stumbling block for your brothers and sisters, however, I think it needs a lot of thought.  

Is the New Calendar worth all the noise?  So you think the old-calendarists are extreme in their defense of the old calendar.  So you think their arguments are not to your intellectual standards.  Is the New Calendar really worth the schisms?  Is it really worth it to offend your brothers and sisters in Christ?  Would you be as offended at doing it the way it has always been done as these folks are at changing it for . . . well, why did it get changed?  For spiritual reasons?  
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 10:03:53 AM


-ú-¦-¦-+ -+ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-+ -+-â-ç-¦-+-+-¦-+-+ -ô-¦-+-Ç-¦-+-¦: 'Order regarding the great martyr George'.

(Modern Russian spelling as that's the only typing option.)-¥-¦-ç-+-+-¦-¦-é-ü-Å -+-é -¦-+-¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-¦-¦-+ -+-Å-é-¦-¦, -+ -¦-+-ü-à -+-¦-+-é -¦-+ -ç-¦-é-¦-¦-Ç-¦-¦ -+-Å-é-¦-Å -+-¦-¦-¦-+-+ -+-+ -+-¦-ü-å-¦. -ÿ -¦-ë-¦ -ü-+-â-ç-+-é-ü-Å -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-+-â-ç-¦-+-+-¦-¦ -ô-¦-+-Ç-+-Å -¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦ -+-Å-é-+-¦, -+-+-+ -¦ -¦-¦-+-+-¦-â-Ä -ü-â-¦-¦-+-é-â, -+-+-+ -+-¦ -ü-¦-+-â-Ä -+-¦-ü-à -â, -+-+-Ä-é-ü-Å -ü-é-+-à -+-Ç-ï -ü-¦-Å-é-¦-¦-+, -+ -¦-¦-+-+-+, -+ -+-Ç-+-ç-¦-Å -ü-+-â-¦-¦-¦, -¦ -+-+-+-¦-¦-¦-+-î-+-+-¦ -ü-¦-¦-é-+-ï-Å -+-¦-¦-¦-+-+, -ü -ü-+-â-¦-¦-+-Ä -¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-Ä.

-ƒ-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦: 'It starts from the day of Good Friday and continues until the Thursday of the fifth week after Easter. And if the ? of the great martyr George falls on Good Friday, or on Holy Saturday, or on Easter itself, the verses of the saint, the canon and the ? service are sung on Monday of Bright Week with the service of the day.'

(Translated by me on the fly with no dictionary or computer-translator help. Russian translation sites don't always work with Slavonic anyway.)

Serge,

That's good.

An ukaz is not the same as a chin or posledovanie. It is not "order" but "decree" or "edict."   'It starts from the day of Great Friday and continues until the Thursday of the fifth week after Easter. And if the great martyr George occurs on Great Friday, or on Holy Saturday, or on Easter itself, the verses of the saint, the canon and the further service are sung on Monday of Bright Week with the service of the day.'

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: The young fogey on December 08, 2004, 10:08:16 AM
Thanks, Tony. I knew that order has more than one meaning in English and that -â-¦-¦-+ has the meaning of order as a command, not order like ordo (-+-+-ü-+-¦-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-¦) or rank (-ç-+-+).
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 10:13:59 AM
Tony,

I don't think out my internet postings and ramblings that well  LOL.  So please don't assume that because it was #2 on a list that it was #2 in importance.

I think everyone is quoting Hieromonk Cassian in his book on the Old Calendar.

Anastasios

Anastasios,

It looked to me like you were quoting some source, oh well, my bad.

As for the Hieromonk Cassian book, I discussed this previously with a poster on another board.  IIRC the good father mentions in a footnote that indeed the feast of St. George can fall from Good Friday to Pascha by the Julian calendar.  Technically that is not during Lent.  So, technically he is not wrong, but the statement is confusing.

Without doing all the calculations, I would guess that, on the revised Julian, St. George can fall earlier than contemplated in The Typikon.  Yet why can't the same principle be applied?

I dislike it when people use The Typikon as a weapon.  

It is like using the canons.  Not everything is contemplated in the canons so we use the principle that we find and apply it to other situations.  

T
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 08, 2004, 10:16:39 AM
6) A miracle, which can't be used by itself for proof but which is interesting: when Jerusalem switched to the New Calendar in 1969, the Paschal fire did not come at Pascha in 1970.  Hence, it switched back.

As far as I can tell, this didn't happen. The only account we've ever been able to find is a flagrantly legendary account from A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar (http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_LitHavoc.htm) whose plausibility we've discussed before. I'l repeat what I said on the last pass: it is preposterous that one has to appeal to a traveller's tale for an event that was surely seen by hundreds of more accessible witnesses.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 10:38:18 AM
Thanks, Tony. I knew that order has more than one meaning in English and that -â-¦-¦-+ has the meaning of order as a command, not order like ordo (-+-+-ü-+-¦-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-¦) or rank (-ç-+-+).

Ah.  But both chin and posledovanie are used in the service books when the service is actually given.  Ukaz is purely disciplinary or instructional.  Command would be povelenie, so an ukaz does not translate as command either.   But, an ukaz certainly directs, so perhaps order as in command is better.  

edited to correct spelling/typo
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 08, 2004, 10:40:36 AM
As far as the transference of feasts is concerned, the Annuciation is already a problem either in the Gregorian or Julian calendars, because it can fall in Holy Week or even on Easter proper.  There are always rules for dealing with this sort of thing. (Ironically, I think that using the Julian/Dionysian Paschalion with the Gregorian fixed calendar means that the Annuciation never falls in holy week.)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 10:55:51 AM
As far as I can tell, this didn't happen. The only account we've ever been able to find is a flagrantly legendary account from A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar (http://www.holyfire.org/eng/doc_LitHavoc.htm) whose plausibility we've discussed before. I'l repeat what I said on the last pass: it is preposterous that one has to appeal to a traveller's tale for an event that was surely seen by hundreds of more accessible witnesses.


You assume that there would be an account readily available in English. Do you read Greek or Arabic?  There could be something cited in those languages.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 10:57:10 AM
As far as the transference of feasts is concerned, the Annuciation is already a problem either in the Gregorian or Julian calendars, because it can fall in Holy Week or even on Easter proper.  There are always rules for dealing with this sort of thing. (Ironically, I think that using the Julian/Dionysian Paschalion with the Gregorian fixed calendar means that the Annuciation never falls in holy week.)


Why is that a problem?  Our feast of Kyriopascha is wonderfully arranged.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 11:00:58 AM
"I dislike it when people use The Typikon as a weapon.  

It is like using the canons.  Not everything is contemplated in the canons so we use the principle that we find and apply it to other situations."

I don't think it is being used as a weapon. It is being brought out in an intelligent discussion about whether it's better from an Orthodox liturgical standpoint to use the Julian Calendar.  If some facts are off, we can point them out like you have done and move on to the next area of discussion.

The typikon does not stike me as the same as the canons, which as you said have to be interpreted.  The typikon seems to me to be comprehensive in its scope and attempting to provide a prescriptive instruction whereas the canons seem to me to be proscriptive and not comprehensive.

In Christ,

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 11:27:02 AM

The typikon does not stike me as the same as the canons, which as you said have to be interpreted.  The typikon seems to me to be comprehensive in its scope and attempting to provide a prescriptive instruction whereas the canons seem to me to be proscriptive and not comprehensive.

Agreed.  The canons have a different structure as they build on one another and oftentimes quote one another or an earlier canon.  Nevertheless, it seems that the axiom that our Lord used regarding the Sabbath is useful here.  These things are meant to help us not hinder us.  If something is not contemplated within the Tradition the custom has been to look within the Tradition for a similar situation, so that the same principle is applied, even if the particulars are slightly different.  Otherwise we cannot accept any change of anything.  

So, while The Typikon is more comprehensive and prescriptive (and descriptive), it is also more modern.  No one speaks of ekonomia regarding The Typikon (maybe they do but I don't recall it) like they do the canons.  The canons were received by councils, I don't recall that The Typikon has been.  

The Typikon has developed over the years and there are in fact at leat two in use in the Orthodox world.  I have no doubt both resolve the issue of the feast in question when it collides with Holy Week or Pascha.  

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 08, 2004, 12:18:50 PM
Why is that a problem?  Our feast of Kyriopascha is wonderfully arranged.

It's a problem because I am certain that, in those years when the two feasts fall on the same date, you don't celebrate them at the same time. I'm sure there is a rule. You're talking as if these matters are difficult to adjust when, in fact, the principles behind the current rules are already sufficient to deal with whatever "problems" arise in correcting the fixed calendar and the Paschalion.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 08, 2004, 12:29:05 PM
You assume that there would be an account readily available in English. Do you read Greek or Arabic?  There could be something cited in those languages.

You're grasping at straws. We're talking about perhaps the most important liturgical observance in all of Orthodoxy, witnessed by hundreds of people who speak every language of Europe, in an era where photography is omnipresent and communications are easy. If something so shocking had actually happened, there should be hundreds of accounts-- first person accounts. Instead, the only account we have is third- or even fourth-hand, and no name is given to the original witness. If there were a first-hand Greek or Arabic account, it would have been translated into English thirty years ago, because it would have been important.

All the evidences are of a pious tale, formed in the traditional obscure way common to legends-- urban or not. It should be disbelieved.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 08, 2004, 01:01:07 PM
Greetings Sabbas,

I will try to clarify and answer some of the points you raised about my earlier posts, though in my net experience this is one of those subjects that generates more argumentation than enlightenment and that's why Augustine and I bowed out earlier rather than continue in an uncharitable discussion.  Most of us really don't get worked up over our calendars.

As to some peoples objections to the 'Old' Calendarists consider this.
The majority of New Calendar Orthodox churches in America have adopted pews! happily St.Raphaels does not. May I ask how you are supposed to prostrate in church with pews? or even bow properly?

I don't know about "majority"...  Perhaps the majority of Greek and Antiochian parishes, but not the OCA, the jurisdiction to which I belong.  Many Serbian parishes have pews and chairs,  yet it's an Old Calendar jurisdiction.

Ninety-nine percent! The majority of Orthodox world-wide do not follow the modernistic Orthodoxy that is becoming more common throughout America.

Mr. Barnes and other OC's would disagree with that assertion.  The orthodoxinfo site goes after the whole gamut of "modernist" innovations, as they've defined.  The biggest bogey man is ecumenicism, epitomized by the majority of Orthodox jurisdictions partaking in the World Council of Churches.

These American jurisdictions share communion with 99%+ of Orthodox Christians worldwide, while many of the OC jurisdictions not only don't share communion with 99% of Orthodox Christianity, but they often don't commune with each other, either.

The Traditionalists are passing it down undefiled.

Wellllllllll... let's look at a couple of points.  One, in the early Church, or I should say before the 20th century, when disputes and outright heresy erupted within a jurisdiction, the "good" guys, so to speak, fought it out within the jurisdiction until the heretical bishop was removed or  a council was called to settle the matter and retain the unity and integrity of the hierarchical office of the Church.  But what happens today?  One individual decides his bishop is a heretic, and he forms a new jurisdiction out of communion with his former Orthodox brothers and sisters.  This is an innovation.

Then take a look at the baptism issue.  The Russian Church (pre-Revolution, too!) followed a policy of accepting Lutherans and Catholics through chrismation.  One of our cherished Russian saints of the 20th century, St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, was a Lutheran brought into the Church by this method.  ROCOR followed this practice until the early 1970's, when they changed policy and began baptising Protestant and Catholic converts, and in many cases even Orthodox from "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.  This policy was a break from tradition, and difficult to explain when a Lutheran's beliefs were no more false in 1975 than they were in 1905.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 08, 2004, 01:11:14 PM
At any rate, literature against the New Calendar is generally accurate.  If there is an error, I think it needs to be pointed out, but I don't think we need to assume malice.

That's a rather broad category - "literature against the New Calendar."  The aforementioned orthodoxinfo site, among others, states the First EC adopted the Julian Calendar.  That's no more accurate than saying the First EC adopted the sundial or whatever hardware (i.e. clocks and calendars) the Romans were using to run their time programs.  Anyone can read the canons of the First EC and learn for themselves this statement isn't true.

I believe what Tony is saying is that the OC assertion that the NC's are doing something dastardly by moving the St. George fast forward is a double-standard on the OC's part, when they in fact are doing the same thing.  Their ultimate premise seems to be that moving a feast around because of anomalies in a calendar is unlawful, by bishop or synod, period.  This might not be elucidated in such words, and might be outright denied, but that's the general thrust of the arguments.

Quote
This is one of the interesting factoids brought up by Old C's, because it's really a glaring problem for the Julian Calendar.  Under the JC, Pascha can fall as late as April 24th or 25th.  So what happens when St. George's feast, on April 23rd, arrives on those years?  The OC parish either ignores it or most likely moves it forward after Pascha.  No canon law or tradition sets a standard for how to handle this, yet the Old Calendarist gives himself a pass to change the festal cycle when these anomalies arise, but declares the New Calendarist as engaging in unlawful behavior.  It's a double standard.

Strelets,

As Anastasios replied and as I quoted from The Typikon, there are rules for this.  

TonyS

I certainly wrote my point badly and incompletely.  Let me clarify.  When I wrote "no canon law or tradition", I wasn't including the typikon because I've been led to believe there are differences between the Slavonic one and others used in Greek and Jerusalem monasteries.  I don't have these documents in front of me, only that's been what I've gathered from following previous discussions.  It's hard to refer to something as an Orthodox tradition, where universality is an important component, if a practice isn't universal.  Also, what's further led me to believe other typikons don't instruct on this transfer of St. George to after Pascha is because some OC's have said that one should celebrate a Pre-sanctified Liturgy on the feast day even though it may fall before Pascha, rather than unlawfully move it afterwards.  This tells me that not only are some following a different typikon, but also that the wording (that references the Lord's Resurrection) of the St. George Troparia is either changed or ignored when holding that Pre-sanctified Liturgy.

If anyone has access to the Greek and Arabic typikons, and can translate, I'd be interested in what's there.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 08, 2004, 01:31:19 PM
All of this timing talk about St. George has got me dizzy.  

I would really like to hear someone who is a new calendar apologist address my primary concern.  That is:

ISTM that those who like the newer calendar prefer it for purposes of convenience, which I understand.  If it's a real stumbling block for your brothers and sisters, however, I think it needs a lot of thought.

The answer is that those of us in NC jurisdictions don't regard adopting a new calendar that abides by the Paschal formula as established by the First EC as heretical or unlawful.

Therefore, we follow our bishop's direction on the matter.  If my bishop says tomorrow we are using the Julian Calendar, then so be it, I'll follow it.  It doesn't bother me to use faulty hardware for telling me when to turn a page on my calendar.

Is the New Calendar worth all the noise?  So you think the old-calendarists are extreme in their defense of the old calendar.  So you think their arguments are not to your intellectual standards.  Is the New Calendar really worth the schisms?  Is it really worth it to offend your brothers and sisters in Christ?  Would you be as offended at doing it the way it has always been done as these folks are at changing it for . . . well, why did it get changed?  For spiritual reasons?  

It was changed primarily in the vain hope it would bring western Christians into the Orthodox Church.  But then let's ask this question... why did the Orthodox Church adopt December 25th as the day of the Nativity?  Prior to the fourth century, the Eastern Patriarchates celebrated the Nativity on the same day as the Theophany, until Saint John Chrysostom separated it to its own day - a day that coincided with a major Roman pagan holiday - in an ecumenical act of goodwill towards western Christians who'd adopted that date in their own ecumenical gesture to the pagans.  Following OC logic, we would have to say that Chrysostom was practicing false ecumenicism, and the EP had "abandoned" Orthodoxy.

Look at it another way.  The Russian Church made drastic changes to the liturgical books, architecture, and rituals in the 1500's.  This spawned the Old Believers.  Now I would ask an OC (whom I presume isn't an Old Believer), why do you cleave to these Nikonian "innovations", knowing that it offended your brothers and sisters in Christ who left to form their own jurisdiction?  In my view, the more appropriate question is whether being offended is grounds for starting new jurisdictions, and what precedent was set for this drastic action in early Church, especially when the "real" heresies that raged in the early centuries apparently didn't warrant the creation of ever-multiplying jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 08, 2004, 02:21:00 PM
It's a problem because I am certain that, in those years when the two feasts fall on the same date, you don't celebrate them at the same time. I'm sure there is a rule. You're talking as if these matters are difficult to adjust when, in fact, the principles behind the current rules are already sufficient to deal with whatever "problems" arise in correcting the fixed calendar and the Paschalion.


Keble,

No, both are celebrated, hence there exists Kyriopascha in the unmixed calendars.  If you want I can provide the supporting evidence from The Typikon, or you can look at:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=kyriopascha

You will notice that some of the sites are opposing the revised Julian, or the mixed calendar.  That calendar does not provide for Kyriopascha.  The Gregorian for the fixed feasts and Pascha AFAIK does.

If you want the cite from the Slavonic Sabbaite Typikon I can provide that later as I work 2-3, have Vespers then Supper then work again 630-930, then Compline.  I have a cold I need to rest.

Tony
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 02:43:19 PM
It's a problem because I am certain that, in those years when the two feasts fall on the same date, you don't celebrate them at the same time. I'm sure there is a rule. You're talking as if these matters are difficult to adjust when, in fact, the principles behind the current rules are already sufficient to deal with whatever "problems" arise in correcting the fixed calendar and the Paschalion.


Yes, they are celebrated at the same time. That's why the feast is called Kyriopascha.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2004, 02:50:54 PM
Quote
Then take a look at the baptism issue.  The Russian Church (pre-Revolution, too!) followed a policy of accepting Lutherans and Catholics through chrismation.  One of our cherished Russian saints of the 20th century, St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, was a Lutheran brought into the Church by this method.  ROCOR followed this practice until the early 1970's, when they changed policy and began baptising Protestant and Catholic converts, and in many cases even Orthodox from "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.  This policy was a break from tradition, and difficult to explain when a Lutheran's beliefs were no more false in 1975 than they were in 1905.

You are oversimplifying a very complex issue.  Method of reception and the question of whether there is grace in the sacraments of non-Orthodox are not necessarily the same issue.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad specifically implemented baptism of converts because at that time people were beginning to assume that because the convert was being received by chrismation, his Lutheran or Catholic baptism counted in and of itself. This is incorrect (except in certain circles where this belief is being forwarded).  The Russian Church, using the principle of economy (which is accepted by most Orthodox, except for the above-mentioned circle of people who want to recognize non-Orthodox baptism in and of itself, against the witness of the fathers, in order to have union with the heterodox), decided to forgo with economy in most circumstances and practice baptism so that those coming to Orthodoxy would be clear that they are entering the Church, not going from one point of the Church to another.

Would you like me to take the time to give an annotated bibliography of both sides? I will do it if you want it, but I don't want to do it if you are not going to check out what I write (I am busy but I like making the time if it is going to be useful).  I have articles that argue both ways, and I came to my own more conservative opinions after examining both sides.

In Christ

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on December 08, 2004, 03:52:44 PM
Quote
Would you like me to take the time to give an annotated bibliography of both sides?

I am interested!

Gregory
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 08, 2004, 06:05:17 PM
Hi, Dustin.

Yes, I agree with what you wrote about the nuances of receiving heterodox Christians.  My point was, going from a practice followed for hundreds of years - granting oeconomia for RCC and Lutheran baptisms because they followed the Trinitarian formula and subscribed to the same Trinitarian belief - and then changing policy abruptly (several months after the OCA was granted autocephaly) is going to raise questions.  The Church grants oeconomia in allowing a second and third marriage... so why not just stop that practice?  It seems obvious to me that mulitple marriages and divorce are more of a problem in the Church these days than Trinitarian, heterodox baptisms.  The answer, I believe, is because adopting a policy of requiring rebaptism is a political statement to make it appear a group is truly Orthodox, and the other guys are not because they don't do it.  It's one more thing to establish a separate, distinct identity.  There's no evidence that someone who is received into the OC by chrismation only in 1975 believes any more than someone in 1900 that his previous baptism was an Orthodox baptism.  I've not even seen a source try to demonstrate such.  Even if we accept that premise hypothetically, this is where the catechumenate process comes in, where the priest gets to know the mindset of the convert and the nature of his previous beliefs.  So what happens if the convert openly states he realizes his previous baptism wasn't whole?  Do you suddenly stop granting oeconomia, when you've been doing it in this situation for hundreds of years?  No one is saying you can't suddenly stop this leniency, but it looks highly unusual.  It looks almost like a lack of faith in the Church's ordained right to make the heterodox baptism whole through chrismation.

But what's more troubling about the re-baptism business is that they are doing it to Orthodox from the mainstream denominations.  What's the rationale for this, except to say your Orthodox baptism wasn't Orthodox and your priest/bishop/jurisdiction isn't Orthodox?  Even more than that, it's saying they are heretics.  By no means is this an across the board practice in ROCOR, but it's not uncommon (and in the Genuine Greek groups, and the various other True Russian offshoots, I believe it's the common practice).  I have an Orthodox friend whose entire family was required to be re-baptised when they left the Antiochians and joined a ROCOR parish.  It's not just my opinion that this sort of thing is the act of a fanatic; I've read ROCOR priests and monastics criticize their own for re-baptising Orthodox who were received into their former jurisdiction through chrismation.  Father Averky from Jordanville wrote as much over in Monachos.net during these baptism discussions.  I can link it if you want.

Thanks for the bibliography offer, but I've read the material on both sides and discussed this with priests, bishops and upper level hierarchy.  My preference has been to fall on the side of the consistent practice of the Church over the course of its existence.  :)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on December 14, 2004, 10:12:02 AM
Quote
The answer is that those of us in NC jurisdictions don't regard adopting a new calendar that abides by the Paschal formula as established by the First EC as heretical or unlawful.

While some here may raise that issue, I certainly did not. I do not dare to declare those who use the NC as heretical. My question was simply asking whether or not the switch to the NC was worth the trouble it has caused.

Quote
Therefore, we follow our bishop's direction on the matter. If my bishop says tomorrow we are using the Julian Calendar, then so be it, I'll follow it. It doesn't bother me to use faulty hardware for telling me when to turn a page on my calendar.

Fair enough, although I am still curious about your personal opinion re:
Quote
ISTM that those who like the newer calendar prefer it for purposes of convenience, which I understand. If it's a real stumbling block for your brothers and sisters, however, I think it needs a lot of thought.

My question:
Quote
Is the New Calendar worth all the noise? So you think the old-calendarists are extreme in their defense of the old calendar. So you think their arguments are not to your intellectual standards. Is the New Calendar really worth the schisms? Is it really worth it to offend your brothers and sisters in Christ? Would you be as offended at doing it the way it has always been done as these folks are at changing it for . . . well, why did it get changed? For spiritual reasons?

Your answer and my comments/questions:

Quote
It was changed primarily in the vain hope it would bring western Christians into the Orthodox Church.
If the hope was in vain, why retain the NC if it is causing your brothers to stumble? That seems counterproductive to me.

Quote
But then let's ask this question... why did the Orthodox Church adopt December 25th as the day of the Nativity? Prior to the fourth century . . . . Following OC logic, we would have to say that Chrysostom was practicing false ecumenicism, and the EP had "abandoned" Orthodoxy.

If in my question I insinuated that NC jurisdictions were using the NC as "false ecumenism", I apologize. Today, the adoption of December 25th as the Nativity Feast has not caused so much scandal in the Church. My question/concern does not involve "false ecumenism" but the opposite, the unneeded offense of our own Orthodox family.

Quote
Look at it another way. The Russian Church made drastic changes to the liturgical books, architecture, and rituals in the 1500's. This spawned the Old Believers. Now I would ask an OC (whom I presume isn't an Old Believer), why do you cleave to these Nikonian "innovations", knowing that it offended your brothers and sisters in Christ who left to form their own jurisdiction?

Whether one does or does not adhere to the Nikonian changes does not alter the fact that many have criticized the way in which these changes were made. The legitimacy of the Old Believer claims is a different topic.

There is, however, a substantial difference in these two controversies. The Nikonian changes were made for theological concerns, right or wrong. In the argument of the NC apologists, I do not hear this type of argument. I simply hear that it is more convenient. If there are theological problems with using the OC, then I think we should look at those.

That is not to say that I am questioning the authority of a bishop. I am simply stating that we are all sinners and make errors. The Nikonian controversy created an unfortunate schism with which we must cope. I wonder why you would point out an unfortunate and, in some people's views, avoidable schism to justify another.

Quote
In my view, the more appropriate question is whether being offended is grounds for starting new jurisdictions, and what precedent was set for this drastic action in early Church, especially when the "real" heresies that raged in the early centuries apparently didn't warrant the creation of ever-multiplying jurisdictions.

My concern is the protection of our brothers and sisters in Christ and the unity of the Faith. Your concern seems to be whether the weak are weak (?????) and whether that should bother us. When St. Paul dealt with the eating of meats offered to idols, he emphasized that it was wrong to cause your brother to fall. By what you have told me you get very little to nothing by using the NC. I have not heard that it is theologically improper to follow the OC. I haven't heard anything in support of the NC besides failed gestures to those outside the faith and convenience factors for the NC adherents. However, the spiritually weak (in some people's views) are falling aside (again, in some people's views) because of a practice from which the adherents receive no spiritual benefit (at least none that I have seen and I haven't seen one put forward in this forum).

I am admittedly suspect of the NC and the reasons for its use. Is it simply for convenience? Isn't the spiritual welfare of our Orthodox family more important than this convenience?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 14, 2004, 01:46:44 PM
Good morning, Cizinec.

While some here may raise that issue, I certainly did not. I do not dare to declare those who use the NC as heretical. My question was simply asking whether or not the switch to the NC was worth the trouble it has caused.

Presuming your position is that following the NC isn't heretical and unlawful, then IMO the trouble is rooted in one's willingness to disobey his bishop and synod. Considering the trouble is found by less than 1% who choose to do their own thing, regardless of how big the presence may seem on the internet, I'm not losing sleep.

If in my question I insinuated that NC jurisdictions were using the NC as "false ecumenism", I apologize. Today, the adoption of December 25th as the Nativity Feast has not caused so much scandal in the Church. My question/concern does not involve "false ecumenism" but the opposite, the unneeded offense of our own Orthodox family.

Are you sure it didn't create some scuffles in moving the Nativity Feast from the Theophany to Dec. 25th? I'm inclined to think memories fade over time, as is the case with the Old Believer scandal in which many "traditionalist" Orthodox in the Russian side of the house aren't too familiar with that history.

There is, however, a substantial difference in these two controversies. The Nikonian changes were made for theological concerns, right or wrong. In the argument of the NC apologists, I do not hear this type of argument. I simply hear that it is more convenient. If there are theological problems with using the OC, then I think we should look at those.

The Nikonian changes were not rooted in theology. They involved the form and structure of worship, the architectural layout of the sanctuary, the positioning of the priest and choir during services, switching from two finger to three finger blessings (thereby breaking the previous traditional symbols involved in the two finger formation), changes in style and content of iconography, and major changes to the language and content of the liturgical books. This question is highly relevant because if one feels it's OK to continue abiding by these changes (i.e. "offending" the Old Believers), then I don't see why one now makes an issue over "offense", whatever that means, to other Orthodox over the calendar - especially when 99% are not offended.

The purpose given for the Nikonian reforms was the errors that had crept into the outward forms of worship and service books, even though one would have to presume many of these errors were there in the beginning and the fact that inaccuracies are always present to some degree is accepted by any sober mind. Likewise, there are astronomical errors in the JC which many NC view as needing corrected with a more accurate calendar. The Old C's will say these errors are OK and don't warrant altering what's become enshrined by God in tradition, but this is the same line of argumentation as used by the Old Believers.

That is not to say that I am questioning the authority of a bishop. I am simply stating that we are all sinners and make errors. The Nikonian controversy created an unfortunate schism with which we must cope. I wonder why you would point out an unfortunate and, in some people's views, avoidable schism to justify another.

That's just the point. We're not justifying schism, we're criticising those behaving schismatically by jumping ship, breaking communion with their Orthodox family, and starting new jurisdictions. I'm sorry, but this looks like one is blaming the legislator for the criminal breaking the law. The bishop and the synod have the right to decide on this matter, among others. One can get offended and do his own thing, but Orthodoxy demands a high degree of humility, and what I'm seeing is a high degree of Protestant sectarianism introduced into the Orthodox Faith. I don't see a precedent for this during the truly heretical controversies in the early Church. I don't know why 99% of the Orthodox faithful (in both JC - Serbian and Moscow Patriarchates - and RJC jurisdictions) have no problem with following their bishops on these matters and find no reason for offense (which is the traditional, humble practice of Orthodoxy), but then we're to believe a few are truer Orthodox for getting angry, offended, and becoming disobedient.

My concern is the protection of our brothers and sisters in Christ and the unity of the Faith. Your concern seems to be whether the weak are weak (??) and whether that should bother us. When St. Paul dealt with the eating of meats offered to idols, he emphasized that it was wrong to cause your brother to fall. By what you have told me you get very little to nothing by using the NC. I have not heard that it is theologically improper to follow the OC. I haven't heard anything in support of the NC besides failed gestures to those outside the faith and convenience factors for the NC adherents. However, the spiritually weak (in some people's views) are falling aside (again, in some people's views) because of a practice from which the adherents receive no spiritual benefit (at least none that I have seen and I haven't seen one put forward in this forum).

I don't quite see a parallel in this teaching of Paul's in regards to the calendar issue. In fact, Paul's words would on the surface seem much more broad. I think to construe these passages to mean we shouldn't do anything for fear it will offend someone from converting to Christ (since, after all, he was talking about pagan gentiles being disturbed) is taking it too far. This is the mess that's occurring in mainstream Protestantism today.

I'm not really certain what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that creating a separate jurisdiction out of communion with "world" Orthodoxy is an example of falling aside, a sign of spiritual weakness? Is it the Church's fault to teach adultery is a sin when it offends a few members, and these few in turn join a sect where they can indulge in their own idea of morality? I simply don't see that the Church "makes" others become disobedient. I don't believe this reasoning is in accord with Orthodox thought. The Church says the bishops have certain prerogatives in the liturgical and spiritual order in their districts, and willfully disobeying your bishop is a sin. If you feel your bishop is doing something "illegal", then come out and say as much and present your case. But if the synod says you're wrong... you're wrong. By bolting the jurisdiction and creating your own, you're teaching the souls who follow you that it's OK to leave home when you don't like the policies of your bishop. And that's exactly what happens, where today these groups keep breaking off into ever more splinter organizations when someone gets "offended."

I am admittedly suspect of the NC and the reasons for its use. Is it simply for convenience? Isn't the spiritual welfare of our Orthodox family more important than this convenience?

I'm no more suspect of the NC than I am of breaking the liturgical order of celebrating the Nativity on December 25th rather than on the Theophany. I'm no more suspicious of the RJC than I am of the three finger blessing, which evidently ticks off a bunch of Old Believers. But I am certainly suspect of those who believe it's legitimate to break communion with their Orthodox brothers and sisters on an item that they admit isn't heretical.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on December 14, 2004, 02:01:53 PM
Quote
Quote:
Would you like me to take the time to give an annotated bibliography of both sides?

I am interested!

Gregory

I actually am as well...particularly in writings arguing FOR economy, and what that exactly means in the case of chrismation beyond the layman's definition: "Orthodox chrismation fills in for what was lacking in a heterodox baptism." I am very interested in seeing this definition unpacked and explained from the p.o.v. of the Church, as well as any other writings that clarify exactly what the Church (i.e. the OCA, etc.) believes on this topic.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 14, 2004, 04:46:24 PM
A thorough writing on reception of heterodox Christians is available on Holy Trinity Cathedral's (OCA) website, called On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin).

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch0.html
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 04:50:58 PM
Quote
Thanks for the bibliography offer, but I've read the material on both sides and discussed this with priests, bishops and upper level hierarchy.  My preference has been to fall on the side of the consistent practice of the Church over the course of its existence

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this; exams and all.  What you wrote above troubles me because there WAS no consistent practice over the centuries of the Church's existence.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 04:51:36 PM
A thorough writing on reception of heterodox Christians is available on Holy Trinity Cathedral's (OCA) website, called On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin).

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch0.html

That is one of the sources I am preparing on my bibliography for those interested.  It is good but does not address the Greek practice well enough.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 04:52:14 PM
Another problem, Strelets, is that while you are arguing for economy, some at SVS they argue against economy and say straightforwardly that heterodox sacraments have grace per se.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 04:53:05 PM
I think as soon as I finish these exams I will prepare my bibliography and post it because one might get the impression here that either the Greek Old Calendarist practice of today or the OCA practice of today somehow represents the norm. Neither do.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on December 14, 2004, 05:16:03 PM
Anastasios --

---"I think as soon as I finish these exams I will prepare my bibliography and post it because one might get the impression here that either the Greek Old Calendarist practice of today or the OCA practice of today somehow represents the norm. Neither do."

So what you are saying is that the Orthodox norm through the centuries is that the reception of converts varies (between Baptism and Chrismation) but that they do not acknowledge Grace in "mysteries" outside of the Orthodox communion. This has been my understanding

---"some at SVS they argue against economy and say straightforwardly that heterodox sacraments have grace per se."

What do they base their argument on? Can they quote Church Fathers, Church history or do they think that because many Orthodox did not baptise that this meant that heterdox baptisms were Grace-filled?

Gregory
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 05:29:34 PM
Anastasios --

---"I think as soon as I finish these exams I will prepare my bibliography and post it because one might get the impression here that either the Greek Old Calendarist practice of today or the OCA practice of today somehow represents the norm. Neither do."

So what you are saying is that the Orthodox norm through the centuries is that the reception of converts varies (between Baptism and Chrismation) but that they do not acknowledge Grace in "mysteries" outside of the Orthodox communion. This has been my understanding

Yes, that would be the crux of what I am saying, although I would also add the caveat that I also think that it is unwise to meerly look at history to provide one with an answer as to what should be done today (in other words just because so and so did x, y, or z, does not mean we should do it now).

Quote
---"some at SVS they argue against economy and say straightforwardly that heterodox sacraments have grace per se."

What do they base their argument on? Can they quote Church Fathers, Church history or do they think that because many Orthodox did not baptise that this meant that heterdox baptisms were Grace-filled?

Gregory

Many would argue as you suggested, that because people were not baptized, it meant that their baptism outside the Church was valid.  In order to support this theory, the teaching of economy as commonly understood and taught by the vast majority of Orthodox in the world is denied.  To see this play out and to see why those advocating this approach argue the way they do (and I am not disparaging them; they are my teachers, they are good men, they have thought this through well, I just don't happen to agree with this aspect of what is being said), see Professor John Erickson's article "On the Cusp of Modernity" which is in the SVS Quarterly from around 1997 or so, which deals with St Nikodemus the Haghiorite.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 14, 2004, 05:36:06 PM
Thanks, Anastasios. I'd be interested in reading your clarifications on what you'd consider the "norm", or perhaps it's your understanding that there is no norm? In that hypothetical, then I'd wonder why one would strongly defend not applying oeconomia since the premise would indicate it doesn't matter. Interesting. I'm also curious about the arguments you've heard for the existence of Grace in heterodox baptisms, as that's a new one for me as well.

What troubles me most is the rebaptising of Orthodox Christians, whether they were received by chrismation or not. I'd be interested in what your studies have found regarding this issue.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 14, 2004, 05:49:49 PM
Strelets,

I am going to get back to this on Thursday. Now that we have bookmarked threads back, I shouldn't forget. :)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on December 15, 2004, 11:00:15 AM
Sterlets,

Instead of quoting, I'll just refer to points one through six.

1. Worldwide, I suspect the trouble is in more than 1%. Consider my jurisdiction, which is a part of so-called "world Orthodoxy" but remains on the Old Calendar. This creates barriers to intercommunion. Trust me, when visiting priests come it poses real problems. That said, even if it were only 1% that were led astray because my bishop wanted the convenience of the NC . . . well, I'll just say I'm not sure that if I made that decision I'd be comfortable with justifying that to God. A single soul is precious. Is the use of the NC so precious?

2. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't pose a problem today, which was how I termed my statement. It was also my understanding that there was little opposition to this date shift in the East. If there was some, then I would discuss what did happen.

3. First, liturgy is theology. They cannot be divided. That was the source of the tension. It wasn't simply that a bunch of old coots didn't want to do things differently so they told their bishop to take a hike. The question remains as to how accurate the Old Believer claims are, which is a different subject. Personally, I think the changes could have been made more gently. Your position seems to be that the shepherd can do what he wants as long as most of the sheep don't stray. My point is that the shepherd has a responsibility to his entire flock.

4. I am not suggesting that the people are always able to disobey their bishops. There are times when it has been done, the obvious case being the rejection of the Council of Florence, which I must point out. Just because something was decided in a synod does not make it always absolute.

I'm also not suggesting that acting schismatically over the calendar is not acting, well, schismatically. I am arguing that if a person does something completely unnecessary that he knows will incite a brother to sin, then that person may be as guilty of the sin committed by inciting it for no real purpose.

5. Now, here I need to quote.
Quote
Is it the Church's fault to teach adultery is a sin when it offends a few members, and these few in turn join a sect where they can indulge in their own idea of morality?

That is certainly not what I'm arguing. In this example, you have someone who is sinning and whose sin the Church condemns. That is as it should be. I am arguing that if you know a fellow who has a weakness for committing adultery you shouldn't walk up to him and point out the girls who look like they may be interested in a "relationship". That is also a sin.

Unless, of course, you are arguing that those who were not schismatic before the calendar controversy were already sinning by using the OC. I certainly don't think you are making that argument.

6. I'm not suspect of those who break communion with their bishops simply because of the calendar issue. They are wrong to do so. If my church went to the NC tomorrow, I would be obliged to follow it. That does not mean, however, that I am unable to celebrate certain feasts at home on the OC.

My point is that, yes, some are more inclined to be schismatic and, yes, sometimes their requests may seem silly to some. But with a little tact and foresite this entire controversy could have been avoided. Now that the parties are entrenched, reconciliation between many of these Orthodox (if you accept them as Orthodox) jurisdictions will be much more difficult. I am not willing to point out the sins of the schismatics without at least considering whether or not other jurisdictions are completely without fault for forcing the issue in the first place.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 15, 2004, 12:54:30 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful repy, cizinec. I'll clarify my "1%" comment. This was directed to those few who broke communion with the main body of Orthodoxy over the calendar, clerical dress, etc. This wouldn't include the Serbian, Moscow, or Jerusalem Patriarchates who maintain communion with the new calendar jurisdictions and haven't elevated the matter to dogma. At one time, I crunched the available numbers on memberships and those few genuine or true orthodox organizations (at least those who don't hide their numbers, for understandable reasons) do make up well under 1% of those who identify themselves as Orthodox. Of course, it's a logical fallacy to suggest numerical strength is an indicator of truth value, but it puts the situation into perspective. That's why I'm not too worried about the offense factor.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 16, 2004, 06:06:33 PM
Consider my jurisdiction, which is a part of so-called "world Orthodoxy" but remains on the Old Calendar.  This creates barriers to intercommunion.  Trust me, when visiting priests come it poses real problems.

Cizinec

Can you please elaborate on this?  How does your juridiction being (I imagine canonical) on the Julian calendar create "barriers to intercommunion"?

Tony
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 16, 2004, 09:33:25 PM
Just picked up on this thread and will come back with some quotes no less from a priest of the Greek church who went into the subject in great detail, having upset no less than the Vatican on account of his chosen method of receiving RCs by baptism.

The method of reception varied according to circumstances of the times and the character of the heresy or seperation, as I recall. Hence no one fixed and consistent method. Also the question of the relative freedom or captivity of the local church also directly influenced methodology, e.g. economy might have been used rather than local churches actual wish for strictness because of the occupying civil or military power simply not being willing to tolerate such an action.

The calendar question. Oh dear, dear. The problem of the calendar is surely not one of convenience but of liturgical unity. Any mixing of the fixed calendar and the traditional Pascalion causes problems. Many areas where the two exist but there are no 'difficulties' between adherents to either appear to cope. I think some wish to play this angle up so as to force a move away from the inconvenient Church calendar to the civil calendar. But I suggest this will not solve things. In Europe we see moves to harmonise festivals and fix a date for 'Easter'. It would be more convenient. Baloney. You chase convenience and you'll find the goal posts will shift again and again. Meantime somewhere Orthodoxy will have quietly been abandoned and an impostor substituted, save where those remain who are faithful to Faith and Tradition, not convenience and administrative tidiness.

There is no such thing as the Old calendar. The Church calendar is alive, well and in use. To accept the label 'Old' is a big mistake. But again it is convenient. Sorry I forgot the party line........................
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 16, 2004, 11:03:22 PM
Short Annotated Bibliography on Works Related to the Reception of Converts

This is a very short—and very inadequate—effort on my part to simply “get this information out.” Please feel free to point out any errors on my part. ~Anastasios


Major works:

Barnes, Patrick. The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church.
—This book is helpful in clearing away the idea that baptizing a convert is a novelty. It also synthesizes much of the works of Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna on the reception of converts. Argues that it is normative to baptize converts. Book is now out of print but available through interlibrary loan.

Dragas, Fr. George. “The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church.”  <http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html>
—Provides a very extensive bibliography and addresses points and sources from the “Greek” tradition that are oftentimes simply ignored by those coming from the “Russian” tradition. See the very extensive bibliography at the end.

Metallinos, George D., I Confess One Baptism ... Interpretation and Application of Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by the +Ü++llyvades and Constantine Oikonomos, translated by Hieromonk Seraphim, St. +íaul's Monastery, Holy Mountain 1994.
—This book was very negatively reviewed by Professor John Erickson in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, on the basis that this book argues one author’s viewpoint as if it were indicative of the entire patristic tradition. However, having read the book myself twice, I do not agree with this assessment at all. Its weakness is that it does not address the “Russian” practice of receiving converts by chrismation for the past 400 years. This book very strongly argues that Roman Catholics and Protestants must be baptized upon converting.

(Pagodin), Archimandrite Ambrosius. “On the reception into the Orthodox Church”<http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm>
—This is a very good article which is considered by many to be the “panacea” to those advocating reception by baptism. Provides excellent history of the reception of converts and abundant bibliographic material. However, its analysis of St Basils’s First Canonical Epistle seems to be a stretch to me.

Other important articles and those with a less broad scope than the above works:

(L'Huillier), Bishop Peter. "The Reception of Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy: Historical Variations and Norms," Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 24:2 (1980) 75-82.

Erickson, John +ù., "The Problem of Sacramental Economy," in his The Challenge of Our Past, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York 1991, pp. 115-132.
—Professor Erickson here argues that economy is not the traditional Orthodox view and that one can find sacramental grace in some form outside of Orthodoxy.

Erickson, John +ù., "The Reception of +¥on-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church: Contemporary Practice," Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 41 (1997) 1-17.

Erickson, John +ù., "+ƒn the Cusp of Modernity: The Canonical Hermeneutic of St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1748-1809), St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 42:1 (1998) 45-66.
—In this article, Professor Erickson attempts to show St Nikodemos to be an innovator, albeit unwittingly. This article provoked some violent reaction from Greeks—even Fr. Dragas, who wrote in footnote #63 of his work listed above: “Prof. John Erickson of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, a member of the North-American Orthodox R++man Catholic Theological Commission, has propounded this view. See his essay "+Æ’n the Cusp of Modernity: The canonical hermeneutic of St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1748- 1809), St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 42: 1(1998) 45-66 which was presented to the Dialogue. Dr.Erickson finds St. Nikodemos a sort of 'modernist innovator,' at least as far as his edition of the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church (the Pedalion or Rudder) goes. His 'innovation' is the distinction between akribeia and oikonomia which, in Erickson's view, is not warranted in the patristic tradition of Orthodoxy. Indeed for Erickson this modern and false distinction, which has been mistakenly employed by Greek canonists, is unknown to the Russians who follow the tradition of the Fathers. For us the implications of Erickson's view are far reaching, if one considers that both St. Nikodemos and his Pedalion have been sanctioned by the +ù++ly and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For a completely different assessment of St. Nikodemos' legacy, especially in relation to his Pedalion, see the essay of the Greek Canonist Professor Vlassios Phidas of Athens University, "+á+++¦+¼+++¦++++ +¦+¦+¦ +¦+¦+¦++++-â+¦+¦-â-ä+¦+¦+« -â+++++¦+»+¦++-â++," +Æ’-ü++-î+¦++++++ +£+¦-ü-ä-Ã -ü+»+¦, 45 (1995) 78-84.”

Grabbe, Fr. George. “Strictness and Economy: Resolution of the ROCA Synod of Bishops on the Reception of Converts.” <http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/strictness.aspx>
—Explains the reason why ROCOR began to baptize all converts in 1971 (even though it had allowed such baptisms before, and even St. John Maximovitch had baptized converts).

(Gonzales), Archbishop Chrysostomos (of Etna). “A Letter to a Priest Concerning Corrective Baptism.” <http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/corrective_baptism.aspx>
—His explanation as to why he thinks it is a good idea to “fix” people’s receptions if they were not baptized. Not entirely convincing even to me due to its lack of historical perspective, although His Emminence does make some interesting arguments based on pastoral issues.

Florovsky, Fr. Georges. “The Limits of the Church” <http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm>
—Here Father Georges speculates on whether there are sacraments outside of the visible Church. Note that it is claimed that later on in life, he rejected what he said here, and a careful reading of his later works would seem to indicate this to be true.

(Krapovitsky), Metropolitan Anthony. “The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of Converts” <http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx>
—Straightforward exposition of economy. One error is that he says economy can only be used when one was previously baptized with triple immersion, which seems to contradict his position, considering that he allowed Lutherans and Catholics—not baptized in this manner—to be received by economy.

Note:
Many of the traditional-side articles came from this website, which has several other sources that I was unable to comment upon due to not having read them or not wanting to overburden the reader: <http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx>

As I come across other articles I will attempt to expand this bibliography, which is incomplete.

Anastasios




Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on December 17, 2004, 01:30:59 AM
thank you for posting that, Anastasios :) i plan to explore these works over the next few months - it's very helpful :)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 17, 2004, 01:33:02 AM
I just remembered an article I will be adding into the pro-chrismation section from the Diocese of the West website, probably tomorrow.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Twenty Nine on December 17, 2004, 09:55:12 AM
Anastasios,

Thank you for taking the time to put this together! There is a lot here to reflect upon.

Much appreciated,
Gregory
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 17, 2004, 10:07:23 AM
Father George Metallinos' book, 'I Confess One Baptism', was the work I had in mind referring too. Picked it up in Greece. Unpopular among some, undoubtedly. Why? Because among other things Father George showed the trait of pro-Uniate and pro-western tendencies have always been with us and gave us the strong evidence for rejecting such tendencies, whether from within or without. He is especially relevant because he caused a great stir by receiving three students by baptism with the written consent of the (State) Church of Greece. He then went on to witness effectively why it was proper to do so.

A treasure of a book. I will come back to it later.

Thank you, too, Anastasios, for the trouble of sharing this valuable list with us.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 17, 2004, 12:04:22 PM
Because among other things Father George showed the trait of pro-Uniate and pro-western tendencies have always been with us and gave us the strong evidence for rejecting such tendencies, whether from within or without.

Pro-Uniate tendencie in the Greek Church!  :o Wow!  :- I gotta read that. Nothing nastier than a Uniate!  ;)

 :-*
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 17, 2004, 01:20:18 PM


Pro-Uniate tendencie in the Greek Church! :o  Wow! :-  I gotta read that.  Nothing nastier than a Uniate! ;)

 :-*

Tony, you must have finished your exams :)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 17, 2004, 03:57:42 PM


Tony, you must have finished your exams :)

Anastasios

Anastasios, yes I did ;D Of course, I had to comment on those nasty Uniates >:(
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: CatholicEagle on December 17, 2004, 05:21:33 PM
Father George Metallinos' book, 'I Confess One Baptism', was the work I had in mind referring too. Picked it up in Greece. Unpopular among some, undoubtedly. Why? Because among other things Father George showed the trait of pro-Uniate and pro-western tendencies have always been with us and gave us the strong evidence for rejecting such tendencies, whether from within or without. He is especially relevant because he caused a great stir by receiving three students by baptism with the written consent of the (State) Church of Greece. He then went on to witness effectively why it was proper to do so.

A treasure of a book. I will come back to it later.

Thank you, too, Anastasios, for the trouble of sharing this valuable list with us.
When will these "Uniate" tendencies materialize???
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 17, 2004, 08:45:49 PM
CatholicEagle,

Do you really need to ask? If you are genuinely asking rather than being either witty or sarcastic perhaps Professor Father George Metallinos book might answer your question far better than any I might offer. It might also inform. Perish the thought............. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 19, 2004, 02:43:21 AM
Quote
(Pagodin), Archimandrite Ambrosius. “On the reception into the Orthodox Church”<http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm>
—This is a very good article which is considered by many to be the “panacea” to those advocating reception by baptism.

I think you meant reception of some heterodox through chrismation, yes? Regarding the orthodoxinfo site, I've made my feelings known already. It's highly polemical and uncharitable to the extreme in its characterization of Christians within the normal (:)) Orthodox Church, and sometimes mischaracterizes what's written by others who disagree. For example, in the article A Letter to a Priest Concerning Corrective Baptism linked above, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (member of the schismatic Holy Synod in Resistance and who provides much of the material on the site in question) uses such language as "poorly educated" to describe members of the OCA or calling our bishops "errant", or "unenlightened and inarticulate OCA source", or the theologians of contemporary Orthodoxy (i.e. outside the Matthewite or Florinite or Stalagmite Churches) are "mediocre of mind and contentious of spirit." Anywho, this site is far from being an objective source, especially considering its owner belongs to a schismatic organization. And being in schism is worse, in the view of many of our bishops, than being heretical.

I won't dwell on the reception of heterodox Christians too much because Archimandrite Ambrosius does a superb job of soberly explaining the historical circumstances, the temporary anomalies, in the Greek jurisdictions that prompted them in the 18th century to adopt a policy of re-baptising Catholics, a temporary policy (accepted by no one outside those Greek Churches) that's long since been dumped by the EP, Antiochian, and Alexanderian Churches. (Whether the JP is officially promoting it is something for which I've been unable to get a response from a high-level representative. I'm aware there are ROCOR-turned-JP parishes in the US doing it, but I don't know if this is sanctioned from the top.) For this reason, one needs to be clear when referring to "Greek" history on the reception of heterodox converts when the councils invoked as the rationale for baptising all heterodox, regardless of the nature of their previous heterodox baptisms, are located in these 18th century local councils. In addition, the Greek churches today have a list of heterodox baptisms for which they receive the convert through chrismation, a list which includes most of the mainline Protestant denominations and the RCC. The entire SCOBA maintains a similar policy. One can summarily dismiss their rulings and opinions as modernist or other name-calling without dealing with their arguments (as is frequently done on the orthodoxinfo site), but for a priest in these jurisdictions to go against the standards set by one's synod and bishop on this matter again becomes a serious matter of disobedience.

A couple of observations on the pro-rebaptism material I've read over the last year and a half...

1) They overlook the reasons historically that prompted rebaptism for some heterodox converts (not a blanket requirement for all!). These reasons were rooted in incorrect form and/or the flawed Trinitarian belief of the heterodox, not the simple fact that the convert was heterodox. The proper form has traditionally been by triple immersion; however, the Church has not condemned baptisms by pouring water. It has always recognized such baptisms in time of need, and you can see this form of baptism recorded as far back as the Didache. And this was without requiring a so-called "corrective" baptism afterwards.
2) The sources completely ignore what the modern, vagabond groups with the "Genuine" or "True" prefix are doing - rebaptising Orthodox who've already been received into the Church through chrismation.

Whether or not one believes the heterodox baptism should be "corrected" by another baptism goes by the wayside once the Orthodox Church has exercised its sacramental power through chrismation to make that heterodox baptism whole, complete, or fixed if you will. To take those Orthodox Christians and perform another baptism is indeed a rebaptism, and makes a mockery of the One Baptism clause in the Nicene Creed, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit's Grace which imparted itself through the convert's reception during chrismation. By rebaptising Orthodox Christians, they are essentially saying the individual's previous jurisdiction was not filled with Grace, which in reality it is the schismatic organization that has put itself outside of the Grace of the Church. There's no precedent, no norm for this practice. There couldn't have been, as these "Genuine" O groups, usually built around a central personality, didn't exist before the 20th century. And like the Donatians and other supposedly more pure Christian breakaway sects, they'll disappear as a trivial footnote in Church history. That's why I wrote earlier, it's best to stick with the Church's practice on the matter, accept that one's chrismation has made the previous heterodox baptism full, and remain obedient to one's bishop.

Father Averky from the Jordanville monastery wrote (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/11224.html?1053660275):

Again, not wanting to offend, and having to keep with my own adjuration, if your priest or bishop has decided to grant the economy of reception by Chrismation rather than full trtiple immersion, then there simply is no question. The bishop, who has the fullness of grace, has the right to make such a decison as to the reception of converts. Further, if it has become general policy of a particular church, then there also is no question. There might be those of us who wish to keep more to the classical Tradition of the Church, but in the situation of the decision by a bishop or a synod bishops of another local Church, we have no right to judge one way or another. And, when converts who have been received by chrismation by another church wish to join our church, there is no question - they are members of the Orthodox Church. It is only extreme fanatics who will also deny that there is even grace in new calendar churches who will raise the question of the validity of reception. What is important, is that once we are in the Orthodox Church, that we adhere to her teachings, and strive to gain salvation. Don't let the issue bother you - any of you. Strive to say your souls, and with all your hearts love God and your neighbor as yourself.

One quick note - the economia of allowing chrismation from the Tradition of the Orthodox Church does not say that the sacraments of the heterodox are 'valid,' but that the chrismation as an economy makes up for that which is lacking. Here is where there is an important difference in the understanding of economy. By strict teaching of the Orthodox church, the Holy Spirit resides only in Holy Ortrhodoxy, but God is not limited either in His love or in His mercy.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 19, 2004, 06:18:27 PM
I have read Protopresbyter George Metallinos book and have it here. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Athens and priest of the (State) Church of Greece. His book was published by the Sacred Monastery of St Paul, Athos. He went into this matter in great detail. The material he has researched is not provided by or comes from what might, by some, be viewed as the usual suspects. He came to the view he holds following careful research and acted with the blessing of the Church of Greece in baptizing three converts, according to 'acrivia' (strictness or precision), rather than 'economia'.

As to who throws accusations of who is 'errant', Saint Justin Popovich, of the Serbian church made such a point again and again. "Poorly educated' is an accusation very often flung about concerning clergy of the Church calendar in Greece, and far, far worse. And this has been done in my hearing, I might add.

What should matter here is the issue. What is the teaching of the Church in these matters. And why and how are 'acrivia' and 'economia' used?

The Vatican has a long history of complaining about, as they see it, (re)baptism. Father George's book gives some detail of such cases, including the famous case of the Scots deacon, Palmer, who was received according to 'acrivia'. Father George even accessed the British Public Records Office to access released 'secret' records made at the time. One Latin bishop referring at the time to an "impudent schismatic bishop". Strong words belong apparently everywhere but often fail to shed what is most needed, light on an important matter.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 19, 2004, 06:32:03 PM
I am not minded to enter this thread presently. Let me say as a frequent visitor to Greece and one who stays with Greeks while there I have often heard of certain clergy referred to as "poorly educated'. Those referred to are invariably of the Church calendar, and this is one of the more polite terms used. Again others are of a different mind and avoid this horrid tendency.

But this is all secondary, indeed it strikes me as something one offers when wishing to dent the credibility of someone you disagree with. So are the issues not enough for the framework of meaningful debate? I write this without wishing to being an advocate for bishop of the Church calendar referred to.

St Basil, incidentally writes of heretics, schismatic and conventicles. Some might argue about whether the Cyprianites are conventicles, but perhaps I am merely being mischievous? Good night, it is freezing here and I too cold to think either for long or clearly.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on December 21, 2004, 03:01:24 PM
Strelets I had planned on posting this earlier but forgot. The problem with comparing the Nikonian changes and the Old Believer schism is that the changes were made because errors were perceived as having crept into church practice in Russia's early years as an Orthodox nation. The changes were intended to align Russian practices with the rest of the Orthodox world. Why did the Church calendar change? because a few Ecumenist bishops and Greek govt. officials wanted it to be. To me these two events do not correlate at all. The first being to align and strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Church and the second being done to undermine the Church and align it as another denomination among many in the West.

This is a problem that needs resolution. Why should it seem okay to any Orthodox that while some of us celebrate the Nativity others are still fasting? Why should I be able to celebrate the Nativity in one cathedral and then thirteen days later celebrate the feast in another cathedral? Why should we do away with Kyriopascha? These are important questions and they do need answers. It seems obvious to me that everyone should be on the Julian calendar and not in the WCC. Neither have done anything but harm Church unity and strength. We are not some church we are the Church and we should act like it.

Also I think it's wrong to suggest the Greek Synod in Resistance is conventicle. They have legitimate concerns, recognize the validity of the sacraments of world Orthodoxy and want a resolution to problem created by a few heretics in the 1920's. Besides there are plenty of other small groups that don't recognize anybody but the themselves as Orthodox who we don't have to argue about as being conventicle since it's obvious they are. The ROAC is one group with a lot of money who has a single renegade Archbishop since they split with their Russian parishes and Metropolitan this past summer.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 21, 2004, 03:33:09 PM
Why did the Churcg calendar change? because a few Ecumenist bishops and Greek govt. officials wanted it to be.

You know, one of these days you guys could break down and admit that the driving force in all of this is that the Old calendar is thirteen days wrong about the solar calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on December 21, 2004, 03:47:02 PM
From history we learn that's clearly not why it was changed. We don't need a calendar to tell us when the seasons are. Who cares if the solstice falls on December 8 or the 21? I recently read one of Innocent (Clark) Carlton's books in which he admits that Metaxaxis used unscrupulous means to get what he wanted, an Ecumenical Church in which all denominations are unified regardless of doctrine. The driving force was Ecumenism and a revolutionary new Greek govt. period.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 21, 2004, 09:55:02 PM
That anyone, anyone might believe that the adoption of the so-called New calendar was to do with the Church calendar being presently 13 days adrift I find incredible.

If we want accuracy in relation to the solar calendar then both are inaccurate.

What is clear should we look at the history of innovation is that is leads not to a coming together but seperation and division. The Filoque, Ecumenism, calendar change.

Some of course might argue that there is a tendency within Orthodoxy to seek to 'fix' the Orthodox Church within a rigid mold set in the first 10 centuries. That is not something I recognise. Things do move, provided they are in accord with Scripture and Tradition.That the world may struggle with us should not concern us, given we are "unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness". And elsewhere "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 22, 2004, 12:10:39 AM
That anyone, anyone might believe that the adoption of the so-called New calendar was to do with the Church calendar being presently 13 days adrift I find incredible.

Come now. If the Julian calendar were not inaccurate there would be no Gregorian calendar, because there would be no impetus to fix an error that nobody perceived. Regardless of how you trace the politics in the middle, it all starts with the error.

Quote
If we want accuracy in relation to the solar calendar then both are inaccurate.

As a mathematician I simply won't stand for such language. Accuracy is a relative measure; the Julain is much less accurate thant the Gregorian, and the defect in the Julian causes an accumulating error which, over time, is quite noticeable.

Quote
What is clear should we look at the history of innovation is that is leads not to a coming together but seperation and division. The Filoque, Ecumenism, calendar change.

I'm sorry-- the fault for everyone here. There's too many crankodox who fossilize tradition in the interest of spiting the Romans. "No compromise" can just as well mean "My way!"
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 22, 2004, 12:19:28 AM
Well Keble, what if scientists someday discover that actually, a week is six days and a year 60 weeks, and so they decide to change the number of days (or say it was like in Revolutionary France where there were 10 day weeks). Would the Church then change the seven day cycle? No way.  So if scientists discovered that the Julian is less accurate than the Gregorian, so what? The Church's cyle of indictions, the correlation between the solar and lunar year, etc., all works well for the Church on the Julian Calendar and only sprouts problems when using the Gregorian.  The Orthodox Church needs to chuck the Gregorian Calendar and stop trying to be "in step with the times."

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 22, 2004, 09:44:07 AM
Well Keble, what if scientists someday discover that actually, a week is six days and a year 60 weeks, and so they decide to change the number of days (or say it was like in Revolutionary France where there were 10 day weeks).

As far as the French were concerned, they just did this by fiat, not by any discovery. So we can put "Thermidor" out of our minds from the start.

A week is, roughly, one phase of the moon. A year is, as closely as the astronomers can manage over the course of four years, one trip around the sun. Therefore, for the astronomers to shorten the week and the year, the actual astronomical motion would have to be different. That's what science is about, after all: accurate modeling of the natural world. Now, five-and-a-quarter days off the year would produce some significant global warming, and with the moon moving closer and more quickly, the combination of rising oceans and more extreme tides would take care of Manhattan, if nothing else.

Perhaps a little more to the point: you've changed from talking about an error in the approximation to astronomical motion to a cataclismic change in that motion itself. At that point the church will have other, more important things to worry about-- such as perhaps the second coming.

The notion that the astronomers are that wrong about celestial motion is impossible to entertain in an era where looping space probes around multiple planets and moons and even asteroids and comets is a routine technique. When it comes to that motion, the scientists have all the authority and the church has absolutely none.

So rewind this back to the beginning: the Jewish calendar. Back before the diaspora, it was determined entirely through astronomy-- highly amateur, observational astronomy, to be sure, but for the purposes sufficient. And now, the scientists can model this astronomy with such precision as to predict accurately what those amateur astronomers would see for centuries into the future. If the Jews go back to astronomy-- and they have nothing to stop them from doing so-- then the anti-quarterdecimian canons may no longer be fulfilled by either paschalion. I'm not sure of this because I haven't worked it out and haven't sought out someone who had; it's possible that it might never happen. (Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure that under the current rules it is possible for Passover to begin on a Sunday anyway. I'll have to ask at work.) But now we've arrived at Aleppo yet again.

Now, I agree entirely that mixing the Gregorian fixed and the Julian moveable calendar doesn't make sense. The reason it is done that way is that the Nicene canons say it can be done-- there's no pan-Orthodox requirement in them to observe the fixed days at the same time.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on December 22, 2004, 11:01:57 AM
Quote
When it comes to that motion, the scientists have all the authority and the church has absolutely none.
 
Keble the problem in that we are not arguing whether the Church has authority to say whether astronomers are right about celestial motion, which I agree they are, or not. We are arguing that the Church is not obligated to change the calendar to keep in step with the times which may mean being slightly inaccurate by scientific standards. The bigger issue is why was the Church calendar changed in various jurisdictions during the early 1920's? was it done with the welfare of the Orthodox Church in mind? should we continue to use the Gregorian calendar in these jurisdictions when it causes division within the Church? is the Julian Calendar in fact better suited for the Orthodox Church? considering the way we date Pascha?
Though I admit scientific accuracy is a concern, which I am not as familiar with, the bigger issue is whether the Gregorian calendar was adopted uncanonically and the whether the growth of Ecumenism in the Church is connected to it. I have read ROCOR priests who have said the calendar issue wasn't that big of an issue until the 1960's when Vatican II started and there was a wave of Ecumenism amongst the Orthodox, particularly with the awful Thyateira Confession by Metropolitan Athenagoras. Up till 1968 the GOA was in communion with ROCOR. Because of the rising Ecumenism within the Orthodox Church there was a feeling on the part of those such as ROCOR and the Old Calendarists that firm measures be taken such as Resistance or walling-off. Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR, who I pray will be canonized soon, took such measures.
As I see it the calendar issue cannot be fully considered without considering the Ecumenism that created it.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: BJohnD on December 22, 2004, 02:52:40 PM
From a secular standpoint, it seems to me the Gregorian calendar is much more accurate than the Julian, judged simply by whether solstices and equinoxes (equinoxi?) fall on the same days over the course of many centuries. I read an excellent little book on this point called -- surprise -- Calendar a few years ago. (Sorry, can't recall the author's name.)

From the standpoint of religious life, although my OCA parish is New Calendar, I am inclined to agree with my dear Romanian godmother, who grew up Old Calendar in the Old Country and thinks the Old Calendar makes more sense liturgically; that is, the feasts and fasts fall much more "naturally" over the course of the year.

BJohnD
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 22, 2004, 03:15:14 PM
Keble the problem in that we are not arguing whether the Church has authority to say whether astronomers are right about celestial motion, which I agree they are, or not. We are arguing that the Church is not obligated to change the calendar to keep in step with the times which may mean being slightly inaccurate by scientific standards.

It's the choice of words which I find interesting here, especially that phrase "keep in step with the times". After all, that's exactly what calendars are about: keeping in step with time itself. There's also that word "scientific", whose usage is curiously deprecatory. And "slight"? almost two weeks is "slight"? When it gets to three weeks, will it still be slight? How about four weeks? Your language conveys the impression that the difference is only detectable by sophisticated, careful observation; but the rankest amateur can tell the difference.

I'm arguing that the church did obligate itself to do so, because God obligated the Jews to do so, and the church's calendar was tied to the Jewish calendar in Nicaea.

Quote
The bigger issue is why was the Church calendar changed in various jurisdictions during the early 1920's? was it done with the welfare of the Orthodox Church in mind?

If you are going to ask the question this way, then every injunction to be suspicious of one's motives should be heeded. Nobody can deny that ecumenism plays a part in this. But is it really in the interest of Orthodox churches to willfully refuse cooperation with the western churches? This isn't an abstract question, but a practical inquiry with reference to the actual consequences in the world. Cooperate, and risk acknowledging that the Western churches have some claim to the name "Christian"; refuse, and risk reinforcing the image of your church as perverse in its arrogance.

Quote
As I see it the calendar issue cannot be fully considered without considering the Ecumenism that created it.

The problem with this statement is that it isn't ecumenism which created the problem. If the Julian calendar/Dionysian paschalion were sufficiently accurate, there would be no issue, because East and West would use the same dates. The reason why they don't is because it isn't sufficiently accurate.

I suppose the best solution would be for the Eastern churches to unilaterally adopt the Aleppo paschalion without consultation from Rome. Then the West could follow suit and everyone's pride could remain unsullied.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Jakub on December 22, 2004, 03:26:18 PM
May I ask the question, were the scientists & astronomers granted/given this knowledge of the heavens by God ?

If so, are you guestioning God's gift ?

Interesting thought...

james
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on December 22, 2004, 05:03:48 PM
TonyS asked what problems were created by being in communion with two calendars.

May I point out another poster's message, "Why should it seem okay to any Orthodox that while some of us celebrate the Nativity others are still fasting? Why should I be able to celebrate the Nativity in one cathedral and then thirteen days later celebrate the feast in another cathedral?"

It is strange and disruptive to go to a parish to hear a gospel on what is, in your spiritual cycle, the wrong day. How can I go to a New Calendar church before our Christmas when they are serving non-fasting foods? It's strange and uncomfortable.


Keble,

I don't know if you read any of my posts. I'm not even sure if you're Orthodox. If you are not, as you list yourself as "other", this is a liturgical question within the Orthodox Church. If you have no stake in that question, I politely ask you to agree to disagree with the liturgical use of the Julian Calendar and move on.

If you are Orthodox, may I emphasize points that others have made. This is a liturgical question. In Orthodoxy, liturgy is theology. Because some have been enticed away from the Church because of this question, I also believe it is a spiritual and pastoral issue. If your adamant stance that you are more scientifically correct causes your brother to stumble, then you can face God with your argument that you are scientifically correct. I'm not God, so I can't say whether or not that will fly. I have a guess that the answer is probably no. Since that is my guess, it costs me nothing to adhere to the Julian, Old, Church, or whatever moniker Calendar and it does not offend my brothers and sisters, I'll stick with it.

But if you're going to come at me with an argument to break something in my faith, you'll have to do better than science, which has been telling me there is no God.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on December 22, 2004, 05:26:20 PM
It's dawned on me that I may have said three things they may be misunderstood.

1. I am not claiming to know the status of all jurisdictions outside of so-called "World Orthodoxy".

2. I do not make a judgement on whether or not God thinks the use of the "New Calendar" is okay or whether or not its implementation was for good reason. I'm fairly certain they didn't rest on the "science" argument and that they did it for real pastoral reasons.

3. My statement that liturgy is theology is not to say that the use of the New Calendar is heretical. It is to say that, in Orthodoxy, changing things liturgically is a big deal and it should not be taken lightly. If the reason for change isn't extremely compelling, it's usually a good idea to walk away because of creating unforeseen problems.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 22, 2004, 06:00:14 PM
Keble, if I recall correctly I have always dealt with you courteously and, although you are a mathematician, I am not a student in a class of which you are the teacher. So whence comes your statement, "I won't stand......."?

If you care to go back to the introduction of the 'new' calendar into Orthodoxy the reasons were this move were taken were not concerned with astronomical accuracy. The way it was done was without was without regard whatsoever for the conciliar way such matters should have been dealt. It caused a division which exists even to the present day. At the time, 1924, there was no opposition to a change in the Political (or civil) calendar. Thus any impediment to commerce or trade, whatever was removed.

 However the Church calendar is a matter for and within the (Orthodox) Church. Those outside, may or may not have a view, but it is a matter for us and us alone to attend to. As Archimandrite Gabriel, Igumen of the Sacred Monastery of Dionysiou, asserted "This innovation overturned the centuries-old established Church Order. There resulted inadmissible irregularities in the Church". And again, "...the introduction of the New calendar has overturned the all-praiseworthy Order of our Church, according to which serious matters are to be resolved Synodically and by common decision of all the Orthodox Christian Churches".

In his same article Archimandrite Gabriel asserts, "The argument given for the change was that our National holiday -- that is, the Declaration of the War of Indepence of 1821 -- and the feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos might be celebrated on the same day"! The liturgical rupture, the 'divisions', the beatings, forcible shavings and stripping of clergy and monastics, the forced entries into churches during Divine Service by gendarmes, for this that a civil anniversary should coincide with a church festival?

Politics was at the beginning of all of this and not the matters which should have concerned the architect of this innovation. Politics have been wretchedly present all throught with the break up of the Romaic Ethnarchy, led by those who either hated the Church or were determined to do away with anything that was not modern, and impose what they saw as European. As per my last post, "Unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness". The calendar is but one innovation with divisive consequences, others include the fracturing of the Romaic Ethnarchy into a myriad different local (national) churches with all that that has brought............



Archimandrite Gabriel, quoted in Appendix A, The Calendar Innovation, Victories of Orthodoxy, Constantine Cavarnos, Institute of Byzantine and Orthodox Studies, Belmont, Mass. 1st Edition, 1997.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 23, 2004, 12:59:32 PM
This is the kind of thing that I was talking about:

Just In Time for New Year's: A Proposal for a Better Calendar;
No more "30 days hath September, April, June and November"

December 2004

Wouldn't it be convenient if your birthday, Christmas, and the Fourth of
July--not to mention most other major holidays--all fell on the same
day of the week, year after year? Wouldn't it make life--or at least
planning--easier, for instance, to know that Dec. 17 would always fall
on a Saturday or that January 1--New Year's Day--would always be celebrated
on a Sunday?

Richard Conn Henry, professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of
Physics and Astronomy at The Johns Hopkins University, thinks it would. He has
designed--using computer programs and complex mathematical formulas--a
new calendar that would make it happen.

Under Henry's plan, each new 12-month period is identical to the one
that came before. Each month has either 30 or 31 days. January, for
instance, would have 30 days, as would February, April, May, July, August,
October, and November. March, June, September, and December would all have 31
days.

Henry, a physicist who also directs the Maryland Space Grant
Consortium, says his new calendar would have "profound economic and practical
benefits" if adopted worldwide. He is waging a Web-based campaign to make this
happen by Jan. 1, 2006. Henry points out that this transition date is ideal,
because New Year's Day 2006 falls on a Sunday on both the old and
proposed calendars, facilitating a seamless transition.

"Just ask yourself how much time and effort are expended each year in
redesigning the calendar of every single organization worldwide to
accommodate the coming year's calendar, and it becomes obvious that my
calendar would make life much simpler and would have noteworthy
benefits economically, especially for businesses and other institutions," Henry
said.

"With my plan, we can have a stable calendar that is absolutely
identical from year to year and which allows the permanent, rational planning of
annual activities, from school to work holidays."

Called the "Calendar-and-Time Plan" (C&T) because it also advocates the
worldwide adoption of a 24-hour, universal time scale (more on that
later), Henry's innovation promises to improve on what he sees as the "defects"
of the dozen or so rival reform calendars that have been proffered by
various individuals and institutions in the past 100 years.

"Calendar reform has always failed before, and for a simple reason: All
major proposals involved breaking the seven-day cycle of the week,
which has always been--and probably will always be--completely unacceptable to
humankind because it goes against the Fourth Commandment of the Bible
about keeping the Sabbath Day," Henry said. "C&T never breaks that biblical
cycle."

What's more, the C&T calendar is "far more convenient" than is the
current Gregorian calendar, which has been in place for more than 400
years--ever since Pope Gregory, in 1582, modified a calendar that was instituted by
Julius Caesar in 46 BC.

To bring Caesar's calendar into sync with the seasons (one of the main
reasons for reforming it), the pope and his scholars removed 11 days
from the calendar during that October, so that Oct. 4 was followed
immediately by Oct. 15. The need for that kind of adjustment derived from the same
problem that makes designing an effective calendar a challenge today: the fact
that there is an uneven number of days in an Earth year: 365.2422 days, to
be exact.

Our current calendar tackles this challenge by instituting "leap years"
every four years. Henry thinks he has found a better solution: drop
leap year entirely and institute, instead, a one-week "mini-month" between
June and July every five or six years. In honor of his personal hero, Sir
Isaac Newton, Henry has dubbed this seven-day period "Newton." His computer
calculation ensures that "Newton Week" brings the new calendar in sync
with seasonal changes as the Earth circles the sun.

Newton Weeks would bring with them benefits not enjoyed under the
Gregorian calendar, Henry said.

"If I had my way, everyone would get Newton Week off as a paid vacation
and could spend the time doing physics, or other activities of their
choice," he said, only half jokingly . "You can't say the same of leap years."

Newton Week would pop up irregularly: 2009, 2015, 2020 and 2026, for
instance, would all need a Newton Week to keep the calendar as close to
the cycle of the seasons as possible. As a result, the new calendar is
never more than five days off the seasons. In fact, after Jan.1, 2006, the
C&T calendar would be identical to the current calendar 15 percent of the
time, and only one day different 29 percent of the time.

Henry has established what he calls the "International Association for
2006," an online organization aimed at rallying support for his plan.
He serves as president of the organization, and Jess Cully, a calendar
reform enthusiast from Portsmouth, England, is now vice president for that
country.

In addition to advocating the adoption of the new calendar, Henry also
urges everyone to simultaneously switch to what is called "Universal Time"
(formerly known as Greenwich Mean Time). Doing so would synchronize the
date and time the same worldwide, streamlining such things as international
business and exchange.

"We would quickly get used to the fact that sunrise and sunset
henceforth occur at what seem to us unusual hours by the clock," Henry said. "My
late mother, for example, successfully switched from Fahrenheit temperature
to Celsius, telling me on one occasion, 'It's a very hot day--30 degrees!'
That shows me that people are adaptable if benefits are there. The C&T
benefit is much greater than that resulting from the change from Fahrenheit to
Celsius."

# # #

https://hopkinsnet.jhu.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1794&_dad=portal30p&_schema=PORTAL30P

Henry's calendar reform web site: 
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on December 23, 2004, 03:04:17 PM
wow.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Schultz on December 23, 2004, 03:18:25 PM
wow.

wow is right.  this guy's a typical scientist...very little grounding in the real world. 

the whole concept of the "newton" totally makes his proposal ridiculous, imho. 

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on December 23, 2004, 06:18:34 PM
Quote
the whole concept of the "newton" totally makes his proposal ridiculous, imho.

lol well it certainly was the most amusing part of the article...that's like me coming up w/ some calendar based on the passage of time in Middle Earth and naming the extra week "Tolkien Week"...lol it's amazing what devotees will do :)

Disclaimer: while I am a LOTR geek, the above is an exaggeration of how much I know about Middle Earth, to say the least, and such knowledge about Middle Earth does not exist, to my knowledge ;D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Jakub on December 23, 2004, 06:29:06 PM
I like fig newtons.

JB
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: gphadraig on December 23, 2004, 08:34:27 PM
And this move to try and 'rationalise' the calendar is not confined to a single scientist. Within the European Union some European parliamentarians and civil servants are putting forward a case for the setting of a 'fixed' date for Easter. Additionally Greece is, I believe, under pressure to bring her Pascha holiday into line with the Latin celebration date. In the name of trade and commerce you understand............

So for those who would prefer to think of my and others defence of the Church calendar as pathetic and obdurate I think it is you who maybe need to reflect on whether the calendar you are seemingly so attached to - given your pressure on us to confirm to it - is safe? I see no point in trying to accomodate the world given that it can never be satisfied.

A calendar which allows us to keep the integrity of all the fasts, and which has served us well for generation after generation should not only serve but be returned to by those who abandoned it for the Political calendar. Just as Archbishop Chrystomos ll of Athens promised he would do for the state Church of Greece but was prevented from by his removal by the Colonels coup d'etat in 1967.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 24, 2004, 05:36:43 AM
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The time is long overdue for an Orthodox supporter of the new calendar to speak here.

I frankly find some of the things being said in this thread to be somewhat uncharitable. Which is ironic, because I sympathise with Greek old calendarists and some others, as I think the way that the new calendar was forced upon the Greek Church and some other Orthodox was unChristian. More on these things later....

Sabbas, IMHO, to speak of "Ecumenist" bishops in the 1920's is simply not accurate in the modern sense of this movement. This is because this idea of "hey, all Christians are the same" did not rear its ugly head until the 1950's at the earliest, and possibly not unitl the 1960's. The root of the problem goes deeper than this. If we are honest, we should speak of a Church that was corrupt and degenerate. "Ecumensim" seems to be blamed for a lot of things on this thread. I guess whether or not accustations against it are true depends on what you mean by "Ecumenism". I think that various bishops and others do go too far in caving in to a relatavist standpoint. I'm glad that people point this out, this is as it should be. I also think that one can go too far the other way, and shut us Orthodox all up in a walled-in city and never let the world inside. Maybe it is becoming more of a "Noah's Ark" kind of time, and we should be shutting ourselve off more. Certainly, some people who call themselves "Christian"are anything but that nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I know that some of the posters here reach out to the heterodox in a very Christian way with a missionary attitude that is really fantastic. And really, that's all we can do, in all humililty and love tell people that we think that Orthodoxy is the Church, period. But we really do have to ask ourselves if we are in a "Noah's Ark" time, we really need to debate this. Because one of the reasons why the Church chose December 25 for the celebration of the Nativity was precisely because it was the pagan feast of the invincible sun. The Church wanted to wrest this feast day from the pagans by establishing it on the same day. What does our troparian say? "Thy natvity, O Christ our God, has SHONE to the world, the light of wisdom.......to know thee, the SUN of righteousness..." So, are those of us who want the Nativity (and everything else) celebrated at the old time saying that we do not want to try and wrest the feast once again from the pagan world? Well, perhaps this is right. But it has to be debated. One of the Church's tasks has always been to baptize whatever is good in a culture that it establishes Herself in, and to sanctify it. If this world that considers itself "post-Christian" is too hard-hearted to accept this, or if this weird horrible monster of secularism is too strong, we may have to shift gears. But again, these issues have to be discussed and prayed about.

I will say again, that I do not like the way the new calendar was forced on some people. But now that it exists, I do not have issue with it, and I don't even think about it. If the Church decided that we should all move again to the other calendar, that would be fine with me. Until that time, I use this new calendar, I like it, and I will not apologize for it. I was in an old calendar parish for two years, and I did not find that liturgical time flowed any differently or better there than in a new calendar parish. I do not wish to impose the new calendar on anyone who doesn't want to use it. Eventually, the Church will have to come to a consensus, because we should not be celebrating things at different times. And yes, the Orthodox Church will decide, and not those outside of Her. The Church will decide, and not by posting things on this forum will any of these issues be decided. This is a public forum, and I think it's just fine if Keble posts his opinions here, as long as he is courteous about it. Anastasios's excellent point about science notwithstanding, I thought that Keble contributed some interesting grist to the mill. Perhaps it is true that he hasn't expressed himself as delicately as he should have. But since when did the free excahnge of ideas become forbidden to us?

I would never support a movement to make our Pascha fall at the same time as Western Easter.

Quite honestly, I dislike quite a bit the whole idea of celebrating Kyriopascha, because it seems to me that it takes away from the fact that we should be focussing only on the Lord's resurrection at Pascha. IMHO, celebrating Kyriopascha inevitably detracts from one of the two feasts being celebrated. The occasssional time when the Annunciation falls in Holy Week on the old calendar I also consider very problematic, for similar reasons.

I must say that I have yet to read anything that has convinced me that the older calendar is absolutely the way to go. I still have to find the books that Anastasios recommended, borrow and read them. When I do, I will carefully consider their arguments. I read an apology for the old calendar some years ago and found it to be completely lacking in any coherent argument. If we really should shut ourselves off more, in one sense, from this corrupt world, then this might be one reason why the older calendar should be returned to with gusto. It seems to me that, judiging from the wirtings of the Fathers, the fourth century was also a time of great immorality, and the Church did not shut Herself off then. This time may or may not be different.

In Christ,

Bob
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 24, 2004, 01:16:49 PM
Good points, Bob. The vast majority of us recognize our bishops have the authority to determine this matter and choose to employ the obedience, humility and charity - as best as possible - that we've inherited from our Fathers.

Have a blessed Nativity all.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on December 26, 2004, 08:57:46 PM
returning briefly to the baptism vs. chrismation discussion that was occurring 2 pages ago, I found an article (letter) on the OCA website that it is worth adding to the Bibliography that Anastasios typed out for us...it is on the pro-chrismation side, and while the whole letter is not only about this issue, Abp. +DMITRI addresses it in some very helpful ways, so anyone keeping track of the bibliography for future reference, add this letter to it:

http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/Official/1997-AbpDimitri-on-suspensions-1111.html
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on December 27, 2004, 12:20:09 AM
Yes, that's a highly informative letter, which I almost linked earlier. The section of the letter where His Grace wrote, "Finally, according to one of the sections of the Oath of Ordination, which you signed, you promised not to do anything without the knowledge of your bishop.", sums up my view that this is a severe matter of obedience between oneself and one's bishop. Unfortunately, it's become too common to place oneself as judge and juror over the bishop. The well-worn escape hatch is to appoint yourself synodal judge of one and say your "bishop has left Orthodoxy", and I'm guessing that's probably what these priests said after breaking their vows and leaving the Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on December 31, 2004, 12:59:28 PM
TonyS asked what problems were created by being in communion with two calendars.

It is strange and disruptive to go to a parish to hear a gospel on what is, in your spiritual cycle, the wrong day. How can I go to a New Calendar church before our Christmas when they are serving non-fasting foods? It's strange and uncomfortable.


Actually I did not ask what problems were created. I quoted your post and asked you what you mean by it.

You said
Quote
This creates barriers to intercommunion.
Since there is at lease one whole jurisdiction here in the USA that is on two different calendars and the same thing is happening abroad I think "barriers" is an exaggeration.

No doubt it creates difficulty for the uninformed layfolk. The solution is to inform the people. Catechesis! should be our battle cry. Intercommunion exists because that is something that in in Orthodoxy exists at the head. The bishops are in communion with each other no matter if you do or do not commune outside of your jurisdiction.

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 02, 2005, 04:41:25 PM
Quote
Sabbas, IMHO, to speak of "Ecumenist" bishops in the 1920's is simply not accurate in the modern sense of this movement. This is because this idea of "hey, all Christians are the same" did not rear its ugly head until the 1950's at the earliest, and possibly not unitl the 1960's. The root of the problem goes deeper than this. If we are honest, we should speak of a Church that was corrupt and degenerate. "Ecumensim" seems to be blamed for a lot of things on this thread. I guess whether or not accustations against it are true depends on what you mean by "Ecumenism".
Pravoslavbob

I think the problem is that we have different ideas about what Ecumenism is and where it starts. For me what became known as ecumenism and acted in on in 1960's has existed for centuries. And it is not limited to just idea of all Christians being in communion but all faiths being made one. From what I have read former Heresiarch Meletios Metaxakis was a Freemason and did act on the beliefs of Freemasonry. Freemasonry has always held firm to the belief that Truth can be found through all of the faiths. The goal is to destroy doctrinal barriers to communion. These beliefs were acted on by bishops in the 1920's, Metaxakis being the most obvious and terrible one. If anyone has doubts they can read the PatriarchalL and Synodical Encyclical of1920. The goal I believe was already being looked to in the 1920's and was acted on with the establishment of the WCC, Vatican II, and the actions of Heresiarch Athenagoras in the 1960's. The goal as I see was there in the 1920's and it is a grandiose idea of bringing all Christians into one fold, with the ultimate goal of all faiths being brought into one fold. What is being looked to is Chiliastic (millenialist) Age! I even read an excellent book recently called Light in the Darkness a Russian Spirituality book by Sergei Fudel, written 1977 during the time of Brezhnev's renewed persecution of the Church, and this wonderful book full of beauty even naively voices chiliastic dreams of a new age when Christians can be united in one Body. Though I think he was dreaming of something different then most ecumenists dream of he still shows how easy it is to fall into this vision of a new age inaugurated by men instead of God! Though I am rambling a bit I think this gives you an idea of why people such as myself are so concerned about ecumenism. At its heart we see this pernicious idea thriving, this same idea which eventually led the Munsterite Anabaptists to their downfall, and this idea which motivated the Nazi's to create a new messiah out of Hitler and declare the 1000 year Reich. Do you see how dangerous chiliasm is? Though I admit that I do not see ecumenism as being nearly what it was in the 1960's and I even think that world Orthodoxy is going to being moving far away from it in the future it still is something we need to be vigilant about, as you pointed out Bob.

What I think is really objectionable about the Ecumenical movement is that it does not at all understand Orthodoxy. I think Innocent (Clark) Carlton wrote it well when describing how absolutely different Orthodoxy is from any denomination in the epilogue of his book The Truth: What every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church
Quote
This explains why many Protestants are attracted to Rome. [speaking on the large numbers of Protestants becoming Catholic] Allegiance to Rome allows them to overcome the inherent inconsistencies in Protestantism without having to abandon the basic presupposition of Protestantism, namely that Christianity is an ideology derived from a text . . . At this point allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in NO WAY BASED (emphasis is his) on the Bible. Nor is it based on or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible. The Orthodox Church is the living Body of Christ the living experience in history of the union of mankind with God.
What I find is that so many Orthodox who promote Ecumenical dialogue seem to view Orthodoxy as an ideology derived from text as well rather than the One True Faith which encompasses all aspects of Life. Also the allegiance that Carlton speaks of is similar to what I notice about many Orthodox who tended to have a heavy even hateful bias against Old Calendarist’s for not being ‘official.’ They often get the idea that because they are part of ‘official world’ Orthodoxy they are immune to ever being wrong and that the many heretical ideas and doctrines being thrown around in ‘official’ Orthodoxy are beyond reproach, such as saying that salvation is not limited to the Church, while the Traditionalist arguments of Old Calendarists are just thrown out as the ranting of lunatics. What’s interesting is that most of the ‘official’ Orthodox who hold this opinion are American and usually converts of the AA. If anyone thinks I am making all this up look in at any AA parish made up of converts who have never had contact with ethnic parishes that have much more depth and experience in living Orthodoxy. You would be amazed at how close some come to being, as Fr.Seraphim once put it, “Eastern Rite Protestant.”

Also I found a Protestant website against the current Ecumenical trends that seek to blur Protestant doctrines such as justification by faith alone, etc. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/ecumen01.html I found it interesting that Protestants are also scared about reduction of doctrine and the 'do what feels good' aspects of ecumenism.

Quote
I would never support a movement to make our Pascha fall at the same time as Western Easter.

I agree! and frankly I would leave the official jurisdiction I'm in, AA, if they wanted such a thing to happen.

Quote
I will say again, that I do not like the way the new calendar was forced on some people. But now that it exists, I do not have issue with it, and I don't even think about it. If the Church decided that we should all move again to the other calendar, that would be fine with me. Until that time, I use this new calendar, I like it, and I will not apologize for it. I was in an old calendar parish for two years, and I did not find that liturgical time flowed any differently or better there than in a new calendar parish. I do not wish to impose the new calendar on anyone who doesn't want to use it. Eventually, the Church will have to come to a consensus, because we should not be celebrating things at different times. And yes, the Orthodox Church will decide, and not those outside of Her.

I respect these sentiments very much and to be honest I don't think about the calendar issue as much as it seems I do. In fact I could probably argue in favor of it. However I very much sympathize with the Old Calendar movement, see modernism as much more common amongst new calendar jurisdictions, and this worries me. I have seen several pictures of AA and OCA churches that have been around for years and don't even have iconostasises! (http://www.peterpaul.net/images/christmas_2003/001.jpg) (http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2004/10.October/1017SeaCliffNY/images/3.jpg) If this is not evidence that something is happening to Orthodoxy I don’t what else it can be called.
But I think you are right about this being an issue the Church has to and will decide in the near future.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 02, 2005, 05:10:13 PM
Sabbas, I find your opinions much more troubling than the things that seemto be troubling you in the Church.

1. If the churches you picture above have Icons and areas that serve as the Deacons and Royal Doors, where is the need for  iconostasis? It is an icon stand. There are obviously icons that are held up by something. Hence, there is an iconostas, even if it is not in a form you prefer. Originally there was just a small low wall separating the altar area from the sanctuary. There appears to be the same here in the form of the raised platform.

2.  To say specifically who can be saved and who can not is to limit God. God has given us instructions as how to attempt to dwell closer to Him.  We know who is in the Church. But we cannot limit God. His salvation is His gift to us; no one is worthy of it. I am no more worthy of it than a Buddhist in China is worthy. We are all sinners.  It is not relativism; it is the reality of our limited understanding of the workings of God.  God will bestow as He will. Let us all work in His command to love Him and our neighbors so that we may feel the Love He has for each of us more fully.

3. Protesting the useage of the new calendar is genuine, if theology is changed by the adaptation of the modified-Gregorian calendar (as opposed to the secular Gregorian, which is different from the New Calendar) instead of the continued use of the Julian Calendar. Leaving the communion of the Orthodox Church is not. I feel only concern for those who have removed themselves from the unity of sacremental communion; there the Church is not.   There is an underlying suspicion here that the Bishops of the Church are not to be trusted. Whereas heresies in the past had the people cry "anathema!" against the heretical teachings of some Bishops,  the calendar issue is something quite different. Those who have removed themselves from Communion with all are the danger here, not the practical matter of the calendar.  I feel that many attitudes here seem to convey that there is no fault within any group that separates itself from Orthodoxy in the name of the calendar or ecumenism, or holding to the "true" practice that Orthodoxy has failed to keep. I must speak to the opposite. The Church is where unity in doctrine and unity in sacremental communion is. Let us not become too relativistic in promoting those who are not in unity any longer.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on January 02, 2005, 05:50:01 PM
Amen, choirfriend. :) I agree completely with all that you have said.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 02, 2005, 07:05:28 PM
Great post, choirfiend. I think we can see the dangers that can befall a new inquirer when relying on the internet for catechesis.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 02, 2005, 07:19:17 PM
Quote
1. If the churches you picture above have Icons and areas that serve as the Deacons and Royal Doors, where is the need for iconostasis? It is an icon stand. There are obviously icons that are held up by something. Hence, there is an iconostas, even if it is not in a form you prefer. Originally there was just a small low wall separating the altar area from the sanctuary. There appears to be the same here in the form of the raised platform.

Neither of these churches have Royal doors. If you want to know where these churches are I will give the information. To remove the icon screen is not typical of Eastern Orthodoxy. While I concede that a church can be Orthodox and not have an iconostasis, such as the Western Rite, the Eastern Rite has with the guidance of the Holy Spirit developed the iconostasis as separation of the Sanctuary from the nave in the most common form we have today. To simply remove the curtain and Royal doors for convenience is not a good thing.

Quote
2. To say specifically who can be saved and who can not is to limit God. God has given us instructions as how to attempt to dwell closer to Him. We know who is in the Church. But we cannot limit God. His salvation is His gift to us; no one is worthy of it. I am no more worthy of it than a Buddhist in China is worthy. We are all sinners. It is not relativism; it is the reality of our limited understanding of the workings of God. God will bestow as He will. Let us all work in His command to love Him and our neighbors so that we may feel the Love He has for each of us more fully.

Quote
Christ came to renew human nature which had been corrupted by sin, and entrusted this greatest work of His goodness, mercy, truth, and wisdom to His Holy Church. The Holy Spirit, Who came into the world and Who operates in the Church through the clergy, the Divine Service, the sermon, and the Mysteries, works this renewal without ceasing. Only within the Church is this renovating force contained, outside the Church it does not exist and cannot.

Thus it is indispensable to belong to Christ's Church, the Head of which is the Almighty Tsar, the Conqueror of hades, Jesus Christ Himself. His kingdom is the Church which wars with principalities, powers, the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with spirits of wickedness in high places, which compose a skillfully organized kingdom, and do combat in an extremely experienced, intelligent, well-directed and powerful manner with all men, having well studied all their passions and inclinations. Here no man by himself on the battlefield can be a combatant; and even a great community which is not Orthodox, and is without the Head—Christ—can do nothing against such cunning, subtle, constantly vigilant enemies, who are so skilled in the science of their warfare. For Orthodox Christians a mighty support is necessary from on high, from God and from Christ’s holy warriors who have defeated the enemies of salvation by the power of the grace of Christ, from pastors and teachers, and then—from common prayer and from the Mysteries. Behold, precisely such a helper in the struggle with our invisible and visible enemies is the Church of Christ, to Which, through God's mercies, we belong. The Catholics have invented a new head, having demoted the one true Head of the Church—Christ. The Lutherans fell away and remained without a head. The Anglicans likewise. There is no Church among them; the union with the Head is broken; there is no Almighty help and Belial wages war with all his power and cunning, and holds them all in his delusion and perdition. A multitude perish in atheism and depravity.

"He that is not with Me is against Me: and he that gathered not with Me scattereth" (Luke xi. 23). He who is not with the Church is against the Church; he who is not within the Church is against the Church; he who has not the faith is against the faith; he who does not do the works of repentance, the works of virtue, is against virtue. It is but a small thing to be named a Christian: one must do the works and fulfill the commandments which Christ decreed; unceasing repentance is necessary, unceasing attention to oneself in the spirit of faith, unceasing prayer, unceasing correction, unceasing forcing of oneself ahead, unceasing self-perfection, and with this goal—unceasing self-examination: are we in the faith? do we live according to the faith? are we with the Church? do we go to church? do we love the Church? do we fulfill the dictates of the Church? or the commandments of Christ preached by Her? Behold then how Christ God teaches. Therefore he who does not repent, who does not attend church, and instead of church goes to the theater and various spectacles and worldly gatherings, disdaining the Church—such a one is not a Christian.-St. John of Kronstadt


As a catechumen in the AA one of the first teachings I learned is that there is no salvation outside of the Church. All we can say beyond this is that maybe there are some people in Paradise who were not visible members of the Church while on earth and that God's mercy outweighs his judgment. Beyond that we can say nothing. But the Church has always said that only withn the Body of Christ, the Church, is there salvation. Furthermore I said nothing about worthiness. Indeed everyone within the Church is obligated to struggle for salvation.

Quote
3. Protesting the useage of the new calendar is genuine, if theology is changed by the adaptation of the modified-Gregorian calendar (as opposed to the secular Gregorian, which is different from the New Calendar) instead of the continued use of the Julian Calendar. Leaving the communion of the Orthodox Church is not. I feel only concern for those who have removed themselves from the unity of sacremental communion; there the Church is not.  There is an underlying suspicion here that the Bishops of the Church are not to be trusted. Whereas heresies in the past had the people cry "anathema!" against the heretical teachings of some Bishops, the calendar issue is something quite different. Those who have removed themselves from Communion with all are the danger here, not the practical matter of the calendar. I feel that many attitudes here seem to convey that there is no fault within any group that separates itself from Orthodoxy in the name of the calendar or ecumenism, or holding to the "true" practice that Orthodoxy has failed to keep. I must speak to the opposite. The Church is where unity in doctrine and unity in sacremental communion is. Let us not become too relativistic in promoting those who are not in unity any longer.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted uncanonically and for heretical reasons that are intimately related with theology. This is obvious to anyone who investigates how the calendar was changed and why it was changed. It is a theological matter because it relates to ecumenism in Orthodoxy. Any discussion of Old vs. New has to take ecumenism into account.

Quote
I feel only concern for those who have removed themselves from the unity of sacremental communion; there the Church is not.
I am shocked that you go so far as group all Old Calendarists and say they are not part of the Church. That is an outrage. In fact bishops in new calendar jurisdictions have defended the 'canonicity' of the Old Calendarists.

Quote
I must speak to the opposite. The Church is where unity in doctrine and unity in sacremental communion is. Let us not become too relativistic in promoting those who are not in unity any longer
Have you read Church history? Walling off and the breaking of communion has happened several times and then resulted in the reestablishment of communion.
Those who create disunity are in the 'official' jurisdictions. They argue for ecumenical dialogue, resist the wishes of many in their jurisdictions to return to the Julian calendar, and do more to show phony love for non-Orthodox than they do to promote unity.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 02, 2005, 07:22:36 PM
The Church Fathers and the AA priest who made me a catechumen are not 'the internet.'


By the way Bishop Kallistos Ware even states that there is no Salvation outside the Chuch in his book The Orthodox Church
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 02, 2005, 07:54:41 PM
I'm sorry, Sabbas, but you're conflating multiple issues and some of your chosen words are inaccurate. Choirfiend's statements on the iconostasis are accurate. If you truly believe the style of icon screen is a sign of heresy and ecumenicism, then you need to speak with your priest.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted uncanonically and for heretical reasons that are intimately related with theology.

The synod has the power to decide which calendar is to be used by their jurisdiction. Exercising that power is not heretical and the Revised Julian Calendar is indeed canonical.

I am shocked that you go so far as group all Old Calendarists and say they are not part of the Church. That is an outrage. In fact bishops in new calendar jurisdictions have defended the 'canonicity' of the Old Calendarists.

She didn't say such. What she said is that those who leave the communion of the Church over the calendar have removed themselves from the Church. Many Old Calendarists - the Serbian, Moscow, and Jerusalem Patriarchates - haven't broken communion with the RJC jurisdictions. Those starting out with "True" or "Genuine" have.

Have you read Church history? Walling off and the breaking of communion has happened several times and then resulted in the reestablishment of communion.

Really? What were the names of those new, walled off jurisdictions who broke communion?

Those who create disunity are in the 'official' jurisdictions.

Sorry, but this is reverse logic. You disobey your bishop and synod on a matter that's within their authority and it's you who are guilty.

The Church Fathers and the AA priest who made me a catechumen are not 'the internet.'

By the way Bishop Kallistos Ware even states that there is no Salvation outside the Chuch in his book The Orthodox Church

I doubt this priest planted the views expressed in your posts in your mind. Have you discussed these issues with him? Does he know you believe these things? These are topics that should be worked out in your catechical sessions with your priest.

About your reference to Ware's work, please cite the page number you are pulling because Ware also wrote more than what you are alluding to, in particular he wrote, “We know who is in the Church but we cannot be sure who will not be.” So it is true that salvation is only in the Church but we can't put definitive bounds on who God will enjoin to the Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 02, 2005, 08:00:52 PM


Neither of these churches have Royal doors. If you want to know where these churches are I will give the information. To remove the icon screen is not typical of Eastern Orthodoxy. While I concede that a church can be Orthodox and not have an iconostasis, such as the Western Rite, the Eastern Rite has with the guidance of the Holy Spirit developed the iconostasis as separation of the Sanctuary from the nave in the most common form we have today. To simply remove the curtain and Royal doors for convenience is not a good thing.


Somethings, like the curtain and certain times of closing the Royal Doors, came into existance during the period of time when communion was extremely infrequent. The laity of the church were held to be so unworthy as to not even be granted to see the altar area. My current church does not have a curtain.  "Closing off" of the altar is not the norm in all Orthodox churches, many iconostasis have been simply icons on easels and still others are so open as to be practically transparent. Do you have larger pictures of the churches? thanks~


As a catechumen in the AA one of the first teachings I learned is that there is no salvation outside of the Church. All we can say beyond this is that maybe there are some people in Paradise who were not visible members of the Church while on earth and that God's mercy outweighs his judgment. Beyond that we can say nothing. But the Church has always said that only withn the Body of Christ, the Church, is there salvation. Furthermore I said nothing about worthiness. Indeed everyone within the Church is obligated to struggle for salvation.


Obviously, the statements "There is no salvation outside the Church" and "maybe there are some people in Paradise who were not visible members of the Church" appear to have contradictory connotations. But, in the end, they work together in unity. What I stated is basically this: We do not know who upon whom God may bestow salvation, including those who are by all apparent means outside the Church as a physical body on the earth. Thus, we may hold hope that God will save those whom He will. I am first among sinners, so yes, I do have the hope that if He could save me, the chief sinner, then he could save others, within or without the Church.  We may say that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that is because there is no salvation without God. With the addendum statement "maybe there are some people in Paradise" the concession is made that "We know where the Church is; we know not where it is not." God saves, we do not limit Him by declaring who can or cannot be saved.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted uncanonically and for heretical reasons that are intimately related with theology. This is obvious to anyone who investigates how the calendar was changed and why it was changed. It is a theological matter because it relates to ecumenism in Orthodoxy. Any discussion of Old vs. New has to take ecumenism into account.
 I am shocked that you go so far as group all Old Calendarists and say they are not part of the Church. That is an outrage. In fact bishops in new calendar jurisdictions have defended the 'canonicity' of the Old Calendarists.
Have you read Church history? Walling off and the breaking of communion has happened several times and then resulted in the reestablishment of communion.
Those who create disunity are in the 'official' jurisdictions. They argue for ecumenical dialogue, resist the wishes of many in their jurisdictions to return to the Julian calendar, and do more to show phony love for non-Orthodox than they do to promote unity.

I do not group all old calendarists and say they are not part of the Church. Do I say this of the church in Russia? Jerusalem? the Ukrainians? Those who LEAVE the church are not part of the Church. Those who have cut off sacramental unity are not the Church. If sacramental unity is restored, they will be part of the Church once more.  The adaptation of a  (more accurate in terms of synchronicity with time as it passes on Earth) calendar as agreed by a church is heretical? Here I invite you to reexamine the reasons for the calendar change and the meaning of a church calendar for theology.
I have yet to hear "many" arguing for the Julian calendar in any of the new calendar Orthodox that I have met. Similarly, I have not met any Old Calendar Orthodox condemn New calendar Orthodox unless they were part of a group that has cut itself off from Orthodoxy.  No one "forced" a bishop to leave Orthodoxy any more than someone "forced" the bishop of Rome to leave Orthodoxy. Those who are not in unity are in disunity. If they continue to teach true doctrine, but are practicing the false doctrine of sacramental disunity, they are not currently part of the Church. Pray to the Lord that they will return. 

What is your definition of ecumenism?  Ecumenical dialogue? Is it wrong to discuss differences of beliefs with others in the hope that they will one day return to the truth Faith? Is it wrong to work on humanitarian efforts with other groups in order to benefit the poor and needy? (and by AA, do you mean the Antiochian Archdiocese? How do you reconcile your vigor against the new calendar with joining a new calendar church?) 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on January 02, 2005, 08:06:39 PM

Neither of these churches have Royal doors. If you want to know where these churches are I will give the information. To remove the icon screen is not typical of Eastern Orthodoxy. While I concede that a church can be Orthodox and not have an iconostasis, such as the Western Rite, the Eastern Rite has with the guidance of the Holy Spirit developed the iconostasis as separation of the Sanctuary from the nave in the most common form we have today. To simply remove the curtain and Royal doors for convenience is not a good thing.


I guess it will not surprise you too much if I disagree with you about this, Sabbas.
I thnk the iconostasis is a real barrier to liturgical communication, and is designed to shut the laity out. I have been in parishes that have both ornate icon screens and simple barrrers as attested to by Choirfiend, and I much prefer the latter, although I do agree that there should be an indicator of some kind as to a deliniation between the altar area and the nave, and that no one should go back there unless they have a good reason.
It may interest you to know that in Slavic Orthodoxy, the Muscovite tradition in its rubrics has all kinds of things noting when to shut the royal doors and curtains during the liturgy. The Kievan tradition, on the other hand, is very clear in mentioning that the doors and curtains should remain open for the entire liturgy.

I think we have to be very careful in distinguishing betweeen the tradtions of men, and Holy Tradition. Because something has been done for hundreds of years does not make it right. For example, at one point the Russian Church decided that it was perfectly okay to make icons of God the Father. I think it was about 200 years later that it changed its mind. I think we both know which position is the correct one to take.
I could be wrong about the iconostasis, and you could be right, in the long run. I just don't see any evidence to support the idea that the Holy Sprirt guided the Church in creating it.

I have to concur with Strelets and Choirfiend here.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 02, 2005, 08:56:04 PM
Quote
For example, at one point the Russian Church decided that it was perfectly okay to make icons of God the Father.  I think it was about 200 years later that it changed its mind.  I think we both know which position is the correct one to take.

Quote
Thus the Seventh Ecumenical Council declares: "Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity Himself shaped and impressed them, whatever the chorus of the prophets saw and narrated, and who hold to the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles which was passed on to the Fathers, and on account of this make icons of the Holy things and honour them." And again: "Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them (O wonder!) even before the Incarnation of the Word, but either speak empty words about having seen the unattainable and unseen Essence, or on the one hand pay heed to those who have seen these appearances of icons, types and forms of the truth, while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the Word become man and His sufferings on our behalf." St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows: "The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

Personally I tend to think it best not to make Icons of God the Father, particularly because of how I read St.John 14, but I cannot argue with the Ecumenical Council. I posted this because I think you were implying that it's best not to make any icons of God the Father? except maybe for the Rublev icon? There are longer article's on this issue I can show you if you like.

I will have more comments tomorrow but I'd like to say something else now.

I am deeply sorry if I have written anything in anger while posting. I am seriously considering whether I should keep posting because I tend to feel anger well up inside me when I try to prove or debate a point and I think we all agree that is not good. I will keep all of you in my prayers.
My main reason for defending the Old Calendarists is sympathy and love for those who have been so ruthlessly persecuted. From what I've read it was absolutely awful for the Romanian Old Calendarists hence my avatar of St.Glicherie. Also I am convinced by the arguments of many of the Greek Synod in Resistance and it's sister churches that they are canonical.

Anyway I'll post more tomorrow, and sorry if I have been angry or hurtful to any of you.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Donna Rose on January 02, 2005, 11:08:00 PM
Sabbas,

You will be in my prayers tonight as well, thank you for keeping us (even though I haven't contributed much to this thread) in yours.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on January 02, 2005, 11:50:54 PM
I respect these sentiments very much and to be honest I don't think about the calendar issue as much as it seems I do. In fact I could probably argue in favor of it. However I very much sympathize with the Old Calendar movement, see modernism as much more common amongst new calendar jurisdictions, and this worries me. I have seen several pictures of AA and OCA churches that have been around for years and don't even have iconostasises!

OK, Sabbas, we can skip over the part where you're presuming to pass judgement on churches within your own jurisdiction before you've even been chrismated, and skip directly to the buildings in question.

The second building I don't know, but the first one is an Antiochian parish about thirty minutes from here. What you see there has a curious history. I haven't been in their new building, but I have been in its predecessor, which from the POV of Orthodox furnishings is far more eccentric. When I was last there, the church proper was being used by a Western Rite mission, and the altar area (which could be seen into easily) was dominated by this striking but extremely unEastern baldichino-like structure.

The white structures in the pictures are in fact the iconostasis of the new church building. They date back to the days when the main congregation had taken to worshipping in the parish hall. Those pillars can be moved about to allow the area to be cleared for other use (remembering their previous usage in the hall). I have no idea whether the arrangement they have at present is intended to be either permanent or complete as it stands-- and if you aren't a member of this parish, you have no idea either.

Different jurisdictions have different custom with respect to the appearance of the iconostasis. It seems proper at your stage to subject yourself in humility to the custom of your jurisidiction rather than already engaging in the unfortunately common practice of shopping for the jurisdiction with the most spiritual machismo strictest piety. Any of us here can tell you about this because we've all seen it happen over and over, but you should at least wait for the chrism before you start your search for your next jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on January 03, 2005, 03:01:19 AM




Personally I tend to think it best not to make Icons of God the Father, particularly because of how I read St.John 14, but I cannot argue with the Ecumenical Council. I posted this because I think you were implying that it's best not to make any icons of God the Father? except maybe for the Rublev icon? There are longer article's on this issue I can show you if you like.

I will have more comments tomorrow but I'd like to say something else now.

I am deeply sorry if I have written anything in anger while posting. I am seriously considering whether I should keep posting because I tend to feel anger well up inside me when I try to prove or debate a point and I think we all agree that is not good. I will keep all of you in my prayers.
My main reason for defending the Old Calendarists is sympathy and love for those who have been so ruthlessly persecuted. From what I've read it was absolutely awful for the Romanian Old Calendarists hence my avatar of St.Glicherie. Also I am convinced by the arguments of many of the Greek Synod in Resistance and it's sister churches that they are canonical.

Anyway I'll post more tomorrow, and sorry if I have been angry or hurtful to any of you.

Re:  Icons.  You make a very good point.  I don't know the answers to all these issues.  Maybe I'm missing the boat on this one.  I do know that the Russian Church acted as I mentioned.

As to the other things, I echo what Donna Rose said. 

Bob
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on January 03, 2005, 09:21:14 AM
Sabbas,

(http://www.peterpaul.net/images/christmas_2003/001.jpg)

The lack of an iconostasis here does not concern me at all. What does concern me is the bloody great christmas tree behind the altar  :o
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 03, 2005, 02:25:58 PM
LOL!  That's what I was thinking! 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on January 03, 2005, 05:49:17 PM
I would call it.... atypical.  :D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 03, 2005, 06:36:30 PM
Quote
OK, Sabbas, we can skip over the part where you're presuming to pass judgement on churches within your own jurisdiction before you've even been chrismated, and skip directly to the buildings in question.

Different jurisdictions have different custom with respect to the appearance of the iconostasis. It seems proper at your stage to subject yourself in humility to the custom of your jurisidiction rather than already engaging in the unfortunately common practice of shopping for the jurisdiction with the most spiritual machismo strictest piety. Any of us here can tell you about this because we've all seen it happen over and over, but you should at least wait for the chrism before you start your search for your next jurisdiction.

First I am also being baptized. I was never baptized as a child because my mother and father, who belonged to different denominations (Methodist and Roman Catholic) decided to let me decide. Second I think you should respect my own judgment. If I ultimately choose to be in the GSR as opposed to the AA that is my choice. And I do plan to make that decision before being baptized as I do not look favorably on 'jurisdiction hopping.' Third the AA mission I attend has a full iconostasis (royal doors, curtains, etc.) and what I listed in the picture is in no way related to the established form of an Eastern Orthodox sanctuary. Though I admit that church is quite young I was more concerned with the innovation of having a gigantic Christmas tree in the sanctuary. However the other picture I listed is from a parish that has been around for 30 years, and is a traditional slavic church in everyway, as far as I can tell, except it has no iconostasis.

Quote
I guess it will not surprise you too much if I disagree with you about this, Sabbas.
I thnk the iconostasis is a real barrier to liturgical communication, and is designed to shut the laity out. I have been in parishes that have both ornate icon screens and simple barrrers as attested to by Choirfiend, and I much prefer the latter, although I do agree that there should be an indicator of some kind as to a deliniation between the altar area and the nave, and that no one should go back there unless they have a good reason.
It may interest you to know that in Slavic Orthodoxy, the Muscovite tradition in its rubrics has all kinds of things noting when to shut the royal doors and curtains during the liturgy. The Kievan tradition, on the other hand, is very clear in mentioning that the doors and curtains should remain open for the entire liturgy.

I hope that I am not the only one who likes iconostasises. Not that I don't understand why some people don't. I tend to like the Rude screens used in the west. However I wil list a quote by someone who can express my opinion on the iconostasis and liturgical development better than me.

Quote
the Icon screen in our Churches divides the Holy of Holies from other sections of the Church. And this division is not architectural or merely "spatial." The Eucharist rests in the Altar on the Holy Table. And its Presence there sanctifies and changes that place. In the procedure of the Liturgy, the Icon screen protects that which is holy from the profane and that which is profane from the power of the holy. No historical acrobatics meant to prove that the Icon screen is an impediment to worship can change the fact that the Altar contains something which must be protected and concealed, except in those moments when the Holy Things are brought out for the sanctification of the people.

The Liturgy is a mystical event. Its development is subject to historical investigation. But the "whys" of its development lie within the action of the Holy Spirit. The Liturgy is a formula, as it were, by which the earthly lifts itself up to the heavenly. It exists for this purpose. Any changes and developments which we see in it are not the result of human whim but of maturation and the development of Divine procedure.

Quote
It may interest you to know that in Slavic Orthodoxy, the Muscovite tradition in its rubrics has all kinds of things noting when to shut the royal doors and curtains during the liturgy.


Yes I am familiar with this and I recently read of an interesting practice of Optina in which the opening of the Royal Doors is central. It is called the 'Bridegroom Matins' I think. It's described in better detail in Fr.Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works by Hieromonk Damascene.

Quote
Those who LEAVE the church are not part of the Church
I agree that groups like the Matthewites, ROAC, etc. have cut themselves off but I would be more circumspect about the groups like the GSR and its sister churches. They recognize the validity of the sacraments in the official jurisdictions. They are in communion with ROCOR. ROCOR is in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate. Patriarch Diodoros I of the Jerusalem Patriarchate praised Metropolitan Cyprian in a versperal homily. I could go on with the names of those in official Orthodoxy who have stated that those in certain Old Calendar groups are not heretics, and not even schismatic. And I could give more reasons why you should take a look at their arguments. I think that you should admit things are not as cut and dry as you think and look more closely at the history of the Old Calendar movement.

Quote
Do you have larger pictures of the churches? thanks~

I can give you the websites if you like. http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2004/10.October/1017SeaCliffNY/index.html Leonid Kishkovsky served as president of the NCC for a while as well. http://www.peterpaul.net/index2.htm

Quote
We know where the Church is; we know not where it is not." God saves, we do not limit Him by declaring who can or cannot be saved.

Quote
Christ came to renew human nature which had been corrupted by sin, and entrusted this greatest work of His goodness, mercy, truth, and wisdom to His Holy Church. The Holy Spirit, Who came into the world and Who operates in the Church through the clergy, the Divine Service, the sermon, and the Mysteries, works this renewal without ceasing. Only within the Church is this renovating force contained, outside the Church it does not exist and cannot.

I think this makes it clear that the Church is visible, one, and we know where it is not.

Quote
What is your definition of ecumenism? Ecumenical dialogue? Is it wrong to discuss differences of beliefs with others in the hope that they will one day return to the truth Faith? Is it wrong to work on humanitarian efforts with other groups in order to benefit the poor and needy? (and by AA, do you mean the Antiochian Archdiocese? How do you reconcile your vigor against the new calendar with joining a new calendar church?)

My definition of Ecumenism is the same as is written about at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ My definition of modernism is the same as voiced so well by Fr.Alexander Lebedeff http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tradmod_intro.aspx and Dr.Constantine Cavarnos http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/modernism.pdf Humanitarian efforts with other groups for benefit of poor and needy is not what any traditionalist is against. It's the idea that by engaging in theological dialogue in a Protestant dominated group being beneficial when it's clearly not is what we're against. It's not just Old Calendarists who feel this way. There are articles I could show you from those in official new calendar jurisdictions as well. If you'd like to read them I'll get the addresses for you. My justification for going with an AA mission that I attend, and yes that's Antiochian, is that I do not entirely agree that traditionalism is dead in official Orthodoxy. I recently read a book about the traditionalist Elder Cleopa http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=2598
And I was swayed by his arguments against the Old Calendarist movement that perhaps there is hope that Orthodoxy and its Tradition will not necessarily destroyed by the sad actions of a few at the top, Heresiarch Athenagoras for instance.

Quote
I have yet to hear "many" arguing for the Julian calendar in any of the new calendar Orthodox that I have met.

Usually you have to go to ethnic parishes to find them. Though I have known two, one a priest, who think it would be better to go back to the Julian Calendar. Outside America there are many in official jurisdictions who feel this way.

Quote
I doubt this priest planted the views expressed in your posts in your mind. Have you discussed these issues with him? Does he know you believe these things? These are topics that should be worked out in your catechical sessions with your priest.

The priest who made me a catechumen is a wonderful man who I learned a lot from. He had a long correspondence with Fr.Alexey Young, now Hieromonk Ambrose, who started Orthodox America and knew Fr.Seraphim well. He told me point blank that Ecumenism is heresy. However he did not feel the same way I did about those in Old Calendarist groups. He said he had friends in these groups and respected them but that it wasn't time to leave world Orthodoxy. I do trust his judgment which is why I have had such a hard time with this.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 03, 2005, 06:54:13 PM
My justification for going with an AA mission that I attend, and yes that's Antiochian, is that I do not entirely agree that traditionalism is dead in official Orthodoxy. I recently read a book about the traditionalist Elder Cleopa http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=2598
And I was swayed by his arguments against the Old Calendarist movement that perhaps there is hope that Orthodoxy and its Tradition will not necessarily destroyed by the sad actions of a few at the top, Heresiarch Athenagoras for instance.

Until the late Patriarch Athenagoras (or any other hierarch, for that matter) is formally declared a heretic, I think it will be better if you avoid doing so.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 03, 2005, 07:02:11 PM
GSR... would that be the Greek Synod in Resistance? Just checking, because I'm losing track of these groups.

Also, can we please apply the Old Calendarist designation appropriately? Old Calendarist would include the Moscow, Serbian, and Jerusalem Patriarchates, and many OCA parishes. Saying Old Calendarist doesn't really mean anything when criticising ecumenicism since those jurisdictions I just listed participate in the WCC.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 03, 2005, 07:25:34 PM
Well, Sabbas, it's clear that you have some issues to work out concerning what constitutes the Church. I'm glad that you're taking the time to do this before being baptised. I'm sad that you've chosen to embroil yourself in the mess that is those who have removed themselves from communion. You're right that there are complex issues at work here, but for me the bottom line is this: All those who are in full communion with all others are the Church. Anyone who is not in full communion is not. It cannot be otherwise, and THIS is the true traditionalism of the Church. You can't get more traditional than that.  Doctrinal and sacramental unity. This is where Christ dwells.

Making your judgement on others when you haven't even examined a picture very carefully is a bit extreme. I think your spiritual father is very wise in his advice to you to stay with the Church. It's all too easy for those who are seeking the Truth to go too far and end up missing it altogether.  We may have been called to get up off our comfortable living room couches and to come to the edge of the cliff of life, but we haven't been called to run off the edge into the abyss in the attempt to find the absolute edge of the cliff.   

Look at the pictures again. The white church is brand new and has a movable iconostas (not my taste in decorating, but hey, somethings are cultural traditions though I don't know what they were thinking with all that gold lame...and don't even get me started on their choir loft and pews, groan....) They obviously don't even have icons for a "real" iconostas yet! Perhaps you can contribute to their funds so they can get some. What's up with the non-standard altar though? I'm used to cubes, and this is all rectangle-y. Oh well, they appear to be doing well witih their GORGEOUS new building, 3 priests, and a thriving community. I won't judge.

  In the other church, there most certainly is a traditional iconostas. What is all that wood that all those icons are attached to? As well, there are traditional doors....see the angels on that wood with the slanted top? That's a deacon's door, where angels as the servants of God are traditionally placed.  I'd bet the royal doors are opened back completely as the priest is standing on the ambo blessing the congregation....

http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2004/10.October/1017SeaCliffNY/images/3.jpg
http://www.peterpaul.net/images/dedication/cnv000084.jpg


edited for speling
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 03, 2005, 07:37:22 PM
PS.

That white church sure is intriguing. I hope they can afford some iconography soon, though, the whole place looks so bleak.

I think they just went a little too over the top with the Christmas decorations with the tree. There are a lot of plants pictured in their Nativity photos.  Poinsettias for all!

I'm in a strange mood...:)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 03, 2005, 08:13:32 PM
Quote
Until the late Patriarch Athenagoras (or any other hierarch, for that matter) is formally declared a heretic, I think it will be better if you avoid doing so.

I will take your advice Mor. I know that I am going too far but I just cannot understand why he did what he did. I was suprised when my older sister, a member of SSPX, asked me about Orthodoxy, and then asked me how come we reunited with Rome and then called the whole thing off. I then told her that a Patriarch in Orthodoxy is not a pope and then I mentioned how the Orthodox faithful have resisted the actions of bishops when it obviously went against Orthodoxy, such as the Council of Florence. Though I don't think there are too many Catholics who think we are reunited anymore it stands as a sad event for the Orthodox.

Quote
In the other church, there most certainly is a traditional iconostas. What is all that wood that all those icons are attached to? As well, there are traditional doors....see the angels on that wood with the slanted top? That's a deacon's door, where angels as the servants of God are traditionally placed. I'd bet the royal doors are opened back completely as the priest is standing on the ambo blessing the congregation....

Yes but the doors are rather small. I admit I did not give more than a glance to the picture though. Mea Culpa

Quote
Well, Sabbas, it's clear that you have some issues to work out concerning what constitutes the Church. I'm glad that you're taking the time to do this before being baptised. I'm sad that you've chosen to embroil yourself in the mess that is those who have removed themselves from communion. You're right that there are complex issues at work here, but for me the bottom line is this: All those who are in full communion with all others are the Church. Anyone who is not in full communion is not. It cannot be otherwise, and THIS is the true traditionalism of the Church. You can't get more traditional than that. Doctrinal and sacramental unity. This is where Christ dwells.

choirfiend I think I understand why you see things this way but what about ROCOR? Are they out? Was the MP truly part of the Church when it cooperated with a regime out to utterly destroy it? Furthermore ROCOR ordained many bishops in the Old Calendar movement and the MP has not, as far as know, made it requisite that ROCOR deny these ordinations for them to be reunited to the MP. And beyond this do you think it's impossible for a patriarchate, or several, to fall away from true Orthodoxy? Is it not possible that small changes such as laxness on fasting rules, fewer and fewer monasteries, less emphasis on ascetic struggle, could cause very serious problems in the future?

Quote
That white church sure is intriguing. I hope they can afford some iconography soon, though, the whole place looks so bleak.

This is my sentiment as well which is another reason why I posted the picture. Though I am also happy that they have a new building.
Not that an inquirer would not receive great benefit from attending a service there, it's just that if I had attended my first Orthodox service there I don't know if it would've had the same affect on me. I know this may seem shallow and paying too much attention to externals but my early attraction to Orthodoxy was the pictures I'd see on the internet. The OCA website really helped with their photo gallery. Such as pictures of St.Nicholas in Washington D.C.
http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2004/10.October/1017WashingtonDC-AbpNikoloziVisit/index.html

Quote
and don't even get me started on their choir loft and pews, groan

choirfiend I think we've found something about externals that we can agree on. Seeing people standing attentively at prayer was what really impressed me when I attended my first Liturgy.

Quote
GSR... would that be the Greek Synod in Resistance? Just checking, because I'm losing track of these groups.

Also, can we please apply the Old Calendarist designation appropriately? Old Calendarist would include the Moscow, Serbian, and Jerusalem Patriarchates, and many OCA parishes. Saying Old Calendarist doesn't really mean anything when criticising ecumenicism since those jurisdictions I just listed participate in the WCC.

Yes that's what GSR means. I don't use Old Calendar in reference to the MP,SP, or JP because for them the Julian calendar is not old. I see your point but whenever I usually hear the word Old Calendarist it's in reference to groups cut off from a new calendar jurisdiction. I will try to write the nationality first, Greek Old Calendarist, Romanian Old Calendarist, etc. but if I ever forget to I'm referring to those I just mentioned.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 04, 2005, 01:26:24 AM
Well, Sabbas, when it comes to which groups are out and which groups are in, all I can say is this: If the group is not in unity with the rest of everyone that is unity, I have no business taking Communion there. And I would have no business looking to be baptised/christmated into a such a group either. This is what disunity means to me; that I would encourage no one to seek after such a group that is not in complete unity as Christ intended and I could not pretend that unity existed where none does by taking Communion there.  I cannot condemn anyone, but I can recognize that they have become separate even with the right doctrine and are therefor in error.  As to all the rest of it, I commit to the wisdom of the Bishops who seek after unity. If separated groups enter into full communion once again, I will most certainly welcome them back without penalty.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 04, 2005, 01:31:41 AM
Standing and prostrations at prayer are things I have come to welcome since attending a church with no pews. I grew up nearly entirely in churches with pews, no matter what the jurisdiction, and we made due (ie filing out of them for St Ephraim's prayer prostrations in the aisles during Lent). You can have them and still do what you need to in some cases.

Being someone who is focused on music (we SING our theology, y'all!) I really despise separated choir lofts like that. Ug, that can be a total barrier to singing in the manner of the Church. Anyway, you can make due even so.

You never know what you may have found; I would hope the beauty of the Liturgy would have it's effect on you even if the church lacked iconography. You can never look back and truly determine what your reaction would have been.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 04, 2005, 01:54:44 AM
Quote
I agree that groups like the Matthewites, ROAC, etc. have cut themselves off

I wrote this earlier but I think I should qualify this. While I do not believe the the ROAC and Matthewites are part of the Church I do have the utmost respect for them. I have had correspondence with a member of ROAC and I found him very amicable. In fact I was amazed at how nice he was.

Quote
Well, Sabbas, when it comes to which groups are out and which groups are in, all I can say is this: If the group is not in unity with the rest of everyone that is unity, I have no business taking Communion there. And I would have no business looking to be baptised/christmated into a such a group either. This is what disunity means to me; that I would encourage no one to seek after such a group that is not in complete unity as Christ intended and I could not pretend that unity existed where none does by taking Communion there. I cannot condemn anyone, but I can recognize that they have become separate even with the right doctrine and are therefor in error. As to all the rest of it, I commit to the wisdom of the Bishops who seek after unity. If separated groups enter into full communion once again, I will most certainly welcome them back without penalty.

Let me reiterate that I accept and have nothing against this position. But let me also say that I still think you are simplifying the issue. The example of ROCOR is one to be seriously looked at. They only separated themselves from the MP after the Bolshevik Revolution. In fact as late as 1968 the GOA acknowledged being in full communion with them. I am still curious what you consider their status to be. I am not asking you to judge them, I am just asking what you think based on your ecclesiology. If you are not sure or choose not to answer I understand as I agree it can be a sticky issue. Still I think you can agree it raises an issue.

Also I wanted to reply to an earlier comment you made,
Quote
I'm sad that you've chosen to embroil yourself in the mess that is those who have removed themselves from communion.
I chose to embroil myself in this because I determined long ago that I want to join the Orthodox Church and have no regrets knowing that I had given fair considerations to all viewpoints. I at one time even seriously considered the viewpoint of the Old Ritualists.

Quote
As to all the rest of it, I commit to the wisdom of the Bishops who seek after unity.

Still I think it is pertinent to ask why certain bishops are allowed to get away with having very unOrthodox, if not heretical, viewpoints and not condemned for acting on them. For instance why is it that Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory was the only one to very directly condemn the Thyateira Confession?

Quote
Standing and prostrations at prayer are things I have come to welcome since attending a church with no pews. I grew up nearly entirely in churches with pews, no matter what the jurisdiction, and we made due (ie filing out of them for St Ephraim's prayer prostrations in the aisles during Lent). You can have them and still do what you need to in some cases.

Being someone who is focused on music (we SING our theology, y'all!) I really despise separated choir lofts like that. Ug, that can be a total barrier to singing in the manner of the Church. Anyway, you can make due even so.

You never know what you may have found; I would hope the beauty of the Liturgy would have it's effect on you even if the church lacked iconography. You can never look back and truly determine what your reaction would have been.

I have met people who told me about this filing out but I always wondered how a full church with pews could accomodate all the people for prostations. I mean there would not be enough room in aisles. At least I would think having been to a pewed church one Sunday and seen how little room there was. Also I thought, though I admit it's not that funny, "wouldn't that violate the fire code?"

I'm glad you agree that liturgically it just makes more sense to have few pews or just benches along the wall as opposed to the present situation in America. Though I admit you are right that I can never guess what my reaction might have been if it had been otherwise.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 04, 2005, 02:23:12 AM
If I'm simplifying the situation, it's because I can only act on it as it affects me. As for ROCOR? They aren't in full communion, so I wont take communion there. That's all I can say about it! No "they are wrong and evil!" and no "they are AOK and grand." My position is simply thus: If a group is not in full sacramental unity, I cannot be united to them through the sacraments. They are wrong in their doctrine of separation, if nothing else.  I can and do hold private opinions as to the beliefs of some groups and whether or not they really do express the same things that Orthodoxy has always expressed, both in right belief and right worship, but the mitigating factor, in the end and in all practical manners, can only be the break with communion. Dwelling more on it leads to more disunity, and I feel, inevitably leads to judgment or condemnation.

This is where the trust in the leaders of the church (the Bishops) comes in.  Here, sometimes, we must say aside our earthly cares and accept a determination made by the men whom we trust to lead us as they are led by the Holy Spirit. This is not blind trust; this is not denying the purpose and power of the laity as keepers and protectors of the Faith. This is not advocating the acceptance of anything any bishop may through our way, because certainly some have taught heresy. This is knowing what and when to set down one's own analytical and judgemental mental facilities and to accept that this is a hierarchical Faith. The Bishops are there for a reason; we trust in them til there is some real reason to think they might be doing wrong. And trust in the Lord that when that happens an uproar will be heard. "Single" people do not determine what is truth or not. The community does. This is the reason for council as opposed to voting. Agreement must be reached.

When there was debate about issues in the Church over the course of history, those who were in the right didnt say to those who were believing wrwong things, "We're leaving you because you are wrong!" The people clamored the truth, and the right way was practiced/restored from within the Church. Leaving the sacramental communion does not and cannot bring one closer to the Truth.  The Holy Spirit is present within the Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on January 04, 2005, 02:26:11 AM
Third the AA mission I attend has a full iconostasis (royal doors, curtains, etc.) and what I listed in the picture is in no way related to the established form of an Eastern Orthodox sanctuary. Though I admit that church is quite young I was more concerned with the innovation of having a gigantic Christmas tree in the sanctuary.

The part of this I keep having a problem with is you appointing yourself as an expert of the forms of eastern buildings. I'm now beginning to wonder if I've been in more Orthodox liturgies, never mind buildings, than you have. And when you say--

Quote
However the other picture I listed is from a parish that has been around for 30 years, and is a traditional slavic church in everyway, as far as I can tell, except it has no iconostasis.

... it looks to me that it does have an iconostasis. What it may lack is Royal Doors-- though the photos are so dark and there are so many people standing in the way that it's a bit hard to tell. THe building is obviously so tiny that whatever it does have must be nearly vestigial. Have you actually been in this building? I've been in situations which were even more primitive; I've been to Holy Cross Linthicum, for instance, in the days when the "iconostasis" was a pair of easels with the Deisis split between them.

Quote
I tend to like the Rude screens used in the west.

That's rood screen. The thing is that in the West the furnishings and the liturgy do not interlock with each other, so that the rood screen is, at this point, a mere trace of a different situation. It isn't the Western analogue of the iconostasis.

I am not for one moment going to waste my time on another argument about ecumenism.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Robert on January 04, 2005, 02:40:58 AM
If I'm simplifying the situation, it's because I can only act on it as it affects me. As for ROCOR? They aren't in full communion, so I wont take communion there. That's all I can say about it! No "they are wrong and evil!" and no "they are AOK and grand." My position is simply thus: If a group is not in full sacramental unity, I cannot be united to them through the sacraments. They are wrong in their doctrine of separation, if nothing else.  I can and do hold private opinions as to the beliefs of some groups and whether or not they really do express the same things that Orthodoxy has always expressed, both in right belief and right worship, but the mitigating factor, in the end and in all practical manners, can only be the break with communion. Dwelling more on it leads to more disunity, and I feel, inevitably leads to judgment or condemnation.

This is where the trust in the leaders of the church (the Bishops) comes in.  Here, sometimes, we must say aside our earthly cares and accept a determination made by the men whom we trust to lead us as they are led by the Holy Spirit. This is not blind trust; this is not denying the purpose and power of the laity as keepers and protectors of the Faith. This is not advocating the acceptance of anything any bishop may through our way, because certainly some have taught heresy. This is knowing what and when to set down one's own analytical and judgemental mental facilities and to accept that this is a hierarchical Faith. The Bishops are there for a reason; we trust in them til there is some real reason to think they might be doing wrong. And trust in the Lord that when that happens an uproar will be heard. "Single" people do not determine what is truth or not. The community does. This is the reason for council as opposed to voting. Agreement must be reached.

When there was debate about issues in the Church over the course of history, those who were in the right didnt say to those who were believing wrwong things, "We're leaving you because you are wrong!" The people clamored the truth, and the right way was practiced/restored from within the Church. Leaving the sacramental communion does not and cannot bring one closer to the Truth.  The Holy Spirit is present within the Church.

Please elaborate upon this notion of  'sacramental unity' that you describe.  I did not know that sharing of the Eucharist was a prerequisite to unity in the faith.  I always thought it was the Church that sprung forth the Eucharist, and not the other way around.  There is only one basis for unity, and that is full agreement in the faith.  If that isn't present, then obviously intercommunion won't take place.

R
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 04, 2005, 02:48:47 AM
The over-zealous confusion I see would horrify me to no end, were it not for the fact that I once exceeded what I see today. We must turn back while we can.

"I am the image of God, and am drawn to wickedness." - St. Gregory the Theologian

Truer words have never been spoken about me.

Overzealousness. Supercorrectness. These are euphemisms. The correct word is indeed wickedness.

"There are few words of men which are not vain and idle" - St. Justin Popovich

And if we are to be judged for even every idle word, how much more shall we be judged, and condemned, for attacking others when it is not our place to do so? Am I a bishop? Am I even a priest? No, I am a meddler. I am a gossip. I am a usurper. I am the image of God, tarnished almost beyond all hope, and I surpass most in my wickedness.

We must turn back while we can. For the love of Christ our God, we must start anew.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 04, 2005, 03:06:59 AM
Well, if you care to use that definition, then I suppose the end result is this: There must be some disconnect between the faiths of two groups not in communion. If there was absolutely no disconnect or disunity, then the lack of sacramental communion would not be.  In many cases, the disconnect is where one group calls the other groups' beliefs heretical and uses that as a basis to cut off communion. I made the claim that another form of less than full agreement with the faith enters in when a body separates itself from the Church. Disunity (no sacramental communion) when/if the faith is the same is not possible. Disunity, in way I am speaking of it, IS a breach in the faith itself. 

I would agree that the Church comes from the Eucharist. But the Eucharist is the Church's to give to all those in it. God does the provision, the Church does the asking and the delivering. If one group says "We don't want your Eucharist anymore; it is invalid because you teach heretical doctrines!" then I'd say this lack of sacramental unity has pretty severe effects, regardless of whether or not a group really teaches heretical things. It is one group saying the other's Eucharist is not from God; the church is then delivering empty packages that God did not pack, one could say.
I'm trying to choose my words as closely as possible as to make my meaning as closely as possible. Please read them as carefully and do tell where you dont know what I mean.

Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church
"Each Patriarchate or autocephalous Church, while indepedent, is in full agreement with the rest on all matters of doctrine, and between them all there is in principle full sacramental communion" (7).
"...its members remain free but no isolated, for they are united in love, in faith, and in sacramental communion" (15).
"All bishops share equally in the apostolic succession, all have the same sacramental powers, all are divinely appointed teachers of the faith" (27).
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on January 04, 2005, 04:52:04 AM
ROCOR is in full communion with the Serbian Orthodox church and the Serbs are in full communion with the rest. ROCOR's seperation from the Moscow Patriarchate was done with the blessing, even the express command of Patriarch Tikhon. It is not an ideal situation but it is being worked out. The church has been through far worse and has survived.

John.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Robert on January 04, 2005, 08:45:47 AM
ROCOR is in full communion with the Serbian Orthodox church and the Serbs are in full communion with the rest. ROCOR's seperation from the Moscow Patriarchate was done with the blessing, even the express command of Patriarch Tikhon. It is not an ideal situation but it is being worked out. The church has been through far worse and has survived.

John.

Right, I am not sure what choirfiend meant to imply by saying ROCOR wasn't in "full communion." I'm assuming she meant a church to which she belongs that is in the SCOBA assembly.  Either way, the OCA used to be under ROCOR so to that I say: Don't forget your roots.

I think this thread may need to be closed soon, these "who has grace and who doesn't" pissing matches inevitably end in a condemnation of both parties and a lot of upset characters.

Robert
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: choirfiend on January 04, 2005, 10:37:21 AM
Right, I think I said that ("inevitably end in a condemnation...")  too, Bobby. I will not make the call of who has grace and who doesn't in cases like this. I submit to what my bishop (and the other bishops too) who lead the community that I'm currently part of, and I follow their determinations concerning which groups we are in full communion with. Any other opinion I have is a private one and does not affect my behavior toward any group. (please do notice I have tried to avoid calling anyone schismatic or even uncanonical. These are not my determinations to make.
This is the best way that I know to deal with the issue. It's the way I would recommend to seekers. And that's all I can say on the matter!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 04, 2005, 11:40:03 AM
When one Orthodox bishop (or group) begins to aver the state of Grace of other Orthodox bishops, I usually just turn off. It seems a big warning flag of something UN-Orthodox being expounded.
As to ROCOR, it would seem they are unique. My GOA priest corrected me and stated that while they do not con-celebrate with each other (here) at this time. I AM allowed to receive Communion in my local ROCOR parish. My ROCOR priest has not denied me the Sacrament either. So, what does "in communion" mean, anyway?

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Robert on January 04, 2005, 12:54:46 PM
Demetri,

I'd defer to Chrysostomos of Etna in regards to the whole "in communion" thing.  He seems to have a very good and well grounded patristic take on the issue.

The Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has some phenomenal books/articles on it. (http://users.sisqtel.net/sgpm/ctos/)

R
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on January 05, 2005, 04:02:56 AM
Quote
I wrote this earlier but I think I should qualify this. While I do not believe the the ROAC and Matthewites are part of the Church I do have the utmost respect for them.

I think you should do some more research on both of these groups before saying you have the "utmost" respect for them.

Quote
I have had correspondence with a member of ROAC and I found him very amicable. In fact I was amazed at how nice he was.

And I have been amazed at how nice Jehovah's Witnesses were, and Mormans as well, but that doesn't make me want to join up to their little cult where they dress up and play church.

In Christ,
Aaron

Message slightly edited by Anastasios because of conflict with rules of board.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 05, 2005, 08:55:01 PM
Quote
I think you should do some more research on both of these groups before saying you have the "utmost" respect for them.
I wrote this because I don't want to dismiss any possible discussion with any posters here who may be Matthewite or ROAC. Yes I have looked at the groups and I did find much of ad hominem attacks offensive but not every member of these groups is like that.

Quote
And I have been amazed at how nice Jehovah's Witnesses were, and Mormans as well, but that doesn't make me want to join up to their little cult where they dress up and play church - like the ROAC does.

I don't ever plan on joining either but I am still interested in getting to know them as individuals and at least try to understand their point of view. Which I have also done with new calendar convert Orthodox who refer to Greek Old Calendarists as extremists.

Quote
Demetri,

I'd defer to Chrysostomos of Etna in regards to the whole "in communion" thing. He seems to have a very good and well grounded patristic take on the issue.

The Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has some phenomenal books/articles on it. (http://users.sisqtel.net/sgpm/ctos/)

R

Thank you for being more open about this and giving the CTOS their due respect.
I really want to get this book The Egyptian Desert in the Irish Bogs: The Byzantine Character of Early Celtic Monasticism
by Father Gregory Telepneff  http://users.sisqtel.net/sgpm/ctos/Catalogue/historical.html

Whether you like them or not they do have excellent books on Orthodoxy that you can't find elsewhere.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on January 05, 2005, 10:07:16 PM
Quote
I don't ever plan on joining either

 O0

Quote
but I am still interested in getting to know them as individuals and at least try to understand their point of view.

Gotcha, makes sense to try to figure out why they hold the opinions they do, but do so with caution.

Quote
Which I have also done with new calendar convert Orthodox who refer to Greek Old Calendarists as extremists.

Perhaps these folks say such things and feel that way because of the way some Greek OC's refer to them and their respective (NC) churches.

In Christ,
Aaron


Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 06, 2005, 12:08:29 PM
Which I have also done with new calendar convert Orthodox who refer to Greek Old Calendarists as extremists.

Breaking communion with the Orthodox Church while proclaiming fidelity to Orthodoxy can legitimately be viewed as an extremist act, as is rebaptising Orthodox Christians. The Old Calendar part isn't the issue... at all. What seems to not be taken into account is that being a schismatic is worse than being a heretic. One can be a heretic out of total ignorance or by deep intellectual convictions. However, a schismatic has professed an acceptance and loyalty to the Orthodox Church and her dogma, particular that of being obedient to the hierarchy, but then rebels against Her authority (vested in the synod and bishops) for his/her own authority in choosing a calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on January 07, 2005, 09:34:10 AM
Quote
However, a schismatic has professed an acceptance and loyalty to the Orthodox Church and her dogma, particular that of being obedient to the hierarchy, but then rebels against Her authority (vested in the synod and bishops) for his/her own authority in choosing a calendar.

If only it were that simple!  Many things done by Meletios Metaxas were heretical, there are no two ways around it.  The State Church of Greece also did some very questionable (bordering heretical) things in the 1920s - 40s such as banning monastic tonsuring and the serving of all night vigils.  Then there is the late Athenagoras that said many things that were outright heresy and deeply scandalized and divided the church (keep in mind that the ROCOR had been in communion with the EP up until this point in time and left communion as a direct results of the actions of Athenagoras).  Uncanonical actions continue to take place to this day by the hierarchs that scream and shout that they are the "canonical" churches. 

Another dimension to the problem is the oversimplification of ecclesiology.  There have been times in Church history when Saints (yes Saints) have broken communion with each other.  The Church on Earth bears the iniquities of the humans that run it - thus the overlapping jurisdictions in diaspora.  Thus the existence of traditionalist synods and state churches.  While not perfect, perhaps someday through repentance there can be reunion.   
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 07, 2005, 12:32:09 PM
I see our +¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é is now a "Traditionalist"! So be it. Do I assume that once ROC(OR) rejoins ROC that you will then migrate to another church, perhaps one that is outright irregular at best? I hope not, but if so, that's Free Will in action.
The Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios (properly refered to herein) WAS controversial to be sure and the Church of Greece wrong in many, many things in the past, but your judgmental statements, as radical as many I've read eslewhere by superOthodox, sicken me in their lack of Love.
In point of fact these schismatic churches are pretty much evaporating in the old country, finding their only growth in the convert-heavy diaspora of Australia and America. I wonder why?
Schism is the greater error.
And I apologize in advance if I've misread the tone of your post on this, the Feastday of the Nativity of our Lord.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 07, 2005, 05:24:45 PM
Dear Demetri,

I understand that you do not share Nektarios' views (at least in exactly the same way), but I'm not sure where you see the "lack of Love" in his post, particularly as he ends his post with the positive hope for reunion.  I can think of a few topics where accusations of "lack of Love" against offenders are rejected by those same hardliners because they're not attacking persons, but ideas (whether that actually comes out in the dialogue is another story).  Why should it be different in this case, especially since Nektarios doesn't seem to be attacking anyone, but rather certain words and deeds? 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on January 07, 2005, 05:35:20 PM
Traditionalist has many meanings, Demetri. There are traditionalists within the State Church of Greece, the EP, the MP, besides the various "traditionalist synods." The ROCOR is seens as legitimate by pretty much everyone except the SCOBA hardliners and the EP. Patriarch Alexei II doesn't see the ROCOR as schismatic, nor do the the Patriarchs of Serbia or Jerusalem. My only point in posting is to point out that the lack of love goes both ways, that both sides share the fault.

And for the record I do attend a ROCOR parish - but I attend for a variety of reasons much more pragmatic than the whole calendar issue. I also frequent a monastery here that is under the EP and recieve the mysteries there as well. When I leave for the Holy Mountain I will be staying at monasteries that commorate the Patriach. An honest view of history and self criticism are not schism.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 07, 2005, 06:13:30 PM
Quote
I see our +¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é is now a "Traditionalist"! So be it. Do I assume that once ROC(OR) rejoins ROC that you will then migrate to another church, perhaps one that is outright irregular at best? I hope not, but if so, that's Free Will in action.
The Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios (properly refered to herein) WAS controversial to be sure and the Church of Greece wrong in many, many things in the past, but your judgmental statements, as radical as many I've read eslewhere by superOthodox, sicken me in their lack of Love.
In point of fact these schismatic churches are pretty much evaporating in the old country, finding their only growth in the convert-heavy diaspora of Australia and America. I wonder why?
Schism is the greater error.
And I apologize in advance if I've misread the tone of your post on this, the Feastday of the Nativity of our Lord.

If you are going to attack someone for being jugmental attack me! Leave Nektarios alone. Second I would like to know who you get your info on Meletios Metaxakis from. Third why do rush to defend Metaxakis as merely controversial but have no respect for ROCOR when all it did was defend, with heartfelt Love, the Orthodox Faith from an anti-Christian Atheist regime and a church structure infiltratrated by apostates? a structure that did nothing while the Orthodox faithful were being slaughtered!
Four How does this constitute schism when 'official' Orthodoxy recognizes and has recognized ROCOR? the GOA did up till 1968!
Five are the 'superOrthodox' wrong to be angry when their Old Calendar brethren were killed and beaten by those of the 'official' Church? look at what happened in Greece and Romania for mercies sake!

Quote
I see our +¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é is now a "Traditionalist"! So be it. Do I assume that once ROC(OR) rejoins ROC that you will then migrate to another church, perhaps one that is outright irregular at best? I hope not, but if so, that's Free Will in action.

Call me crazy if this passes as non-judgmental Christian Love.

Quote
Another dimension to the problem is the oversimplification of ecclesiology. There have been times in Church history when Saints (yes Saints) have broken communion with each other. The Church on Earth bears the iniquities of the humans that run it - thus the overlapping jurisdictions in diaspora. Thus the existence of traditionalist synods and state churches. While not perfect, perhaps someday through repentance there can be reunion.
- +¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é

It takes very little reading to find examples of this! St.Cyprian and the Pope, St. Nilus and St.Joseph, etc.

Quote
Why should it be different in this case, especially since Nektarios doesn't seem to be attacking anyone, but rather certain words and deeds?

Exactly! I hope all of us here would shake hands if we met rather than try to beat each other up. If my AA priest was able to be good friends with Fr.Alexey Young of ROCOR why can't all of us?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 07, 2005, 06:30:41 PM
If you all want to discuss each other's personal lives take it to a private message.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 07, 2005, 09:17:14 PM
Traditionalist has many meanings, Demetri.  There are traditionalists within the State Church of Greece, the EP, the MP, besides the various "traditionalist synods."  The ROCOR is seens as legitimate by pretty much everyone except the SCOBA hardliners and the EP.  Patriarch Alexei II doesn't see the ROCOR as schismatic, nor do the the Patriarchs of Serbia or Jerusalem.  My only point in posting is to point out that the lack of love goes both ways, that both sides share the fault. 

And for the record I do attend a ROCOR parish - but I attend for a variety of reasons much more pragmatic than the whole calendar issue.  I also frequent a monastery here that is under the EP and recieve the mysteries there as well.  When I leave for the Holy Mountain I will be staying at monasteries that commorate the Patriach.  An honest view of history and self criticism are not schism.   

Fortunately, +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é, you and I know each other well enough that we understand the other better than some other (not-yet-Orthodox) responders do. In point of fact the ROCOR broke communion. I am not aware of any mutual anathemas being exchanged. Perhaps they are correct or maybe not in their 'walling-off". Time will tell. SCOBA in point of fact still considers ROCOR canonical and Orthodox. My point of contention is with the schismatic synods which, in their separation, dare to judge their fellow bishops in condemnation. Those groups I ignore totally and without "due' respect.  I just want you to understand the difference between and among these definitions of "traditionalist" ( a label you have now attached to yourself).

Sabbas's comments I am afraid I must ignore, however. His tirade warrants no other reply.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on January 07, 2005, 09:56:58 PM
+ò-à +++++¦+¦+»-ä+¦

I agree with you that extremism is not good for the Church and that in recent times the Greek Old Calendarists (along with the ROCOR break offs) have further marginalized themselves from the Church.  But as is being seen now the witness of the ROCOR is paying off and could have a large (positive) affect on the MP.  My sincere hope is that someday the state Church of Greece will re-unite with the old calendarists and provide a unified witness against the rising forces opposed to Orthodoxy in the world. 

I do understand very well what the role of traditionalism is within the EP/state church (where I will likely find myself in the future).  There is a reason why my walls are covered in pictures of Elders Cleopas, Porphyrios, Philotheos, Paisios, Ephraim, St. Silouan et al who never left the confines of thier state church yet angered many within it by their traditonalism. 



Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 08, 2005, 02:36:16 AM
+ò-à +++++¦+¦+»-ä+¦

I agree with you that extremism is not good for the Church and that in recent times the Greek Old Calendarists (along with the ROCOR break offs) have further marginalized themselves from the Church. But as is being seen now the witness of the ROCOR is paying off and could have a large (positive) affect on the MP. My sincere hope is that someday the state Church of Greece will re-unite with the old calendarists and provide a unified witness against the rising forces opposed to Orthodoxy in the world.

I am so glad to see that you DID understand my post! Yes, ROCOR is fulfilling its exact purpose, preserving the ROC (if only some will let it succeed.) Please remember I am on very good terms with my local ROCOR priest.
As to Greece however, the squabbling factions of Old Calendarists are fighting themselves and thus hurting, not healing, the Church. But I'm sure you picked up on that as well.
Quote
I do understand very well what the role of traditionalism is within the EP/state church (where I will likely find myself in the future). There is a reason why my walls are covered in pictures of Elders Cleopas, Porphyrios, Philotheos, Paisios, Ephraim, St. Silouan et al who never left the confines of thier state church yet angered many within it by their traditonalism.

Again, you understand me well. I do not recall St Mark of Ephesus stating anything beyond a refusal to sign the Union of 1439 - no anathemas, no wallings-off, no unloving condemnations, just a statement and a continuance of Orthodoxy. He won.

Well done.

Demetri, under the EP AND Old Calendar
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 08, 2005, 03:35:57 AM
There was a period of intense squabbling among Old Calendarists in the 1970's. But in 1985, almost all of the Greek Old Calendarists were reunited under Archbishop Chrysostomos II. Apart from him and Metropolitan Cyprian, there are not any other large, viable, and consitent Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions. There are a few very small and vocal groups that do squabble but some of them are almost vagantes. The vast majority of Greek Old Calendarists are under the Synod of Chrysostomos II.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 08, 2005, 10:50:44 AM
er, Anastasios, then do you not really mean "the vast majority of what is left" of the Old Calendarists? A defense of their actions in this manner seems most odd.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 08, 2005, 12:54:34 PM
er, Anastasios, then do you not really mean "the vast majority of what is left" of the Old Calendarists? A defense of their actions in this manner seems most odd.

Demetri

I am not defending anyone, but rather am saying that while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.  Yes, the number of Old Calendarists is going down, but so is the number of people in the State Church who practice Orthodoxy.  I think any Church divisision is sad and do not condone schisms in the Church.  I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Sabbas on January 08, 2005, 06:16:41 PM
Quote
I am not defending anyone, but rather am saying that while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.  Yes, the number of Old Calendarists is going down, but so is the number of people in the State Church who practice Orthodoxy.  I think any Church divisision is sad and do not condone schisms in the Church.  I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

Anastasios

I agree whole heartedly with Anastasios's statement.

Quote
while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.

This is what I have also noticed and it really bugs me. By far the majority of Old Calendarists in resistance are either in the GOC or with Metropolitan Cyprian in the GSR, who has helped organize and is in full communion with the Old Calendar synods of Bulgaria, Romania, and Milan in addition to being in full communion with ROCOR and having close ties to the JP.  http://www.synodinresistance.gr/Dioikisi_en/Adelfesen.html   http://www.onr.com/user/milan/index.html

Quote
I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

I totally agree and I think this is why so many in official Orthodoxy think that it's all cut and dry; "they left the Church" when in fact they are in protest and cut themselves off from a jurisdiction. When I read about all that took place under Archbishop Auxentios I began to wonder if the man was suffering from a slight mental illness.

Another thing I think many are failing to see is that the calendar is but a part and symbol of something greater and far more pernicious that may bring the need for another Ecumenical Council.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 09, 2005, 02:18:36 AM
Well, my new friend Sabbas, I can see this thread is going to meander totally off the Old vs. New Calendar topic. I find it more than interesting that, outside of Greece -but including some synods even there, all the Old Calendarist churches you cite are virtually ROCOR creations (I think you canadd  Georgia to this list as well). Despite my respect for ROCOR, I get extremely angry at this outright uncanonical meddling in the sees of other churches. One wrong is not corrected by another.
You are correct, however, in that there is more going on than just a calendar issue, especially considering that the Church of Constantinople has entirely Old Calendar dioceses, some dioceses with both calendars including the GOAA which up to 1991 had two OC parishes. Also, among the 'normal' Orthodox (to use a term coined by Bishop Tikhon - OCA) OC and NC churches are in full communion. I guess it bothers the Old Calendarists that the 'normal' churches DON'T see a divisive issue here as they do. I am sure I will hear now an anti-ecumenist tirade in response here.
Go for it. :)

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 09, 2005, 02:40:16 AM
I remember reading a quote from a ROCOR council in the late 1960's or early 1970's, when the consecration of old Calendarist bishops for Greek Old Calendarist group(s) was being discussed. I don't recall whether this was said by Archbp. Averky or Met. Vitaly; but anyway, the bishop in question basically said (if my brain is not too far gone) that he would never have done anything so bold himself, but that it was in the end something that was done and had to be dealt with as an already-accomplished (and not totally bad) event. Whether it should have been done or not, whether it was canonical or not, I think is an argument that love can help us get past. What is important is, where do we go from here? I think we are headed in the right direction...
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on January 09, 2005, 09:36:12 AM
Thank you for adding that, Paradosis. I am optimistic too.

Demetri
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 11, 2005, 10:34:14 PM
An interesting quote I ran across today: "Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the Lord. Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your contrition; and let charity cover the multitude of sins." - Bl. Augustine, On Baptism (Against the Donatists), 2, 13 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3254_1889117)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: jmbejdl on January 28, 2005, 06:56:31 AM
Hi,

I'm new here. I'm a convert to the Orthodox Church (formerly a Protestant). I discovered Orthodoxy whilst working for a charity in Romania in 1995 and, after a lot of dithering became a catechumen and was accepted into the Church about 3 years ago now. Anyway, enough background, on with the question.

Sorry if this has been raised before, but does anyone hold any strong opinions on the calendar, i.e. whether the Old or New is correct? Obviously, I follow the New Calendar along with the rest of my jurisdiction, but I wouldn't consider myself a New Calendarist as such, I'd rather just be Orthodox (if you understand what I mean). For a long time, this didn't really concern me, but I'm now starting to wonder. The Old Calendar does seem to have a number of things in its favour and the New Calendar is certainly not accepted by all the churches - in fact, that lack of liturgical unity is one of my biggest issues.

When I go back to Romania (which I do often), I see the problems over the calendar only too clearly - the True Orthodox Church of Romania (Old Calendarist) has its base in Slatioara which isn't far from where I used to work. Frankly it saddens me to see the divisions, but I do wonder about the validity of the New Calendar. Once or twice I've spoken to people who do follow the Old Calendar who have advised me that I should change jurisdictions over the issue.

Can someone with more experience of the Orthodox faith than my paltry 3 years offer me some advice on this issue? I'm only too aware that converts can get rather over-zealous and a touch pharisaical (been there, done that - unfortunately) and I'd rather not go that way, but if the New Calendar really is the problem some say it is, then I'd rather not go that way either. Please help, even if you're just another recent convert like myself - it really would be useful for me to have a variety of views on this.

In Christ,

James
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on January 28, 2005, 08:45:41 AM
Welcome James,
Here in Greece we have a similiar situation to that of Romania where most of the church is on the new calendar and a small group on the old calendar have cut themselves off. However we also have the monasteries on Mount Athos which are all on the old calendar but remain in full communion with the Church of Greece which is on the new. The monks from Mount Athos happily take part in new calender services when they leave the Holy Mountain, and pilgrims from Greece on the new calendar happily take part in old calendar services on Mount Athos.

Personally, I would prefer the Church of Greece went back to the old calendar and I know there are many priests who feel the same way. I would be overjoyed if this happened in my lifetime.

John.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: jmbejdl on January 28, 2005, 08:57:07 AM
John,

Thanks for the reply. I think I'm in more or less the same situation you are - I wish that the Romanian church would go back to the Old Calendar but am currently stuck following the New. The thing is, that I feel like I owe a great debt to the Romanian church (and particularly to two saints and one fantastic monk) for leading me to the Truth, so I really don't want to go anywhere else. I certainly don't want to be part of a tiny walled off church either - I respect the opinions of the TOCR members, but I feel they've taken their protest too far. I take it your advice would be to stick with the status quo and pray for change?

James
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on January 28, 2005, 09:09:35 AM
Stick with the canonical church which is in communion with other canonical churches.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 28, 2005, 11:42:12 AM
Sorry to disagree with my esteemed global moderator who of course is entitled to his opinion which I respect--

I dislike the term canonical being thrown around. Uncanonical churches to me are the vagante churches set up by pseudo-bishops like Aftimios Ofiesh (deposed for getting married in the 1930's but went on to make other churches).  The Old Calendar movement, on the other hand, is canonical since it follows the canons.Communion with other churches is an ideal but not a preqrequisite for being Orthodox if one accepts we are in an age of falling away from the truth (not saying I accept or do not accept that premise)--ultimately the ones following the Fathers and living the faith as passed down to them are the canoinical and right body.

That's why I can't second Prodromos's advice; it's too simple.  There are too many factors involved.  You need to pray about the issue and read literature from both sides and then make an informed decision; don't just base arguments on "who's official."  I suppose as I have done with baptism of converts I could create a short bibliography of the issue of the calendar from both points of view if you are interested.

Anastasios

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 28, 2005, 12:10:00 PM
James,

You might want to look in this recent thread that went over the calendar... http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,4576.0.html

I'll clarify what Prodromos wrote. The TOCR is schismatic. It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions. It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction. Exercise of such lawful authority isn't justification for the Protestantization of the Orthodox Church where each becomes his own bishop.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 28, 2005, 02:33:11 PM
In Strelets' opinion the TOCR is schismatic, but I disagree. As a point of reference, the TOCR  is in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right and those churches which are on the New Calendar are in a grey area, as are the extremist Old Calendarists that anathematize everyone. I would say the best course of action would be to be in the ROCOR, Serbian patriarchate, Jerusalem Patriarchate, or one of the moderate Traditionalist Churches such as the TOC of Greece.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on January 28, 2005, 02:43:06 PM
Hi, James, and welcome to the forum.

The whole calendar thing seems to be overblown, imo, by these groups like the TOCR who, as has already been mentioned, actually wall themselves off from other Orthodox Churches.  What's even more frustrating (and what I think proves the ludicrousness of the situation) are these groups who attempt to sever communion with New Calendar jursidictions, yet who are perfectly content to remain in communion with other Old C jurisdictions who are themselves still in communion with the New C jurisdictions!  It just seems to be a sort of legalism, where technically they're not in communion with those who have the "wrong calendar" (so they're still "OK") but they have only moved a step back from the problem by accepting those who accept those who do.

I personally prefer the Old C, but see the logic behind the New C -- to correspond to the civil calendar of the day.  It's just too bad it was thrown upon some parts of the Orthodox world in such a haphazard and ill-meant fashion.

As for Anastasios' take on Prodromos' advice, well...I don't think it just comes down to a view of "following the canons," because this begs the question: which jurisdictions are "following the canons"?  My advice would be to look at the churches no one has a problem with--i.e., the Old C ones the "synods in resistance" still commune with (Serbia, Jerusalem et al) and see what they do.  As it is, they've not severed communion over Calendar--ultimately no one in communion with them really has--so I wouldn't be so quick to jump ship over something that we as an Orthodox family haven't yet made a "deal-breaker."

It's a mess, yeah.  But not one we have to leave the house over.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 28, 2005, 03:22:18 PM
I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right...

Why?  Local Synods have made certain liturgical changes at times that differed with other existing practices, and this has not always led to a breaking away.  What makes the Calendar different? 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: NickolaiOJ on January 28, 2005, 03:32:52 PM
I just  don't get the big deal.  some Churches chose to follow the civil calender of the land that they lived in.  Which is what happened when the Church started using the Julian calender.  It's not like the Church created the Julian Calender.  They just used it becuase it was there.

I really have no problem with either calender.  I would just like some agreement on which calender we should use, even though I know this won't happen. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 28, 2005, 04:06:17 PM


Why? Local Synods have made certain liturgical changes at times that differed with other existing practices, and this has not always led to a breaking away. What makes the Calendar different?

The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon.  The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained.  Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches. Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 28, 2005, 05:29:32 PM
In Strelets' opinion the TOCR is schismatic, but I disagree. As a point of reference, the TOCR is in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

They are in schism with the Romanian Church. I'm not sure the communion-by-association rule really exists, or that anyone really practices it. If that's the case, then the True O jurisdictions that have declared other jurisdictions, such as the EP, to be schismatic and/or heretical, are therefore schismatics/heretics themselves through a logical chain of communions.

Quote
I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right...

Given that no EC ever adopted a calendar, it doesn't follow that an EC is required for a Church to use the civil calendar it happened to fall under. The use of the civil calendar seems to be a given, much like using other technology for telling time (digital watches come to mind). Why stop at calendars? How about creating a new jurisdiction that uses the Roman water clock like the Apostles?

Quote
The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon. The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained.

So what you're saying is that unity was already maintained, before they made this effort? 1700 years of unity passed by and suddenly a rule arose out of thin air that a single typikon was necessary for all Orthodox???

Quote
Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches.

But the bishops and local synods have always had the prerogative in deciding the standards for discipline within the liturgical life of their jurisdictions so long as the decisions of the ECs were maintained. Changing the calendar within one's jurisdiction to the civil one does not do violence against any canon law in the ECs. On the contrary, breaking communion from your bishop and setting up shop in the same city and region does.

Quote
Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

Huh? One could just as easily say the process continues and it's coalescing into the one universal usage of the Revised Julian Calendar. And it's my understanding that parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India never used the Julian Calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 28, 2005, 05:52:41 PM
And it's my understanding that parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India never used the Julian Calendar.

I'll get back to the rest of this post sometime later (I heard the chapel bell ring a few minutes ago), but I just wanted to say that in India, the Julian Calendar was used until 1953, when the full Gregorian Calendar was adopted for reasons similar to those the Finns cite when defending their change.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 28, 2005, 05:56:34 PM
James

I've seen things in pretty much every post that I both agree and disagree with. *shrugs* I've only been Orthodox three years myself, but my own advice is to just take your time, pray, study, read scripture, cultivate the virtues, and trust in God to lead you. "Well-reasoned hesitation [is better] than inconsiderate haste" (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2) :)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 28, 2005, 06:00:08 PM
Stelets,

I have a feeling we are on totally different wavelengths and debating this issue with you is causing me to feel several negative emotions and an intense desire to start debating you full force. But I really don't want to do that, for one because I am an administrator of the site and I don't want to be at the center of a conflict on this issue specifically, and also because I just don't have the energy right now to do it. I apologize if I in any way offended you in anything I said and you can have the last word if you so desire. Have a blessed day.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 28, 2005, 06:41:37 PM
I'll get back to the rest of this post sometime later (I heard the chapel bell ring a few minutes ago), but I just wanted to say that in India, the Julian Calendar was used until 1953, when the full Gregorian Calendar was adopted for reasons similar to those the Finns cite when defending their change.

I'd like to read more about it. My understanding was that the vernal equinox for the Indian Orthodox was determined differently than in the other Julian Calendar lands, which made it a de facto revised Julian Calendar of sorts. Nevertheless, there were over two dozen calendars in India until the civil calendar reform in in 1957, which established one civil calendar and was followed by the Malankara Church. This would support the tradition of using the civil calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 28, 2005, 08:38:13 PM


I'd like to read more about it.  My understanding was that the vernal equinox for the Indian Orthodox was determined differently than in the other Julian Calendar lands, which made it a de facto revised Julian Calendar of sorts.  Nevertheless, there were over two dozen calendars in India until the civil calendar reform in in 1957, which established one civil calendar and was followed by the Malankara Church.  This would support the tradition of using the civil calendar.

I am not aware that the Malayalam calendar was used to calculate the vernal equinox, and thus the date of Easter.  Everything I've read has claimed that it was the Julian Calendar which the Orthodox used to calculate the moveable feasts.  In 1953, this was changed: the govt. did not want to give the people two sets of Christian holy days off (most everyone who works in India gets several religious holidays off, whether or not they are adherents of those religions), so they said we could either switch calendars and go with the Western dates so that everyone could be off and go to church or keep the Orthodox dates and not get the days off.  Thinking it better to change dates and have everyone celebrate rather than keep the old dates and see few people at services, they changed calendars.  I remember hearing somewhere (maybe Paul2004 can comment) that some Hindu holiday for which the schoolchildren were usually off coincided with Orthodox Christmas (6 January--I think this was before the Julian added a day), and so the vacation was called "Christmas Break" or something like that.  I could be wrong about this, though. 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the switch, given the reasons.  Ideally, I'd like to see the old calendar restored, at least in America (where, I think, it might actually be easier to restore it among Indian Orthodox, all things considered).  But as long as the calendar is consistent, not mixing and matching (like the Revised Julian), I think it can work.   

The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon. The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained. Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches. Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

I know you said you were bowing out of this discussion, but I will pose my question anyway, leaving it up to you whether or not you want to answer this publically.  It is my understanding that the calendar is different from the Typikon (the book which tells you how to celebrate the services, what to sing, how to blend texts for different combinations of feasts, etc.).  I have no problem with the entire EO world adopting a single Typikon in the 1400's; that is their prerogative, since they all share the Byzantine rite (regardless of anyone's opinions on our Churches, I would hesitate to say that "the Orthodox Church" became unified in its liturgical practice, since the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Ethiopians, and Indians, united in a common confession of Orthodox faith, were able to co-exist with different languages and rites, and, in this "smaller world" of ours, are no less able to do so--but I digress). 

The universal adoption of the Sabbaite Typikon is not a dogmatic issue, and neither is the calendar.  EOxy has within it a very small Western rite following: they don't use the same rite as the majority of their co-religionists, but I don't think anyone would doubt their Orthodoxy (unless one wanted to call the Orthodoxy of the Antiochian Archdiocese into question).  Multiplicity of rites does not constitute a break in unity or necessitate a break in communion, and neither should a calendar.  Furthermore, it seems to me that the calendar cannot be brought into this discussion, since the Julian Calendar was in existence long before there were schisms which cut off different liturgical families from each other.  There was unity back then, as well as diversity.     

Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness?  Judged by what standard?  According to Eucharistic ecclesiology (which you may or may not subscribe to, I am not sure), every local Church is the Church in its fulness, or is equal to it.  Throughout the history of the Church, local Churches have issued guidelines for their own people, often without sending delegates all over the world to consult with the leaders of other local Churches about it--what you propose might be an ideal, but reality looks different to me.  The example that comes to mind most quickly is the canonisation of saints.  Properly, the recognition of saints is the prerogative of the entire Church.  But local Churches often canonise locally, and let other local Churches decide about whether or not to recognise that for themselves and include them in their own respective calendars.  It may happen in EOxy that this regularly happens over the course of time (that a saint from one local Church comes to be accepted and venerated everywhere), but that does not need to happen *before* canonisation occurs, nor do the other Churches have to investigate the matter themselves, or send representatives to the Church in question to join them in canonising the person.  I think local Synods do have the authority to make disciplinary decisions for their own flocks independent of other local Churches, and this need not be a source for division.  The wisdom of such decisions and the way they were/are carried out are legitimate points to criticise, but I am not sure we can say local Synods don't have the authority to make the actual decisions.       
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 28, 2005, 11:05:04 PM
Mor Ephrem,

I don't know if Anastasios plans on answering here, or if he is even going to return to thre thread to read it, so I did want to say something at least about...

Quote
Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness? Judged by what standard? According to Eucharistic ecclesiology (which you may or may not subscribe to, I am not sure), every local Church is the Church in its fulness, or is equal to it.

At first, I had a similar reaction as you. Obviously on it's face this seems to contradict orthodox ecclesiology, especially as articulated by Fathers like Ignatius. But, what I think Anastasios meant was, while local bishops could do as they wished, they were nonetheless part of a larger body and could not simply do everything they wanted independent of the rest of the body. The arm cannot go one direction while the leg goes in the other. There is a limited distance that they can go apart before they either get yanked back or leave the body. I think this is what Anastasios was talking about. So, it's all fine and good, and his prerogative, for a bishop to make liturgical changes; however, if the bishop decides that priests are to do the Moon Walk ala Michael Jackson before giving out communion, then that's something that the rest of the Churches can take note of and say something about. He is technically independent and equal to the other bishops, but he is still part of the body of Christ and therefore can't be allowed to introduce innovations that would harm the flock. I assume that that was what Anastasios meant, that while this bishop would have the "fulness" on the local level and in no way be lacking anything that God provides to his own (sacraments, virtues, etc.), nonetheless he was only "part" of the "fulness" of the entire body of Christ, to whose judgment he has to submit himself.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tony on January 28, 2005, 11:46:38 PM
Ugh the Moonwalk. That brings back bad memories.  :o
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 29, 2005, 12:52:31 AM
He is technically independent and equal to the other bishops, but he is still part of the body of Christ and therefore can't be allowed to introduce innovations that would harm the flock.

But here's the kicker... these other bishops and synods are in full communion with the guys who adopted the RJC. While the dissenting priest/bishop thinks his jurisdiction has just tried to make him do the moonwalk, so to speak, and therefore has abandoned Orthodoxy, the other synods don't agree that it's a matter worthy of separation. It makes no pastoral or theological sense to say it's better to join, say the Serbian Church in my town, than the OCA one when the Serbs are in the WCC, they receive communion in my parish, we receive communion in theirs, their priest is clean shaven and dresses like a Catholic outside of the parish, they have pews, and their icons look Western.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 29, 2005, 01:23:51 AM
Dear Justin,

I submit that there is a difference between the new calendar and the Moonwalk.  :P

Part of my problem is that I'm looking at this issue through the lens of experience which EO by and large don't seem to have (or had, and seem to have forgotten).  You are in the Russian Church, Anastasios feels more Greek, others Carpatho-Russian, others Ukrainian, etc.  In the end, all of your mother Churches are relatively close to each other, and for the major part of Church history, that's what you are used to...relative geographic proximity, identical rites, pan-"Hellenic"/"Byzantine" culture, etc.  Rewind a bit, and you have Churches as far away from Rome as India also in communion with your own Church: Churches with different rites, more spread out, differing in culture and custom.  Do you really expect that Indians are gonna travel to Constantinople to inform St. Gregory the Theologian about their lectionary so that they can change it to conform to that of Constantinople?  Do you really expect Armenians to go to Gaul and say "Hey guys, we are using unleavened bread, what about you?"  Do you expect Latins in Spain to go to Ethiopia and talk about how Pope Gregory the Great gave them permission to baptise with one single immersion in order to combat Arianism (I know, this is later, but I'm trying to make a point)? 

No one felt the need to move *only* with the consent and blessing of the *entire* Church.  The Church, even in its local manifestations, had/has the authority to make disciplinary changes which it thinks are best suited to the conditions it currently finds itself in, as long as they don't compromise the Faith: that's not to say they can change everything willy-nilly, but they have authority.  If the local Churches don't have this power, then what?  You can argue that an ecumenical council has such power, but then a council is only ecumenical if it is received as such, not because of some external criteria which, when present, automatically render a council ecumenical (you can't say "an ecumenical council proclaims the true Orthodox faith, hence it is ecumenical"; even local councils can do that and not be regarded as ecumenical).  If you have a council, and it is not received ecumenically, then what do you do? 

I'm not suggesting that the local Churches have the authority to literally go out on a limb--as you alluded to, they can only move so far, like an arm or leg on the body--but neither am I content to see the local Churches bound in a straitjacket, unable to move at all because in the latter part of the second millenium, all the "Greeks" decided to do everything the same way.  Fundamentally, the Churches have the ability to be "diverse" without being "strange" to each other, to live in different conditions in different ways without breaking communion with those who, confessing the same Orthodox faith, live in their own conditions in their own ways.  I don't see why all EO *must* be on one calendar: I can certainly see why it is preferable, but I don't see why it is a strict ontological necessity, since it is the faith, and not the calendar, which unites Orthodox (and it seems the vast majority of EO in the world live precisely in this way).

If you want to criticise the motivations behind the change, I think that's fair game.                 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Kardia on January 29, 2005, 02:59:44 AM
I claim no real understanding of the differences, though I think I understand the basics.  Having come from a religion that could argue on end the definition of one word in a scripture, or whether someone could sit in a different pew, I don't particularly enjoy getting involved in disagreements.  Finding Orthodoxy has been so -- beyond words, actually -- life-changing, amazing, awesome, that I really am in a wonderful place of looking forward to my baptism, crismation, and finally receiving the Wonderful and Holy Mysteries.  I've had the glorious and loving experience of seeing two priests in this area actually help each other during their respective services -- one old calendar, one new.  They are close friends, and speak highly of each other.  I feel totally comfortable in both places.  As it turned out, I am being baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. 

My question is this:  How does following one calendar or another actually affect the development of one's character, of one's spiritual/mental/physical life as a Christian?  How does one or the other make one more Godlike, and how does one compared to the other help one on the journey toward Theosis?
Is that not what we are to do be doing as Orthodox Christians? 

I make no claim to know anything --- I have so far to go, so much to learn.  My view is this; if there comes a time in my journey that making a change is significant in the development of my "becoming", I will deal with it then.  Until then, I have so much to do and change, I will focus on those things.  And I am grateful to have two wonderful priests for which I have tremendous admiration, that come from both old and new calendar.  It is clear at this time that God has brought me to this parish, the Greek Church.  Thank You and Praise You, God, for leading me Home!

Kardia
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 29, 2005, 01:30:53 PM
Quote
My question is this: How does following one calendar or another actually affect the development of one's character, of one's spiritual/mental/physical life as a Christian? How does one or the other make one more Godlike, and how does one compared to the other help one on the journey toward Theosis?

Neither calendars has any bearing on the questions you asked. Following one or the other does not change the facts of your salvation, your Christology, your standing in the Church, nor your fidelity to the Orthodox Faith. Rather, I believe that if you do believe it affects the theosis of your brothers and sisters, then you've already let it impact your own in a highly negative way. Like Mor Ephrem, I've not seen any of the "problems" in celebrating services in mixed calendars among the jurisdictions in communion with each other in real life, though you'd get the impression that such was the case by discussions like this online. If it were truly the case that all the Old Calendar jurisdictions and their synods believed it was a barrier to shared communion and believed it was an uncanonical change, then the theory might be credible. But that's not the reality. For those groups that say otherwise... you need to look at their truth claims, read the actual canon laws invoked (and not their altered translations), who supports their interpretations, whether there is any precedent for their actions (i.e. creating new jurisdictions), and above all talk with live priests in your area. You'll find groups making a lot of noise online, who might have more bishops and priests than actual lay members.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on January 29, 2005, 04:12:44 PM


I'll clarify what Prodromos wrote.  The TOCR is schismatic.  It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions.  It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction.  Exercise of such lawful authority isn't justification for the Protestantization of the Orthodox Church where each becomes his own bishop.

Strelets,
It seems the OCA previously fell into the category you mention.

You said : It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions

After the Metropolia's break with the administration of ROCOR for no justifiable reason and formation of a new "jurisdiction", to the time of the Metropolia's Autocephaly in 1970, there are a good number of years where this jurisdiction "disobeyed their bishops"...and not even over doctrinal matters.
Also, from where have you gotten this notion that it's within the canonical rights of a a jurisdiction to decide which calendar they will use? If it's canonical, which canon are you citing?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on January 29, 2005, 04:32:25 PM
It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction. 

I'd also like to quote:

Act 7 of the Council of Constantinople (20 Nov 1583 o.s.):

      "He that does not follow the customs of the Church  and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have  decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar  which have been laid down as law for us to follow,  but desire to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and  calendar, let him, as well as the impious astronomers who contradicts all the decrees of the  Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them,  be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assembly of the Faithful." [/i]

Now, whether or not you or I accept this council, it seems that this pronouncement raises some problems when each synod decides its own calendar.  Just how much weight will this question be given by each Synod(seems like quite a bit in the case of the abovementioned council)? Is it a question of doctrine for each Synod (again, seems to be to the folks above)? If it is a question of doctrine for some, and its  change will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity, and in reality it was initiated for no other purpose than "getting along" with the heterodox, maybe it is an important question- one bigger than local synods.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on January 29, 2005, 07:03:36 PM
Bogo,

First of all--good to hear from you again!  It's been awhile...

Secondly, about question you asked concerning the council--

If [the calendar] is a question of doctrine for some, and it's a change will will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity, and in reality it was initiated for no other purpose than "getting along" with the heterodox, maybe it is an important question- one bigger than local synods.

...What were the reasons for these labels--"impious astronomers who contradict all the decrees of the  Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them"--were they called this because they truly WERE seeking to contradict the Holy Councils?  DID they IN ACTUALITY contradict them?  Or were they called this by this council simply because those who reckoned it weren't Orthodox? 

According to my understanding (which, I admit, isn't the best or most thorough), the majority of the actual dates were kept unaltered.  For example, St. Peter was still commemorated on June 29, Nativity was still on Dec. 25th, the basic formula for determining Pascha was left the same though applied differently.  The basic PREMISE of the calendar--iow, its structure for commemorating saints and sacred dates--was largely left alone, which appears to be the main issue; only the accuracy with which it was applied to the dates was changed. 

I agree that the reasons for adopting the New C at the time they were initially adopted were ridiculous; as you said, it was just to "get along" with the heterodox.  Again, though, that was at the time they were initially adopted.  I do not hear these reasons being touted by Orthodox hierarchs or faithful at present.  Astronomical correctness, redeeming the time as the world understands it by infusing it with holy meaning--these are the reasons for corresponding with the civil calendar to reckon the dates.  To equate New C efforts of today with the misguided motives of past heirarchs is a bit hasty.

Mor--very good points.  I agree with everything you said, especially the lack of unity in praxis throughout the still-whole--and by whole I mean catholic whole, complete--Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 29, 2005, 10:14:01 PM
After the Metropolia's break with the administration of ROCOR for no justifiable reason and formation of a new "jurisdiction", to the time of the Metropolia's Autocephaly in 1970, there are a good number of years where this jurisdiction "disobeyed their bishops"...and not even over doctrinal matters.

The problem with this logic is that the OCA has maintained communion with the so-called "world" Orthodox Churches. Nevertheless, my words were directed to the ever splitting groups who habitually add "Genuine" or "True" in front of their names, as if an Untrue Orthodoxy is even possible. ROCOR is another matter, especially since they're on track to rejoining the MP.

Also, from where have you gotten this notion that it's within the canonical rights of a a jurisdiction to decide which calendar they will use? If it's canonical, which canon are you citing?

There's a logical fallacy in that question somewhere. It's perfectly legal for me to drive a car painted pink with lime green polka dots... where's the law that says I can drive a car painted pink with lime green polka dots? The calendar was established in no Ecumenical Council. Thusly, it's perfectly legal for synods to change it. This is evidenced by the fact that the Moscow, Serbian, and Jerusalem Patriarchates find no claim against the New Calendar jurisdictions.

I'd also like to quote:

Act 7 of the Council of Constantinople (20 Nov 1583 o.s.):

   "He that does not follow the customs of the Church and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar which have been laid down as law for us to follow, but desire to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and calendar, let him, as well as the impious astronomers who contradicts all the decrees of the Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them, be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assembly of the Faithful." [/i]

I'm afraid we went through this passage before, so I'll just rehash my earlier comments. The first sentence you posted actually reads:

"That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the new Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful."

The bolded areas are what gets changed when you look at a True O site, and that's why I wrote earlier that one needs to investigate the matter for themselves, speak with live priests, rather than accept at face value what someone posts online. The Menologion is not the Julian Calendar. The New Calendar jurisdictions have maintained the Paschal formula of the First EC, and they use the same Menologion as the Old Calendar Churches. We did not adopt the Pope's Menologion. This Council you sited was condemning the actions of the Pope which broke the Paschal requirements, not simply because it was a change.

If it is a question of doctrine for some, and itschange will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity...

I believe Mor answered the liturgical unity question quite adequately.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 29, 2005, 10:30:06 PM
I would rather say nothing more here, but I guess since I opened my yap I'm obligated to :) Mor Ephrem, I agree with the principles you outlines, but I do not think they are applicable to the calendar situation for the following reasons:

1) Though the revised Julian Calendar has not been explicitly condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Council, I think the 20 or more councils that weighed in on the general issue of the calendar between the 17th century and 1924 make it pretty clear that, for EO's, you just shouldn't tamper with the calendar. Thus, I don't think it's acceptable to treat it as though it is something a bishop came up with on his own, not knowing that other Orthodox would react in a strongly negative way.

2) There was certainly no lack of communication or problems of that sort. So while I agree with what you said about the difficulty of communications in ancient times, I don't think it applies to the modern era.

3) Persecutions arose, as did a divisions which left millions (over the past 80 years) possibly in schism (wait, did I just use Met. Chrysostomos of Florina's concept of "potential schism"? :) ). If the Fathers were right in saying that it is not just those who are formally sentenced and executed by the state who are martyrs, but those who also die because they were practicing their faith, then I would say that the admittedly very rare cases of martyrdom have continued up to this day. But just if we were speaking of the division alone: what could possibly justify new calendarists maintaining the status quo in a situation like this?

4) The majority of the world's Orthodox remain Old Calendar, and even within New Calendar bodies opposition to the calendar innovation is easily demonstrable.

5) The calendar innovation goes against not just a few Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 17th century, but against the very spirit of Orthodoxy, in that it changes tradition willy nilly for no justifiable reason. Does it effect someone's salvation? I would say no. But then, others disagree, and I personally wouldn't want to take that chance. The 7th Ecumenical Council, with all the Fathers, speak against throwing off the traditions handed down to us; without a justifiable reason anyway. St. John Chrysostom said somewhere "It is tradition, seek no further." I don't think St. John was affirming a blind anti-intellectualism, but I do think the spirit of what he was saying was valid, and applicable in this particular case.

6) It gives us liturgical chaos, where in the same city (and sometimes in the same parish) one Christian is fasting while another is celebrating a feast. Sometimes entire chunks of the liturgical calendar are cut out of the New Calendar (e.g., the Apostles Fast).

I debated with myself all day whether to post a response. On the first page I tried to take a decidedly non-partisan approach, which I think is best. After that, to my discredit, I allowed myself to get into a "defend the faith" mode. Or more accurately, defend my beliefs, which is neither necessary nor beneficial.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 30, 2005, 01:58:02 AM
Quote
Persecutions arose, as did a divisions which left millions (over the past 80 years) possibly in schism (wait, did I just use Met. Chrysostomos of Florina's concept of "potential schism"? ).

Millions of Old Calendarists are in schism? Where??? By the way, should we dump the Chalcedonian Council? Or, on a smaller scale, should the MP and ROCOR revert back to the two finger blessing, so as to allow the Old Believers back in? Or does the MP have the right to make those local liturgical changes as it sees fit? Let's not limit our arbitrary rules of accomodation towards the dissent of a dissaffected minority.

Quote
The majority of the world's Orthodox remain Old Calendar, and even within New Calendar bodies opposition to the calendar innovation is easily demonstrable.

And yet... they are in communion and get along just fine. There's no justification therefore in breaking communion, an act with which most Old Calendar Orthodox disagree.

Quote
But then, others disagree, and I personally wouldn't want to take that chance. The 7th Ecumenical Council, with all the Fathers, speak against throwing off the traditions handed down to us; without a justifiable reason anyway.

Care to enumerate this list of traditions they referred to? Or does anything one classifies as "tradition" count as much? The fallacy of broad definition seems to be at play, where a broadly phrased word gets interpreted to me anything in particular. It seems to me, at least, that tradition was a benchmark established for testing whether a doctrine was correct, and what wasn't. The Fathers couldn't have intended that any traditional practice was a matter of Faith or else we'd still be Jews and sacrificing lambs on the fire.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on January 30, 2005, 02:18:02 AM
Quote
By the way, should be dump the Chalcedonian Council?

That is an ironic argument to make in favor of the new calendarists. The synods that broke away from the state churches in Greece, Romania, Bulgarie etc. main protest besides the calendar change is ecumenism which seeks to dump the Chalcedonian council.

As a side note I support the traditionalists within the State Church of Greece that are opposed to the Ecumenism and modernism such as Metropilitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos and others. But to slander and malign the Old Calendarists is still wrong, IMO.

Also: your new interpretation of the Syond of Constantinople in 1583 seems off to me. You are tryign to say there is a difference of intention between them stating Menaion and one person translating it calendar. When the intent was clearly to condmen the Gregorian Calendar, your attempt to play with the words doesn't hold up. The fathers of that council clearly were opposed to the Gregorian Calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on January 30, 2005, 06:14:57 PM
Quote
Quote
By the way, should be dump the Chalcedonian Council?
That is an ironic argument to make in favor of the new calendarists.

It's not an argument at all in favor of the RJC. It's an argument against the idea that a synod of bishops can't do something because some will choose to leave the Church. That in itself can't be a standard for any synodal/conciliar decision, or else we'd never have had a Paschal formula imposed upon competing formulas at the time of the First EC.

The synods that broke away from the state churches in Greece, Romania, Bulgarie etc. main protest besides the calendar change is ecumenism which seeks to dump the Chalcedonian council.

And that's further evidence that they're out of tune with reality. Tell me which new calendar jurisdiction, infected by such ecumenicism, is seeking to dump the Chalcedonian council. Quotes and documents, please.

As a side note I support the traditionalists within the State Church of Greece that are opposed to the Ecumenism and modernism such as Metropilitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos and others. But to slander and malign the Old Calendarists is still wrong, IMO.

The issue that I see continuously cropping up in these discussions is a conflation between being an Old Calendarist and being in a schismatic organization. Most of the Old Calendarists are in communion with their New Calendarist brothers and sisters and, rightly, don't abuse this issue as an excuse to break communion. That's the matter I have addressed.

Also: your new interpretation of the Syond of Constantinople in 1583 seems off to me. You are tryign to say there is a difference of intention between them stating Menaion and one person translating it calendar. When the intent was clearly to condmen the Gregorian Calendar, your attempt to play with the words doesn't hold up. The fathers of that council clearly were opposed to the Gregorian Calendar.

They were opposed to it because it broke the Paschal formula established at the First EC, not just for the sake of opposing it. You can't simply oppose something for no reason. The Revised Julian Calendar adopted by the New Calendar jurisidictions fully abides by the Paschal formula and continues using the same Menologion.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on January 30, 2005, 09:15:40 PM
Quote
Tell me which new calendar jurisdiction, infected by such ecumenicism, is seeking to dump the Chalcedonian council. Quotes and documents, please.

Refer to the recent statements of the Orthodox Patriach of Antioch and the Non Chalcedonian Patriach.  They are slowly slipping into a de facto communion.  If you are not aware of this it has been discussed ad nauseum here and at the ecafe. 

Quote
The Revised Julian Calendar adopted by the New Calendar jurisidictions fully abides by the Paschal formula and continues using the same Menologion.

Already the Church of Finland has dumped the Orthodox dating of Pascha. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Asteriktos on January 30, 2005, 09:22:51 PM
I was making mostly pastoral arguments, not theological ones. Or attempting to anyway. People said that the calendar issue wasn't that important, so I was trying to make as many arguments as I could on their own turf (ie. speaking of how it would effect people in the real world and not just speaking of theological issues in principle).I was thinking of stuff like "Love suffers all" and the idea that we should give up even good and acceptable things if it causes our brothers to fall. I didn't realise that I was suppose to be debating certain people; sorry, I don't do that anymore.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 30, 2005, 11:57:44 PM
1) Though the revised Julian Calendar has  not been explicitly condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Council, I think the 20 or more councils that weighed in on the general issue of the calendar between the 17th century and 1924 make it pretty clear that, for EO's, you just shouldn't tamper with the calendar. Thus, I don't think it's acceptable to treat it as though it is something a bishop came up with on his own, not knowing that other Orthodox would react in a strongly negative way.

I've read very little about these councils (didn't know there were 20 of them!), but what little I've read makes me wonder on what basis the Gregorian Calendar was rejected by these local Orthodox councils.  Forgive me, but what little I do know about these makes it seem like the only reason for rejecting it was simply because it came from the West.  If that is indeed the case (and I suspect you will disagree), then that's hardly a valid reason for rejecting something, no matter how many councils were summoned. 

Quote
2) There was certainly no lack of communication or problems of that sort. So while I agree with what you said about the difficulty of communications in ancient times, I don't think it applies to the modern era.

My point was that the local Churches obviously do have the power to act in disciplinary matters on their own to an extent, and this is a fundamental power.  If they didn't have this power inherently, then communication or no communication, it would be hard for the Church to get things done.  As communication gets easier, it may be of greater benefit to communicate with the other Churches, but if this is not done, it is not a reason to reject anything, since the exercise of this power is legitimate.   

Quote
4) The majority of the world's Orthodox remain Old Calendar, and even within New Calendar bodies opposition to the calendar innovation is easily demonstrable.

5) The calendar innovation goes against not just a few Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 17th century, but against the very spirit of Orthodoxy, in that it changes tradition willy nilly for no justifiable reason. Does it effect someone's salvation? I would say no. But then, others disagree, and I personally wouldn't want to take that chance. The 7th Ecumenical Council, with all the Fathers, speak against throwing off the traditions handed down to us; without a justifiable reason anyway. St. John Chrysostom said somewhere "It is tradition, seek no further." I don't think St. John was affirming a blind anti-intellectualism, but I do think the spirit of what he was saying was valid, and applicable in this particular case.

I think that one can legitimately criticise such decisions as the calendar change if they have a real basis for it (I can accept some of the standard arguments in favour of the old calendar); really the only thing I have a problem with is the idea that only an ecumenical council can mandate a calendar change.  I think this takes away legitimate power from the local Churches.  If you disagree, then I'd like to know where I can find support for the opposite. 

Quote
6) It gives us liturgical chaos, where in the same city (and sometimes in the same parish) one Christian is fasting while another is celebrating a feast. Sometimes entire chunks of the liturgical calendar are cut out of the New Calendar (e.g., the Apostles Fast).

Other than the Apostles' Fast, what other "chunks" of the liturgical calendar are cut out on the new calendar? 

You have a point about "liturgical chaos", but exactly how far do you think we can take this?  Should we start insisting that every church celebrate every feast in exactly the same way?  For instance, if it is 6 October (my favourite example), and the Greeks want to celebrate St. Thomas the Apostle, and the Russians want to celebrate St. Innocent, should the Russians give way to the Greeks in the name of conformity?

Finally, I'd like to see this thread stay on topic, and not go astray with the insertion of Chalcedon where it has no place.  There's enough anti-ecumenism to go around.  :P 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: jmbejdl on February 01, 2005, 04:27:39 AM
All,

Thanks for your many replies - they've given me a lot to think about! I'd just like to clarify, for those who seemed to think that I was worried that the calendar issue was one pertaining to salvation, that I do not. I am more bothered by the lack of liturgical unity (I realsie that this is not strictly necessary, but it would be better, I think, if we all celebrated the same feasts at the same time) and the schisms that have sprung up over this issue. I particularly dislike the odd situations we get following the New Calendar such as the Apostles' Fast lasting -x days. That is just ridiculous.

All the arguments about ecumenicism in New Calendar parishes don't really seem to hold up that well to me. True, Patriarch Teoctist is maybe rather more ecumenically minded than I'd like, but Romanian parishes like the one I was married in are usually extremely conservative (beards, no pews, no organs, and certainly no clerical collars) whereas I know Old Calendar parishes in the UK that are much more heterodox in their outward appearance. I don't think, therefore, that the New Calendar necessarily goes hand in hand with a modernising, ecumenical tendency.

I feel that I shall probably stay where I am, at least for the time being. I do not like the New Calendar, but I'd rather pray for a return to the Old for the whole Romanian church than wall myself off. Of course, if somebody can give me a compelling reason why this attitude is wrong then I'd be willing to reassess my position. Thanks again for all your help, I'll follow St. Gregory the Theologian's advice as posted by Paradosis on this one, I think.

In Christ,

James
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. David on February 01, 2005, 12:44:35 PM
I feel that I shall probably stay where I am, at least for the time being. I do not like the New Calendar, but I'd rather pray for a return to the Old for the whole Romanian church than wall myself off.

Good call, imo.  I'm doing the same for the States.  :-X
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 01, 2005, 01:37:23 PM
A small correction, the Byzantine Churches do not use one Typicon.  The Slav Churches use the Sabaite the Greek Churches use the Studite, and before these two dominated the Great Church had its own Typicon.  Add to this different recensions of these Typicons and there is diversity.  Why diversity here is tolerated but the Gregorian/Revised Julian Calendar is considereed a deal breaker by some I will never understand.  As Phil points out, among the Oriental Orthodox it just isn't a big deal.  When they are in a country that uses the Gregorian Calendar some choose to adopt it and the other Churches don't excommunicate them.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 02, 2005, 12:09:59 AM
Quote
Why diversity here is tolerated but the Gregorian/Revised Julian Calendar is considereed a deal breaker by some I will never understand.  As Phil points out, among the Oriental Orthodox it just isn't a big deal.  When they are in a country that uses the Gregorian Calendar some choose to adopt it and the other Churches don't excommunicate them.

Father Deacon Lance,

Now that you mention it, that is an interesting point- one I'd never thought about until you brought it up.

In Christ,
Aaron
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 02, 2005, 03:16:46 AM
It is absurd to compare slight difference in the way liturgy is celebrated to not celebrating the same feasts at the same time.  For example tomorrow if I go over to my Greek friend's house for dinner do I eat fish because he is celebrating the presentation?  That is litteraly a case of him feasting and me fasting on the same day and we live less than a mile apart - does this make sense?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 02, 2005, 12:44:13 PM
For example tomorrow if I go over to my Greek friend's house for dinner do I eat fish because he is celebrating the presentation?

What do you do if your friend isn't Orthodox? Do you only pick friends who don't eat meat when you are fasting? Do you just avoid all company during your fasts? Try this... just eat the bread and vegetables. If he's your friend, it's really not a big deal.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 02, 2005, 06:51:45 PM
A small correction, the Byzantine Churches do not use one Typicon. The Slav Churches use the Sabaite the Greek Churches use the Studite, and before these two dominated the Great Church had its own Typicon.

The Greek Churches don't use the Studite Typikon.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8123.asp

Quote
The new Typikon of Constantinople was adopted gradually by: the churches under the immediate jurisdiction of the Patriarchate; all Greek-speaking churches; and to a varying degree by other churches. The older Typikon of St. Savas continues to be used by most monastic communities, as well as the Churches of Jerusalem and Russia and others.

If you read that article at that link you will find that the "new Typikon of Constantinople" is the Violakis typikon.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 02, 2005, 07:03:46 PM
Why diversity here is tolerated but the Gregorian/Revised Julian Calendar is considereed a deal breaker by some I will never understand. As Phil points out, among the Oriental Orthodox it just isn't a big deal. When they are in a country that uses the Gregorian Calendar some choose to adopt it and the other Churches don't excommunicate them.

Some EO have also adopted the Gregorian calendar with the western paschalion and to my knowledge none have been excommunicated.  The Orthodox Church of Finland comes to mind. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2005, 09:58:28 AM
Tony,

Thank you for the correction, but is not the Violakis Typicon simply a simplification of the Studite to make it easier to use in parishes?

Excommunication was the wrong word.  Schism within Churches over the calendar issue was my point.  This does not occur among the Oriental Orthodox nor do they make a fuss over it like many EOs do.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on February 03, 2005, 11:08:39 AM
Tony,

Thank you for the correction, but is not the Violakis Typicon simply a simplification of the Studite to make it easier to use in parishes?

Excommunication was the wrong word. Schism within Churches over the calendar issue was my point. This does not occur among the Oriental Orthodox nor do they make a fuss over it like many EOs do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The V. Typikon is a simplification of the Sabbaite Typikon. The Studite Typikon died out in the 14th century.  Really having worshipped in both Greek, Russian, and Carpatho-Rusyn parishes, I can say the two typika are not that different--a Vigil is prescribed instead of Vespers in the Sabbaite, but many OCA parishes just have Vespers and many Greek Churches (such as in Greece and a few Greek Old Calendarist parishes, and Holy Cross Seminary once a month) have all-night Vigils.  There are other minor differences but nothing as great as the difference between the Studite and the Sabbaite.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 03, 2005, 11:25:31 AM
Excommunication was the wrong word. Schism within Churches over the calendar issue was my point. This does not occur among the Oriental Orthodox nor do they make a fuss over it like many EOs do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

Certainly the calendar is a hot topic among some EO, and rightly so.  However, the fact remains that there are EO jurisdictions that even use the Gregorian paschalion and they are not in schism with most Julian calendar churches, that is with World Orthodoxy.  It must be recalled that there are Julian calendar churches in schism from Julian calendar churches.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Deacon Lance on February 03, 2005, 01:22:10 PM
Anastasios,

Thank for your explanantion.  I was trying to figure out where I got the idea the Studite was still in use and I remembered:

http://www.typicon.com/Definitions/Typicon_Page.htm

So much reading and so hard to keep it all striaght.:)

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 03, 2005, 01:40:56 PM
Strelets you missed the entire point of my post. The point is that we both share the same faith and that it is strange for him to feast while I fast. That is the unatural situation the calendar change has created. Isn't it odd that the majority of Orthodox Christians are fasting while in Athens they chant "Christ is Born!" ? Or that in Finland they sing Christ is Risen while everyone else that is Orthodox is in the midst of the Great Fast?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: observer on February 03, 2005, 07:44:46 PM
The leg fasts while the hand feasts.  Is this the Body of Christ?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 03, 2005, 07:47:44 PM
Isn't it odd that the majority of Orthodox Christians are fasting while in Athens they chant "Christ is Born!" ? Or that in Finland they sing Christ is Risen while everyone else that is Orthodox is in the midst of the Great Fast?

Since we're talking of practicalities, it's not odd at all. Halfway around the world, an Old Calendarist in Russia is saying, "Christ is Risen", while an Old Calendarist in the US is fasting. This has always been the case, and creating a new doctrine that says everything has to be perfectly timed at the same time becomes an exercise in legalistic frivolity. There's never been universal conformity in the timing of our fasts and feasts.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 03, 2005, 08:19:51 PM
Again you are being irrational.  A few hours difference because of a different time zone is not the same thing as the Finnish Orthodox Church celebrating Pascha WEEKS apart from the rest of the Church.  Actually if I am not mistaken forgiveness Sunday for them will be this Sunday.  And since the the canons of the church very clearly condem celebrating the pascha according the Gregorian dating and apparently that hasn't caused any controvesry.... does that mean that is the next step for new calendar jurisdictions?

 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 03, 2005, 10:05:34 PM
It's not irrational at all. If we're going to be anal retentive about the timing devices we use to determine when to proclaim, "Christ is Risen!", we'd might as well become as pure as possible and point out how far our brothers and sisters are from perfection according to the Law, yes? What do you suggest... that the Finns should all go to jail, since the state law mandates they use the Gregorian Pascha? What should we thusly do in response to such "intransigence" on the part of Finnish Orthodox... double the injury to our brothers and sisters by excommunicating them? It's all about proportion. It's so easy to demand of others, especially in Russia during Soviet times, to turn themselves into martyrs for the Faith while we're sipping an espresso in the comfort of the nearby cafe. The canons are not a straightjacket to be used as a weapon against faithful Orthodox Christians, but unfortunately they're being used and abused as a means unto themselves by a small minority.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 04, 2005, 01:14:46 AM
If I am not mistaken the issue in finland is one of tax exemption and tax law not imprisonment.  In that case what is more important, following the tradition of the church or money? 

As for Russia you are drawing a strawman argument.  The majority of traditionalists fall in the same mindset and look towards guides such as Father Seraphim Rose who rose to the defense of Fr. Dimitri Dudko, Elder Taverion and others in the MP as faithful Orthodox Christians.  And FWIW I don't drink espresso. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 04, 2005, 08:51:04 AM
And since the the canons of the church very clearly condem celebrating the pascha according the Gregorian dating and apparently that hasn't caused any controvesry.... does that mean that is the next step for new calendar jurisdictions?

Nektarios,

It would be good if you state which "canons of the church very clearly condem celebrating the pascha according the Gregorian dating."

I am unaware of any.  It is said there were some late local councils which have condemned the Gregorian calendar but AFAIK they did not issue any canons and to the best of my knowledge no such canon exists in the collections of canons in the Orthodox Church.  Any information to the contrary will be useful and will be appreciated (at least by me.)

In early times (meaning a thousand years before the advent of the Gregorian calendar) the issue of the date of Pascha became important and it was deliberated in synod and canons were issued which remain part of the canonical body.  Two such proscriptions which come to mind are the Quartodecimans and "meta ton Iudaion" or, "with the Jews."  I can't see how either of these could be applied to the Gregorian calendar.

Perhaps some readers will find this article useful for some historical background:
http://www.jacwell.org/Archbishop%20Peter/The_Date_of_Pascha_and_the_Council_of_Nicea.htm

I honestly think there are good arguments on both sides of the calendar debate.  Unity is important IMO, and it seemed that played a role in the council's ruling. 

If anything can be gleaned from an appeal to the canons, ISTM that it is the notion of unity more than the science undergirding the system itself that was accepted at that time.  The adoption of all Gregorian (as in Finland and other isolated locations) does not cause collisions in the Typikon.  It does require eliminating the use of the ancient astronomical calculations (non-Christian anyway IIRC). 

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 04, 2005, 12:29:18 PM
If I am not mistaken the issue in finland is one of tax exemption and tax law not imprisonment. In that case what is more important, following the tradition of the church or money?

Following the tradition of the Church is more important, which means obeying your bishop and the synod and remaining in communion with your brothers and sisters. I suppose the CofF could choose to pay the high Western European taxes as a corporate entity and therefore end up closing the doors in bankruptcy. Or they could refuse to pay the taxes and then go to jail.

The majority of traditionalists fall in the same mindset and look towards guides such as Father Seraphim Rose who rose to the defense of Fr. Dimitri Dudko, Elder Taverion and others in the MP as faithful Orthodox Christians.

Of course most traditionalists fall into that mindset. Most traditionalists, however that word is mysteriously defined, remain in communion with the MP. I'm curious about one thing.... which Fr. Dimitri is the real Fr. Dimitri - the one before imprisonment, or the one after the torture who recanted his previous statements? Did he become a traitor to the Church by recanting his previous anti-Soviet rhetoric? Are those Orthodox clergy who chose not to go out in a blaze of glory against the civil authorities thusly traitors to Christ? Not everyone is as strong as the other, and not all were put on this earth to become martyrs.

And FWIW I don't drink espresso.

'Tis outrage!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 04, 2005, 01:31:30 PM
Quote
It would be good if you state which "canons of the church very clearly condem celebrating the pascha according the Gregorian dating."

Interesting as the standard apologia for the new calendar that I have heard from several priests (SCOBA) is that there is no prohibitation of the Gregorian menaion, but that the paschalion could not be changed.  After I get home from work today I will go post my refrences on the matter.

Quote
Following the tradition of the Church is more important, which means obeying your bishop and the synod and remaining in communion with your brothers and sisters.

Right so Saint Maximos the confessor should have simply remained in communion with his patriarch, or Saint Mark of Ephesos should have gone along with his brothers and sisters.  But then the same could be said about the metropolia.  Why did the metropolia enter into schism and break off from the ROCOR?  On what canonical grounds does the metropolia base its schism?


Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 04, 2005, 02:02:24 PM
Right so Saint Maximos the confessor should have simply remained in communion with his patriarch, or Saint Mark of Ephesos should have gone along with his brothers and sisters.

What jurisdictions did they start? History shows their brothers and sisters maintained the Faith with them within their jurisdictions to fix the situation. I'm sorry, but if you consider changing the calendar to be the equivalent of a serious theological matter such as accepting the Filioque and Papal Authority, it doesn't wash. And the argument that it's the false ecumenicism behind the calendar doesn't work either, given that the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates are members of the WCC.

Why did the metropolia enter into schism and break off from the ROCOR? On what canonical grounds does the metropolia base its schism?

Ok, got it. The reverse logic (once again at play) says that the EP is in schism with the Matthewites. <sarcasm>The OCA, despite being in communion with every normal Orthodox jurisdiction in the world, is really in schism because someone in ROCOR won't take communion in OCA parishes. The True O chose to "wall themselves off"... but wait. Now the story is that it's everyone else who built a wall around True O.</sarcasm> It's all so confusing with different versions of events. Whatever that may be, the confused reasoning doesn't stand in regards to ROCOR given that I've good friends in ROCOR who are freely allowed to commune in the OCA, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on February 04, 2005, 02:51:31 PM
Strelets,

I may be putting words in Nektarios' mouth, but I think this may be the point he is trying to make...a  point which I also tried to make earlier.
--- You're criticizing jurisdictions that "wall themselves off" or break communion with their hierarchy over what they consider to be important matters of the faith. You believe that they should just follow their bishops out of obedience- fair enough. The problem that arises is the fact that the OCA, a jurisdiction which you are a part of, broke communion with their rightful bishops over matters not even pertaining to the faith. How can all of the various "true" groups or ROCOR be condemned, yet the OCA doesn't seem to factor into this equation for you when in fact they disobediently broke off from their bishops as well. The position of the OCA is different, of course. They've "regularized" their situation(according to most) for the most part, even though their autocephaly is still not formally recongized by the EP, Serbia, and I believe another Synod. Did their means justify their ends? Was their breaking from the ROCOR hierarchy, out of some kind of principle which later allowed for them to take autocephaly, worth their break? I think some of the "traditional" synods see themselves in a similar positon. They wish to be independent from that which they disagree with as a matter of principle, in hopes that one day the situation will normalize. A lot like the Metropolia's position. Still, the OCA's history is somehow brushed under the rug as you criticize those who are currently "out of communion" with "normal" Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 04, 2005, 03:33:39 PM
Thank you, Josh that is exactly the point I was making.  The metropolia broke communion from their bishops (and at this time ROCOR was in communion with the EP).  And now that the metropolia has been normalized as the OCA they seem very quick to condemn anyone who is in the same position they were once in. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 04, 2005, 03:51:43 PM
Quote
The problem that arises is the fact that the OCA, a jurisdiction which you are a part of, broke communion with their rightful bishops over matters not even pertaining to the faith.

Quote
The metropolia broke communion from their bishops (and at this time ROCOR was in communion with the EP).  And now that the metropolia has been normalized as the OCA they seem very quick to condemn anyone who is in the same position they were once in.

I have heard about this before, but I honestly do not know any of the history regarding how this happened. What were the circumstances and reasons that caused the split? Bogo had said above that it was not "over matters pertaining to the faith" - then what were they? Is there any information regarding the historical circumstances of the formation of the OCA and where can I find it online?

In Christ,
Aaron
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 04, 2005, 04:12:09 PM
Aaron here is a good start: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/bookrev_woerl.aspx
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 04, 2005, 06:04:24 PM
Nektarios,

Thanks for the link, I will check it out.  :)  If anyone has any other links that pertain to this, please post a link!

In Christ,
Aaron
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on February 04, 2005, 06:09:36 PM
Arystarcus,
We had a lengthy discussion on this some months ago. This should be useful info:


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,3457.0.html
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 04, 2005, 06:16:33 PM
Many thanks Bogoliubtsy. ;D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 04, 2005, 06:50:42 PM


Interesting as the standard apologia for the new calendar that I have heard from several priests (SCOBA) is that there is no prohibitation of the Gregorian menaion, but that the paschalion could not be changed. After I get home from work today I will go post my refrences on the matter.

Nektarios,

Since the basis for the calculation of Pascha is the equinox, a fixed date, how would it be any different from the Gregorian menaion?

T
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on February 04, 2005, 07:14:20 PM
The anti-iconoclast bishops broke communion with the non-iconoclastic bishops and "walled themselves off", setting up a separate "jurisdiction." So did the bishops opposed to the Lyons and Florence unions. The issue of heresy and schism is complex, because sometimes the ones breaking off communion end up being justified (as in the cases of those opposed to iconoclasm, Lyons, and Florence) while at other times the ones breaking communion end up wrong (Novationism, Donatism, and Arensius in the 13th century come to mind).

I also note a tendency in some posters' posts towards indentifying themselves as the "normal" Orthodox Church or arguing by what is the "majority" view. I wonder when being normal or the majority ever mattered in Church history. I would just rather debate the issues instead of getting sidetracked by periperhal appeals to authority ("We are the official Church, you are not!") or using the numbers game, "We are the majority so you can't possibly be right!" I think too much is at stake; if the Old Calendarists are right, then a lot of people are being led astray; if the Old Calendarists are schismatics and wrong, then a lot of people are being led astray.  The issue calls for serious discussion and not attempts to win by debate points and bolster one's argument in this way.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 05, 2005, 01:43:46 AM
Quote
or using the numbers game, "We are the majority so you can't possibly be right!"

If that was true, we'd all be Roman Catholic!  :o  :confused:

:laugh: just a joke...  ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 05, 2005, 02:29:30 AM
Quote
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/bookrev_woerl.aspx

I've commented on articles from this site a few times before. This hostile link is no more helpful than some of the others in discerning the facts. Once one gets past the uncharitable, not to mention unOrthodox, invectives and name-calling towards the OCA, it does nothing to shed light or provide genuine information on the matter at hand. I'm betting that those who joyfully pump their fists in the air after reading articles such as this will be the first ones breaking off from ROCOR once it officially reunites with the MP, and thusly the OCA.

The problem that arises is the fact that the OCA, a jurisdiction which you are a part of, broke communion with their rightful bishops over matters not even pertaining to the faith. How can all of the various "true" groups or ROCOR be condemned, yet the OCA doesn't seem to factor into this equation for you when in fact they disobediently broke off from their bishops as well.

Just for the record, I never called ROCOR schismatic. This is what happens when emotionalism takes over in response to perceived phantoms of debates past. Secondly, the OCA hasn't broke communion.

You phrased the history in a slightly altered light for the sake of an argument. And it's an argument that I don't particularly care for given that I've good friends in this jurisdiction and there are absolutely no theological quarrels between us (but if a few individual priests and bishops are going to do questionable things like rebaptising Orthodox Christians or claim the OCA is heretical or its theologians are uneducated, this is fair game for criticism in any honest discussion). The OCA (Metropolia) was already an existing Church in America prior to the formation of ROCOR. ROCOR was a temporary administrative body, under which the Metropolia temporarily placed itself, but only in matters of faith. Because the temporary body later came to believe they had administrative, Patriarchal control over all Russian Orthodox doesn't make it so. The Metropolia couldn't break away from something when that something didn't create it. The Metropolia and the Russian Orthodox in France merely recognized the status of ROCOR for what it always was meant to be - temporary. It's ROCOR that's decided, whatever the merits of its rationale, to not commune with the OCA. It's not the OCA and other Churches refusing to share communion with them. That's what lets the air out of the argument that it's everyone else picking on ROCOR.

The anti-iconoclast bishops broke communion with the non-iconoclastic bishops and "walled themselves off", setting up a separate "jurisdiction."

The names of the jurisdictions? Yes, I've read of the use of the word "brotherhoods", but that's not quite a new administrative jurisdiction with a new synod of bishops. Perhaps you could share some new information for me in this area.

I also note a tendency in some posters' posts towards indentifying themselves as the "normal" Orthodox Church or arguing by what is the "majority" view.

It's as valid of a tendency as someone who identifies themselves as a Traditionalist or True Orthodox, as if it's an accepted fact that an Untrue or Nontraditionalist Orthodoxy exists. Dustin, I don't really know why you've suddenly taken a hostile attitude towards myself. I'm relatively new to this forum and don't know the history of the personalities, and whether there's an issue with contrary views being taken personally on your part. I hate to say it, but a few have emailed me privately supporting some things I've expressed but don't feel they can do the same for fear of agitating you. Whatever the source is for this, I don't know. There's no reason to be offended by the word "Normal" in my byline when the True O/Traditionalist thing is all over the place. The traditionalist banter doesn't arouse me the slightest since I've been around this block for over a decade. If you don't like anyone expressing criticism of the True O movements, then use your authority and ban all such criticism and let it be known that it's not tolerated in this message board. Tell me to leave now and I'll leave your message board for good, because the last thing I want to do is provoke you to anger, no matter what you may believe.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on February 05, 2005, 03:41:03 AM
Strelets,

You have extended to me the olive branch so how could I reject it? But allow me to express my perceptions--which you may think are wrong and I will accept whatever you say about your own posts.

I don't consider myself a traditionalist and I don't understand why you insist on considering yourself "normal Orthodox." Either label to me seems provactive. And I furthermore don't know why you insist on calling me Dustin when I identify myself as Anastasios. It's just simple things like this that make me wonder sometimes.

Look buddy, I don't have anything against you personally. I just feel like sometimes you feel threatened when anyone criticizes the OCA [and my pet peeve is anyone calling the Old Calendarists "schismatic" without elaboration]. What got me bothered in the start was when we had the debate about reception of converts and you made it out like the situation was easy to understand and resolved. I get annoyed at oversimplication, which I perceive in your posts. Here is one more example. You say that the Old Calendar jurisdictions are content to be in communion with the New Calendar jurisdictions, etc., and do so without protest. But when the Church of Greece adopted the new Calendar, Pat. Photios of Alexandria protested, as did the Patriarch of Antioch. To this day there are those who protest against ecumenism such as Patriarch Diodoros of blessed memory. He went to the Old Calendarist monastery of Sts Cyprian and Justina and praised their work in 1987. The text of the speech he gave is on orthodoxinfo.com. That is just an example. If you would say that "most people don't seem to care" or "the jurisdictions seem to have resolved this discrepancy without comment" etc, would have not set me off. But to say that no one seems to care which calendar the other uses based on their not breaking communion with one another strikes me as inaccurate and not doing justice to all of the facts. But you know what, I am sure that there is a style of posting that I present that annoys many. I strive not to be partisan but there are many times when I fail.

That some people feel they will feel agitated by me if they post x, y, or z is something I am well aware of. There are posters who inform me of this from time to time. But when I was an avid ecumenist there were people who were afraid to post here; now that I am not an avid ecumenist there are people who are afraid to post here. What can I do? I post what I believe but there are people who tell me that I am fair. I have my (strong) personal opinions but when have I censored debate on this? I restrained myself from debate on this issue earlier based on my belief that I would not be able to say what I believe in a non-polemical way. I came out of the background because I felt that you were using your position as "normal" to win debate points. I fail to see how traditionalists are not normal for instance. However, I do not lable myself a traditionalist. I believe in the Orthodox faith.

Let me put myself out on the line just so you can see that I am "for real" as some like to say. I think many traditionalists are overly provacative. I think some are outright annoying. Some are just plain ignorant. But I see this attitude prevalent in many "non-traditionalist" circles as well. I just went to the Kishkovsky lecture at SVS and was highly offended by what he said about "traditionalists." It betrayed an utter lack of familiarity on his part with the aims of "traditionalists." But I do not see myself as a "traditionalist."

Why did I adopt what appears to be a "traditionalist" point of view? Two reasons. One, I am a totally vile sinner who no longer believes he has the right to question the traditional practice of the Church. Two, because I believe ecumenism interferes with mission and evangelism, a conclusion I came to after taking a class on ecumenism where ecumenism was explained in a very nuanced way by my esteemed professor and friend. Even my friendship and his nuancing of the issue could not lead me to any conclusion other than ecumenism messes with evangelization.

Let me "turn the tables on you" for a second. I don't want you to quit posting but would you and everyone else rather that ***I*** quit posting? Do you prefer that I let everyone express his opinion without weighing in? Does my status prevent discussion? I will quit posting tomorrow if you and the majority of posters thinks it will be better for the board. I have already tried to quit moderating and hope that will be 100% in effect soon.

Let me say one more thing. I will admit that I get excited when some people such as yourself post some things (in other words, not all of your posts and not all of the posts like your posts). But I get off the site, see my wife, see my life, my studies at the seminary, my friends, my parish, etc., and I forget about all of the debates. Nothing on this site gets me too worked up. Don't ever think that a theological debate can get me that provoked. You post what you believe. I will post what I beleive (unless the board members think I should quit posting) and we as adults will learn from each other.

May God bless us all!

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 05, 2005, 04:57:00 AM
Quote
It's as valid of a tendency as someone who identifies themselves as a Traditionalist or True Orthodox, as if it's an accepted fact that an Untrue or Nontraditionalist Orthodoxy exists.

Traditionalists movements have always been a part of Orthodoxy, particularly in recent times...  Saint Paisius Velichkovsky and the revival of traditional monasticism in Russia, the Kolyvades on the Holy Mountain, Saint Gregory Palamas et al.  In the United States Fr. Ephraim has been the leader of a traditionalist movement of sorts in the establishment of athonite monasticism here.  In Greece Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos is a good example of a traditionalist.  Your strawman arguments of "breaking communion with their brothers and sisters" do not apply here. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Strelets on February 05, 2005, 04:53:37 PM
Anastasios,

I'm hoping you didn't interpret that I believe you shouldn't post (on your board). I'm the guest in your house, and have only sought to understand your rules of engagement so as to not arouse any more negative feelings in you.

I just feel like sometimes you feel threatened when anyone criticizes the OCA [and my pet peeve is anyone calling the Old Calendarists "schismatic" without elaboration].

I've not read anything threatening in this board. And I've never called Old Calendarists "schismatic." The terminology is getting abused without end. I'm a believer that words mean something, and not just anything. An Old Calendarist is someone who uses the Julian Calendar. I was married in an Old Calendarist (MP) parish. The Serbian parish where we occasional visit for Nativity is Old Calendarist. This has nothing to do with schisms, nor does it have anything to do with ecumenicism. How can the calendar have anything to do with how far one jurisdiction has engaged in ecumenicism when the same Serbian jurisdiction is in the WCC and often its practices are more western than the OCA? I see absolutely no direct correlation between the calendar and the degree of one jurisdiction's ecumenicism.

When I use the word "schismatic", I mean it in a stringent theological sense. When a member(s) of clergy separates from the communion and the administrative authority of their jurisdiction and sets up a new rival jurisdiction, this is schismatic. And yes, it does get annoying when someone insists upon saying you ran into their fist.

I don't regard ROCOR as schismatic because the red revolution imposed an unfortunate historical anomaly upon everyone involved, thereby creating a complicated mess. However, the situation in the Greek Church is another matter. I know of three groups calling themselves the true Greek Church, and all three call each other schismatic and/or heretical. How am I supposed to describe them when they reference each other by the same TC (theologically correct) words I employ (minus "heretical", which I don't throw around)?

The thrust off all my arguments has been centered around the validity of breaking communion over the calendar, the validity of rebaptising Orthodox Christians, and the labelling of the NC as unlawful.

Here is one more example. You say that the Old Calendar jurisdictions are content to be in communion with the New Calendar jurisdictions, etc., and do so without protest.

I said that? What I've written is that they (MP, JP, SP) don't regard it as a matter worthy of breaking communion. That's why I mentioned in my previous post that these discussions become a replay of debates past, when I wasn't around. Anywho, this will be my last post. It's rather time-consuming to refute comments I didn't make, and my plate is full with other offline activities that need completed. All the best to you in your endeavors.

Rick.

P.S. My addressing you one time by your birth name wasn't intended as a slight. I've a habit of using real names when I read them. My apologies.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on February 07, 2005, 03:23:49 PM
Nektarios with the greek spelling:

I am really disturbed by one of your statements and I think you need to address it accurately.  I'll post your quote exactly:

"And FWIW I don't drink espresso. "

You do drink Greek coffee, right?

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Bogoliubtsy on February 07, 2005, 04:09:32 PM
Nektarios with the greek spelling:

I am really disturbed by one of your statements and I think you need to address it accurately. I'll post your quote exactly:

"And FWIW I don't drink espresso. "

You do drink Greek coffee, right?



Turkish is better ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 07, 2005, 04:55:50 PM
No Greek coffee either - not much a fan of Greek food..... cast stones!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on February 07, 2005, 05:03:02 PM
No Greek coffee either - not much a fan of Greek food..... cast stones!

You don't like Chicken souvlaki? Gyros? Greek salad? Falafel? What exactly don't you like about it? Wow! Everyone I take to get Greek food loves it! LOL

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 07, 2005, 05:30:06 PM
Nektarios with the greek spelling:

I am really disturbed by one of your statements and I think you need to address it accurately. I'll post your quote exactly:

"And FWIW I don't drink espresso. "

You do drink Greek coffee, right?



As one with coffee in the blood, what does espresso have to do with Greeks? Espresso is an Italian term (I'm not Italian) and ISTM that Greeks and most others from the eastern Mediteranean, Middle East, North Africa and parts of the Caucasus drink what is variously called "Greek coffee," "Turkish coffee," or "Arabic coffee."  "Greek coffee" refers to a grind and a brewing method. I understand that it is really Bedouin coffee.

Espresso is a brewing method of Italian origin and spread throughout southern Europe and with migrations came to dominate much of Spanish and Portuguese America. (<that's where I fit it.)

I'm sure some Greeks drink espresso but ethnically speaking the comment should not be about espresso. 

TonyS
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: cizinec on February 07, 2005, 07:35:17 PM
TonyS,

As anyone who knows me can tell you, I'm still disturbed, regardless of the ethnic connections of espresso and Greek Coffee.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: jmbejdl on February 08, 2005, 04:43:34 AM
Hi,

On the topic of Greeks drinking coffee, did anyone see this?

http://www.theoniondome.com/2005/02/04/guest/

Apart from being funny, it's actually very true - at least with respect to my experience of Greek churches in Britain. The last quote could almost have come out of one of the sermons, I'm sad to say!

James
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on February 08, 2005, 09:03:56 AM
+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦+¦ ol' boy. Prepare to feast on the delights of octupus and retsina on your arrival
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on February 08, 2005, 10:01:18 AM
+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦+¦ ol' boy. Prepare to feast on the delights of octupus and retsina on your arrival

Why do both of those taste better in Greece?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 08, 2005, 12:41:32 PM
I should clalify, maybe it is just greek festival food that is the issue with me.  During my numerous visits to Saint Anthony's I have never had a meal there that wasn't absolutely wonderful - but then again I love anything that comes from the ocean with olive oil poured over it (which is pretty much standard fare there lol).  Actually come to think of it there is nothing that I really don't eat....
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: aurelia on February 08, 2005, 03:03:58 PM
Oh I could not stop laughing!!!! 

 parish of All the Greek Saints of Greece Very Greek Very Orthodox Greek Orthodox Church,

and now i am really craving some baklava and a shot of ouzo..but I dont drink so I cant imagine why! LOL
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 08, 2005, 03:06:52 PM
That is another thing... wine and beer is great but ouzo?  c'mon!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: aurelia on February 08, 2005, 03:31:52 PM
Well, i like licorice...and I learned at a very early age that nobody else does and that meant i didnt have to share my Good n' Plenty  >:D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Arystarcus on February 09, 2005, 01:52:01 AM
Quote
parish of All the Greek Saints of Greece Very Greek Very Orthodox Greek Orthodox Church

I've not yet read the article, but the name of that "church" was enough to make me laugh!  :laugh: I think I may have been to some of their sister parishes.  ;)

Quote
That is another thing... wine and beer is great but ouzo?  c'mon!

I'm with you Nektarios, I tried ouzo once and that one time was one time too many!  :-X  The same goes for Sambuca!

Quote
Well, i like licorice...and I learned at a very early age that nobody else does and that meant i didnt have to share my Good n' Plenty  >:D

I don't care for black licorice, but for some reason I liked Good 'n Plenty.... ???

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: prodromos on February 09, 2005, 08:00:17 AM
Ouzo is just pretend tsipouro
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 13, 2005, 08:53:53 PM
Bump


Nektarios,

Since the basis for the calculation of Pascha is the equinox, a fixed date, how would it be any different from the Gregorian menaion?

T
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on February 13, 2005, 09:48:13 PM
Bump



The equinox is figured differently I believe. The eqinox on the Gregorian Calendar falls 13 days before the equinox on the Julian Calendar. There may only be one "real" equinox but the Julian Calendar does not reflect this.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: TonyS on February 13, 2005, 11:28:51 PM


The equinox is figured differently I believe. The eqinox on the Gregorian Calendar falls 13 days before the equinox on the Julian Calendar. There may only be one "real" equinox but the Julian Calendar does not reflect this.

Anastasios

Anastasios,

That is clear to me.  But my question was in response to the claim (alleged by some) that the menaion can be changed but the paschalion not.  I guess what I don't understand about that logic is why the menaion March 21 can be pegged to the civil calculation but the equinox can't.  I guess one would have to know why the original proponents of the calendar changed only changed the fixed feasts withing their realm.

Over a week ago Nektarios said "After I get home from work today I will go post my refrences on the matter."  I am very interested in this matter and am anxious to see the references. 

T
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on February 14, 2005, 01:37:11 AM
Sorry...I had some things happen and forgot to get back to it.  Note I did not say that it was a theory I subscribed to, just that more than one SCOBA priest had told me that was their justification for being on the new calendar.   

I think that this is the canon that they cite that only speaks of changing the paschalion and does not mentioned the menaion. 

8th Apostolic Canon :
If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon shall celebrate the holiday of the passover [pascha] before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deprived.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Orthodoxy on February 20, 2005, 01:09:00 AM
Hi Everyone,

I was talking with my spiritual father today about the calendar issue. To paraphrase him he stated it is mostly a political football where as the Church in Moscow and the Serbian Church won’t use the new calendar because a pope had it developed and accepted. Julius Caesar who was not an orthodox Christian created the Julian calendar that the Orthodox use yet some orthodox refuse to use a calendar created by the bishop of Rome. Seems to me strange and merely proves calendars are a neutral creation of man to keep track of important events. The Chinese have a calendar that they don’t even use but commemoration on this calendar denotes specific “feast days” of their religion. From what I understand the Gregorian calendar works where as the old calendar doesn’t work over time. Feast days begin to over lap. We have no problem using other techno advances yet we demand the use of an out dated flawed calendar. It seems we are schismatic just to remain the tower of babel. For some reason we must pick these petty squabbles to keep us humble lest we get to powerful in our “oneness”.

In the book The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos it states in the Augustus Taxes all the Roman Empire:

Quote
Luke 2:1-5; And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


The Expression of Luke 2:5, “to register with himself Mary who was betrothed to him as wife” must be read in connection with Matthew’s expression that Joseph “took to him his wife” Matthew 1:24 , since jewish custom would not have other wise allowed Mary to travel with Joseph to Bethlehem.

There are reliable historical records that indicate that a cencus was thaken every fourteen years, and that one was taken about the time of 6-7 BC. ( Tenny and Barabas; Pictorial Encycolpidia of the Bible, vol 1, p 772). This census, to be taken throughout the Roman Empire, included Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Cyrenius, the governor, was the well known Roman Senator Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

Before the era of Christ, years were generally reckoned from the foundation of the city of Rome or from the election of the Emperor (Anno Urbis Conditae, A.U.C. or Roman Era). With the establishment of Christianity, recording of time was reckoned from the birth of Christ (anno Domini, AD.) However, an error in the calculation of Dionysios the Younger who, in 526 A.D. introduced the present method of dating, made the birth of Christ coincide with the Roman year 754. However after further studies since have ascertained that Christ was actually born in 747 or 748 according to the Roman Era, that is six or seven years earlier than Dionysios has supposed. From this, results in the curious fact that the Christian calendar which we now use instead of dating from the actual Nativity of our Savior, actually commenced some six or seven years later. Hence, the birth of Jesus is reckoned to be 6 or 7 BC, concurrent with the time of the Roman Taxation. Furthermore, according to all historical accounts, Herod the Great, the slayer of the Children of Bethlehem, died in 4 BC. Christ could not have been born after 4 BC since they fleed Herod and His murderous horde.

I truly found this interesting considering if it is true then no bodies calendar is correct!

In Christ,

Orthodoxy
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GC_Samaras on December 09, 2006, 02:55:52 PM
Greetings!  I have recently been encountering a dilemma of some sort regarding my faith (no, I do not plan to switch to another faith/denomination entirely as some of you may be thinking right about now). As long as I can remember, I have been a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. The problem is, it is not the Greek Orthodox Church everyone is familiar with. A portion of my family including my immediate family worships God in the Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Church. We have been "Old Calendarists" for approximately 15 years (as long as I can remember). I was baptized in the New Calendar church along with the rest of my family but we converted when my grandmother began associating herself with her new Greek neighbours who happened to be "Old Calendarists". Coincidentally, they had the ability to spread their beliefs quite well (my grandmother isn't exactly a bright person either, if that helps).

Recently, my Church attendance has been extremely low due to various extraneous variables (you can thank Grade 12 mathematics for those words) such as school, work, social responsibilities, etc. The other reason as to why we (my immediate family) have not been going to church is because we feel that the Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Church is not for us. Our Church pressures us quite a bit into constantly fasting, constantly confessing, following the faith word-for-word, etc. We simply cannot follow our faith to that extent in the sense that we have school, work, and personal lives. My parents are now contemplating on leaving the Old Calendar Church and switching back to the New Calendar due to the slight leniency the New Calendar Church gives. We have been talking about this for a while but my parents want to make a decision by Christmas-time (New Calendar Christmas). I haven't exactly been the most helpful either since I don't really want to switch over to the New Calendar Church mainly because I was raised in the Old Calendar Church and it is all I have known. There are some other factors such as the fact that the Old Calendar Church technically follows the correct dates, but I don't think that "dates" really matter in the eyes of God.

Anyways, I was just wondering if some could offer me some advice for my dilemma that may allow myself and my faimily make a clearer judgment. Thank you for taking the time to read this and God bless.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 09, 2006, 03:06:25 PM
Dear in Christ,

I am a member of the Old Calendar Greek Church. I was baptized there, having selected it over the New Calendar Greek Church when I decided to become Orthodox.  The issues you are raising are pastoral questions, not questions of faith; to decide whether to be in the Old Calendar Church or the New Calendar Church you must decide: which holds the correct faith, not which one is harder to be in.

If you are having trouble keeping the fasts, you can ask the priest for a blessing to fast less; after all, fasting is a means not an end.  However, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because we live in modern society it's harder for us to fast: trust me, your ancestors had it harder and they fasted.  The key is to constantly challenge yourself to do more, while recognizing your PRESENT limitations.  Going to the New Calendar Church is not going to allow you to do things not "word-for-word" anyway; I disagree with the New Calendar Church but they are more serious than you appear to think.

Another issue is that the Old Calendar Church does not exist just because of "the Calendar."  There is much more to it actually.  questions such as relations with the non-Orthodox Churches and modernism in the daily life of the faithful are serious issues in our time.  My appeal to you is to take several MONTHS to figure this out--if you make a move by Christmas you are doing yourself and your family a disservice by not having all the facts.  I am sure many here will try to convince you to come over to the New Calendar Church and this is their right on a pan-Orthodox open bulletin board, but I will lobby strongly that you stay put in the Old Calendar Church.  You should be able to guage what everyone is saying and make an informed choice.

Assuring you of my prayers,

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: lubeltri on December 09, 2006, 03:23:11 PM
That is a frequent misconception, isn't it, Anastasios? It would seem silly to break communion just over a calendar. Perhaps your church (GOC, right?) and the other groups could come up with a better name.

The traditional Anglicans, for example, call themselves Continuing Anglican churches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 09, 2006, 03:26:40 PM
That is a frequent misconception, isn't it, Anastasios? It would seem silly to break communion just over a calendar. Perhaps your church (GOC, right?) and the other groups could come up with a better name.

We did not take the name Greek Old Calendarist.  In Greek it is an attempted insult.  We adopted the insult as a name because we are proud to uphold the traditional calendar and because it's convenient. The name we use officially though is the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.  That usually angers New Calendar people though so I don't usually use it here.  But I mean, we do think we're the ones upholding the genuine expression of Orthodoxy, just like New Calendarists think that we are not. Another reason for the name is that we had to incorporate separately from the State Church, and we were illegal for many decades, being persecuted and the like, so after that somewhat ended in 1986, we had to have a legal name for our Church.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 03:27:25 PM
Old Calendar vs. New Calendar. Don't concern yourself with it. It's nonsense.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 09, 2006, 03:28:46 PM
Old Calendar vs. New Calendar. Don't concern yourself with it. It's nonsense.

You're not even a Christian so you have no say in this. I'm sorry, but you are here on a technicality so you might want to be a more polite guest.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 03:30:33 PM
You're not even a Christian so you have no say in this. I'm sorry, but you are here on a technicality so you might want to be a more polite guest.

Bravo! Spoken like a true Old Calendarist  You are right, so therefore, everyone else is wrong.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 09, 2006, 03:33:42 PM
Bravo! Spoken like a true Old Calendarist  You are right, so therefore, everyone else is wrong.

It has nothing to do with being an Old Calendarist.  You abuse our forum and then complain when people get mad at you. We are here for serious discussion, and you are here to play around.  It's very frustrating.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 04:26:20 PM
It has nothing to do with being an Old Calendarist.  You abuse our forum and then complain when people get mad at you. We are here for serious discussion, and you are here to play around.  It's very frustrating.

You are wrong. I am not playing around. The Calendar, like so many other of these man-created issues, is just used to divide the faithful and to instill pride in praxis. You really think God CARES whether or not we adhere to a concept of time that was man-created? Did I miss the part where God handed down "The Official God Calendar" like He did with the Ten Commandments? All these rules that have divided the Church for centuries were made by men - they are not important.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 09, 2006, 04:34:36 PM
You are wrong. I am not playing around. The Calendar, like so many other of these man-created issues, is just used to divide the faithful and to instill pride in praxis. You really think God CARES whether or not we adhere to a concept of time that was man-created? Did I miss the part where God handed down "The Official God Calendar" like He did with the Ten Commandments? All these rules that have divided the Church for centuries were made by men - they are not important.



Well, as I clearly pointed out above, the calendar is not the only or even main issue. although I do think God cares about it on some level since timekeeping is something God Himself created and blessed, and the Church approved the Julian Calendar and rejected the Gregorian Calendar on several occasions. It's a bit difficult to debate you on traditions of men since you would say a great many things are traditions of men, which is why I originally protested your entering this discussion, since this is an inter-Orthodox discussion and your concerns are much more broad and foundational.  To me it is just going to sidetrack a discussion away from the point.

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: AMM on December 09, 2006, 05:48:58 PM
One possible alternative you have would be to look at another church.  The Ukrainian Church in Canada in the U.S., and mine (Carpatho-Russian) are all under the Ecumenical Patriarch and all follow the Julian Calendar.  I can understand if you wanted to stay in a church that is Greek because of your background, but I thought I would throw that out there.

I personally do not view the calendar as a cardinal element of the faith, but by the same token my strong preference is for the traditional Orthodox calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: scamandrius on December 09, 2006, 06:11:15 PM
Old Calendar vs. New Calendar. Don't concern yourself with it. It's nonsense.

Though this is a divisive issue among the Orthodox, and though I admit that I am sympathetic to the Old Calendraists (I'm Antiochian Orthodox; a new calendar jurisdiction), this is not a nonsense issue.  As Orthodox, it is the unity of the faith which binds us together in communion not some false general agreements or merely being nice to one another.  Since it is the fullness of the faith which dictates our praxis (exempting local customs which are not borne out of the apostolic faith handed down once and for all), any alteration of that praxis requires guidance by the Holy Spirit in an Ecumenical Council.  This is a very serious issue which requires charity between the Orthodox jurisdictions, not something to be readily dismissed and decried as nonsense as if God doesn't care for calendars.  That's precisely the logic that guides liberal and secular philosophies in this world which is totally foreign to the Orthodox ethos.

Scmandrius
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 10:36:42 PM
As Orthodox, it is the unity of the faith which binds us together in communion not some false general agreements or merely being nice to one another.

I don't disagree with this.

However, since about 90% (really not sure of the real percentage) of the world's (that's a loaded word in itself) Orthodox Patriarchs, Bishops and the Faithful have chosen to follow a specific Calendar, then who is choosing to be separated? It's the Old Calendarists who have chosen to make a man created constraint, something that 90% of all other Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops have decided, or accepted after reflection, is NOT critical to the Faith, be absolutely critical to the faith.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 09, 2006, 10:41:37 PM
I don't disagree with this.

However, since about 90% (really not sure of the real percentage) of the world's (that's a loaded word in itself) Orthodox Patriarchs, Bishops and the Faithful have chosen to follow a specific Calendar, then who is choosing to be separated? It's the Old Calendarists who have chosen to make a man created constraint, something that 90% of all other Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops have decided, or accepted after reflection, is NOT critical to the Faith, be absolutely critical to the faith.

Err....I'd check your stats....
The vast majority of Orthodox Christians follow the Old Calendar. It is the followers of the New Calendar (myself included) who are in the minority.
More "TomS Facts" eh? ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 10:46:46 PM
Err....I'd check your stats....
The vast majority of Orthodox Christians follow the Old Calendar. It is the followers of the New Calendar (myself included) who are in the minority.
More "TomS Facts" eh? ;)

TomS, that idiot? No thank you! I am glad he was finally banned.

Well, if your facts are correct then I say "Anathema to the New Calendarists who have corrupted the Orthodox faith!"  :D And, as TomS would say "Why would you listen to some stranger posting on an internet message board anyway. Jeez!"

Google-ing for a real Orthodox Church in my neck of the woods now!


Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 09, 2006, 11:03:20 PM
TomS, that idiot? No thank you! I am glad he was finally banned.
I will not have you disparage my friend that way. Shame on you! If you only knew what a decent fellow he is! A little crazy, but a decent fellow.

Well, if your facts are correct then I say "Anathema to the New Calendarists who have corrupted the Orthodox faith!"  :D
Noted. I'll add you to the list of others who have anathamized me online.

And, as TomS would say "Why would you listen to some stranger posting on an internet message board anyway. Jeez!"
Yeah, you're right. Only a real loser would post on an internet message board.

Google-ing for a real Orthodox Church in my neck of the woods now!
Ah, Google- the internet crackpot's best friend! Where would forums be without it? People would actually have to think things though themselves!

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Thanatos on December 09, 2006, 11:20:52 PM
Bravo! Spoken like a true Old Calendarist  You are right, so therefore, everyone else is wrong.

LOL. Cute.

Quote
You are wrong. I am not playing around. The Calendar, like so many other of these man-created issues, is just used to divide the faithful and to instill pride in praxis. You really think God CARES whether or not we adhere to a concept of time that was man-created?

Because suddenly in the early 20th century, a group of old, sinister clerics got-together to realize their fetish for Julian calendarism - to react against the "well-established" Gregorian calendar, engrained within the Church's menaion, cycle and liturgical celebration.  :D

Obviously, you are a new-comer to the debate termed the "Calendar Controversy." The Calendar issue is just scratching the surface, over the notion of accepting modernization in Church praxis and order, as well as ecumenistic affairs with heterodox.

If a correct Orthodox phronema resides within your heart, then you will treat the issue at hand with less triviality than you are now.

Peace,
Ioannis
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 09, 2006, 11:24:26 PM
You don't know "SmoT", do you, Thanatos?  Trust me, you don't want to start.   ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 09, 2006, 11:26:30 PM
Obviously, you are a new-comer to the debate termed the "Calendar Controversy." The Calendar issue is just scratching the surface, over the notion of accepting modernization in Church praxis and order, as well as ecumenistic affairs with heterodox.

As much as I don't like saying this, I think the whole calendar issue is just a big red herring. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 09, 2006, 11:28:10 PM
I will not have you disparage my friend that way. Shame on you! If you only knew what a decent fellow he is! A little crazy, but a decent fellow.
Noted. I'll add you to the list of others who have anathamized me online.
Yeah, you're right. Only a real loser would post on an internet message board.
 Ah, Google- the internet crackpot's best friend! Where would forums be without it? People would actually have to think things though themselves!

Ozgeorge:  You crack me up.  Seriously.   :D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 09, 2006, 11:49:10 PM
Err....I'd check your stats....
The vast majority of Orthodox Christians follow the Old Calendar. It is the followers of the New Calendar (myself included) who are in the minority.
More "TomS Facts" eh? ;)

Wow. Did some research. You are right. Really blew that argument.

Soo....... Nevermind!  :D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 10, 2006, 12:18:23 AM
 :D LOL
SmoT,
A good skill to learn is to do our research before we open our fool mouth. Nevermind, it will come with maturity. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 10, 2006, 12:33:10 AM
:D LOL
SmoT,
A good skill to learn is to do our research before we open our fool mouth. Nevermind, it will come with maturity. ;)

But then that would kill the whole "Living on the edge" dynamic! Maybe I should model other posters and insist that I am right no matter what.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 10, 2006, 12:36:40 AM
But then that would kill the whole "Living on the edge" dynamic! Maybe I should model other posters and insist that I am right no matter what.

No, you are wrong all the time! get it straight whydontcha!!  :P
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 10, 2006, 12:46:23 AM
Oh my!  I believe I am being insulted! Wait! No, I am wrong. I will not really be insulted for another 13 days yet :D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 10, 2006, 12:46:57 AM
Oh my!  I believe I am being insulted! Wait! No, I am wrong. I will not really be insulted for another 13 days  :D

That's right. Anything I say to you has to wait 13 days to hit you LOL
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: SmoT on December 10, 2006, 12:48:37 AM
That's right. Anything I say to you has to wait 13 days to hit you LOL

Now you see. Who else on this board is as witty as me?!  ;D

I lay an egg, I make an omelet!
I get a lemon, I make lemonade!
The show must go on.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 10, 2006, 11:19:10 AM
Wow. Did some research. You are right. Really blew that argument.

Soo....... Nevermind!  :D

What the hell do you think you're doing? Never admit to being wrong, rather dismiss the opinion of the Russian Church and emphasize the absolute and infallible authority of the Throne of Constantinople. There's is the only opinion that matters and by trying to bring in contradicting opinions those who are arguing against you are simply advocating schism and trying to tear asunder the body of Christ. ;D

There are always better solutions to a problem than claiming you made a mistake :D

But seriously the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Bishops will say that the calendar does not matter, thus making it perfectly reasonable, without using rhetorical tricks, to claim that those who do make an issue out of it simply do so to create problems and divisions out of trivialities.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Orthodox11 on December 10, 2006, 03:23:44 PM
But seriously the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Bishops will say that the calendar does not matter, thus making it perfectly reasonable, without using rhetorical tricks, to claim that those who do make an issue out of it simply do so to create problems and divisions out of trivialities.

I do not believe the calendar is a cause for schism, and I think those few who claim New Calendar churches are without grace (such as the Matthewites) have blown the issue out of all proportion.

However, I am not a fan of the New Calendar. The main issue for me is the loss of 13 days of the Apostles Fast. The Apostolic Constitutions state very clearly that the date of Pascha should be calculated in accordance with those of the circumcision (i.e. the Jews). Therefore, to move the date of Pascha would go against the Church canons.

For this reason, those churches who adopted the New Calendar kept using the Old Calendar for movable feasts/fasts. The problem this causes is that the beginning of the Apostles Fast remains the same, but the end of the fast is brought forward by 13 days. As a consequence, New Calendarists might fast for 2 days whereas the majority of Orthodox, still on the Old Calendar, fast for 15 days.

Surely this is a valid concern?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 10, 2006, 03:49:20 PM
I do not believe the calendar is a cause for schism, and I think those few who claim New Calendar churches are without grace (such as the Matthewites) have blown the issue out of all proportion.

However, I am not a fan of the New Calendar. The main issue for me is the loss of 13 days of the Apostles Fast. The Apostolic Constitutions state very clearly that the date of Pascha should be calculated in accordance with those of the circumcision (i.e. the Jews). Therefore, to move the date of Pascha would go against the Church canons.

Ummm...actually the Synod of Nicea clearly states it's primary purpose in setting a date for Pascha is to NOT Celebrate it the same time as the Jewish Passover. The only years where the Gregorian celebration of Pascha is actually a real problem according to the reasoning of the Synod of Nicea is when it corresponds with the passover; and even then, it is dubious whether this would be a problem as the concern of the synod was that our Pascha should not be based on the Jewish Passover, a rare coincidental correlation between the two is not the same issue as that with which the synod expressed concern.

Quote
For this reason, those churches who adopted the New Calendar kept using the Old Calendar for movable feasts/fasts. The problem this causes is that the beginning of the Apostles Fast remains the same, but the end of the fast is brought forward by 13 days. As a consequence, New Calendarists might fast for 2 days whereas the majority of Orthodox, still on the Old Calendar, fast for 15 days.

Surely this is a valid concern?

Maybe for the fifteen non-monastics in the world who actually follow that fast. (And I'm sure all fifteen post on OC.net and are going to now inform me of their piety ;D)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 10, 2006, 06:05:02 PM
The only years where the Gregorian celebration of Pascha is actually a real problem according to the reasoning of the Synod of Nicea is when it corresponds with the passover;
Actually, the Gregorian Pascha never coincides the Nomical Passover.
The Nomical Passover occurs on the night of the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. Being a Lunisolar Calendar, the first New Moon after the Vernal Equinox on the Nomical Jewish Calendar is 1st Nissan, and the first Full Moon after this occurs 14 days later on the night of 14th Nissan, Which is the Nomical Day of Passover. By definition, the Gregorian Easter is the Sunday after the first Vernal Full Moon (i.e., the Sunday after the Nomical 14th of Nissan), so, if the first Vernal Full Moon (the Nomical Passover) falls on a Sunday, then Easter is the following Sunday.
The Canon to celebrate Pascha "not with the Jews" simnply means that Pascha should always be celebrated on a Sunday, and not on whatever day of the week 14th Nissan falls as the Tessareskaedecatites were doing.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 10, 2006, 06:45:01 PM
The Canon to celebrate Pascha "not with the Jews" simnply means that Pascha should always be celebrated on a Sunday, and not on whatever day of the week 14th Nissan falls as the Tessareskaedecatites were doing.
Just to clarify. By this I mean that it would be incorrect to say that the Canon means that we are not to calculate Pascha according to the Jewish Passover, because that is exactly what we are doing. The "First Vernal Full Moon" which we use to calculate Pascha is the Nomical Jewish Passover.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 10, 2006, 06:48:25 PM
You are assuming the same day is used for the new/full moon by the Gregorian and Jewish calculations, they are not. Thus the first day of the Jewish passover, 15 Nisan, can and does coincide with the Gregorian Pascha as it did in 1981 (though I dont believe this will happen again any time soon). Though, of more concern are those years when passover is the day immediately prior to Pascha, which could imply that the resurrection is being celebrated according to the feasts of the Jews. This last happened in 1998 and will next occur in 2012 and 2015.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 10, 2006, 06:57:14 PM
You are assuming the same day is used for the new/full moon by the Gregorian and Jewish calculations
No I'm not.
I said the "Nomical Passover", not the calculation according to the Calendar reforms of Rabbi Hillel II.
Subtle qualifiers are another thing I learned from you. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 10, 2006, 07:15:15 PM
No I'm not.
I said the "Nomical Passover", not the calculation according to the Calendar reforms of Rabbi Hillel II.
Subtle qualifiers are another thing I learned from you. ;)

LOL, I guess I should have read what you wrote more carefully. But that still leaves us with the problem of the Gregorian Pascha and Jewish Passover coinciding.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GC_Samaras on December 10, 2006, 11:21:48 PM
Thank you all for the replies (even though the whole discussion went off-topic very quick). Anastasios was able to offer me some insight outside the forum and I realized that I will leave the decision to my parents. If they want to switch over to the New Calendar, then so be it. Wherever they go, I go (even though I would preferably like to remain with the Old Calendar). Thank you anyways for taking the time to read over this and please do not continue the Old vs. New arguement, we are all Orthodox at the end of the day. Once again, thank you and take care!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 11, 2006, 08:38:56 AM
LOL, I guess I should have read what you wrote more carefully. But that still leaves us with the problem of the Gregorian Pascha and Jewish Passover coinciding.
That is not a problem, it was never a problem. Because I don't think that the intention of the Fathers was that the Christian Pascha and Passover as calculated by the Jews should never coincide. What should never coincide is 15th Nissan (as calculated by the Church) and Pascha Sunday. It is my opinion that the intention of the Fathers was that we should make our own calculation of Passover according to Scriptural means (the first vernal full moon), rather than using the calculation methods of the various Jewish Communities throughout the diaspora, and based on our own calculation of Passover, we should celebrate Pascha on the following Sunday. Thus "not with the Jews" means "don't calculate Pascha based on Jewish calculations of the Passover, but rather, make your own calculations". The reason for this is obvious in that the current errors in the Hillel II Jewish Calendar means that Passover is sometimes a month late and is celebrated on the second rather than the first Vernal Full Moon.
Think about it: If the recently re-established Sanhedrin in Israel becomes recognised and decides to calculate Passover in a way that makes it coincide with the Julian Pascha, should we then convene an Oecumenical Council to change the date of our Pascha? And what if we do this, and the Sanhedrin decides to change their date of Passover to coincide with our new date for Pascha? I don't think the Canon to celebrate Pascha "not with the Jews" was intended to mean that we should change the date of our Pascha every time the Jews change the date of their Passover to coincide with it. And, in fact, if we did this, we would be doing the very thing the Fathers meant us not to do, i.e. calculate Pascha according to Jewish rather than Orthodox Christian means.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 11, 2006, 08:50:22 PM
I'm not 100% certain why we're arguing, though it's probably because I can't help myself. ;D I agree with you, as I implied in my original post on this subject; as long as the intention is not to coincide with the Jewish Passover then it's not really an issue according to Nicea. That they cannot ever coincide is going one step beyond the synod.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Orthodox11 on December 12, 2006, 04:00:52 PM
Ummm...actually the Synod of Nicea clearly states it's primary purpose in setting a date for Pascha is to NOT Celebrate it the same time as the Jewish Passover. The only years where the Gregorian celebration of Pascha is actually a real problem according to the reasoning of the Synod of Nicea is when it corresponds with the passover; and even then, it is dubious whether this would be a problem as the concern of the synod was that our Pascha should not be based on the Jewish Passover, a rare coincidental correlation between the two is not the same issue as that with which the synod expressed concern.

I haven't really got anything to add to George's explanation of this, which I think is sufficient.

Quote
Maybe for the fifteen non-monastics in the world who actually follow that fast.

Although I would venture to guess the number is slightly higher than 15, that is neither here nor there. This fast is part of the Holy Tradition of the Church and to remove this fast completely (which does happen in certain years for those following the New Calendar) is to act contrary to Her canons.

Whether or not people chose to ignore the prescribed fasts of the Church, established for their well being and spiritual progress, is a separate issue, which concerns them and their spiritual guide only.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: serb1389 on December 15, 2006, 08:47:19 AM
Maybe for the fifteen non-monastics in the world who actually follow that fast. (And I'm sure all fifteen post on OC.net and are going to now inform me of their piety ;D)

HEY!!  SOME of us actually go to traditional churches where not following the fast is not only punishable by beatings and scoldings, but by eternal damnation!!!   ;) ;D

The thing that always got me about the Calanders is Christmas.  IF technically on the Julian Calander Christmas is on Dec. 25, but on the Gregorian it comes out to January 7, then am I celebrating Christmas on the same day?  Or a different day?   Or the same day on a different day?  So can I take communion on "both days"?  Or is it the same day?  If its the same day, how can I take communion twice? 

Anway...you should all go Serbian anyway...I mean...who wouldn't want to go to a church that has a fully stocked bar...common... ;) :P

I do agree in a larger sense though that the Calander's don't really matter.  It does get confusing, especially with fasting...

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: lubeltri on December 15, 2006, 10:10:20 AM
HEY!!  SOME of us actually go to traditional churches where not following the fast is not only punishable by beatings and scoldings, but by eternal damnation!!!   ;) ;D

The thing that always got me about the Calanders is Christmas.  IF technically on the Julian Calander Christmas is on Dec. 25, but on the Gregorian it comes out to January 7, then am I celebrating Christmas on the same day?  Or a different day?   Or the same day on a different day?  So can I take communion on "both days"?  Or is it the same day?  If its the same day, how can I take communion twice? 

Anway...you should all go Serbian anyway...I mean...who wouldn't want to go to a church that has a fully stocked bar...common... ;) :P

I do agree in a larger sense though that the Calander's don't really matter.  It does get confusing, especially with fasting...

Would the new more refined calendar be more accepted among Orthodox if it wasn't named after a Catholic pope? Perhaps it looks like a symbolic concession for Orthodox who are allergic to any concessions to the West.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: BoredMeeting on December 15, 2006, 10:44:36 AM
But that still leaves us with the problem of the Gregorian Pascha and Jewish Passover coinciding.
How is that our problem?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: BoredMeeting on December 15, 2006, 10:46:40 AM
Would the new more refined calendar be more accepted among Orthodox if it wasn't named after a Catholic pope?
Not really, particularly since the OCA is now using the Revised Julian Calendar which is slightly more accurate that the Gregorian one.

We just want to keep our Christmas 13 days after the Western one so that we can shop during all the after-Christmas sales.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on November 21, 2007, 05:04:54 PM
And let me tell you- I hope u know that the New Calender is under anathema.

Are you implying that we are devout of grace?  :-\


MODERATION:  I exhumed this buried thread to allow for a discussion of the anathema against the New Calendar that started on this thread regarding beards and Tradition:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12921.135.html#lastPost

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on November 21, 2007, 05:35:32 PM
And let me tell you- I hope u know that the New Calender is under anathema.
But I think this would be a topic for a new thread.

You're making my job too easy, but by all means, keep it up. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on November 21, 2007, 10:30:15 PM
Are you implying that we are devout of grace?  :-\
I believe you meant to say "devoid." Slight difference. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on November 21, 2007, 11:31:52 PM
I believe you meant to say "devoid." Slight difference. ;)

I must have hit the wrong key when I heard GIC was considering becoming a monk. :laugh:
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on November 22, 2007, 12:09:38 AM
 :D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 22, 2007, 12:46:44 PM
Are you implying that we are devout of grace?  :-\

God bless !

You know that the old calendarians are divided on the same question !

Please, I hope I am right, but the Cyprianites say - it was not right but, your Myseries are valid
                                      the Matthewites say your Mysteries are invalid.
                                     

I only can say that it was not right to change it, but there are great Elders also in the New Calender Church, I also witnessed miracles ......
And many many Elders of the New Calender Church were also against this change but did not seperate -like Blessed Elder Philotheos Zervakos, St. Papa Nicholas Planas,...........I think they thought that the church will return once......

You know that the calender is only one of many things they tried to change like the fasts, the feastdays, the Liturgys..............but glory to God it did not happen until now.

Many of the old calendarian leaders are procclaimed Saints:
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Florina is fragrant.
St. Glicherie of Romania
St. Myrtidiotissa - Archbishop Cyprian was a spiritual son of Her( but also of Bl. E.Philotheos)
St. John the romanian the confessor of the old calender
.............

and please do not forget all the signs wich were given from God - not to change it !

the appearance of the Holy Cross over Athen during the Vigil of the old calendar feast of the elevation of the cross.
it was said that the Holy Fire did not appear in Jerusalem when the calender was changed so the Patriarch returned to the old
in Valaam a monk prayed to the Mother of God to show wich Calender is the right - and he heard the Voice of the Theotokos and she said go with old one- it is the correct one
( I think it was Schema-Hieromonk Nicholas of Valaam)
St.Myrtidiotissa also asked the Theotokos and she said the same; Sophia go with the old, it is the correct one
I know some of the Cyprianites ( of Archbishop Cyprian of Fili) and I witnessed miracles and signs there
and many others.........

But it must be clear that these signs only demonstrates the correctness of the Decision of the former Synods were the New Paschalion and MENOLOGION was condemned. ( please notice also the menologion - often new calendearists say it was only the Paschalion but that's not true).

So I hope I could answer your question a bit.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on November 22, 2007, 01:15:16 PM
Our calender is a revised version of the Julian. It's more of a repair. We never really went over to the Gregorian. The most important thing to remember is that the church is an image of the end times and not the actual end times. To say that anyone wheather in the church or not doesn't have grace is pitiful and not Christian.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 22, 2007, 01:39:56 PM
Our calender is a revised version of the Julian. It's more of a repair. We never really went over to the Gregorian. The most important thing to remember is that the church is an image of the end times and not the actual end times. To say that anyone wheather in the church or not doesn't have grace is pitiful and not Christian.

God bless !

I know this argument ( the reason I mentioned the Menologion), it was changed ( not the Paschalion) and the signs of God and his saints are proof enough. And many New Calender Elders knew this !

For me it is not pitiful because all the Saints did the same - did they not say anathema to Arius..Nestorius......did not the Patriarchs say anathema to the new Paschalion, Menologion.....anthema to all those who follow the papal calender.....do you think our Patriarch were pitiful.
True chrisitan love has nothing todo with worldly sentimental love. When they say anathema, means not that they hate all those, but that they love them and because they love them, they must be true and clear and tell them: return from the errors otherwise you are outside the church !
Arius only had to abandon his mistakes- he would be not excluded from the clergy if he had repent and turned away from his wrong understanding - but he did not - he was too proud like all the other heretics.

So it would be contrary to love, to say all have truth and all is good !

IN CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 22, 2007, 04:40:51 PM
MODERATION:  I exhumed this buried thread to allow for a discussion of the anathema against the New Calendar that started on this thread regarding beards and Tradition:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12921.135.html#lastPost

- PeterTheAleut


To those of you following this latest discussion:  I encourage you, with an eye for more enlightened discussion today, to read the previous posts on this revived thread to educate yourselves on what others have said about this in the past.  Feel free also to comment on these earlier posts.  Just remember, though, that some of the original posters on this thread are no longer with us if you want to ask them questions.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 22, 2007, 06:27:11 PM
God bless !

And let me ask you - was the change of the calender an act of Love ? I think it was not.
And also the persecution of the old calendarians through the new calendarians -they were persecuted, beaten, even killed -the New Martyr Cathrine was killed - is this LOVE ? Priests were imprisoned, their Hair was cut and beard also, churches were closed, even the Holy Gifts were blasphemed......and all this only because some orthodox did not except the new calender ?

The same was in Romania - there also the oldcal were beaten, they had to hide themslefs in the forrests.......St. Glicherie was often beaten and persecuted his Hands were swollen from the beatings.......is this LOVE ?

And even now they go on to discredit them as fanatics, schismatics, .........in a time when many of the New Calendarians call even catholics brothers and sisters ? Is this LOVE..

Is it LOVE when the Patriarch of Constantinopel persecutes the monks of esphigmenou by Police and violence - some monks even died ( I was told) because of hunger ? Old calendarians are not allowed to go to Mount Athos - is this love - when heterodox are allowed ?

 Testifying to the uncanny connection between the miracle of the Holy Fire and the Church Calendar, Archimandrite Sergius (Iazadjiev) relates the following:

In August of 1971, Nikolai [now Hieromonk Theophan] and I were coming back from rest and medical treatment at Narechen. Passing through the town of Plovdiv, we called in at the Metochion of Zographou to venerate the tomb of the Holy King Boris. Schema-monk Seraphim of Zographou was in attendance at the tomb. He told us that recently (1969-70), under pressure from the Geneva-based World Council of Churches, the Jerusalem Patriarchate had introduced the 'New Julian' Calendar (as had the Bulgarian, Macedonian, and other Patriarchates, since there was overwhelming pressure at the time to introduce the New Calendar). That same year, on Great Saturday, when from time immemorial the Holy Fire descends on the Lord's Sepulchre, this year the Fire did not appear. Shocked, Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem commanded that the Old Calendar, which had been in use until then, be restored immediately in the jurisdiction of his Patriarchate. The next year, the Holy Fire once again descended on the Lord's Sepulchre on Great Saturday; the same occurs even until the present.


Another important miracle verifying the sacrosanct character of Orthodox Pascha is described in a letter from Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum (Marsala), Sicily,153 to Saint Leo the Great ( 461). Regarding a discrepancy between the Roman and Alexandrian calculations of Pascha, Bishop Paschasinus writes:

After much scrutiny and debate, we found that what the Patriarch of the Church of Alexandria had written to Your Beatitude was correct. Since the Roman computation for the year in question [444], the sixty-third year of its cycle..., was March 26, we were inclined to doubt that this date for Pascha was correct, but in fact that it was on April 23. Confused and uncertain, we consulted the Jewish calculation, now ignored by the Romans-which is why they sometimes fall into error....
For the time being, let us not be afraid of the lateness of the date of Pascha, lest by trying to avoid it, we fall into error, as happened during the reign of your predecessor, Zosimas [ 418].... At that time, by hastening the celebration of Pascha from its date of April 22 to March 25..., a very grievous error was committed; so grave that the true date was proved by a miracle enacted by the Grace of the Holy Spirit....
This miracle is as follows: In the high mountains, in the midst of thick forests, there was a very impoverished region by the name of 'Meltinas.' By strained efforts, a small Church had been constructed there. In the Baptistery, during the Holy Night of Pascha, at the time appointed for Baptisms, despite the fact that there were no pipes or aqueducts, let alone any water in the vicinity, the Baptismal Font would fill by itself. After the few present were sanctified [Baptized], the water would dissipate in the same way that it had appeared.
In the time of the Blessed Pope Zosimas, however, when the Westerners were in error with regard to the calculation of the Paschal date, during the night of Pascha, having finished the lections, the Presbyter waited, as usual, for the time of the Baptism: waiting, indeed, until morning. Since the water did not appear, though, those waiting to be Baptized went home unsanctified [un-Baptized].
Continuing, let me say that during the Eve of Pascha on the tenth calends of May [i.e., on the Alexandrian date of April 22], the Font filled with water at the appropriate time. Through this obvious miracle, it was proved that the Westerners were in error with respect to the date of Pascha.


"On Pascha, 1996, a dried and dead wreath of thorns, placed on a Cross with an Icon of the Crucified Christ that adorns the Chapel of the Hermitage of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, a small monastic community in Pyrgos, Greece, under the jurisdiction of.[Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili], began to sprout green leaves. This moving image of the life which we Orthodox Christians find even in death is a fitting testimony to the mystery of Christ's Pascha and His life-bestowing Death and Resurrection. Archimandrite Father Gregory, Superior of the Brotherhood in Pyrgos, reports that the wreath, unwatered and otherwise completely dry and dead, continues to this day to produce green leaves and evidence of life" (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. xiv, Nos. 2 & 3 [1997], p. 44).-Eds.]

Saint Savvas the New ( 1948), who followed the Old Calendar during his many years on Mount Athos and in Jerusalem. However, he reposed in the Convent of All Saints on Kalymnos, a convent which out of obedience to the local Bishop had adopted the New Calendar. Nonetheless, when Saint Savvas reposed on April 7 (New Style), one of the nuns was granted a vision of his soul ascending to Heaven, in which she heard him chanting, "Announce, O earth, great joy"-a hymn for the Annunciation, a Feast which the Old Calendarists at that very time were celebrating (see Constantine Cavarnos, St. Savvas the New.

After the calendar reform of 1924, when those who maintained the Old Calendar were first being persecuted, Saint Nicholas wanted to serve the Feast of the Holy Prophet Elisseos in the Church dedicated to his name in Athens (it has since been demolished), but decided against it after considering the possible confrontations which might ensue; he arranged, therefore, to serve at the Church of Saint Spyridon in Mantouka instead. However, the next day, June 14 (Old Style), found Saint Nicholas in the Church of Saint Elisseos, serving the Divine Liturgy in honor of the Holy Prophet. In great perplexity, his spiritual children asked him why he had changed his mind, to which Saint Nicholas replied with his characteristic simplicity, "...[T]his morning I saw the Prophet and he told me to come here to serve and not to fear anything, because he will watch over me" (Papa-Nicholas Planas, op. cit., p. 54 ).-Eds.]

And many others....

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 22, 2007, 06:42:53 PM
And let me ask you - was the change of the calender an act of Love ? I think it was not.
And also the persecution of the old calendarians through the new calendarians -they were persecuted, beaten, even killed -the New Martyr Cathrine was killed - is this LOVE ? Priests were imprisoned, their Hair was cut and beard also, churches were closed, even the Holy Gifts were blasphemed......and all this only because some orthodox did not except the new calender ?

The same was in Romania - there also the oldcal were beaten, they had to hide themslefs in the forrests.......St. Glicherie was often beaten and persecuted his Hands were swollen from the beatings.......is this LOVE ?

And even now they go on to discredit them as fanatics, schismatics, .........in a time when many of the New Calendarians call even catholics brothers and sisters ? Is this LOVE..

Is it LOVE when the Patriarch of Constantinopel persecutes the monks of esphigmenou by Police and violence - some monks even died ( I was told) because of hunger ? Old calendarians are not allowed to go to Mount Athos - is this love - when heterodox are allowed ?

Please don't judge the correctness or lack thereof of a particular point of view by the oppressive persecutions used to advance that point of view.  I share your disgust with how Old Calendarists have been persecuted by advocates of the New Calendar, but that is a judgment of those people who sought to advance their reforms through such destructive means, not a judgment of the substance of the calendar reform itself.  And I'm sure other groups facing persecution interpreted unusual natural signs as divine witnesses to the correctness of their positions, even though they really were heretics.  I think it's been said before on OCnet that "miraculous" signs are not to be seen as proof of the Orthodoxy of a dogmatic position.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Orthodox11 on November 22, 2007, 06:52:55 PM
I'm sure the situation is very different in America (as with everything else), but at least from my own personal experience I've yet to meet a single Greek or Romanian Orthodox (new calendar) priest that thought the calendar change was a good idea. Without exception (again, just from my encounters) they all wished for a return to the traditional Church Calendar.

"Surely by their fruits ye shall fully know them." Other than astronomical correctness (who cares?) I've yet to see a single good fruit brought about by the new calendar; only division. Not to mention the loss of two weeks from the Apostles Fast.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 22, 2007, 07:13:49 PM
Please don't judge the correctness or lack thereof of a particular point of view by the oppressive persecutions used to advance that point of view.  I share your disgust with how Old Calendarists have been persecuted by advocates of the New Calendar, but that is a judgment of those people who sought to advance their reforms through such destructive means, not a judgment of the substance of the calendar reform itself.  And I'm sure other groups facing persecution interpreted unusual natural signs as divine witnesses to the correctness of their positions, even though they really were heretics.  I think it's been said before on OCnet that "miraculous" signs are not to be seen as proof of the Orthodoxy of a dogmatic position.

God bless u Peter !

Please forgive but I can not agree that miraculous signs are not a proof for a dogmatic positin.

Because the Ecumenical Synods  and many other Dogmatical questions, in the history of the church were prooved by divine signs. Even the orthodox church was founded through miracles like Pentecoste,...

So of course the Calender.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 22, 2007, 07:28:40 PM
I'm sure the situation is very different in America (as with everything else), but at least from my own personal experience I've yet to meet a single Greek or Romanian Orthodox (new calendar) priest that thought the calendar change was a good idea. Without exception (again, just from my encounters) they all wished for a return to the traditional Church Calendar.
And I, an American who follows the New Calendar, certainly don't like many of the methods used to embrace and enforce use of the New Calendar both here and in Orthodox Europe.

Quote
"Surely by their fruits ye shall fully know them." Other than astronomical correctness (who cares?)
So the Holy Fathers of Nicea didn't think astronomical correctness important when they set the rules for when Pascha would be celebrated and made Alexandria, the astronomical center of the world at that time, the final arbiter on the date?

Quote
I've yet to see a single good fruit brought about by the new calendar; only division. Not to mention the loss of two weeks from the Apostles Fast.
Are you objecting to the New Calendar itself, or to the way its use was enacted?  Are you also aware that if we were to make our Paschalion more astronomically correct, the shortening of the Apostles' Fast would be remedied?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on November 22, 2007, 08:02:55 PM
Please forgive but I can not agree that miraculous signs are not a proof for a dogmatic positin.

If you read the biography of Elder Ephraim of Katounakia published by Vatopaidi, the use of miracles is cited as justification for using the new calendar.  In general, almost every religion and sect thereof uses signs of some sort - Hindus have miracles, Muslims have miracles - should one embrace their dogmas? 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 22, 2007, 08:24:03 PM
If you read the biography of Elder Ephraim of Katounakia published by Vatopaidi, the use of miracles is cited as justification for using the new calendar.  In general, almost every religion and sect thereof uses signs of some sort - Hindus have miracles, Muslims have miracles - should one embrace their dogmas? 

God bless !

Yes I know, but it is a fact that even during the Ecumenical Synods signs were given. I think we have to be very careful with miracles and should proof them - if they are from God or from an other Spirit. A miracle wich is against any Dogma or Teaching of the Church can not be true or from God.

Like I have written they only show the correctness of the Decision of the Patriarchs.

Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain ( 1809), in his exposition of the Seventh Apostolic Canon, as evidence of the sacred character of the Church Calendar. Saint Nicodemos further cites another unusual example: "...In the region of Heliopolis, Egypt, where the great pyramids are, God performs the following strange paradox every year, to wit: on the evening of our (not the Latins') Holy Thursday, the earth vomits old human relics and bones, which cover the ground of an extensive plain.........

Do you see also St.Nikodemus use such miracles as evidence for truth. I think today we have to face an abuse with visions and miracles but true visions and miracles also happen.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on November 22, 2007, 08:45:55 PM
Oh, that makes sense then.  If a miracle supports the dogma you already hold to be true, then it is a true miracle.  If you don't believe in the dogma before hand, then it is a false miracle.  Right?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on November 22, 2007, 11:05:46 PM
Talk about a "blast from the past".  I remember this thread. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 22, 2007, 11:55:19 PM
I'm sure the situation is very different in America (as with everything else), but at least from my own personal experience I've yet to meet a single Greek or Romanian Orthodox (new calendar) priest that thought the calendar change was a good idea. Without exception (again, just from my encounters) they all wished for a return to the traditional Church Calendar.

Too bad so many people confuse "conservative" with "traditional."  In history, it seems that it is always the conservative who fall into schism or heresy.  (For example, Russian Old Believers.) 

Quote
"Surely by their fruits ye shall fully know them." Other than astronomical correctness (who cares?) I've yet to see a single good fruit brought about by the new calendar; only division. Not to mention the loss of two weeks from the Apostles Fast.

Fruits?  Calendars don't have fruits.  They're a way of marking the passage of time.  There's nothing "mystical" or "holy" about them.  Of course, I agree that the way that the new calendar was brought into play was often a very regrettable and ugly part of Orthodox history.  You're right to say that the calendar causes divisions.  It's pathetic, quite frankly.  We Orthodox should be embarrassed by this.  But it seems to me that it is many conservatives who are perpetuating the divisions of which you speak nowadays. 

You don't like the loss of time from the Apostle's fast.  Fair enough.  I guess that means that you really like it when the feast of the Annuciation falls in Holy Week.  (This only happens on the old calendar.)  Seems really appropriate to me.  ;)  Or how about having the Annunciation fall at the same time as Pascha, ie Kyriopascha?  You don't care about accuracy?  That's good, because the old calendar is hopelessly inaccurate.  It's supposed to gain a day every century to help it make up some of this inaccuracy, but they stopped doing it after 1900 for some reason. 

Forgive me for the level of sarcasm I display here.  I know that there are some wonderful people in Orthodoxy using the old calendar, and I wouldn't want to break communion with them over what I see (in some ways) as a trivial issue.  If it were up to me, (thankfully it is not!) and in the end it would mean that I could preserve Orthodox unity, I might well choose to adopt the old calendar.  I would even use words like "thee" and "thou" in the English liturgy if I could preserve unity with Orthodox brothers and sisiters.  And this very thing is an extremely divisive issue right now in the North American Church.  You don't think this looks petty to non-Orthodox?  What kind of a witness is that, and how important is it really if I use thee and thou.....I guess I would just have to live with it, as much as I object to using "Kingjamesenese".
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 23, 2007, 12:03:02 AM
I believe you meant to say "devoid." Slight difference. ;)

Why do I always have to play the bassoon?  ;)

(Apologies to Demetrios)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Orthodox11 on November 23, 2007, 03:18:25 PM

While I do not consider it a matter of heresy, nor a cause for schism, I object to the introduction of the New Calendar (although I follow it in obedience to my bishop) because:
1. It has caused such a lot of uneccesary division.
2. The reasons for its introduction (ecumenism). Rather than actually bringing the heretical churches closer to Orthodoxy, it has made many within the Church suspicious of genuine dialogue and therefore made true ecumenism much more difficult than it was before.
3. The fact that the various local churches now feast and fast at different times.
4. The shortening of the Apostles Fast due to having two calendars simultaneously (and yes, I do think having the Announciation occasionally coinciding with Holy Week is preferable to occasionally losing an entire fast).

As for the New Calendar in and of itself, I can't really see any problem with it. But having two calendars at the same time is inane imho, and so it should be accepted totally (as the Finnish church has done), or not at all.

However, this would mean changing the Paschalion, which I believe (feel free to correct me) is contrary to the canons of the Church, given what the Fathers say about the time of Jewish Passover (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/firecsyn.pdf).

So I'd also object to the calendar on this basis.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: drewmeister2 on November 23, 2007, 03:27:58 PM
Another big problem with the New Calendar is, that it was condemned by mutliple local councils, and these councils placed an anathema on all those who adopted the Gregorian calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 23, 2007, 03:41:07 PM
Another big problem with the New Calendar is, that it was condemned by mutliple local councils, and these councils placed an anathema on all those who adopted the Gregorian calendar.
So you accept as having ecumenical authority those local councils that express the faith you already hold fast and reject the authority of those local councils that do not?  Otherwise, why would an anathema pronounced by any local council have any binding authority upon all Orthodox Christians?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on November 23, 2007, 03:44:51 PM
Another big problem with the New Calendar is, that it was condemned by mutliple local councils, and these councils placed an anathema on all those who adopted the Gregorian calendar.

Problem is the Revised Julian Calendar is technically not the Gregorian Calendar.

(We just had a recent thread on that topic, somewhere.)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 23, 2007, 04:01:46 PM
However, this would mean changing the Paschalion, which I believe (feel free to correct me) is contrary to the canons of the Church, given what the Fathers say about the time of Jewish Passover (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/firecsyn.pdf).
I actually mulled over this very issue while reading quite a few articles on it, including the one you linked, during the most recent Paschaltide.  One conclusion I drew is that the Fathers of Nicea intended to separate the Church Paschalion completely from the Jewish Paschalion to make the former completely independent from the latter.  At the time of the Great Council, I don't believe it was even astronomically possible for Christians to celebrate Pascha before the Jews without also celebrating the Feast before the spring equinox, hence the interpretation of "not with the Jews" to also mean "not before the Jews".

Since then (almost 1700 years later), the time difference between the astronomical spring equinox and the date of the Jewish Passover has expanded in some years to the point that the Jews celebrate after the second full moon of spring, which, according to our current understanding, requires us to celebrate Pascha after this same second full moon.  I remember reading some of our conservatives actually acknowledging, as though it were desirable, that this slow creep would eventually push Pascha into the winter.  Ironically, in insisting that Pascha be celebrated after the Jews in keeping with our understanding of the Nicene prescription, we have made the scheduling of Pascha dependent once again on the Jewish scheduling of their Passover, which is exactly what the Nicene Fathers sought to prevent.


Note for you Aussies, in speaking of times and seasons above, I referred always to their reckoning in the Northern Hemisphere.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind someday actually celebrating Pascha in the spring. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: drewmeister2 on November 23, 2007, 05:32:05 PM
So you accept as having ecumenical authority those local councils that express the faith you already hold fast and reject the authority of those local councils that do not?  Otherwise, why would an anathema pronounced by any local council have any binding authority upon all Orthodox Christians?

Well, to some degree I guess I do, but more importantly, those Churches that held these local Councils condemning the Gregorian Calendar are anathema if they themselves use the Gregorian Calendar today, and thus those that are in communion with those who are anathema are also anathema as well. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 23, 2007, 07:04:03 PM
Well, to some degree I guess I do, but more importantly, those Churches that held these local Councils condemning the Gregorian Calendar are anathema if they themselves use the Gregorian Calendar today, and thus those that are in communion with those who are anathema are also anathema as well. 
If a local council pronounces an anathema, claiming to represent the unadulterated Orthodox Faith of the catholic Church, yet the rest of the Church rejects the anathema, does the anathema have any binding authority on anyone, even upon the local council that proclaimed the anathema?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 23, 2007, 08:21:59 PM
God bless !

I think the Synod of 1583 in Jerusalem was a Pan-Orthodox Council and the whole orthodox church agreed with their Decision, so their anathema is a pan-orthodox one !

and also other Pan-orthodox Synods condemned the New Calender:

Pan-orthodox Synod of Constantinopel 1587 condemned it
                            of Constantinopel 1593 condemned it

and many other Local Synods:

1670 Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem and his Holy Synod condemned it
1827 Ecumenical Patriarch Agathangelos and his Holy Synod condemned it
1895 Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VII and his Holy Synod
1902 Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III and His Holy Synod
1903 Patriarch Damianos of Jerusalem and his Synod
1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Russia condemned it
1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Romania condemned it
1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Greece condemned it
1904 Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III again condemned it
1919 Holy Synod of the Church of Greece again condemned it

1919 Meletios Metaxakis becomes Archbishop of Athens

1921 Metaxakis is deposed as Archbishop of Athens for canonical infractions and for causing schism !!!!!!!!
1922 without being canonical elected and though deposed by the Synod of Greece Meletios is enthroned as Ecumenical Patriarch !!!!!!!

1923 Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (future Archb of Athens) wrote: No Orthodox autocephalous Church can separate itself from the rest and accept the New Calender without becoming schismatic in the eyes of the others.

1923 in July outraged Orthodox Christians of Constantinopel physically expel Metaxakis from the premise of the Patriarchate. Metaxakis officially resigns as Ecumenical Patriarch in September citing "reason of health"

1924 Pressured by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the State Church of Greece adopt the New Calendar on March10/23 1924

1924 in Romania Metr. Myron accepts the New Calendar. Shortly thereafter, working in close conjunction with the *Eastern Catholic prime Minister of Romania, Julius Manius, he unilaterally adopts the Western Paschalion as well. Riots break out in the streets over this issue, and the adoption of the Western Paschalion is retracted.

1924 In unanimity with Patr. Gregory of Antioch, Patr.Damianos of Jerusalem and Archb. Cyril of Cyprus, Patr.Photios of Alexandria and his Holy Synod condemn the introduction of the New Calendar

1925 On September 14 (os) the Holy Cross appeared over Athen. The Police who were sent by Archb. Chrysostom of Athens to break up the Service and arrest the Priest, are converted after witnessing the Appearance

1926 Meletios Metaxakis becomes Patr. of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Alexandria adopts the New Calendar

I think we can see here that the New Calender is under anathema-no doubt. Beside this we have many other Canons and the writings of many Elders and Saints who also were against the change.

Please notice that some churches also accepted the New Paschalion but returned to the orthodox ( like the Church of Romania) or not like the Orthodox Church of Finnland wich is celebrating Pascha according to the Papal Paschalion!!!!!!!

IN CHRIST

* Proscribed terminology edited
Αριστοκλής
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 24, 2007, 01:46:18 AM
I actually mulled over this very issue while reading quite a few articles on it, including the one you linked, during the most recent Paschaltide.  One conclusion I drew is that the Fathers of Nicea intended to separate the Church Paschalion completely from the Jewish Paschalion to make the former completely independent from the latter.  At the time of the Great Council, I don't believe it was even astronomically possible for Christians to celebrate Pascha before the Jews without also celebrating the Feast before the spring equinox, hence the interpretation of "not with the Jews" to also mean "not before the Jews".

Since then (almost 1700 years later), the time difference between the astronomical spring equinox and the date of the Jewish Passover has expanded in some years to the point that the Jews celebrate after the second full moon of spring, which, according to our current understanding, requires us to celebrate Pascha after this same second full moon.  I remember reading some of our conservatives actually acknowledging, as though it were desirable, that this slow creep would eventually push Pascha into the winter. 

I believe this is correct.  OCA Archbishop Peter of New Jersey (who has just reposed) did major research on this issue.  I believe that one may find some of his research on this matter online. 

The old calendar calculation of the spring equinox was basically an educated guess about when the equinox actually happens.  And it was totally off the mark, essentially a "pretend" equinox!

There was confusion in the early Church about when to calculate the time of Pascha.  If memory serves me correctly, one reason was that it was not known that the Jews had changed the way that they reckoned the time of Passover, and this reckoning became important, though it was not based on the ancient means of calculating the date.

Archbishop Peter's research shows that the Latin method for calculating Pascha is correct.  I have yet to see any work that convincingly argues against this premise.  This gives me no pleasure at all.  For years, I believed that the Orthodox method of calulating Pascha was the correct way.  I'm sure it will take a long time for the Church to adopt these changes, but it would probably be a good idea to make the change before we start celebrating Pascha in August.  ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on November 24, 2007, 01:55:01 AM
4. The shortening of the Apostles Fast due to having two calendars simultaneously (and yes, I do think having the Announciation occasionally coinciding with Holy Week is preferable to occasionally losing an entire fast).

Maybe you'd like to experience enjoying the feast of the Annunciation on Great and Holy Friday before you make your final decision on this.   ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 24, 2007, 04:14:00 AM
1903 Holy Synod of the Church of Russia condemned it
1917 The First All-Russian Council (that elected St. Tikhon Patriarch) places calendar reform on their agenda


Are you sure that the substance of the calendar reform was the ONLY reason such reform was rejected?  What other factors might have played a major role, such as refusal to submit to an idea merely because it was encouraged by the Latin church?  If calendar reform is proposed organically within the Church and not foisted upon us from outside, might we find the product of such reform (i.e., the New Calendar) acceptable?

This is why I wonder just how much these anathemas against the Papal Calendar really speak to the issue of the calendar reforms of the last century.  Are we really dealing with the same calendar?  With the same reform dynamics?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 24, 2007, 04:21:23 AM
I believe this is correct.  OCA Archbishop Peter of New Jersey (who has just reposed) did major research on this issue.  I believe that one may find some of his research on this matter online.
In fact, this scholarly research of Archbishop Peter (of blessed memory) had a major impact on my thinking and is reflected in the information I just presented.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on November 24, 2007, 06:57:50 PM
God bless !

I do not know Archbishop Peter of New Jersy and his research but there are many excellent books and studies on this Topic - and I think that all agree that the Julian is the correct one.

 Archimandrite Naum, Elder of the St.Trinity-St.Sergius monastery :

The question of Paschalia is both dogmatical and canonical, and when the Orthodox celebrate Easter at the time, which reveals the symbol of the first and the eighth unsetting day, and remember the suffering and death, descent into Hell and the Resurrection, namely: after equinox, after full moon, on the day of Sunday, - then the Lord grants the appearance of the Blessed Fire at the Holy Sepulchre. He who keeps, along with other commandments, the commandment and tradition about Easter, does truly and observe in his life the Divine Truth, the goodness and sanctity of the Lord. He who does not keep the commandment about Paschalia, does not, as we often see, observe either all or some of God's commandments. And let their conscience be their judge.

The Holy Tradition prescribes:

1. That Easter be after vernal equinox; 2. After the following full moon; 3. On the first following Sunday; 4. That this Feast does not coincide with the Jewish Passover, which serves as a time reference, but that it be after the Jewish Passover.

The seven-day week begins with the creation of the world. The first day, being the image of the eternal, merges with Sunday. The Sun circle contains 28 years (7x4) - after 28 years the days of the week are repeated, which is important for the Paschalia. The Moon circle contains a 19-year Metonic cycle, but after every 19 years, the full moon, though occurring on the same day, takes place almost one and a half hours earlier than previously, so that after every 312 years, the full moon takes place one whole day earlier than previously. This shift of full moons was known to the pastors of the Eastern Church.

St. John Chrysostom indicates that "Equinox is the beginning of initial time at creation, when day and night were equal. Full Moon, however, was created after equinox, on the fourth day; on the sixth day God created man. Time of creation is chosen as time of renewal, namely: equinox, full Moon on the 14th day and on the day of the creation of man. At the same time, the Lord suffered, crying: "Father, the hour is come." The seven days of suffering coincided exactly with the first seven days of creation - this is the paramount time. It has been commanded: "This do in remembrance of Me" - to annually observe Easter following equinox, finding the 14th day of the Moon, after it (the day of the Old Testament Passover), and from here we calculate the Friday, the Saturday and the Lord's Day (Christian Easter).
If the 14th day of the Moon should occur before equinox, we leave it out and look for another, which should be after equinox; then the other month is counted. If the 14th day of the Moon meets with the Lord's Day, we take the next Lord's Day, in memory thereof that the 14th day is the day of passions, coinciding with the Friday on Calvary."
The Jewish Passover retains only full moons, while the Christian Easter - also the Resurrection, - wrote and said Pope Victor. In 1582, however, Pope Gregory XIII introduced his own calendar, influenced by the age of the Renaissance. Copernicus was against the reform and the 1583 Council rejected the new calendar.

The Gregorian calendar is historically pernicious and proves to be astronomically unnecessary. From 1900 to 2100 the difference between the two calendars is 13 days. Under the Gregorian calendar, it is difficult to retrieve historic events, astronomic phenomena, it is difficult to alternate lunar and solar equations. One cannot apply the rule concerning celebration of Easter to the Gregorian style. The Orthodox Church cannot accept the Gregorian style. The church celebrates Easter not according to dictates of the Gregorian or Julian calendars, but in accordance with the lunar biblical calendar.

The great indiction, that is the great paschal circle encompassing 532 years, provides for the unity of time in cosmic, historical, liturgical fields as a synthesis of knowledge of calendars; accounts for equinox and full moons, and serves as eternal calendar. The indiction affirms the inviolacy of the week. The Holy Orthodox Church is the sole guardian of the authentic Apostolic tradition.

The Holy Ghost, through the God-inspired Apostles and the Holy fathers, taught the rule of righteousness for all men. Thus, the 7th Apostolic rule reads: "If some person, be he bishop or presbyter, or deacon, should celebrate the feast of Easter before the vernal equinox, together with the Jews let him be cast away from the holy order."

The rule of the Holy Antioch Council stipulates that those daring to violate the decisions of the Holy and Great Council held in Nicaea, "about the feast of the Salvatory Easter, let them be excommunicated and cast away from the Church. If any of the hierarchs of the Church, be it bishop or presbyter, or deacon, dare to corrupt the people and to rebel against the Churches by conducting Easter with the Jews, such persons does the Holy Church condemn to be estranged from the Church, forbid conducting services to him and to those who have come in communion with him."

And Christ the Saviour appeals to every one of us, as He did to Simon John: "Doest thou love Me?" We call: "Our Father" and must remember, that our eternal Fatherland is in Heaven - where the Father is, there the children should be, too. And observance of God's commandments is a manifestation of love - and to those who have faith, the Lord grants the knowledge of the Resurrection. Easter for the Christians is Christ's Resurrection from the dead.
Easter is a feast of spring and reminds us of the seven days of Creation and the seven days of the Saviour's passions. This is the eighth day - as a symbol of the eternal unsetting day - merging with the first day of Creation - it is the Lord's day, it follows Saturday and is called the Week. Following the Week - the Sunday - after the Week - comes Monday, and so continues the week - from the week of Creation. And it was after vernal equinox, full moon and the three-day Resurrection. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on November 24, 2007, 07:11:12 PM
God bless !

I do not know Archbishop Peter of New Jersy and his research but there are many excellent books and studies on this Topic - and I think that all agree that the Julian is the correct one.

 Archimandrite Naum, Elder of the St.Trinity-St.Sergius monastery :

The question of Paschalia is both dogmatical and canonical, and when the Orthodox celebrate Easter at the time, which reveals the symbol of the first and the eighth unsetting day, and remember the suffering and death, descent into Hell and the Resurrection, namely: after equinox, after full moon, on the day of Sunday, - then the Lord grants the appearance of the Blessed Fire at the Holy Sepulchre. He who keeps, along with other commandments, the commandment and tradition about Easter, does truly and observe in his life the Divine Truth, the goodness and sanctity of the Lord. He who does not keep the commandment about Paschalia, does not, as we often see, observe either all or some of God's commandments. And let their conscience be their judge.

The Holy Tradition prescribes:

1. That Easter be after vernal equinox; 2. After the following full moon; 3. On the first following Sunday; 4. That this Feast does not coincide with the Jewish Passover, which serves as a time reference, but that it be after the Jewish Passover.

The seven-day week begins with the creation of the world. The first day, being the image of the eternal, merges with Sunday. The Sun circle contains 28 years (7x4) - after 28 years the days of the week are repeated, which is important for the Paschalia. The Moon circle contains a 19-year Metonic cycle, but after every 19 years, the full moon, though occurring on the same day, takes place almost one and a half hours earlier than previously, so that after every 312 years, the full moon takes place one whole day earlier than previously. This shift of full moons was known to the pastors of the Eastern Church.

St. John Chrysostom indicates that "Equinox is the beginning of initial time at creation, when day and night were equal. Full Moon, however, was created after equinox, on the fourth day; on the sixth day God created man. Time of creation is chosen as time of renewal, namely: equinox, full Moon on the 14th day and on the day of the creation of man. At the same time, the Lord suffered, crying: "Father, the hour is come." The seven days of suffering coincided exactly with the first seven days of creation - this is the paramount time. It has been commanded: "This do in remembrance of Me" - to annually observe Easter following equinox, finding the 14th day of the Moon, after it (the day of the Old Testament Passover), and from here we calculate the Friday, the Saturday and the Lord's Day (Christian Easter).
If the 14th day of the Moon should occur before equinox, we leave it out and look for another, which should be after equinox; then the other month is counted. If the 14th day of the Moon meets with the Lord's Day, we take the next Lord's Day, in memory thereof that the 14th day is the day of passions, coinciding with the Friday on Calvary."
The Jewish Passover retains only full moons, while the Christian Easter - also the Resurrection, - wrote and said Pope Victor. In 1582, however, Pope Gregory XIII introduced his own calendar, influenced by the age of the Renaissance. Copernicus was against the reform and the 1583 Council rejected the new calendar.

The Gregorian calendar is historically pernicious and proves to be astronomically unnecessary. From 1900 to 2100 the difference between the two calendars is 13 days. Under the Gregorian calendar, it is difficult to retrieve historic events, astronomic phenomena, it is difficult to alternate lunar and solar equations. One cannot apply the rule concerning celebration of Easter to the Gregorian style. The Orthodox Church cannot accept the Gregorian style. The church celebrates Easter not according to dictates of the Gregorian or Julian calendars, but in accordance with the lunar biblical calendar.

The great indiction, that is the great paschal circle encompassing 532 years, provides for the unity of time in cosmic, historical, liturgical fields as a synthesis of knowledge of calendars; accounts for equinox and full moons, and serves as eternal calendar. The indiction affirms the inviolacy of the week. The Holy Orthodox Church is the sole guardian of the authentic Apostolic tradition.

The Holy Ghost, through the God-inspired Apostles and the Holy fathers, taught the rule of righteousness for all men. Thus, the 7th Apostolic rule reads: "If some person, be he bishop or presbyter, or deacon, should celebrate the feast of Easter before the vernal equinox, together with the Jews let him be cast away from the holy order."

The rule of the Holy Antioch Council stipulates that those daring to violate the decisions of the Holy and Great Council held in Nicaea, "about the feast of the Salvatory Easter, let them be excommunicated and cast away from the Church. If any of the hierarchs of the Church, be it bishop or presbyter, or deacon, dare to corrupt the people and to rebel against the Churches by conducting Easter with the Jews, such persons does the Holy Church condemn to be estranged from the Church, forbid conducting services to him and to those who have come in communion with him."

And Christ the Saviour appeals to every one of us, as He did to Simon John: "Doest thou love Me?" We call: "Our Father" and must remember, that our eternal Fatherland is in Heaven - where the Father is, there the children should be, too. And observance of God's commandments is a manifestation of love - and to those who have faith, the Lord grants the knowledge of the Resurrection. Easter for the Christians is Christ's Resurrection from the dead.
Easter is a feast of spring and reminds us of the seven days of Creation and the seven days of the Saviour's passions. This is the eighth day - as a symbol of the eternal unsetting day - merging with the first day of Creation - it is the Lord's day, it follows Saturday and is called the Week. Following the Week - the Sunday - after the Week - comes Monday, and so continues the week - from the week of Creation. And it was after vernal equinox, full moon and the three-day Resurrection. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."



Interesting that you should post so much about the equinox, even the definition of the Fathers "when day and night were equal." 

On the planet I'm on (which also happens to be the one Our Lord rose on), that happens around March 21, not in April.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ignatius on December 02, 2007, 12:19:53 PM
Grace and Peace!

My local Parish Priest was recently talking to me about the Old Calendar vs. the New Calendar and he made strikingly strong argument which I was moved to agree.

Could someone talk to me about Old Calendar without all the drama found in some of the 'other' topics on this subject?  :-[
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 02, 2007, 12:36:33 PM
Dear Ignatius , ill leave my drama in the other thread . Basically there was a very controversial Patriarch named Meletios Metaksakis who uncanonically ascended the throne of Constantinople. Due to the political circumstances of Turkey during that time and Meletios connection with the british government, freemasonry, and close relations to the anglicans, he held a conference which changed the Church calendar. It had nothing to do with the new calendars accuracy. Later other churches followed. Since 3 pan -orthodox councils condemned its use it created schisms.  Basically we should educate ourselves on the real historical surroundings and press for a return to the Julian Calendar. Its also a better liturgical calendar. The revised julian calendar sometimes wipes out the apostles fast and it deprives the faithful from ever being able to celebrate KyrioPascha.   

If one feels a need for astronomical accurace then after a return to the original calendar, Orthodoxy can hold a council and come up with a truly Orthodox calendar which is faithful to Nicea and has liturgical integrity.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 02, 2007, 04:20:43 PM
^ Thank you for your very one-sided propaganda spiel, buzuxi.  I thought you said you were going to leave your drama on the other thread.  It appears not. ::)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 02, 2007, 04:35:10 PM
ignatius,

I hate to break this to you, but the subject of the New vs. Old Calendars is a controversial subject that cannot help but arouse heated discussion from those unable to divorce their reasoning faculties from their emotions enough to see more than just their side of calendar reform history.  I recognize and value your need to know, and I hope we can offer you the information you seek to understand, but to expect that we will present this material to you with total objectivity and without any of the "drama" may be a bit too much wishful thinking.  We will try to be as objective as we can, but I also ask that you be patient with the many posters on both sides who will preach as "objective facts" such propaganda as you just saw above.

With this in mind, you might want to go ahead and plow through the bucket loads of drama on the other threads to find the diamonds of wisdom buried there.

- Peter
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on December 02, 2007, 04:51:41 PM
Grace and Peace!

My local Parish Priest was recently talking to me about the Old Calendar vs. the New Calendar and he made strikingly strong argument which I was moved to agree.

Could someone talk to me about Old Calendar without all the drama found in some of the 'other' topics on this subject?  :-[

Well, since you are opening this can of worms, maybe it would help if you tell us which worm you're interested in.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GOCTheophan on December 02, 2007, 05:06:57 PM
ignatius,

I hate to break this to you, but the subject of the New vs. Old Calendars is a controversial subject that cannot help but arouse heated discussion from those unable to divorce their reasoning faculties from their emotions enough to see more than just their side of calendar reform history. 


So we should divorce our emotions from the Truth?

God has given us emotions, they may be fallen but than so is our reason.

May God have me HATE the New Calendar and all it means with my emotions unto the ages.

Theophan
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 02, 2007, 05:14:28 PM
So we should divorce our emotions from the Truth?

God has given us emotions, they may be fallen but than so is our reason.

May God have me HATE the New Calendar and all it means with my emotions unto the ages.

Theophan
GOOD!  Now, at least for the sake of the OP's questions, can you keep your emotional diatribe to yourself.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 02, 2007, 05:18:49 PM
The Julian (old) Calendar was introduced 46 BC by Julius Caesar.  It was then altered during the reign of Augustus (number of days a month).  In May of 1923 the synod of Constantinople proposed the adoption of a new calendar that would drop 13 days and have a new leap year formula.  So, until 2800, the Revised Julian (New Calendar) will be identical to the Gregorian.  The Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria use the New Calendar.  The Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, and Georgia use the Julian or Old Calendar.  Old Calendarists such the Holy Synod in Resistance use the old calendar as well, obviously.  In the Churches of Poland, Albania, Czech Lands and Slovakia and the OCA, the calendar used varies from parish to parish.  The autonomous Finnish and Estonian (EP) Churches use the Gregorian calendar I believe.

The synod also proposed a new Paschalion (means to determine the date of Pascha).  All Churches rejected it, but the Finnish and Estonian (EP) use the Gregorian Paschalion.

I won't go into some of the arguments for and against the new/old calendars, unless that is what you wanted.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stanley123 on December 02, 2007, 09:04:45 PM
  So, until 2800, the Revised Julian (New Calendar) will be identical to the Gregorian. 
And then is it true that after 2800, those using the Revised Julian calendar will be off one day from those using the Gregorian calendar? It looks like that would lead to some confusion internationally, unless one side gives in to the other's method of calculation.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 02, 2007, 09:09:17 PM
A pretty good book on the subject, if one wants a through Old Calendarist interpretation of events, is "A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar" which can be purchased from ctosonline.org .  A search on this book on this site will show a thread that dealt with this book where some objections to it were made at one point, for the other point of view (also, there are articles online dealing with the opposing view).

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on December 02, 2007, 09:25:02 PM
And then is it true that after 2800, those using the Revised Julian calendar will be off one day from those using the Gregorian calendar? It looks like that would lead to some confusion internationally, unless one side gives in to the other's method of calculation.

Yup, 2800 is a leap year in the Gregorian calendar, but a common year in the Revised Julian calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stanley123 on December 02, 2007, 09:28:28 PM
Yup, 2800 is a leap year in the Gregorian calendar, but a common year in the Revised Julian calendar.
Well, that means that there are 793 years left to discuss and argue about which calendar to use after 2800?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: username! on December 02, 2007, 11:35:15 PM
Grace and Peace!

My local Parish Priest was recently talking to me about the Old Calendar vs. the New Calendar and he made strikingly strong argument which I was moved to agree.

Could someone talk to me about Old Calendar without all the drama found in some of the 'other' topics on this subject?  :-[

What was Father's points that struck you to agree on?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 03, 2007, 01:18:27 AM
^ Thank you for your very one-sided propaganda spiel, buzuxi.  I thought you said you were going to leave your drama on the other thread.  It appears not. ::)

Really Peter, i dont know what you find objectionable to my post. The original poster can due his own research, for his own edification to verify what i said, if im lying and manufacturing facts the poster will figure it out. I usually dont post on this forum, but in the forums i do post in, my responses are honest, and they know my credibility.

In the other thread, which i was warned, i actually was arguing against an old calendarist. For your disclosure i attend a GOARCH church that uses the new calendar, but i realize the unusual and sad historical circumstances which initially lead to the calendar change.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2007, 01:51:57 AM
Really Peter, i dont know what you find objectionable to my post. The original poster can due his own research, for his own edification to verify what i said, if im lying and manufacturing facts the poster will figure it out. I usually dont post on this forum, but in the forums i do post in, my responses are honest, and they know my credibility.

In the other thread, which i was warned, i actually was arguing against an old calendarist. For your disclosure i attend a GOARCH church that uses the new calendar, but i realize the unusual and sad historical circumstances which initially lead to the calendar change.
I like to think that I'm actually quite familiar with both sides of the Calendar Reform debate, and I do have my own opinions.  I recognize the validity of the scientific and other arguments most often advanced in favor of the New (Revised Julian) Calendar, yet I also find quite regrettable many of the means that have been used to enact the adoption of the New Calendar, which opinion it seems we actually share.  (FWIW, I'm a member of a New Calendar parish where I feel very much at home with the calendar, though I do wish sometimes that I actually had an Apostles' Fast.  Maybe that will become moot once the Paschalion is reformed to match the Menologion--read my posts on this matter and you will see why I disagree with the generally accepted interpretation of Nicea that Pascha must be celebrated before the Jews. ;))

The big problem with your initial reply to the OP is not its mere substance.  You have in your very short time here built quite a reputation for yourself with your acerbic posts, which has made very difficult the task of separating the content of your replies from your personal style enough to judge the content on its own merit.  Whether you like it or not, the "Warned" designator under your name does influence how others read your posts.

As to the imbalance I pointed out, you clearly presented only one side of the debate.  Maybe all the facts you mentioned can be verified, but you presented only those facts that support your opposition to the New Calendar.  To be truly balanced, you need to also cite the perspective of the advocates of Calendar reform.  Even if you personally disagree with the reasoning of your opponents, you need to at least state their position in as objective and respectful a manner as you can.  Otherwise, you present nothing more than your own apologetic for/against the use of the New Calendar, which is specifically what the OP requested we NOT give him, IIRC.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on December 03, 2007, 02:01:28 AM
though I do wish sometimes that I actually had an Apostles' Fast.

I don't get why people bring this up.  In some Greek monasteries there is the pious custom of fasting from September 1st until the feast of the Holy Cross.  13 extra days... How many days are missed on the Apostles' fast 13...
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 03, 2007, 02:18:47 AM
I like to think that I'm actually quite familiar with both sides of the Calendar Reform debate, and I do have my own opinions.  I recognize the validity of the scientific and other arguments most often advanced in favor of the New (Revised Julian) Calendar, yet I also find quite regrettable many of the means that have been used to enact the adoption of the New Calendar, which opinion it seems we actually share.  (FWIW, I'm a member of a New Calendar parish where I feel very much at home with the calendar, though I do wish sometimes that I actually had an Apostles' Fast.  Maybe that will become moot once the Paschalion is reformed to match the Menologion--read my posts on this matter and you will see why I disagree with the generally accepted interpretation of Nicea that Pascha must be celebrated before the Jews. ;))

The big problem with your initial reply to the OP is not its mere substance.  You have in your very short time here built quite a reputation for yourself with your acerbic posts, which has made very difficult the task of separating the content of your replies from your personal style enough to judge the content on its own merit.  Whether you like it or not, the "Warned" designator under your name does influence how others read your posts.

As to the imbalance I pointed out, you clearly presented only one side of the debate.  Maybe all the facts you mentioned can be verified, but you presented only those facts that support your opposition to the New Calendar.  To be truly balanced, you need to also cite the perspective of the advocates of Calendar reform.  Even if you personally disagree with the reasoning of your opponents, you need to at least state their position in as objective and respectful a manner as you can.  Otherwise, you present nothing more than your own apologetic for/against the use of the New Calendar, which is specifically what the OP requested we NOT give him, IIRC.

Thank-you for your clarifications, very fair.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2007, 02:31:48 AM
I don't get why people bring this up.  In some Greek monasteries there is the pious custom of fasting from September 1st until the feast of the Holy Cross.  13 extra days... How many days are missed on the Apostles' fast 13...
Because most of us don't live in Greek monasteries... ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on December 03, 2007, 02:58:19 AM
Because most of us don't live in Greek monasteries... ;)

A good point.  So why are all these non-monastics following the fasts anyway?   

What I'm getting out though, is regardless of whether one finds themselves on the new calendar if they have the blessing of their confessor what on earth is stopping them from fasting an extra thirteen days if they feel it is that important?  Also baffling to me is why people make this an issue when so few people can even follow the current fasting to the letter.  Even among monastics it is rare.   
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 03, 2007, 03:39:00 AM
A good point.  So why are all these non-monastics following the fasts anyway?   

What I'm getting out though, is regardless of whether one finds themselves on the new calendar if they have the blessing of their confessor what on earth is stopping them from fasting an extra thirteen days if they feel it is that important?  Also baffling to me is why people make this an issue when so few people can even follow the current fasting to the letter.  Even among monastics it is rare.   
Maybe it's a sense of duty to our Tradition.  "It doesn't matter if we can follow the fasts to the letter; we still need the requirements to show us how far we fall short of the Church's high calling."
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 04:11:57 AM
Grace and Peace!

My local Parish Priest was recently talking to me about the Old Calendar vs. the New Calendar and he made strikingly strong argument which I was moved to agree.

Could someone talk to me about Old Calendar without all the drama found in some of the 'other' topics on this subject?  :-[

It's highly unlikely that this will occur, as you have probably seen this issue tends to be rather emotional for those on both sides of the issue. The majority of Constantinople 1923 dealt with this issue, but as they eventually ruled in favour of the new calendar this resource may be regarded as biased towards the new calendar; but it was not entirely biased, there was much theological discussion of the matter as well as dealing with practical concerns. It's perhaps the most unbiased approach you could find. Because of this I would recommend Fr. Patrick Viscuso's A quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: The 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress, last I checked it was available on amazon.com; read this in conjunction with the book Anastasios recommend and between the two you may come out with a balanced view.

For your benifit I will quote a statement from His All-Holiness Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople from the first session which presents the issues of the calendar issue, but does not here try to answer them. If you actually read and study His All Holiness, you may actually find that he was not the evil and dreadful man some here would like to present him as.

Quote
We have begun to acquaint ourselves with different viewpoints on the question. All of us remain agreed on the removal of the 13 days difference because this difference scientifically is in error and because harmony should be brought about between the religious life of Christians and their worldly life, so that we celebrate the feast of the Annunciation and the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord at the same time when we say that today is March 25th or August 6th. However, questions also arise which cannot remain ignored. Namely, is it to our advantage from and Orthodox point of view to say that we accept the Gregorian calendar? What are the Church's primary canonical regulations concerning the systems of measuring time, and is the Church bound by these regulations?

Are the regulations regarding the celebration of Pascha of dogmatic significance, so that another calendar contrary to these things is unacceptable, even if this calendar might be valued by scientists in other respects? Is the aim especially valued that we succeed in obtaining the entire Christian world's common celebration of its two great feasts, the Birth of Christ, which is found at the head of the immovable feasts, and His Resurrection, which is placed at the head of the movable feasts; and is it only to be stressed that we do not accept the Gregorian calendar, since it was proven to have been in error?

Because the reform which we re going to make must not bring scandal to a Christian congregation, we seriously bear in mind that it is not something indifferent how the masses of our Christians will react to a reform that includes the Gregorian system.

If some churches by reason of their particular customs, under which they remain, do not wish to accept the future calendar as correct, would it be necessary then that the majority of the churches accept the reform?

The Church of Jerusalem already by telegraph indicated that an agreement of the Orthodox feastdays with those of the Roman church is judged inadvisable for the Orthodox in regard to the established liturgical order at the Holy Places, which forms part of the order at the Holy Places. Consequently, this would be an impediment to the investigation of a calendar, since in practice the situation would be produced that the Church of Jerusalem's telegram discusses.

Should the Orthodox Church on the whole limit its efforts to only the necessity of abolishing the difference of days, which exist between the two calendars in use, or use the opportunity to take the initiative san pursue the common development of a more perfect calendar in cooperation with the Anglican and Roman churches?

These and such questions are arising at this moment, during which we are discussing the calendar question. It is necessary that we take these matters under consideration and study them. I believe that today we are able to confine ourselves to these points, but tomorrow we are to proceed in the establishment of subcommittees, to which various aspects of the entire question will be referred.

(Ibidem, pg. 14-15)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 04:14:08 AM
And then is it true that after 2800, those using the Revised Julian calendar will be off one day from those using the Gregorian calendar? It looks like that would lead to some confusion internationally, unless one side gives in to the other's method of calculation.

This time we're correct, the Revised Julian calendar took into account astronomical calculations that were not included in the Gregorian Calendar. As we will be inline with scientifc observations this time, it's up to the Latins to change their calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 03, 2007, 09:54:04 AM
Really Peter, i dont know what you find objectionable to my post. The original poster can due his own research, for his own edification to verify what i said, if im lying and manufacturing facts the poster will figure it out. I usually dont post on this forum, but in the forums i do post in, my responses are honest, and they know my credibility.

In the other thread, which i was warned, i actually was arguing against an old calendarist. For your disclosure i attend a GOARCH church that uses the new calendar, but i realize the unusual and sad historical circumstances which initially lead to the calendar change.

God bless !

It was the same with my posts ! I always should present facts and proofs and evidence, in reality they never read realy the quotes.......

Why did others not present proofs for their "opinion", why others were not warned ?

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Veniamin on December 03, 2007, 10:04:09 AM
Okay, here's an odd question.  When adopting the New Calendar, what would have been the problem with transferring the fixed feasts to new dates?  For example, if Christmas was on December 25, but because of the Old Calendar usage, that corresponded to January 7 on the civil calendar, why not adjust the date of Christmas to be January 7 on the New Calendar?  That would seem to preserve the relationship in time between the feasts and fasts, while also putting them on dates that are astronomically accurate.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 03, 2007, 11:33:01 AM
Okay, here's an odd question.  When adopting the New Calendar, what would have been the problem with transferring the fixed feasts to new dates?  For example, if Christmas was on December 25, but because of the Old Calendar usage, that corresponded to January 7 on the civil calendar, why not adjust the date of Christmas to be January 7 on the New Calendar?  That would seem to preserve the relationship in time between the feasts and fasts, while also putting them on dates that are astronomically accurate.

That seems a bit backward.  "Astronomically accurate" would be moving Christmas to Dec 12 on the Old Calendar so it matches up with what is astronomically accurate i.e. the New.  Part of the thrust behind the Revised Julian is that the Old Calendar is no longer astronomically accurate, which is exactly why the Old Calendar "thinks" that Jan 6 is Dec 25 when it is in fact not.  Where does this manifest itself?  The Old Calendar has each equinox incorrect, which is why Pascha does not fall anywhere close to the equinox most of the time.  Theoretically, Pascha should always fall within 28 days of the Equinox (the point at which day and night are of equal length, which is around Mar 21 New / Mar 8 Old), but instead it does routinely fall in the 29-40 day range after the equinox.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 12:00:48 PM
God bless !

It was the same with my posts ! I always should present facts and proofs and evidence, in reality they never read realy the quotes.......

Why did others not present proofs for their "opinion", why others were not warned ?

In CHRIST

You will note that the OP requested an objective analysis of the situation, independent of personal opinion and emotions. Some have very strong opinions against the revised calendar, others (such as myself) have very strong opinions in favour of the same...but these opinions are not what the OP was after, they were seen very clearly in another thread on this board.

Many of us attempted to respond in the manner requested, others (e.g. buzuxi) decided to write a propaganda piece full of bias, half-truths, and outright false information.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 03, 2007, 12:15:40 PM
You will note that the OP requested an objective analysis of the situation, independent of personal opinion and emotions. Some have very strong opinions against the revised calendar, others (such as myself) have very strong opinions in favour of the same...but these opinions are not what the OP was after, they were seen very clearly in another thread on this board.

Many of us attempted to respond in the manner requested, others (e.g. buzuxi) decided to write a propaganda piece full of bias, half-truths, and outright false information.

God bless !

But can you not see, that it is not objective to make people silent only because they have another opinion- is this just ? It does not matter if someone is old or new calender - everyone should have the right to post his opinion- but it isn't. You should read how unfair my posts often were answered and how people get upset....

My "personal opinion" is, the changing of the calendar was wrong and not correct but 13 days can not save a soul and in the New Calendar Chuch are great Elders and Saints and traditional orthodox christians and also many anti-ecumenists......and their Mysteries are valid of course, and we have to wait a decision on the whole matter,and not try to create one Schisma after the other, but also be careful.( this is my personal opinion) and beside this we should all keep peace - both New and Old calendarian orthodox.

IN CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ytterbiumanalyst on December 03, 2007, 02:30:09 PM
it is not objective to make people silent only because they have another opinion- is this just ?
No one here is silencing "another" opinion. You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, and you are even free to post about it as long as you do not break forum rules. But in this thread, the OP has requested that we give only facts and not opinion. So here we post facts, elsewhere we can post opinions. This is not a conspiracy, this is having respect for the OP.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 02:48:41 PM
But can you not see, that it is not objective to make people silent only because they share another opinion- is this just ? It does not matter if someone is old or new calender - everyone should have the right to post his opinion- but it isn't. You should read how unfair my posts often were answered and how people get upset....

I think you missed my point, we have many threads of debate and I think that's great. But the OP specifically asked for objective information, information without bias was desired. And while any presentation of facts carries with it some level of bias, it is not unreasonable to at least feign objectivity. For instance, Anastasios gave information relative to your side without the clear bias and propaganda presented by some here.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ignatius on December 03, 2007, 03:46:44 PM
What was Father's points that struck you to agree on?

Grace and Peace username!,

"username!"  :laugh: I laugh every time I read your name. You have a great sense of honour! God Bless!

I guess what first struck me was how sincere Father was that it was important to observe the great feast on the proper days... their tie in with the 'Prayers of the Dead' and the synergy with the Jewish Lunar Calendar... and how the Gregorian Calendar fails to do this.


Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 04:00:53 PM
Grace and Peace username!,

"username!"  :laugh: I laugh every time I read your name. You have a great sense of honour! God Bless!

I guess what first struck me was how sincere Father was that it was important to observe the great feast on the proper days... their tie in with the 'Prayers of the Dead' and the synergy with the Jewish Lunar Calendar... and how the Gregorian Calendar fails to do this.


Your thoughts?

Interesting, considering the reasoning for fixing pascha as it was at Nicea.

From the synod we read,

Quote
It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded.  In rejecting their custom, we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day [according to the day of the week].  We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast.  How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been
led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.txt
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stanley123 on December 03, 2007, 04:07:47 PM
This time we're correct, the Revised Julian calendar took into account astronomical calculations that were not included in the Gregorian Calendar. As we will be inline with scientifc observations this time, it's up to the Latins to change their calendar.
OK. Congratulations on that.
Blessings.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 03, 2007, 04:15:55 PM
OK. Congratulations on that.
Blessings.

Well, that's the advantage of having an extra 300 years of scientific observations.

Fortunately, the simple addition of an extra day probably won't be as big of an issue for you as it was for us. (Especially in 800 years.)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on December 04, 2007, 02:20:36 PM
Meletios connection with the british government, freemasonry, and close relations to the anglicans,

and from another thread, emphasis added:

Quote
the heresiarch Meletios Metaxakis who was both an anglican minister while simutaneously being a patriarch.


 ??? ??? ???

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 04, 2007, 11:18:17 PM
and from another thread, emphasis added:


 ??? ??? ???

Ebor

The circumstantial evidence does point to this. You can send a pm to me if you like to elaborate.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Veniamin on December 04, 2007, 11:19:58 PM
The circumstantial evidence does point to this. You can send a pm to me if you like to elaborate.

Given that you made the claim in public, why don't you share the evidence with all of us?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 04, 2007, 11:26:38 PM
Given that you made the claim in public, why don't you share the evidence with all of us?

Hear, hear.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on December 04, 2007, 11:26:57 PM
I am in agreement with Veniamin.  The statements that I quoted were made in on a public forum.  The latter one in particular is quite serious and, I'm sorry, to me very dubious.  Why should such a momentous and public accusation against both an EP and my Church be "supported" on private?

How is that fair to  the late EP who deserves to be treated properly regarding evidence even if one does not think much of him or something he did?  
 :-\

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 04, 2007, 11:42:09 PM
Grace and Peace username!,
....and the synergy with the Jewish Lunar Calendar... and how the Gregorian Calendar fails to do this.

I used to think that synergy with the Jewish calendar was important, until I realised that the Jews changed their calendar.  The calendar that the Jews have used since the early centuries after the Resurrection of Our Lord is the one that the Julian tries to correspond with, and this calendar is quite different from the previously used Jewish calendar, including the way in which Passover is calculated, and it seems to be calculated now in a questionable way.  (The previous Jewish calendar was the one in use at the time of Christ's passion.)  So it's really not important that our calendar correspond to the Jewish one, unless you happen to think that we should follow the Jews whenever they change their calendar, whether the change is appropriate or not.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 04, 2007, 11:50:03 PM
The circumstantial evidence does point to this. You can send a pm to me if you like to elaborate.

Theoretically a priest or deacon in Greece would be under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Convocation of American Churches in Europe. These can be looked up. (http://www.ecdplus.org/) Anglicans have, as a rule, very strict systems for moving from bishop to bishop and place to place. We have these things called records. If he was ever ordained by us, it is possible to find out where and who by. Of course, since I'm pretty sure that by that time we recognized his orders, we wouldn't have re-ordained/consecrated him anyway, but that's another quibble.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 05, 2007, 12:08:45 AM
Given that you made the claim in public, why don't you share the evidence with all of us?
Agreed.  Public claims need to be defended publicly.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 05, 2007, 01:28:44 AM
hard to do since i would like to email some links which explain his controversial acts..

But the gist is, he done things with anglicans that seem to go beyond a simple relationship. For instance in 1921 while visiting America he vested and took part in the anglican liturgy.

If i walk into Divine Liturgy one sunday and see a priest i never seen before, concelebratiing, i would assume he is Orthodox, likewise with the reverse. In the case of Meletios, the greek amabassador to washington contacted the Church of Greece, relayed the facts and asked what the heck was going on. The Synod of Greece opened an investigation which deposed him in Dec 9, 1921 for schism and numerous canonical violations. He was secretly and uncanonically elected to the EP alittle before the Church of Greece issued its statement.
In the pan-orthodox congress of 1923, the anglican bishop Charles Gore sat at the patriatchs right side and took part in the proceedings, being closer to the patriarch than his own Synod.  Once again, if Meletios was not an anglican, i dont see how this could take place. How did he know him so well, and why let him take part in an Orthodox council?

but it gets better, he recognized anglican orders and asked all the other Churches to do the same, the encyclical he issued claimed the Orthodox Church has always recognized them from the time of the 16th century anglican bishop Matthew Parker (One of the 'fathers' of Anglicanism). (the document never mentions 'right-belief' as being a pre-requisite for apostolic succession). Finally in 1930 while Patriarch of Alexandria he led a delegation to the anglican Lambeth Conference and lead talks for full unity.   
Many documents can be found at the anglican website "Project Canterbury". Also many Orthodox documents socumenting the same.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 05, 2007, 02:18:50 AM
hard to do since i would like to email some links which explain his controversial acts..

But the gist is, he done things with anglicans that seem to go beyond a simple relationship. For instance in 1921 while visiting America he vested and took part in the anglican liturgy.

If i walk into Divine Liturgy one sunday and see a priest i never seen before, concelebratiing, i would assume he is Orthodox, likewise with the reverse. In the case of Meletios, the greek amabassador to washington contacted the Church of Greece, relayed the facts and asked what the heck was going on. The Synod of Greece opened an investigation which deposed him in Dec 9, 1921 for schism and numerous canonical violations. He was secretly and uncanonically elected to the EP alittle before the Church of Greece issued its statement.
In the pan-orthodox congress of 1923, the anglican bishop Charles Gore sat at the patriatchs right side and took part in the proceedings, being closer to the patriarch than his own Synod.  Once again, if Meletios was not an anglican, i dont see how this could take place. How did he know him so well, and why let him take part in an Orthodox council?

but it gets better, he recognized anglican orders and asked all the other Churches to do the same, the encyclical he issued claimed the Orthodox Church has always recognized them from the time of the 16th century anglican bishop Matthew Parker (One of the 'fathers' of Anglicanism). (the document never mentions 'right-belief' as being a pre-requisite for apostolic succession). Finally in 1930 while Patriarch of Alexandria he led a delegation to the anglican Lambeth Conference and lead talks for full unity.   
Many documents can be found at the anglican website "Project Canterbury". Also many Orthodox documents socumenting the same.


This is merely more claims. It does not constitute evidence.
Please provide the evidence for your claims as has been requested of you.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 05, 2007, 02:22:04 AM
Why would i make things up? Im an ethnic greek, a cradle Orthodox, faithful to Orthodox Christianity. I'm just listing things which are common knowledge amongst greeks, who know the history. I'm trying to wake the laity, to recognize this controversial figure and reject his reforms and get on with healing the schisms that have surfaced. Theres nothing like family and relatives fractured, celebrating the same feasts on differing days, yet both Orthodox. While one side of the family is baking and enjoying their pastries, the other is still fasting, and cany come together as one Orthodox family. Quite sad.

And i know many in here do know what im talking about, and know about these facts. These are not secrets. What is my opinion on the other hand is based on the circumstantial evidence: that on the anglican side, i will have to assume they recognized him as one of their own, considering the close relationship with their church and the taking part of their liturgy during his stay in America (among the other things i've mentioned and havent mentioned). 

 Am i allowed to post outside links on this forum? I'll be glad to provide them.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 05, 2007, 02:25:26 AM
This is merely more claims. It does not constitute evidence.
Please provide the evidence for your claims as has been requested of you.

Not only that, making the jump from His All-Holiness having Anglican friends and being close to the Anglicans (he did study in England, after all, it makes sense that he would have good Anglican friends), to his being an Anglican priest would take some serious evidence; like an ordination date and location with witnesses and documentation.

It just doesn't fit into His All-Holiness' personality; His All-Holiness always wanted to be first in his endeavours. Considering this, why would he, a Patriarch of the Church, bring himself down to the level of a priest amongst the Anglicans? Just doesn't fit.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 05, 2007, 02:32:37 AM
Am i allowed to post outside links on this forum?
If they are relevant to this discussion, yes.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 05, 2007, 02:43:14 AM
Whether as a priest or bishop, i do not know, but praying the anglican liturgy together with other anglican clergy at their church, could only assume Metaxakis was one with them and the anglican clergy thought likewise.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 05, 2007, 02:48:20 AM
Whether as a priest or bishop, i do not know, but praying the anglican liturgy together with other anglican clergy at their church, could only assume Metaxakis was one with them and the anglican clergy thought likewise.
More of the same personal observations.  Please give us the information we requested to substantiate your wild claims.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 05, 2007, 02:52:29 AM
If they are relevant to this discussion, yes.

Thank-you

This link is an article written by Fr. Srboliub Miletech of the Serbian Orthodox Church who undertook an investigation of this patriarch, The article concerns itself mostly with jurisdictionalism in Orthodoxy which he blames this patriarch as being the root of it:

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/meletios.htm

This link is the encyclical which recognized Anglican Orders issued by this patriarch, and that these orders have been legit since Matthew Parker:


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
  
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 05, 2007, 03:46:39 AM
Thank-you

This link is an article written by Fr. Srboliub Miletech of the Serbian Orthodox Church who undertook an investigation of this patriarch, The article concerns itself mostly with jurisdictionalism in Orthodoxy which he blames this patriarch as being the root of it:

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/meletios.htm

This link is the encyclical which recognized Anglican Orders issued by this patriarch, and that these orders have been legit since Matthew Parker:


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
  

I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that would even suggest that His All-Holiness, of Blessed Memory, was an Anglican Priest.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stanley123 on December 05, 2007, 05:00:24 AM
This link is the encyclical which recognized Anglican Orders issued by this patriarch, and that these orders have been legit since Matthew Parker:


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
  
This is interesting that the Orthodox Patriarch recognises the validity of the Anglican orders. Also, he uses the word validity which I had understood from reading some Orthodox posters, the terms valid or invalid were supposed to be foreign to Orthodox thought. But in spite of what posters here say, we see it here, in this Orthodox encyclical.  And it is a pretty serious point, because the RC Church says that the Anglican orders are not valid.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 05, 2007, 05:59:03 AM
I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that would even suggest that His All-Holiness, of Blessed Memory, was an Anglican Priest.
Who needs facts when you have hysteria?


Also, he uses the word validity
Assuming that the original was written in English.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 05, 2007, 07:42:47 AM
Whether as a priest or bishop, i do not know, but praying the anglican liturgy together with other anglican clergy at their church, could only assume Metaxakis was one with them and the anglican clergy thought likewise.

God bless !

I only can warn you- they will not accept "facts", they will put your words upside down- it does not matter what you post. They only will accuse and blame you- and than, they will say you have no charity - the great christian virture but they have.

For some people it is allowed ( a sign of charity ) to blaspehme the Holy Spirit and call miracles of our Panhagia myths, call Her "Superhuman", call others Hysteric, dramatic, call monkes-who died of hunger and persecution- criminals, who should be locked up, they will call you pharisee, proud, monkeydox, netodox, self-righteous, they will say you make dogmas, are preaching and teaching, they will say you have a "messias complex", they will say you present forgery and only post quotes according to your opinion, provoking, that you are combative, vehement ( of course they aren't - NO), they will get angry or very angry, they will tell you to go away.... and this is called asking for evidence when you will try to answer, they will say you are bombarding them with quotes.... and please take care, make NO MISTAKE- they will jump on them - it will be your condemnation...

Do you see how much charity they have ?

And this they call "objective".......and christian charity - what hypocrisy !

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 05, 2007, 08:00:21 AM
I only can warn you- they will not accept "facts", they will put your words upside down- it does not matter what you post. The only will accuse and blame you- and than, they will say you have no charity - the great christian virtue but they have.

What is being twisted is the meaning of the Anglican prelates' actions. As we do not make the Catholic claim-- that is, we do not claim to be the entire church-- recognition of Greek church legitimacy, even to the point of allowing their patriarch to participate in our services, does not imply that said Greek is Anglican. I have found no evidence that Meletios was ever considered an Anglican by anyone whose authority to do so matters. What we have here is pure spin, a twisted reading of events. That is all.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 05, 2007, 12:05:23 PM
God bless !

I only can warn you- they will not accept "facts", they will put your words upside down- it does not matter what you post. They only will accuse and blame you- and than, they will say you have no charity - the great christian virture but they have.

For some people it is allowed ( a sign of charity ) to blaspehme the Holy Spirit and call miracles of our Panhagia myths, call Her "Superhuman", call others Hysteric, dramatic, call monkes-who died of hunger and persecution- criminals, who should be locked up, they will call you pharisee, proud, monkeydox, netodox, self-righteous, they will say you make dogmas, are preaching and teaching, they will say you have a "messias complex", they will say you present forgery and only post quotes according to your opinion, provoking, that you are combative, vehement ( of course they aren't - NO), they will get angry or very angry, they will tell you to go away.... and this is called asking for evidence when you will try to answer, they will say you are bombarding them with quotes.... and please take care, make NO MISTAKE- they will jump on them - it will be your condemnation...

Do you see how much charity they have ?

And this they call "objective".......and christian charity - what hypocrisy !

In CHRIST 

Where does this venom come from?

Look, we have a few basic rules here on OC.net -

1. we allow people to express their views openly, even if we think they're wrong.
2. we DO NOT allow people to make personal attacks
3. we only allow debate on ideas and concepts

So, "in charity" as you snidely point out, we do allow people to question tradition and elders.  It doesn't mean they're right (in fact, usually they're wrong, depending on the argument), but this is a place for free speech.  The same "in charity" spirit makes us allow others to question the New Calendar and Hierarchs of the church.  It doesn't mean they're right, but this is a place for free speech.

Now, the reason why people have asked buzuxi for evidence of his accusation against Patriarch Meletios is because his statement is a personal attack - one must have evidence for a personal attack.  If buzuxi accused you of being a freemason, we'd ask him for proof, otherwise he'd be warned for attacking your person.  If you accused me of being a purple-headed clown, you'd be asked for proof, otherwise you'd be warned for attacking a person.

If buzuxi is correct about his accusation that Patriarch Meletios was a recognized Anglican minister, then fine, he should provide evidence to the rest of us to believe him.  Otherwise, he should be careful - making false accusations against anyone can lead to one's own condemnation at the dread Judgment Seat of Christ... And that's why it is always better to be charitable than condemnatory.  Especially with someone who is already long dead.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 05, 2007, 12:47:07 PM
Where does this venom come from?

Look, we have a few basic rules here on OC.net -

1. we allow people to express their views openly, even if we think they're wrong.
2. we DO NOT allow people to make personal attacks
3. we only allow debate on ideas and concepts

So, "in charity" as you snidely point out, we do allow people to question tradition and elders.  It doesn't mean they're right (in fact, usually they're wrong, depending on the argument), but this is a place for free speech.  The same "in charity" spirit makes us allow others to question the New Calendar and Hierarchs of the church.  It doesn't mean they're right, but this is a place for free speech.

Now, the reason why people have asked buzuxi for evidence of his accusation against Patriarch Meletios is because his statement is a personal attack - one must have evidence for a personal attack.  If buzuxi accused you of being a freemason, we'd ask him for proof, otherwise he'd be warned for attacking your person.  If you accused me of being a purple-headed clown, you'd be asked for proof, otherwise you'd be warned for attacking a person.

If buzuxi is correct about his accusation that Patriarch Meletios was a recognized Anglican minister, then fine, he should provide evidence to the rest of us to believe him.  Otherwise, he should be careful - making false accusations against anyone can lead to one's own condemnation at the dread Judgment Seat of Christ... And that's why it is always better to be charitable than condemnatory.  Especially with someone who is already long dead.

God bless !

Really where does this VENOM come from ?

Did you read my post ? Why you allow personal attacks ? You are contradicting yourself ...What I mentioned was done with my posts or do you want to lie ?

I was attacked unceasingly and it was allowed ....hmmmmm, stop with your excuses...fact is fact !

In CHRIST

What Hypocricy !!!

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 05, 2007, 01:30:13 PM
This is interesting that the Orthodox Patriarch recognises the validity of the Anglican orders. Also, he uses the word validity which I had understood from reading some Orthodox posters, the terms valid or invalid were supposed to be foreign to Orthodox thought. But in spite of what posters here say, we see it here, in this Orthodox encyclical.  And it is a pretty serious point, because the RC Church says that the Anglican orders are not valid.

In my view, terms like "valid" and "invalid" are indeed foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.  Their use by certain Orthodox clerics is often, IMHO, a result of Orthodox theology being held "captive" by western thought.  The Greek Church was in the firm grasp of this "captivity" until the late 1950's, when it slowly and painfully began to emerge from the shadow of western scholasticism.

The Russian Bishop Hilarion contends that the main bulk of the Russian Church is still in the grip of such a theological captivity.  (See the link to his article on the "liberalism in Orthodoxy" thread.) 

Why has Orthodox theology not been true to itself for so long, and is only now expressing itself again?  The Greek Church was subjected to a policy of slow strangulation from the 15th to the 19th or 20th centuries by their Turkish masters.  There was no creative theological expression possible during this period: a great theological and intellectual tradition came to a screaching halt with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.   The only thing new available came from the West.  Greek Orthodox encyclicals of the time often used western language and concepts to describe the faith.  The Turkish system of government made the Church a secular ruler under Turkish domination, and this system encouraged corruption and degeneracy to increase, and laws made Orthodox religious education extremely difficult.  Those Orthodox who wanted to study theology would go the West and learn all about the Protestant or Roman Catholic worldviews. 

The Russian Church never really had the same intellectual tradition of the Greeks, but this slowly began to change in the 19th century.  This nascent movement was snuffed out by the revolution.  Since then, most Russian Orthodox theologians that have continued this revival have done so outside of Russia.

The Russian Church was, however, very Orthodox in her beliefs and practices until, slowly, she became more and more subject, through a series of historical tragedies and mistakes, to the Russian state.  This state became more and more "western" from the 17th century onwards.  In this way, the Russian Church entered her own period of "western captivity."  Of course, there is always the question of lex orandi, lex credendi, and in this sense, the Russians, Greeks et al remained Orthodox in many ways.   There was also the occasional great saint who witnessed to the Patristic tradition.

In the early 20th century, a few Orthodox leaders were "hoodwinked" into believing that the Anglican Church was very close to the Orthodox.  This seems to have come about through a combination of naivete on the part of the Orthodox and a less than full revelation concerning Anglican beliefs on the part of the Anglicans having contact with the Orthodox.  St. Raphael, one such Orthodox leader (a bishop) is another, if memory serves, who actually went so far to instruct his priests to give Holy communion to Anglicans and to concelebrate(?)with them.  This stopped as soon as he recognised his mistake.  Nowadays, few if any Orthodox leaders advocate recognition of Anglican sacraments. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 05, 2007, 01:32:09 PM
Did you read my post ? Why you allow personal attacks ? You are contradicting yourself ...What I mentioned was done with my posts or do you want to lie ?

I was attacked unceasingly and it was allowed ....hmmmmm, stop with your excuses...fact is fact ! 

In all honesty: if there is a post in which there is a personal attack, then click the "report to moderator" link in the lower right-hand corner of the post, and I'll address it.  If you don't report it, then it may be missed.

Your accusing me of lying is not grounded in fact,
but I apologize if I've allowed others to personally attack you.  This is inexcusable and should happen to no member, whether I agree with their positions or not.

Please identify the personal attacks, and the moderators will address them immediately.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on December 05, 2007, 07:33:13 PM
If you would please point out any posts in which I made a "personal attack" on you, Christodoulos, I will apologize.

But not agreeing with a person, or asking for sources or offering countering information is not the same thing as "personal attacks".  There is no requirement for others to agree with us

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 05, 2007, 08:08:42 PM

But not agreeing with a person, or asking for sources or offering countering information is not the same thing as "personal attacks".  There is no requirement for others to agree with us

Ebor

God bless !

That's true and there is no problem with different opinions or when someone does not agree !

But some people were/are not objective or fair and did/are attack/ing- that's the point and this is true.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Ebor on December 05, 2007, 09:20:32 PM
God bless !

That's true and there is no problem with different opinions or when someone does not agree !

But some people were/are not objective or fair and did/are attack/ing- that's the point and this is true.

In CHRIST

Can you point to some example posts to show what you think are attacks or not being objective?  Thank you in advance.

Ebor
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 05, 2007, 09:55:11 PM

Now, the reason why people have asked buzuxi for evidence of his accusation against Patriarch Meletios is because his statement is a personal attack - one must have evidence for a personal attack.  If buzuxi accused you of being a freemason, we'd ask him for proof, otherwise he'd be warned for attacking your person. 

If buzuxi is correct about his accusation that Patriarch Meletios was a recognized Anglican minister, then fine, he should provide evidence to the rest of us to believe him.  Otherwise, he should be careful - making false accusations against anyone can lead to one's own condemnation at the dread Judgment Seat of Christ... And that's why it is always better to be charitable than condemnatory.  Especially with someone who is already long dead.

God bless !

Perhaps Buzuxi was speaking about:

Who was this Metaxakis ?

Bishop Photios of Triaditsa:

Meletios Metaxakis- name in the world was Emmanuel. He was borne on September 21,1870 in the Village of Parsas on the island of Crete. He entered the Seminary of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in 1889. He was tonsured with the name Meletios and ordained a Hierodeaco in 1892. He completed the theological courses at Holy Cross and was assigned as sectretary to the Holy Synod in Jerusalem by Patriarch Damianos in 1900. Meletios was evicted from the Holy Land by Patriarch Damianos, along with the then administrator Chrysostom later Archbishop of Athens, in 1908 for "activity against the Holy Sepulchre".

In "Famous Freemasons" Alexander Zervoudakis writes that, during a visit to Cypres in 1909, Metaxakis and two other clergymen ( one of whom was Metropolit Basil of Anchialos, an official representative of the EP) were initiated into the Masonic Lodge.

In 1910 Metaxakis became Metropolitan of Kition in Cyprus. Driven by a "violent, impetuos, and caviling spirit," as Zervoudakis-his admirer-records, Metaxakis sought to become EP in 1912. Failing in this, he returned his attention again to Cyprus. Failing there also, he abondoned his flock and went to Greece where, with the Support of Venizelos, he became Archbishop of Athens in 1918. But when Venizelos lost the next election, Metaxakis likewise was ousted from his see.

....In February 1921 Meletios visited the US. On Dec. 17, 1921, the greek Ambassador in Washington D.C. sent a Message to the prefect at Thessalonica stating that Meletios "vested, took part in an Anglican Service, knelt in prayer with Anglicans, venerated their Holy Table, gave a Sermon, and later blessed those present."

This came to the attention of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, wich formed a commision to investigate Metaxakis in November of 1921. But, as Bishop of Triaditsa notes:

While the investigation was proceeding against Metaxakis, he was unexpectedly elected Patriarch of Constantinopel. Nonetheless, the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece deposed Meletios Metaxakis on December 29, 1921 for a series of infractions against Canon Law and for causing Schism.
........

Political circles around Venizelos and the Anglican Church had been involved in Meletio's election as Patriarch.

...Under pressure from Meletios, the Patriarchate of Constantinopel accepted the validity of Anglican orders in 1923....

1923 on the pretext of illness and the need for medical treatment, Meletios left Constantinopel. On September 20, 1923, under pressure from the Greek government and through the intervention of Archbishop Chrysostom of Athen, Meletios resigned as Patriarch.

In Alexandria, with the support of Anglican clergymen, and under pressure from the British government (this was still the time fo the British mandate in Egypt), the Egyptian government confirmed Metaxakis as Patriarch in May of 1926.

He also tried to become Patriarch in Jerusalem but no election took place.
He died on July 28, 1935 and was buried in Cairo.

According to Archbishop Athenagoras of Thyateira and Great Britain, who was present then as an Archdeacon and eye-witness, Metaxakis was given full Masonic funeral.

As EP Metaxakis presided over the ten sessions of the "Pan-Orthodox" Congress of 1923.
During the course of this Congress, a prelate of the Anglican Church, Charles Gore, the Bishop of Oxford, was present at the invitation of Metaxakis. He was asked to sit at the Ecumenical Patriarchs right side, and to particiipate in the sessions. Among the proposals adopted by this Congress were a change in the Paschalion and in the festal calendar to coinncide with t hat used in the West, a reduction of fasts and church Services, the abolition of the proscription against the marriage of the clergy after ordination and the abolition of special clerical dress.

From the book; The struggle agaist ecumenism, by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery,

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 05, 2007, 10:56:19 PM
Thank-you Christodoulos. I didnt want to post things from old calendarist sources sine they would be viewed with suspicion, so i posted the link to an article written by a Serbian Orthodox priest which pretty much says the same thing but moreso emphasizes MM role in creating jurisdictionalism.
My comment that he was an anglican minister while 'simultaneously' being an Orthodox bishop is based on the circumstantial evidence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck in must be a duck. MM formed the GOARCH, later came to America and was caught concelebrating with the Anglicans. Meanwhile anglican influence "crept" into the greek church; the use of musical organs and kneeling during the epiclesis in the GOA all dates back to this time (food for thought).
Everyone can make up their own mind about what took place during those years under his leadership. But its an undeniable fact that the three biggest problems facing our Church today was sown my Meletios Metaxakis: differing Calendars, Ecumenism, jurisdictionalism.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stashko on December 05, 2007, 11:30:02 PM
May God Give that archbishop/patriarch what he truly deserves ...I guess the ecumenicl patriarch now is following in his footsteps... it a good thing we don't have to follow him......stashko  <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZS%2526i%253D8%252F8%255F2%255F85v%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_2_85v.gif)<img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D8%252F8_2_85v/image.gif">[/url]
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on December 05, 2007, 11:33:11 PM
A self published polemic that was written to justify a group's ecclesiology is not a valid source.  Can you provide a peer reviewed academic publication or even a non-academic publication from a respected publisher that uses proper historical methodology?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 06, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
Thank-you Christodoulos. I didnt want to post things from old calendarist sources sine they would be viewed with suspicion, so i posted the link to an article written by a Serbian Orthodox priest which pretty much says the same thing but moreso emphasizes MM role in creating jurisdictionalism.
My comment that he was an anglican minister while 'simultaneously' being an Orthodox bishop is based on the circumstantial evidence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck in must be a duck. MM formed the GOARCH, later came to America and was caught concelebrating with the Anglicans. Meanwhile anglican influence "crept" into the greek church; the use of musical organs and kneeling during the epiclesis in the GOA all dates back to this time (food for thought).
Everyone can make up their own mind about what took place during those years under his leadership. But its an undeniable fact that the three biggest problems facing our Church today was sown my Meletios Metaxakis: differing Calendars, Ecumenism, jurisdictionalism.

I agree with almost everything His All-Holiness, of Blessed Memory, did; and were I in his position it's likely that I would have done the same, perhaps I would have pushed for even more progress and advancement. But I am most certainly not an Anglican minister and I wouldn't even consider accepting a simultaneous ordination in two Churches, pick one or the other (I don't really care which) and go with it. I really don't see how even the circumstantial evidence points towards your conclusion; 'circumstantial evidence' and 'wild speculation' are not one and the same.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stanley123 on December 06, 2007, 03:33:13 AM
I agree with almost everything His All-Holiness, of Blessed Memory, did; and were I in his position it's likely that I would have done the same, perhaps I would have pushed for even more progress and advancement.
The question of masonry has come up on this thread. I don't understand it completely, but I notice that this question on freemasonry or masonry keeps on coming up. Not just in questions concerning correct teaching in Orthodoxy, but also in Catholicism. Generally the argument goes something like this: this clergyman pushed liberal and non-traditional ideas, but that is part and parcel of the masonic agenda and the clergyman (it could be a Catholic bishop or cardinal for example) was a member of a masonic lodge, but the membership was held in secret. Further, it is sometimes said that Vatican II was a council which was engineered and led by secret freemasons who were plotting for the destruction of Catholicism.  And supposedly, when Pope Paul VI met the Patriarch Athenagoras, pictures show that they exchanged the secret Masonic handshake. ?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 06, 2007, 03:45:55 AM
The question of masonry has come up on this thread. I don't understand it completely, but I notice that this question on freemasonry or masonry keeps on coming up. Not just in questions concerning correct teaching in Orthodoxy, but also in Catholicism. Generally the argument goes something like this: this clergyman pushed liberal and non-traditional ideas, but that is part and parcel of the masonic agenda and the clergyman (it could be a Catholic bishop or cardinal for example) was a member of a masonic lodge, but the membership was held in secret. Further, it is sometimes said that Vatican II was a council which was engineered and led by secret freemasons who were plotting for the destruction of Catholicism.  And supposedly, when Pope Paul VI met the Patriarch Athenagoras, pictures show that they exchanged the secret Masonic handshake. ?

Personally, I think there is some truth behind our "fear" of the Masons, but I also think they're very handy scapegoats in a lot of our conspiracy theories, of which there are a few even among the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 06, 2007, 05:33:57 AM
May God Give that archbishop/patriarch what he truly deserves ...
May these words not return to haunt you on your deathbed. May God not give you or anyone what they truly deserve.

By what yardstick you measure, you shall be measured.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: stashko on December 06, 2007, 05:51:14 AM
May these words not return to haunt you on your deathbed. May God not give you or anyone what they truly deserve.

By what yardstick you measure, you shall be measured.



Im not acually judging him ,,,But i agree if God was to give us what we truly deserve we would be in deep deep trouble....i pray for him though, that God may show him great mercy also he was a spiritual leader,i would asume when much is given much more is expected ,,especially from our shepherds...stashko ... <a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZS%2526i%253D11%252F11%255F1%255F211%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_1_211.gif)<img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252Fnocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egif%253Fi%253D11%252F11_1_211/image.gif">[/url]
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 06, 2007, 10:37:51 AM
Thank-you Christodoulos. I didnt want to post things from old calendarist sources sine they would be viewed with suspicion, so i posted the link to an article written by a Serbian Orthodox priest which pretty much says the same thing but moreso emphasizes MM role in creating jurisdictionalism.
My comment that he was an anglican minister while 'simultaneously' being an Orthodox bishop is based on the circumstantial evidence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck in must be a duck. MM formed the GOARCH, later came to America and was caught concelebrating with the Anglicans. Meanwhile anglican influence "crept" into the greek church; the use of musical organs and kneeling during the epiclesis in the GOA all dates back to this time (food for thought).
Everyone can make up their own mind about what took place during those years under his leadership. But its an undeniable fact that the three biggest problems facing our Church today was sown my Meletios Metaxakis: differing Calendars, Ecumenism, jurisdictionalism.



God bless you !

Oh, it doesn't matter where the information is coming from- they never accept anything-you know, they call it "objective" ........ ?

In this book are many quotes from Greek, Russian and English sources.......when someone thinks it is not trustworthy, he should read the book and follow this sources and search for himself, beside this "old calendarian" sources, there are many others, for example from the New Calendar Church, or from Mount Athos !

There is also a good article: church and masonia ( orthodox typos) were you will find some other "orthodox theologians" who were masons !

In CHRIST

I think you are right- some of the "Pastor Bob, from the neighborhood" looking orthodox priests and all the other innovations.

By their works - you will know them- so look at HIS WORKS and you will know him. His deeds and works are evidence enough.

BTW I have to be careful - I was warned !
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Veniamin on December 06, 2007, 11:02:40 AM
BTW I have to be careful - they want to make me quiet - I was warned !

No, we want you to post in a manner that is respectful of others, which you are either incapable of doing or are actively refusing to do.  Everyone's contributions are welcome, so long as they're respectful of other posters.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 06, 2007, 11:14:39 AM
No, we want you to post in a manner that is respectful of others, which you are either incapable of doing or are actively refusing to do.  Everyone's contributions are welcome, so long as they're respectful of other posters.

God bless !

Then you should also post in a manner that is respectful of others !

Judge all with the same meassure.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Veniamin on December 06, 2007, 11:20:36 AM
Then you should also post in manner that is respectful of others !

Cleveland has already asked you to report specific posts that you feel are inappropriate rather than making vague accusations.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on December 06, 2007, 02:57:12 PM
In my view, terms like "valid" and "invalid" are indeed foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.

This notion seems to arise from time to time, and I have to say that it seems to me to be a quibble over terms. The corresponding determination seems to be made and applied rigorously, so I don't see how the terms are inaccurate even if they aren't exactly the terms that one might choose.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: buzuxi on December 06, 2007, 06:36:50 PM
I agree with almost everything His All-Holiness, of Blessed Memory, did; and were I in his position it's likely that I would have done the same, perhaps I would have pushed for even more progress and advancement. But I am most certainly not an Anglican minister and I wouldn't even consider accepting a simultaneous ordination in two Churches, pick one or the other (I don't really care which) and go with it. I really don't see how even the circumstantial evidence points towards your conclusion; 'circumstantial evidence' and 'wild speculation' are not one and the same.

There would of never of been an actual oridnation into anglicanism, they already recognized each others orders, the fact remains he concelebrated with them and was the first to introduce and encourage Orthodox to commune in anlican churches for emergency, he never said to do the same with the RC. The circumstantial evidence is he liturgized using the anglican liturgy using the book of common ptayer, instead of his own church while in America.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: GiC on December 06, 2007, 07:44:18 PM
There would of never of been an actual oridnation into anglicanism, they already recognized each others orders, the fact remains he concelebrated with them and was the first to introduce and encourage Orthodox to commune in anlican churches for emergency, he never said to do the same with the RC. The circumstantial evidence is he liturgized using the anglican liturgy using the book of common ptayer, instead of his own church while in America.

Well, that doesn't mean he was an Anglican Priest, it means he was an Orthodox Bishop who concelebrated with the Anglicans.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 07, 2007, 01:11:39 AM
This notion seems to arise from time to time, and I have to say that it seems to me to be a quibble over terms. The corresponding determination seems to be made and applied rigorously, so I don't see how the terms are inaccurate even if they aren't exactly the terms that one might choose.

It's not a quibble over terms.  Orthodox ecclesiology is different from Western ecclesiology.  Recently Ozgeorge and I have both posted on different threads and in slightly different ways why it is not appropriate for the Orthodox to use not so much these terms, but rather these concepts.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 07, 2007, 04:52:32 AM
Among the reasons (in fact, the main reasons) why I will not consider joining an Old Calendarist "walled off" Church is the triumphalism, rudeness, self-righteousness, judgementalism, and downright hatred of so many "Old Calendarists".  In fact, the only decent Old Calendarists I know are Robert and Anastasios, and I have never met them in person.
It's difficult to convince me that something is "the truth" when I find next to no followers of it to be charitable, forgiving, forbearing. The question I have to ask is: "what is the point of a "truth" which has no power to make anyone a better follower of the Gospel commandments of Christ?"
I say this, not to disparage "walled off" Old Calendarist Churches, but rather, to suggest that the members of them need to reflect a bit about their praxis on discussion forums. If indeed you have "the truth", then you need to think about how you are presenting it to others if you indeed believe that this will save them.
If you believe you have a truth to share, then speak it in the way the Apostle told us to: "speak the truth in love", and remember that the same Apostle also said:
" Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
So there is no excuse for rudeness, schadenfreude, self aggrandizement, passing judgement....The Apostle clearly says that these things are not love.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 07, 2007, 02:13:48 PM
Among the reasons (in fact, the main reasons) why I will not consider joining an Old Calendarist "walled off" Church is the triumphalism, rudeness, self-righteousness, judgementalism, and downright hatred of so many "Old Calendarists". 

This has largely been my experience too, but....

Quote
In fact, the only decent Old Calendarists I know are Robert and Anastasios....

....surely they must have friends?

Quote
" Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Thanks for reminding us of this.  I know that I need reminding about this, sinner that I am.

Quote
So there is no excuse for..... schadenfreude....

Refresh my failing memory.   :P  Does this mean thinking about your own gain?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Pravoslavbob on December 07, 2007, 02:16:54 PM
May God not give you or anyone what they truly deserve.

Amen!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 07, 2007, 02:28:15 PM
schadenfreude - finding pleasure in someone else's misfortune
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 07, 2007, 02:48:23 PM
Among the reasons (in fact, the main reasons) why I will not consider joining an Old Calendarist "walled off" Church is the triumphalism, rudeness, self-righteousness, judgementalism, and downright hatred of so many "Old Calendarists".  In fact, the only decent Old Calendarists I know are Robert and Anastasios, and I have never met them in person.
It's difficult to convince me that something is "the truth" when I find next to no followers of it to be charitable, forgiving, forbearing. The question I have to ask is: "what is the point of a "truth" which has no power to make anyone a better follower of the Gospel commandments of Christ?"
I say this, not to disparage "walled off" Old Calendarist Churches, but rather, to suggest that the members of them need to reflect a bit about their praxis on discussion forums. If indeed you have "the truth", then you need to think about how you are presenting it to others if you indeed believe that this will save them.
If you believe you have a truth to share, then speak it in the way the Apostle told us to: "speak the truth in love", and remember that the same Apostle also said:
" Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
So there is no excuse for rudeness, schadenfreude, self aggrandizement, passing judgement....The Apostle clearly says that these things are not love.

God bless !

You wrote:

By what yardstick you measure, you shall be measured.

You should not build your faith on the deeds of others, such people are everywhere, also in the New Calendarian Church- please remember how they have persecuted the old calendarians ( and still do ) - with beating, accusing, even killing.......so would you say this is better ? Isn't this also hatred ?

So, we see that also members of your Church have hatred and self- righteousness and " Schadenfreude" so will you now seperate from it ?

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on December 07, 2007, 03:15:34 PM
When you state old calendarians. Please make it clear witch old calendarians you are referring to. We are also in communion with old calendarians. These are the pit falls that one must know of before entering into communion with a church. This is to prevent such people like our friend Sako and others who think they are entering into communion with us and then find themselves outside. So, it's best to refer to your actual church instead of saying old calendarians.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 07, 2007, 07:56:03 PM
You should not build your faith on the deeds of others, such people are everywhere, also in the New Calendarian Church-
True, but as I said, in my experience, they are the majority in the "walled off" Churches.

please remember how they have persecuted the old calendarians
Islam is persecuted in the West, Falun Gong is persecuted in China, Hinduism is persecuted in Indonesia, Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted in Russia....being persecuted is no guarentee that you have the truth.

So, we see that also members of your Church have hatred and self- righteousness and " Schadenfreude"
You may see this, but I don't. There is not one Orthodox Internet Forum where "walled off" Old Calendarists are not welcome. If they are banned, it is because they have broken forum rules, not because they are Old Calendarists. But I do know an Orthodox Forum where New Calendarists are certainly not made to feel welcome from the outset......
People avoid "Walled off" Old Calendarists because they are not very nice people to hang around, yet I notice they have no problem coming here.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 07, 2007, 08:01:26 PM
True, but as I said, in my experience, they are the majority in the "walled off" Churches.
Islam is persecuted in the West, Falun Gong is persecuted in China, Hinduism is persecuted in Indonesia, Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted in Russia....being persecuted is no guarentee that you have the truth.
 You may see this, but I don't. There is not one Orthodox Internet Forum where "walled off" Old Calendarists are not welcome. If they are banned, it is because they have broken forum rules, not because they are Old Calendarists. But I do know an Orthodox Forum where New Calendarists are certainly not made to feel welcome from the outset......
People avoid "Walled off" Old Calendarists because they are not very nice people to hang around, yet I notice they have no problem coming here.

God bless !

You must have meet many old calendarians ? I can not agree - most of them I know are really nice and good people and of course true orthodox Christians.

I didn't say that persecution is a guarantee for truth - I want to say that bad people with hatred you will find everywhere- sad but true - if they are old or new calendarian..

I know OC's who were persecuted by NC's but not even one NC who was persecuted by OC ??

And if people avoid them or not - it doesn't matter - Truth is Truth.

Perhaps they have no problem to come here but they are not really welcome !

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on December 07, 2007, 10:12:20 PM
Perhaps they have no problem to come here but they are not really welcome !

This is most baffling as two of the three administrators of this forum are Old Calenarists
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on December 08, 2007, 02:36:37 AM
And if people avoid them or not - it doesn't matter - Truth is Truth.

You still don't get it.
Everyone claims to have "the Truth"- the Catholics, the Evangelicals, the Moslems, the Hare Krishnas.....
So, it does make a difference how you try and sell your version of "the Truth".
One of the reasons Buddhism is so popular in the West is because Buddhists are seen as peaceful people who don't seek to "evangelize", but rather, actively live out their beliefs in Compassion and Love. People see the genuininess of Buddhists, and conclude that Buddhism is genuine.
Similarly, if Old Calendarists believe that they have a monopoly on "the Truth", then don't they have a duty to present their case in a way which will make them be seen as genuine followers of Christ, and not as people who simply use the Bible and the Rudder to bash people over the head with and condemn them to hell? If indeed they have "the Truth", then won't they be held accountable for not making it as palatable as Buddhists make Buddhism?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 08, 2007, 11:20:14 AM
You still don't get it.
Everyone claims to have "the Truth"- the Catholics, the Evangelicals, the Moslems, the Hare Krishnas.....
So, it does make a difference how you try and sell your version of "the Truth".
One of the reasons Buddhism is so popular in the West is because Buddhists are seen as peaceful people who don't seek to "evangelize", but rather, actively live out their beliefs in Compassion and Love. People see the genuininess of Buddhists, and conclude that Buddhism is genuine.
Similarly, if Old Calendarists believe that they have a monopoly on "the Truth", then don't they have a duty to present their case in a way which will make them be seen as genuine followers of Christ, and not as people who simply use the Bible and the Rudder to bash people over the head with and condemn them to hell? If indeed they have "the Truth", then won't they be held accountable for not making it as palatable as Buddhists make Buddhism?

God bless !

Truth is Truth ! I think Truth should not be "selled " - Truth is a Person - Jesus Christ the God Man.

And I think everyone can find Truth- there are proofs for Truth - so I think it can be examined if they have Truth or not.

But I can not understand that you always speak about sins and mistakes of some OC's the same mistakes and sins etc you will find also in your church ! So why does your Church not " sell " it better, why people have been persecuted.......

I have seen people accusing OC's without reason, full of hatred .......I think perhaps these people know that OC's are right but don't accept it and so get angry.

It is funny because I am not an OC  ! Isn't it ?

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 08, 2007, 11:27:04 AM
This is most baffling as two of the three administrators of this forum are Old Calenarists

God bless !

No it's not. That is meaningless. Many of the posters here are against traditional orthodoxy ! Not only against oc- for example - I am not an old calendarian.

And look how many "traditional" are warned,moderated quickly....and how people get upset when traditional orthodox posting their opinion.

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 08, 2007, 12:05:38 PM
God bless !

No it's not. That is meaningless. Many of the posters here are against traditional orthodoxy ! Not only against oc- for example - I am not an old calendarian.

And look how many "traditional" are warned,moderated quickly....and how people get upset when traditional orthodox posting their opinion.

In CHRIST 

I am going to quote for you something I said to other members of the moderation team, which some have agreed with:

Quote from: cleveland date=Dec 6, 2007
I like the fact that we have Traditionalist posters - it balances opinion on the forum.  I just wish they were better at communicating their beliefs without being rude. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2007, 12:21:14 PM
True, but as I said, in my experience, they are the majority in the "walled off" Churches.
Islam is persecuted in the West, Falun Gong is persecuted in China, Hinduism is persecuted in Indonesia, Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted in Russia....being persecuted is no guarentee that you have the truth.
 You may see this, but I don't. There is not one Orthodox Internet Forum where "walled off" Old Calendarists are not welcome. If they are banned, it is because they have broken forum rules, not because they are Old Calendarists. But I do know an Orthodox Forum where New Calendarists are certainly not made to feel welcome from the outset......
People avoid "Walled off" Old Calendarists because they are not very nice people to hang around, yet I notice they have no problem coming here.

George,

I do certainly appreciate the words you said earlier about Robert and me, and I can only hope that over time, I can encourage those among my fellow OC's to join forums like this and participate in the same manner.

I do wish to point out one minor difference in experience though; I did not feel very welcome at TAW and even had a thread locked because I said that Patriarch Pavle was not Old Calendarist in the same sense that we are Old Calendarist and someone took that to mean that I was insulting the patriarch. My attempt to privately resolve the issue with assurances to the contrary were ignored. Sure, it can be chalked up to oversensitivity but I think that opposition to OCs is seen in a different way on some forums; more in terms of a subtle disdain, accusing us of a pride even before we have said anything, questioning our ability to read history, or simplistic arguments (you aren't with us, so you are graceless!)

Of course I agree with you on the contrary point, that when OCs come in guns-a-blazin' they tend to shut down the discussion and turn everyone off, and I don't really see how that is supposed to resolve the issue. In fact, I get the distinct feeling that amongst these types of people, there is no issue to resolve, and it's time to proclaim a done deal instead of reasoned discussion. And I think you are spot on that most of the time OCs are banned is because of breaking forum rules.

It would be better for everyone if they could imagine that they were discussing these types of issues as a family get together, or a pub, or a picnic--the people they are talking to are people they know, who they will have to see again tomorrow or next week. Others who know both parties are there.  If people could place themselves in that mindset, they could perhaps the avoid the temptations we have seen online. If only...

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on December 08, 2007, 12:21:54 PM
God bless !

No it's not. That is meaningless. Many of the posters here are against traditional orthodoxy ! Not only against oc- for example - I am not an old calendarian.

And look how many "traditional" are warned,moderated quickly....and how people get upset when traditional orthodox posting their opinion.

In CHRIST

I have no problem with OC's being traditional. In fact I envy them for it. The problem I have is that most of them are trying to take over the whole church and put them selves in a position of power. Trying to over throw the EP with there so calls traditionalism. This is clearly a power play. Why hide behind traditionalism.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on December 08, 2007, 12:25:46 PM
I have no problem with OC's being traditional. In fact I envy them for it. The problem I have is that most of them are trying to take over the whole church and put them selves in a position of power. Trying to over throw the EP with there so calls traditionalism. This is clearly a power play. Why hide behind traditionalism.

I don't know anyone in my Church that honestly thinks we're going to end up taking over the Patriarchate. Our hope is that the patriarch will return to the Old Calendar and renounce ecumenism. If that happens, we will request communion with him again--not demand our own candidate take over.

If we were just about power, I think we chose the wrong way to get it!  8)

Anastasios
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 08, 2007, 12:32:32 PM
I am going to quote for you something I said to other members of the moderation team, which some have agreed with:


God bless !

I said many not all - some here are nice and fair. I also received some PM's were people said they like to see some traditional stuff here. So here are of course some traditional - I do not deny it.

But the "main stream" is not very traditional or happy to see traditional here, I would even say some hate them. It is funny that traditional are accuse of lacking charity when they are full of hatred to them.

But my "Method" of presenting traditional things is often not the best - I know.

IN CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 08, 2007, 01:10:40 PM
I said many not all - some here are nice and fair. I also received some PM's were people said they like to see some traditional stuff here. So here are of course some traditional - I do not deny it.

But the "main stream" is not very traditional or happy to see traditional here, I would even say some hate them. It is funny that traditional are accuse of lacking charity when they are full of hatred to them.

But my "Method" of presenting traditional things is often not the best - I know.

IN CHRIST 

I wish everyone could be fair and balanced, just as you say.  I think some folks are wrongly afraid of what Traditionalists stand for.  But many here are equally fair to all.

I'd like to see more Traditionalist-type users on the site, as I think they bring balance to some of our other off-the-edge users.  What is of the utmost importance, however, is clear communication - it's all we have here in lieu of facial expressions, body language, vocal tone, and other non-verbal cues that face-to-face conversation can provide.  If we communicate clearly, and fairly (as Anastasios pointed out - imagining that those we are dialoguing with on the site are sitting next to us, and will be there again tomorrow), then the site will remain a safe place for Traditionalists and Modernists, OC and NC, etc. to converse with one another, and pray for one another.

It is funny that traditional are accuse of lacking charity when they are full of hatred to them. 

It is sad when this happens, to one group or the other.  I hope you don't think hatred is coming from me (as I can only account for myself).

May you have a blessed Fast, and a joyous feast of the Nativity of the Lord!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 08, 2007, 01:19:26 PM
I wish everyone could be fair and balanced, just as you say.  I think some folks are wrongly afraid of what Traditionalists stand for.  But many here are equally fair to all.

I'd like to see more Traditionalist-type users on the site, as I think they bring balance to some of our other off-the-edge users.  What is of the utmost importance, however, is clear communication - it's all we have here in lieu of facial expressions, body language, vocal tone, and other non-verbal cues that face-to-face conversation can provide.  If we communicate clearly, and fairly (as Anastasios pointed out - imagining that those we are dialoguing with on the site are sitting next to us, and will be there again tomorrow), then the site will remain a safe place for Traditionalists and Modernists, OC and NC, etc. to converse with one another, and pray for one another.

It is sad when this happens, to one group or the other.  I hope you don't think hatred is coming from me (as I can only account for myself).

May you have a blessed Fast, and a joyous feast of the Nativity of the Lord!

God bless !

No, of course not, I think you are one of the fairest here!

May you have a blessed fast too and a joyous Nativity Feast!+++

"Glory to God in the Highest and on earth peace,good will toward men"

In CHRIST

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 08, 2007, 01:32:15 PM
No, of course not, I think you are one of the fairest here!

This reminds me of the story of Snow White - "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?"
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Christodoulos on December 08, 2007, 01:38:02 PM
This reminds me of the story of Snow White - "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?"

God bless !

 :D :D :D

Did I make a mistake? What is the superlative of fair - most fair or fairest ( in english fair means also pretty )

In CHRIST
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Fr. George on December 08, 2007, 01:51:10 PM
God bless !

 :D :D :D

Did I make a mistake? What is the superlative of fair - most fair or fairest ( in english fair means also pretty )

In CHRIST 

I don't think you made a mistake in language, as most people do not use "fair" to mean "pretty" anymore.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tzimis on December 10, 2007, 09:48:01 PM


If we were just about power, I think we chose the wrong way to get it!  8)

Anastasios
It would seem that way now. The break in Communion was never just a calender issue.
Why didn't ROCOR bring your church into communion with the EP. I don't understand why they broke communion with you guys to joint us. Do you know anything about this? I would be interested to hear the details.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Basil 320 on January 20, 2008, 11:34:08 PM
Response to Reply #100- I never saw anything about how (of if) the ROCOR and the Old Calendar Resisters separated.  I did see a report that showed ROCOR hierarchs meeting w/Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, while the dialogue with the Moscow was in progress.  I would suspect that the Greek Old Calendar resisters would have been the jurisdiction which would have separated from the ROCOR, because they would have not wanted to join with Moscow, precisely because of the reasons that they "walled" themselves off in the first place.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: drewmeister2 on January 21, 2008, 12:32:44 AM
I would suspect that the Greek Old Calendar resisters would have been the jurisdiction which would have separated from the ROCOR, because they would have not wanted to join with Moscow, precisely because of the reasons that they "walled" themselves off in the first place.

This is true, Met. Cyprian's Synod did rule to break communion with ROCOR as soon as they joined the MP, at the same time, as I understand it, the MP also required that ROCOR break communion with Met. Cyprian as a condition for unification with the MP. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: scamandrius on January 25, 2009, 11:14:35 PM
This long-dormant thread revived to accommodate the latest discussion of this topic, started here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18657.0.html  -PtA


Yes, they do but it isn't. The only one effect of changing the calendar which might be connected to theology are little problems with Typikon. Typikon (one of liturgical books, which contains order of services for every day in a year and some other things) was written in early middle-ages and it's not used to revised-Julian calendar. But the problems aren't difficult to overcome.

Calendar issues weren't disputed on any of Ecumenical Councils so they are allowed to be changed.

[i]Moderators, this should probably be broken off into another thread as we are now talking about a specific issue, not necessarily related to what the OP wanted to discuss.[/i]

Mike,

You are wrong.  The calendar issue IS a theological issue.  At its heart, is our obedience to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom the Church lives and breathes.  And you are quite wrong that none of the ecumenical councils addressed calendar issues.  They did at the first setting the criteria for the observance of Pascha which means it was expected, nay required, that all churches maintain the universal standard which the Holy Fathers agreed to.  And Holy Tradition includes the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and those are not to be tossed aside because "the rest of the world" is doing something else. though you are right that the typicon can be accommodated with the new Calendar, does not mean that the praxis should be encouraged.

Though I am a member of a new calendar jurisdiction, most Orthodox in the world are, in fact Old Calendar and I sympathize with them. 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on January 26, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
The only one thing of fixing the date of Pascha which is connected to calendar is that the Pascha must take place after vernal equinox. As long as all Churches: New Calendarists and Old Calendarists use the Julian date of this event (apart from Finland of course) it doesn't interfere with Ist Ecumenical Council.

Personally I follow the Julian Calendar because my parish uses it. IMHO the choice of Calendar should be made on parish level not by the primates of the Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 26, 2009, 08:35:17 AM
Hi all!
I'm of the opinion that the changes introduced in the new calendar are irrelevant from a theological point of view. I mean that the core of liturgy is preserved, and the greatest problem is in truth the disappearance of the Fast of the Apostles when Julian Calendar Pascha is too late in the year. This is no theological problem since many feasts and the typikon, as already said in the previous posts, can be easily accomodated. Still I prefer the Old Calendar, and not for reasons of "conservativism" but because of the perfect order the Julian Calendar is endowed with.
Maybe one day will find a way to correct both Calendars, or to accomodate the date of Pascha (Of course, we would need an Ecumenical Council for that) to the Gregorian Calendar. Who knows? Only God does. Let's pray that we might stay united in faith more then in liturgy!

In Christ,   Alex

PS: Dear mike, I guess the choice should still be given to the bishops and synods. Preserving liturgical unity at least in the same diocese stregthens the union with your bishop who, as st Ignatius of Antioch underlines, is the highest authority in a church. It is wonderful how you can rejoice knowing that, while you are celebrating Christmas in your parish, all of your brethren in the diocese are doing the same in communion with your bishop!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Keble on January 26, 2009, 08:50:21 AM
The calendar issue IS a theological issue.  At its heart, is our obedience to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom the Church lives and breathes.  And you are quite wrong that none of the ecumenical councils addressed calendar issues.  They did at the first setting the criteria for the observance of Pascha which means it was expected, nay required, that all churches maintain the universal standard which the Holy Fathers agreed to.

Somewhere ages ago, we actually looked at what Nicaea said. And what it said was extremely minimal--certainly nothing so hard-line as to canonize the Julian calendar. As far as I can tell, all the semi-Gregorian Orthodox churches are perfectly in line, since they do observe Easter with the rest.

As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with the Gregorian calendar is Gregory. I see nothing that says that the church cannot correct its calendar calculations so as to use the real vernal equinox. It has been proposed to do so, and abandon both mechanical calendars. I do not see this correction as reflecting upon the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on January 26, 2009, 09:39:53 AM
PS: Dear mike, I guess the choice should still be given to the bishops and synods. Preserving liturgical unity at least in the same diocese strengthens the union with your bishop who, as st Ignatius of Antioch underlines, is the highest authority in a church. It is wonderful how you can rejoice knowing that, while you are celebrating Christmas in your parish, all of your brethren in the diocese are doing the same in communion with your bishop!

In my Church (Church of Poland) parishes choose the calendar they want to follow. Every diocese is divided for old and new calendarists parishes so that no one is harmed.

It has also some negative aspects: for example bishop serves Nativity Liturgy in cathedral in December (because cathedral follows the revised-Julian) and he serves another Nativity service in parish somewhere else in January (because parish priest very gently asked him to do that). I know it's strange and propably uncanonical but it prevented our Church from schisms you've had in Greece or Bulgaria.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 26, 2009, 10:01:27 AM
Well, I don't think it's uncanonical. The bishop used ekonomia to prevent divisions, since both calendars are in use among the Orthodox and in substance are both "Orthodox". On the contrary, I think your bishop behaved in the wisest way... even if it leads to a strange situation which - under ordinary circumstances - could seem to be incorrect.
Maybe your divisions are due to the specific position of Polland: half "Eastern" (because of Slavic language and influence) and half "Western" (because of other cultural reasons)?

In Christ,  Alex
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on January 26, 2009, 10:16:03 AM
No, just the economic reasons. Employees are kinder for those who don't ask for more free days (even though Polish law enables JC followers to don't work at their Holidays).
 
There isn't a Western Orthodox tradition which had used Georgian Calendar and there aren't many converts to Orthodox from RC or other Churches. The revised-Julian is used mostly in bigger cities in central part of the country where there are groups of Orthodox who moved there. In areas which have been traditionally Orthodox and there are more of them (eastern Poland) Julian is still being used.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: chrevbel on January 26, 2009, 01:27:59 PM
I see nothing that says that the church cannot correct its calendar calculations...
This has always been my view, as well.  Ultimately, none of what we call calendars came from God; they are human inventions.  Certainly, God didn't provide us with the Julian calander.  Julius Caesar did.  And while Caesar may have pre-dated Christianity, there's no convincing evidence (to me) that he would have been a friend of the church.  So an insistence on the Julian calendar as if it was some kind of divine revelation has always seemed logically inconsistent to me.

The calendar God gave us is the universe itself.  Since God's calendar is the astronomical bodies which are "for signs and seasons, and for days and years (Gen 1:14)", it seems quite Orthodox to ask which human calendar most closely approximates His.  Despite a fairly common practice (on this board) of using quotation marks when stating that the Gregorian calendar "fixed" the Julian, this innovation did, in fact, make our artificial calendar more accurately approximate the heavens.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: scamandrius on January 26, 2009, 02:20:45 PM
.

Personally I follow the Julian Calendar because my parish uses it. IMHO the choice of Calendar should be made on parish level not by the primates of the Church.

You should have taken the "H" out of IMHO.  There is  nothing of humility in your statement.  The good order of the church is in question and you think that order should be determined by individual parishes?  Where is the order there?  This isn't a democratic election!  We are to be humble towards our hierarchs and follow where they lead (provided it is not to heresy).
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 26, 2009, 02:44:51 PM
Dear Scamandrus, you wrote:
Quote
We are to be humble towards our hierarchs and follow where they lead (provided it is not to heresy).
Well, as it seems, the parishes of the Polish Church are following EXACTLY the dispositions of the hierarchs, as the Metropolitan and his fellow bishops agreed in giving such a freedom to the parishes on the base of their own authority.
Still, I remain of the idea that the Ecclesiastical Julian Calendar is "better" (nothing contrary to the Revised Julian Calendar). Of course, when it comes to the Church of Finland which changed the date of Pascha, that's indeed a decision on the borderline of non-canonicity...

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2009, 02:55:53 PM
This long-dormant thread revived to accommodate the latest discussion of this topic, started here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18657.0.html  -PtA


Yes, they do but it isn't. The only one effect of changing the calendar which might be connected to theology are little problems with Typikon. Typikon (one of liturgical books, which contains order of services for every day in a year and some other things) was written in early middle-ages and it's not used to revised-Julian calendar. But the problems aren't difficult to overcome.

Calendar issues weren't disputed on any of Ecumenical Councils so they are allowed to be changed.

[i]Moderators, this should probably be broken off into another thread as we are now talking about a specific issue, not necessarily related to what the OP wanted to discuss.[/i]

Mike,

You are wrong.  The calendar issue IS a theological issue.  At its heart, is our obedience to the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom the Church lives and breathes.  And you are quite wrong that none of the ecumenical councils addressed calendar issues.  They did at the first setting the criteria for the observance of Pascha which means it was expected, nay required, that all churches maintain the universal standard which the Holy Fathers agreed to.  And Holy Tradition includes the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and those are not to be tossed aside because "the rest of the world" is doing something else. though you are right that the typicon can be accommodated with the new Calendar, does not mean that the praxis should be encouraged.

Though I am a member of a new calendar jurisdiction, most Orthodox in the world are, in fact Old Calendar and I sympathize with them. 

The problem is that the Paschal controversy in the 2nd century ended in a situation similar to today on the calendar.  In fact, the whole Church rebuked Pope Victor for trying to enforce conformity a la EP Meletios.  Of course, the question is the difference between the 2nd and 4th century on this issue.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2009, 03:02:27 PM
PS: Dear mike, I guess the choice should still be given to the bishops and synods. Preserving liturgical unity at least in the same diocese strengthens the union with your bishop who, as st Ignatius of Antioch underlines, is the highest authority in a church. It is wonderful how you can rejoice knowing that, while you are celebrating Christmas in your parish, all of your brethren in the diocese are doing the same in communion with your bishop!

In my Church (Church of Poland) parishes choose the calendar they want to follow. Every diocese is divided for old and new calendarists parishes so that no one is harmed.

It has also some negative aspects: for example bishop serves Nativity Liturgy in cathedral in December (because cathedral follows the revised-Julian) and he serves another Nativity service in parish somewhere else in January (because parish priest very gently asked him to do that). I know it's strange and propably uncanonical but it prevented our Church from schisms you've had in Greece or Bulgaria.

that was the approach that the OCA took, and most went New Calendar, without a schism (Alaska mostly remains Old Calendar I believe).

Btw, Nicea says the Pope of Alexandria is to calculate the date, because of the accuracy of its astronomers, not the sanctity of her bishops (which was great).  IOW, the real equinox is the one to follow, not a "canonized" one.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2009, 03:02:58 PM
.

Personally I follow the Julian Calendar because my parish uses it. IMHO the choice of Calendar should be made on parish level not by the primates of the Church.

You should have taken the "H" out of IMHO.  There is  nothing of humility in your statement.  The good order of the church is in question and you think that order should be determined by individual parishes?  Where is the order there?  This isn't a democratic election!  We are to be humble towards our hierarchs and follow where they lead (provided it is not to heresy).
Whoa!  Step back from your computer, close your eyes, and take a few deep breaths there, bud. :)  There's no need to publicly question one's humility (a judgment of one's character that technically qualifies as an ad hominem) because of a post on an internet discussion board.

Otherwise, you make a very good point about the need of a parish to submit to the authority of their bishop and of the bishop's responsibility to not abdicate his authority on such important matters as the liturgical calendar.  I just don't want your point to get lost in an emotional reaction to your emotional reply.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 26, 2009, 03:32:15 PM
Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2009, 03:42:56 PM
Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

based on the calculations of Alexandria, as the Fathers decreed.

How does the sigillion of 1583 trump the council of 1923?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on January 26, 2009, 03:53:05 PM
What would You do if You had a choice: letting the calendar issues go as they do now or installing one universal Orthodox calendar what would lead to schism bigger than that after Chalcedon (Russians, Serbs and Jerusalem on the one side and Greeks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Romanians and all Westerners on another)?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: scamandrius on January 26, 2009, 06:21:33 PM
Whoa!  Step back from your computer, close your eyes, and take a few deep breaths there, bud. :)  There's no need to publicly question one's humility (a judgment of one's character that technically qualifies as an ad hominem) because of a post on an internet discussion board.

Yeah, you're right, PtA.  My apologies to you and to you as well Mike.  This is one of those issues which cannot just be "agree to disagree thing" and even though I belong to a new calendar jurisdiction, I sympathize with the existence of the old because it does nothing except for "ecumenists" to try and promote a false unity.  I'm sick of Protestants and RCs insisting we do it their way with the calendar because if we observe all feasts (like Pascha and Nativity) at the time it gives a unified witness to the world, when in fact it does nothing.  All image, not a hint of substance.

It remains that the calendar question is a theological concern and the mainteance of a unified calendar does promote good order within the Holy Orthodox Church which is the purview of the bishops to whom we are obedient and humble towards.  We should celebrate our feasts with our brethren not with those who are separated from the Truth and have little to no desire to hear it.  Fr. Schemann talks about how it is the duty of the Christian to celebrate and Bishop BASIL of DOWAMA frequently exhorts his flock that the Christian life is one of joy, always.  How much better if those joys and celebrations were done at the same time.  Who cares what the Protestants and Catholics demand?  They're the ones who deviated!

at the same time, let me reply to ialmisry.  The date of the equinox is not set up for "astronomical accuracy."  It is set up for good order in the church.  Otherwise, more hierarchs would jump right on the Aleppo statement.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on January 26, 2009, 06:37:19 PM
Before we continue to go at each other's throats over this issue, let me ask two questions:

Is this critical to our salvation?

On the day of judgment, do you really think Christ is going to be concerned whether we celebrated the Feast of His Nativity on Dec 25th verse Jan 7th?

The answer, of course is "no."

So rather than get heated over it, let the Bishops decide what is best, and let us love one another as Christ loves us.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2009, 06:49:17 PM

On the day of judgment, do you really think Christ is going to be concerned whether we celebrated the Feast of His Nativity on Dec 25th verse Jan 7th?
Well, technically, ALL Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ's Nativity on December 25. ;)  In the end, though, obedience to Tradition to the best of one's understanding is important, as it is obedience to the Church Christ established for our salvation.  I wouldn't presume that He won't take into account such obedience or disobedience.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: LBK on January 26, 2009, 07:07:13 PM
Quote
We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

Tripe. What of the hymnody of moveable feasts, including the Holy Week services, which constantly evoke the timeless "Today"? The liturgical simeron/dnyes' is not a literal, earthly today. There goes your argument, Fr Anastasios.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 26, 2009, 07:26:28 PM
Quote
We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

Tripe. What of the hymnody of moveable feasts, including the Holy Week services, which constantly evoke the timeless "Today"? The liturgical simeron/dnyes' is not a literal, earthly today. There goes your argument, Fr Anastasios.
Not so fast, buddy.  The liturgical simeron/dnyes' may not be a literal, earthly today, but we certainly experience it over a series of earthly todays--we cannot help but do so.  This is why we have a calendar, and this is why, even though Fr. Anastasios and I don't agree on a lot of the issues that come up in the standard OC vs. NC debate (or I would have joined an Old Calendarist church long ago), he and I at least agree that this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed in a council of ecumenical authority.  Likewise, we also agree that the way the New Calendar was introduced to the Orthodox Church was poorly conceived and very divisive.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: witega on January 26, 2009, 07:49:08 PM
It remains that the calendar question is a theological concern

Your position is at odds with St. Athanasius' account of Nicea (the only Ecumenical Council to make any statement about anything calendar-related). In his 'De Synodis' he writes:

"Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they [the Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council] wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church;’"

In other words he carefully distinguishes between Nicea's decision about 'the faith' (i.e., Christ's divinity), and the decision about Pascha which was not 'about the faith' but merely a matter of good order.


A few other notes since there is a lot misinformation about what Nicea actually said about Pascha:
1) Nicea did not assert the Julian Calendar. In fact, Nicea did not mention any calendar or date. Nicea mentioned exactly 2 things - the vernal equinox (an astronomical event) and 'the Jewish passover' (which is based on a lunar calendar and will therefore always move around in relation to solar calendars like the Julian and Gregorian).
2) Nicea did not establish a specific Paschalion - it established certain standards with regards to the vernal equinox and the Jewish Passover that any Paschalion needs to follow, but Rome, for example, used 3 different 'Nicean' Paschalions between Nicea (315 AD) and 525AD when they finally settled on using the same one as Alexandria was using. The "Paschal controversy" you can find in any account of the history of Christianity in Britain arose because the Celtic Church was using one of Rome's old Paschalion's which did not always coincide with the one Rome was using by the 7th and 8th centuries--but both the Celtic and Roman/Alexandrian Paschalion's met the criteria of Nicea.
3) In the Paschal calculations produced by the Church in the centuries immediately following Nicea, the official Julian calendar date for the vernal equinox (March 25th) was not used. Instead, they use March 21st which was the date the actual astronomical event was occuring on at that point (since the Julian calendar was already off solar reality by 4 days at the time).
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 26, 2009, 09:14:48 PM
;D  ..... the Gregorian Calendar and the "Revised Julian" are absolutely, totally identical right now and will remain so for the next 800 years.  Not a skerrick of a difference.

What amazes me in debates is that, intelligent, mature people can make claims which are patently false.
If there is "no skerrick of difference" between the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars, then why do they follow different Paschalions? If every moveable feast is different on the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendar, how can anyone claim that they are "identical"?
Claims such as this add about as much credibility to objections to the Revised Julian Calendar as a used car salesman has when trying to convince us that a Toyota is a Ferrari.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2009, 10:06:16 PM
Quote
We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

Tripe. What of the hymnody of moveable feasts, including the Holy Week services, which constantly evoke the timeless "Today"? The liturgical simeron/dnyes' is not a literal, earthly today. There goes your argument, Fr Anastasios.
Not so fast, buddy.  The liturgical simeron/dnyes' may not be a literal, earthly today, but we certainly experience it over a series of earthly todays--we cannot help but do so.  This is why we have a calendar, and this is why, even though Fr. Anastasios and I don't agree on a lot of the issues that come up in the standard OC vs. NC debate (or I would have joined an Old Calendarist church long ago), he and I at least agree that this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed in a council of ecumenical authority.  Likewise, we also agree that the way the New Calendar was introduced to the Orthodox Church was poorly conceived and very divisive.

Yes, very poorly planned and executed.  Besides the high handedness of 1923,  I'm only familiar with the OCA's change, which went reletively seamlessly.  I'm not familiar with the change in Antioch in 1941, and how that was executed.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 26, 2009, 10:26:17 PM
Quote
We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

Tripe. What of the hymnody of moveable feasts, including the Holy Week services, which constantly evoke the timeless "Today"? The liturgical simeron/dnyes' is not a literal, earthly today. There goes your argument, Fr Anastasios.

I've never understood the fascination some have with making reference to the division between the stomachs of a ruminant in their comments, although I do enjoy the taste of the soup made from tripe I must admit...

You basically totally missed my point, which is that we should be doing things in harmony, and when we do them 13 days apart from our bretheren in the faith, it is a disgrace. I am not so stupid as to think that these texts are date-literal.   ::)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 26, 2009, 10:53:08 PM
;D  ..... the Gregorian Calendar and the "Revised Julian" are absolutely, totally identical right now and will remain so for the next 800 years.  Not a skerrick of a difference.

What amazes me in debates is that, intelligent, mature people can make claims which are patently false.
If there is "no skerrick of difference" between the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars, then why do they follow different Paschalions?

I am moderately intelligent and certainly mature so please... no ad hominems needed. :)

I cannot do the study for you but you really ought to know that when it comes to the matter of the Paschalion and all the moveable Feasts which depend on it, the Revised Julian people revert to using the Julian Calendar.   Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion and it also differs from what would be the Revised Julian Paschalion (which nobody in fact uses.)  Why "intelligent mature people" have adopted such a mickey mouse system which has to operate on two Calendars, one for the Paschalion and one for the Cycle of Saints and Fixed Feasts,  is a mystery!
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: LBK on January 26, 2009, 11:31:33 PM
Quote
although I do enjoy the taste of the soup made from tripe I must admit...

If you're Greek, that figures.  :laugh: :laugh:

Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 26, 2009, 11:36:18 PM
at the same time, let me reply to ialmisry.  The date of the equinox is not set up for "astronomical accuracy."  It is set up for good order in the church.  Otherwise, more hierarchs would jump right on the Aleppo statement.

The Pentateuch lays down that the Pascha falls in the month of Abib, translated "new grain" in the LXX: it means that and spring.  In other words, the instructions mark it as a spring feast: from the time of Moses till the time of Christ, if the barley had not ripened by the coming of the new moon of Abib (or Nisan, the post exile name), "leap month" of Adar II was stuck in to ensure it.  It's part of the reason why Pascha sometimes comes in May, to ensure that only one Pascha/Passover was celebrated within one (solar) year (if it had anything to do with calculation or canonical time, than the mere fact that 12 months had passed would do).

I don't have the originals handy, but I assume they use Ισημερία for Equinox, i.e. equal day and night.  That term is based on observation of those signs and seasons that God put in Genesis 1.   All references I see with Alexandria's role mention the accuracy of their obervatories.

The Fathers could very easy set a date.  They didn't.  They based the rules on observations that the Hebrew Church had followed before.

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 27, 2009, 12:05:57 AM
IIRC, the Fathers of the Nicene Council (325) insisted that Christians must not celebrate Pascha with the Jews, probably to ensure that we took no consideration of the Jews in setting up our own Paschalion.  Since then, most of the Church developed the generally accepted interpretation of this mandate to state that we must celebrate Pascha only after the Jews.  Of course, this was before the shift in the Jewish lunar calendar in relation to the astronomical spring equinox made it possible for the Jews to celebrate their Pascha with the second full moon of spring.  Consequently, our continued insistence that the Christian Pascha MUST follow after the Jewish celebration now has us potentially violating another tenet of the Nicene Paschal mandate: that we must celebrate Pascha on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon of spring.  Don't you see the manifest irony in this: that our insistence that the Christian Pascha follow AFTER the Jewish Pascha now has us tying our Paschalion closely to theirs once again?  I thought we weren't supposed to give a moment's care to when the Jews celebrate their feasts.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 27, 2009, 12:28:43 AM
Whoa!  Step back from your computer, close your eyes, and take a few deep breaths there, bud. :)  There's no need to publicly question one's humility (a judgment of one's character that technically qualifies as an ad hominem) because of a post on an internet discussion board.

Yeah, you're right, PtA.  My apologies to you and to you as well Mike.
I forgive you, and may God forgive us all. :)

This is one of those issues which cannot just be "agree to disagree thing" and even though I belong to a new calendar jurisdiction, I sympathize with the existence of the old because it does nothing except for "ecumenists" to try and promote a false unity.  I'm sick of Protestants and RCs insisting we do it their way with the calendar because if we observe all feasts (like Pascha and Nativity) at the time it gives a unified witness to the world, when in fact it does nothing.  All image, not a hint of substance.

It remains that the calendar question is a theological concern and the mainteance of a unified calendar does promote good order within the Holy Orthodox Church which is the purview of the bishops to whom we are obedient and humble towards.  We should celebrate our feasts with our brethren not with those who are separated from the Truth and have little to no desire to hear it.  Fr. Schemann talks about how it is the duty of the Christian to celebrate and Bishop BASIL of DOWAMA frequently exhorts his flock that the Christian life is one of joy, always.  How much better if those joys and celebrations were done at the same time.  Who cares what the Protestants and Catholics demand?  They're the ones who deviated!

at the same time, let me reply to ialmisry.  The date of the equinox is not set up for "astronomical accuracy."  It is set up for good order in the church.  Otherwise, more hierarchs would jump right on the Aleppo statement.
Just curious...  You bring up the Aleppo Statement.  Could you tell us how this applies to the topic of discussion?  Not doubting the relevance of your citation; I just think a brief explanation might be helpful in fostering discussion on this thread. ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 27, 2009, 01:03:24 AM
So do you all think that an 8th Ecumenical Council dealing with the calendar will ever be convened?  I don't think so, because as I understand it a council that is truly Ecumenical could not be held until full communion was restored with the "Catholic" Church.  Is this wrong?  Could a pan-Orthodox council be called that would require the submission of all Orthodox churches to the results if it was not an Ecumenical council?

Also, many have said that all that is necessary for the Orthodox faith has been settled and that no more Ecumenical councils are needed.  I suppose then under that reasoning there really is no way to handle this issue.  I just have a feeling that at some point the Eastern Orthodox communion might be split between the Greeks and the Russians over this issue.  Even though my opinion on the issue doesn't matter too much as this point since I am not a full member of the Church (we're only engaged!), my vote would go to all of the churches returning to the Julian Calendar as it has always been done in the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 27, 2009, 01:05:17 AM

Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

That's a very common misconception.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 27, 2009, 01:12:10 AM
Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

based on the calculations of Alexandria, as the Fathers decreed.

We are using the calculations for Pascha that Alexandria uses, which are have always been made according to the Julian Calendar.  Say for some theoretical reason the Church decided in council ecumenically to alter the calculation. It would not be bound to use Alexandria's calculation tables anymore, but it could. Either way, I fail to see the point though, because Alexandria's calculation tables assume the vernal equinox is on March 21. The question is simply, when is March 21.

Quote
How does the sigillion of 1583 trump the council of 1923?

The former was considered to be authoritative and accepted by the Catholic mind of the Church, and was the result of a council that presented a united Orthodox witness to the West (Calendars were not the only things discussed at that series of councils) whereas 1923 was a local council with divisive results which has seen a massive schism since its aims were begun to be implemented.

I've read Vested in Grace by Allen which goes in to some of the aspects of the 1923 Council dealing with priestly remarriage but I've not had a chance to read Fr Patrick V's book on the Council since it is so new and I have so many other books to read first....but reading the Encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be" sets the whole tone of the 1923 Council that followed.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 27, 2009, 01:17:55 AM
So do you all think that an 8th Ecumenical Council dealing with the calendar will ever be convened?  I don't think so, because as I understand it a council that is truly Ecumenical could not be held until full communion was restored with the "Catholic" Church.  Is this wrong?  Could a pan-Orthodox council be called that would require the submission of all Orthodox churches to the results if it was not an Ecumenical council?

There is no need to have Rome to have an ecumenical council. And they obviously don't see the need to have us to continue to have their ecumenical councils since they are up to 21 now!  :P

I think that I have the philosophical terms right, but someone correct me if I am wrong... a Council is not a priori ecumenical or authoritative. It's only a posteriori recognized as true by being accepted by the whole Church.  There have been councils called with the intent to be ecumenical that ended up being considered robber councils for instance.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 27, 2009, 01:23:00 AM
Quote
although I do enjoy the taste of the soup made from tripe I must admit...

If you're Greek, that figures.  :laugh: :laugh:

Oh forgot to mention that I'm not Greek...I've only had tripe soup with my Hispanic friends actually ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 27, 2009, 02:41:21 AM
[
Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

If the Revised Julian people based their calculation for Pascha on the Revised Julian Calendar, they would end up with a Pascha and a Pentecost which is out of step with both the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar.

To avoid this they simply ignore the Revised Julian Calendar for this calculation and revert to the Julian Calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 27, 2009, 03:49:10 AM
If the Revised Julian people based their calculation for Pascha on the Revised Julian Calendar, they would end up with a Pascha and a Pentecost which is out of step with both the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar.

To avoid this they simply ignore the Revised Julian Calendar for this calculation and revert to the Julian Calendar.

Father, calculating the Northern Vernal Equinox according to the Julian Date of March 21st is precisely why it is a "Revised Julian" and not a "Gregorian" Calendar.
How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 27, 2009, 03:56:49 AM

Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

That's a very common misconception.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus

Thank you Father.
And yes, it is a common misconception, which I also held some years ago until it was clarified.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 27, 2009, 04:28:54 AM
How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.

It is and it will continue to be until 2800.  At that time the the Revised Julian will fall one day behind the Gregorian because 2800 is a leap year for the Gregorian Calendar but not for the Revised Julian.

Until 1st March 2800 the Calendars are identical.

So in 800 years time you will be able to come back and tell me that the Calendars are different.   ;D
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 27, 2009, 05:42:32 AM
How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.

It is and it will continue to be until 2800.  At that time the the Revised Julian will fall one day behind the Gregorian because 2800 is a leap year for the Gregorian Calendar but not for the Revised Julian.

Until 1st March 2800 the Calendars are identical.

So in 800 years time you will be able to come back and tell me that the Calendars are different.   ;D
Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 27, 2009, 06:28:24 AM
Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?

The Revised Julian is identical to the Gregorian, at least for the next 800 years.

The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha.  Apprehensive about being visibly out of  step with the majority of the Church for Pascha, they abandon the Revised Julian and revert to the Julian Calendar for the calculation of Pascha.   :o
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 27, 2009, 07:16:46 AM
Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?

The Revised Julian is identical to the Gregorian, at least for the next 800 years.
In other words:
(http://www.nguyenhien.net/style_emoticons/default/Fingers%20In%20Ears.gif) "La, la, la la, la, la...."


The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha. 
Yeah..... That's what it is......
It's not the fact that they follow the Julian Paschalion, they're following the Gregorian Paschalion but celebrate Pascha with the Julian Calendar.... ::)
The Revised Julian is the Julian Calendar with it's stupid mistake of too many Leap Years removed. I've just pmed the explanation to someone, here's a copy of what I sent them. Happy reading.

In the 16th Century, it was noted that certain regular astronomical phenomena such as the Equinoxes and the Solstices were occurring earlier and earlier each year. For example, the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere is the day when the Sun rises in it's most Northern point on the Horizon before beginning to appear to move South again. Since this is an annual event based on a Solar Calendar, it should occur on the same day each year, and on the Julian Calendar it was supposed to occur on Christmas Day (December 25th). However, what happened on the Julian Calendar was that the date of the Winter Solstice was occurring 3 days later than the actual Solstice every 400 years, so that, by the 16th Century, the actual astronomical Winter Solstice was occurring 10 days earlier than December 25th.
The reason was discovered to be because the Julian Calendar had too many Leap Years. The Julian Calendar counts every 4 years including every century year as a Leap Year. However, the solar year is about 365.2424 days long (a little less than 365 and one quarter days), so, if you add a day every 4 years, that means you will misalign the Year the the Earth's actual orbit 3 days every 400 years.  When this error was discovered in the West in 1582, ten days had to be removed from the Calendar to correct it, and so, a Papal Decree of Pope Gregory was issued stating that the day after Thursday, 4 October 1582 was to be Friday, 15 October 1582 and to prevent the error from recurring, it was decreed that a century year would be a Leap Year only if the whole year is divisible by 400. This came to be known as the "Gregorian Calendar". Initially, only Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Poland adopted the reform. Other Catholic countries stated that the Pope had no authority to change the civil calendar. However, gradually, other western counties adopted this Gregorian Calendar, and one of the last to adopt it was England in 1752. Orthodox Countries, however, refused to adopt the reforms and maintained the Julian Calendar.
Because of the different ways Leap Years are calculated in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, the years 1700, 1800, 1900, were Leap Years for the Julian Calendar, but not for the Gregorian Calendar. As a result, the Julian Calendar has added a further 3 days which the Gregorian Calendar hasn't, so the Julian Calendar is now 13 (10 + 3 ) days behind the Gregorian Calendar.
In the early 20th Century (1923), the Ecumenical Patriarchate called a Pan-Orthodox Synod to discuss the problem of the Julian Calendar. On the one hand, it contained an error which meant that as the centuries rolled on, we would eventually be celebrating Christmas in Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church was bound by the Holy Councils, and the First Ecumenical Council had decreed that Easter was to be celebrated on the first Sunday which followed the first full moon which followed the Northern Spring Equinox (which, at the time of the Council occurred on March 21st on the Julian Calendar), so this could not be changed. As a result, it was decided that the Orthodox Church could not adopt the Gregorian Calendar as it was, however, it could adopt some of it's reforms to try to fix the Julian Calendar, and they came up with the Revised Julian Calendar. Basically, they corrected the fixed days (the "Meniaon") by removing 13 days. Thus, in the Orthodox Churches which adopted the Revised Julian Calendar in 1924 (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Poland), the first day after Monday, September 1st 1924 was decreed to be Tuesday, September 14th 1924. Bulgaria adopted this calendar reform in 1963.
However, because the First Ecumenical Council had decreed that the Church must celebrate Easter (Pascha) on the same day, it was decided that the date of the Spring Equinox used to calculate the date of Easter was to remain March 21st according to the Julian Calendar, and since all the moveable feasts are calculated according to the date of Easter (eg, Pentecost, Lent, All Saints, Trinity Sunday etc), the Moveable Feasts of the Revised Julian Calendar coincide with those of the Julian Calendar. For example, someone on the Revised Julian Calendar will celebrate the Fixed Feast of Christmas on the same day as those on the Gregorian Calendar, but will celebrate the Moveable Feasts of Easter, Trinity Sunday, the Sundays of Lent etc on the same day as those on the Julian Calendar, they just call it a different day. Thus, this year, Pascha (Easter Sunday) is Sunday, 19 April, 2009 on the Revised Julian Calendar and is Sunday 6th April 2009 on the Julian Calendar, but this is actually the same day on the Gregorian Calendar (April 19th). The Western Easter this year according to the Gregorian Calendar is Sunday, April 12th (a week earlier because they use the Gregorian date of March 21st as the Northern Spring Equinox to calculate the date of Easter rather than the Julian date of March 21st).
In answer to your other question, yes, there are Greek Churches outside of the Holy Mountain in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate which use the Julian Calendar. I assume you are in the United States, if so, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is in Communion with the Patriarchal Stavropegial Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovolantu which follows the Julian Calendar: http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/otherpatriarchal/sta
The Oecumenical Patriarchate has jurisdiction over the Islands and Central and Northern Greece, and there are quite a few Churches and monasteries among them which also follow the Julian Calendar.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 27, 2009, 08:29:28 AM
So do you all think that an 8th Ecumenical Council dealing with the calendar will ever be convened?  I don't think so, because as I understand it a council that is truly Ecumenical could not be held until full communion was restored with the "Catholic" Church.  Is this wrong?  Could a pan-Orthodox council be called that would require the submission of all Orthodox churches to the results if it was not an Ecumenical council?

You mean communion with the Vatican?  No, not necessary, otherwise we would be defective as they claim.

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) were not in communion with Rome when they wrote the universal Creed, something the Vatican admits:

Quote
Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Quote
Also, many have said that all that is necessary for the Orthodox faith has been settled and that no more Ecumenical councils are needed.  I suppose then under that reasoning there really is no way to handle this issue.  I just have a feeling that at some point the Eastern Orthodox communion might be split between the Greeks and the Russians over this issue.  Even though my opinion on the issue doesn't matter too much as this point since I am not a full member of the Church (we're only engaged!), my vote would go to all of the churches returning to the Julian Calendar as it has always been done in the Orthodox Church.
A Pan Orthodox Council would suffice, an Ecumenical one is not needed.  No aspect of the Faith is endangered.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 27, 2009, 08:43:28 AM
Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

based on the calculations of Alexandria, as the Fathers decreed.

We are using the calculations for Pascha that Alexandria uses, which are have always been made according to the Julian Calendar.  Say for some theoretical reason the Church decided in council ecumenically to alter the calculation. It would not be bound to use Alexandria's calculation tables anymore, but it could. Either way, I fail to see the point though, because Alexandria's calculation tables assume the vernal equinox is on March 21. The question is simply, when is March 21.[
No, the Alexandrian calculations are based on their observation of the spring equinox.  The question is simply when is the day and night equal, and spring begin?

Quote
How does the sigillion of 1583 trump the council of 1923?

Quote
The former was considered to be authoritative and accepted by the Catholic mind of the Church, and was the result of a council that presented a united Orthodox witness to the West (Calendars were not the only things discussed at that series of councils) whereas 1923 was a local council with divisive results which has seen a massive schism since its aims were begun to be implemented.

I've read Vested in Grace by Allen which goes in to some of the aspects of the 1923 Council dealing with priestly remarriage but I've not had a chance to read Fr Patrick V's book on the Council since it is so new and I have so many other books to read first....but reading the Encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be" sets the whole tone of the 1923 Council that followed.


I see only two patriarchs signatures on the sigillion.  There are more on the Council of 1923, and more have accepted it since (at least on the calendar aspect).  This is yet another legacy of EP Meletios, the jurisdiction mess in America is another.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: witega on January 27, 2009, 11:25:59 AM
The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha.  Apprehensive about being visibly out of  step with the majority of the Church for Pascha, they abandon the Revised Julian and revert to the Julian Calendar for the calculation of Pascha.   :o

Old Calendar supporters criticize the New Calendar because it was implemented piecemeal rather than waiting until all the local Churches could come to an agreement. Then they turn around and criticize the New Calendar ('lack courage') because New Calendrists are unwilling to implement the new Paschalion piecemeal.

In the 4th century, there were at least 4 different calendars (and 4 different Menaion based on those calendars) in use throughout the Christian world (and that's not counting the lunar calendars like that of the Jews) and Rome and the East were celebrating the birth of Christ on different days (when the East celebrated it at all). The Fathers never thought this was worth discussing much less arguing about. The *only* day they showed any concern that there be unanimity on was Pascha. Following them, the New Calendar churches continue to use the Old Calendar Paschalion to keep one day across the communion--thus keeping the spirit of Nicea even though the Old Calendar Paschalion itself violates that same spirit (by ignoring the actual equinox in its calculations).

(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on January 27, 2009, 01:24:38 PM
I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on January 27, 2009, 01:57:49 PM
I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
For some, it is a Faith issue.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 27, 2009, 03:19:58 PM
I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
For some, it is a Faith issue.
That, and this thread started here in Faith Issues a long time ago and, since this is an issue that transcends mere questions of liturgics, I saw no reason to move it.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 28, 2009, 01:31:55 AM
(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).

Not sure about the good faith on both sides, alas.  :(  The incoming Roman missionaries refused to recognise the consecration of the existing Irish and Welsh bishops and reconsecrated them.  They also did large scale rebaptisms.  From their side the Celts refused to recognise the Roman Sacraments and refused to eat off plates which had been used by the Roman missionaries.    There was not much "ability to disagree" on either side.

Neuman, Carol, The NorthUmbrian Renaissance, Associated University
Presses, N.J., 1987, ISBN: 0-941664-11-2, p. 58 -

"Elsewhere, however, matters were not so benignly worked out. Theodore
of Tarsus, on his arrival (as archbishop of Britain) in 669, found it necessary
to use forceful measures to quell the remnants of the Celtic heresy. Despite
the direct and immediate effects of Whitby on the central Celtic house at
Lindisfarne, it may be remembered that the Picts and Scots, including at
this point the Columban motherhouse at Iona, remained unwilling to
accept Roman orthodoxy. Theodore's 'Penitential' clearly announced his
views on the issues.  He recognised neither episcopal consecration
nor baptism as performed by the Celtic Church. Eddius tells us that he
insisted on reconsecrating Chad, "through every episcopal grade," and
demanded the rebaptism of converts of the Celtic Church. He also
ordered a year's penance for anyone receiving communion from Celtic
clerics. The hostility along the Welsh and Cornish borders was
apparently mutual. Aldhelm of Malmsbury wrote that the Welsh bishops
considered the clergy of Rome to be excommunicated until they should
individually perform forty days penance, and refused to pray with them
or join them at meals. The leftovers of food touched by Roman clerics
were ordered thrown to swine so that Celtic Christians would not suffer
spiritual contagion. Their vessels were to be purified with fire or san,
and they were to receive neither salutation nor the kiss of peace.
Apparently the British had not forgot the lessons of St. Augustine's
Oak."

Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: witega on January 28, 2009, 05:29:51 AM
(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).

Not sure about the good faith on both sides, alas.  :( 

I was referring only to the calendar portion of the dispute. The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are; the Irish were defending the Paschalion handed down to them from the original days of St. Patrick (and which came from Rome in the first place). Both sides had every reason to believe their calculation was legitimate--that neither side could accept that is one of the many tragic aspects of that encounter.

My point being that with knowledge of that regretable episode in Church history, it's unfortunate that you are apparently repeating it.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 28, 2009, 09:07:01 AM
I was referring only to the calendar portion of the dispute. The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are;

 They had of course decided to adopt the calculation of 325 AD Nicea so that Pascha-Easter could be held on one and the same date throughout the Church.  BUT they did not adopt the Alexandrian lunar cycle which Nicea had stipulated as the norm and which the rest of the Church did adopt. 

Rome adopted the Nicene calculation but it continued to base the calculation on its own lunar cycle (Alexandria and the rest of the Church had a more accurate 18 year cycle.)  So this meant that from Nicea in 325 AD until aboutt 550 AD when they came into line with the rest of the Church, Rome actually celebrated Easter on a different date to the rest of the Church.


The reason that the Christians of Britain were out of step is that they adhered to an even earlier cycle which they had inherited from Rome, established formally by the Council of Arles in 314 but in use from earlier times.  The Irish celebrated Easter on the Sunday between the 14th and 20th day after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, which for them was on 25th March and not the 21st.  Rome had dropped this method.

"It was to the divergent cycles which Rome had successively adopted and rejected in its attempt to determine Easter more accurately that the third stage in the paschal controversy was mainly due. The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter-computation which Rome itself had laid aside."

 
And addressing our point of dispute....."The story of this controversy [the paschal calculation], which together with the difference in the shape of tonsure, seems to have prevented all fraternization between the British Christians and the Roman missionaries, is told at length in the pages of Bede. The British appealed to the tradition of St. John, the Romans to that of St. Peter, both sides with little reason, and neither without the suspicion of forgery. It was not until the Synod of Whitby in 664 that the Christians of Northern Britain, who had derived their instruction in the Faith from the Scottish (i.e. Irish) missionaries, at last at the instance of Bishop Wilfrid and through the example of King Oswy accepted the Roman system and came into friendly relations with the bishops of the South. Even then in Ireland and in parts of the North some years passed before the adoption of the Roman Easter became general (Moran, Essays on the Origin, Doctrines and Discipline of the Early Irish Church, Dublin, 1864)."

Extracts from the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The matter is almost as difficult to get a handle on as the filioque dispute.   :)



Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 28, 2009, 09:17:32 AM
[The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are; the Irish were defending the Paschalion handed down to them from the original days of St. Patrick (and which came from Rome in the first place). Both sides had every reason to believe their calculation was legitimate--that neither side could accept that is one of the many tragic aspects of that encounter.

I think that it was really not so important who was right and who was wrong with their various calculations.  The point is that the Council of Nicea demanded that the Church throughout the world commemorate Pascha in uniformity on the same date.   It was uniformlty which the Council required so that all Christians would keep this most sacred of feastdays together.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Apostolos on January 28, 2009, 02:08:17 PM
Quote
The movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar
and the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou


by the Blessed Monk Theocletus Dionysiates*

The resurrection of Christ was considered to be and still is a myth, due to a deception among the Jews. After the soldiers of the escort, told the archpriests the shocking events of the Resurrection, they gave them a lot of money and told them to say that when we slept, His disciples came and stole Him. And the Evangelist Matthew complements: «Και διεφημίσθη ο λόγος ούτος παρά τοις Ιουδαίοις μέχρι της σήμερον» (“And this very word of the Jews was promoted until today”). A great lie passed in history. Such lies were many in the world.
Another deception was the generative cause of the movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar, which even today weakens the work of Orthodoxy, with the effects of those schismatics to the innocent Christians. And what is this deception? Those two Local Synods during the time of the Patriarch Ieremias II, in the years 1583 and 1593, who met to condemn the daring subversion of the condition of the Ecumenical Synod, on the celebration of Saint Easter, under the Papacy, that together they also condemned the alteration of the calendar. And how was this deception created? Through forgery, made by a precocious zealot, Jacob the Neaskitiotis, in the handwritten code of the Holy Monastery of St. Panteleimon, No. 772!
The alleged damnations were brandished, by way of a scarecrow, by the wicket zealots of Mount Athos in order to intimidate the innocent Christians. And the schism depended on that deception, like all the schisms which are generated by absurdities, counterfeiting and fraud and deceive the gullible and ignorant.
Briefly, the history of the schism of the Julian Calendar is simple. After the end of World War I, during 1919, the Orthodox states of the East, for commercial reasons, wanted to adapt the Julian Calendar to the so-called Gregorian one, which anteceded for 13 days. And in Greece, relevant fermentations started between the Governments of that time and the Church, which denied the detachment from the Julian Calendar. But the revolutionary government of Plastiras, despite the objections of the Church, by a Royal Decree, proceeded to the institution of the Julian Calendar, which was reformed by 13 days. Therefore, some problems were created by using two calendars. So the Church, in consultation with the Patriarchate and the Orthodox Churches, accepted the reformed Julian Calendar. And they denominated the 10th of March 1924 the 23rd, while Easter remained intact.
This is the whole story. So it was only logical that something like that was disruptive to the conscience of the people. But those who had sense, in order to understand, they settle down with the explanation that was offered to them, as Orthodoxy wasn?t degraded, neither the doctrine nor the traditions. On the other hand those who were dominated by suspicions and by their secret conceit and suffered from the «ου με πείσης καν με πείσης» (“do not persuade me even if you do so”) were the ones who rioted that the Church subsided to a cult. And that is how the movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar was created. Moreover, various schisms preexisted from scratch, such as the schism of Palaiopaschits.
Mount Athos, the 5-6.000 monasterials that is, after great consideration of the problem, concluded that the Orthodox Faith is not offended, but for various reasons it will maintain the old calendar, but at the same time it will not cut off the ecclesiastical relations with the Local Churches, who would have made the leap of those 13 days, as equally Orthodox. Several monks became zealots outside the Monasteries and a few Priest-Monks came to the cities and preached that the addition of the 13 days, that the Church accepted, is actually a cult, without taking into consideration that the Church would not accept to innovate, if the State hadn?t anticipated to innovate first and thus create this confusion with the two calendars.
I write these things, in relation to the issue of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, for those who ask me. I have already answered in a previous article. Here once again I repeat that the Holy Community respects the freedom of conscience of the zealots and tolerates them even though they are schismatic and according to the Constitutive Chart it should banish them from Mount Athos. The case of the Monastery of Esphigmenou is different. The zealots of Esphigmenou could stay in Mount Athos, but not within the Institutions of the Holy Community. Either they agree with all the Holy Monasteries or they disagree, so as they are schismatic, they must leave by themselves.
Yesterday I received a letter from a friend of mine, who wrote to me that in an interview the “Superior Father” of the Monastery of Esphigmenou, at a state channel, he said: “During the time of the Patriarch Athenagoras there were the fiery articles of the Venerable Father Theoklitos Dionysiatis. Now that these events happen, he remains silent”.
I do not know him, I knew however, his “predecessor” Efthymios, as I wrote in a previous article of mine in the newspaper “Orthodox Press”. But in this case I am bound to answer to the question of the Superior Father. Indeed, I used to write fiery articles, which constituted of a whole book for the papal statements of Athenagoras. Now what can I write? Now that many ignorants perceive the social type relationships and encounters with the papals as cooperation and co-prayers of the present Patriarch? Much has been said for Ravenna. If, despite the notice that only Orthodox should appear for the Holy Communion, some tines papals escaped attention and communed, this means that the Patriarch did that intentionally? We must be careful not to blame the leaders of the Church that they are Ecumenists because the modern conditions lead to meetings and to some amenities and affability with the heterodox.
I would like them to see the very Orthodox Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos II, who raised a true “war” against Athenagoras, to address in the Metropolitan Church the Anglican Archbishop or to receive at the Church of the Armenians an honorable address from the Armenian clergyman. What would those people, who complain and blame the Patriarch Bartholomaios as an ecumenist, say? I read in the “Orthodox Press” and I also received the protest for the Monastery of Esphigmenou from five Christian unions, which are not followers of the Julian Calendar. Well, are they touched by the eventuality of being prosecuted by the Sacred Constitution (the zealots) and aren?t they worried and sorry for the deception, that they are schismatic and that they expose the splendor of Orthodoxy? They want to believe that they are guardians of Orthodoxy, but then why don?t they attend to the preservation of the truth from counterfeits either deficiencies or excesses? Either the “esfigmenites” are seduced and they must be helped, so as to repent or they are Orthodox, so those of the five unions should follow them in their morale. Would the St. Mark the Evgenikos (the Gracious) and Palamas really protect them since they lacerate the Church? Do they know that Gregorios Palamas recommended to the Venerable Fathers of the Monastery of Lavra not to have a common cenobitic life with the Akindynos, because it showed some signs of deception? They should read, the ones of the five unions, my book «St. Gregorios the Palamas» and the offprint of the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos I “Control of calendar accusations”. And they should also read the doctorate disquisition of the present Archbishop of Athens, in order to see that above the initial lie there were built a series of false and fraudulent, as Saint Gervasios Paraskevopoulos wrote to me.
I wrote it elsewhere, and I will repeat it. The predecessor of the current “Superior Father” Efthimios, when there was the “Athenagorismus” (people who agrees with Athenagoras?s point of view), which Kontoglou, the Archbishop Chrystostomos and myself fought in 1965, Efthimios came to our Monastery and he was ordained Deacon and Priest renouncing his zealotism. Why? After five years he was once again a zealot. Why? Why did he read that Athenagoras made papal statements? When he was ordained from an “athenagorian” bishop didn?t he know? And for five years he never commemorates him? This is what zealotism is all about!
The Russian Nikita Strouve, in his book “Russia today” writes: “For something that Russia has nothing to feel jealous of America is the approximately fifty sects, which exist in Russian as O.O.C.”! Well, is this our sensitivity towards Orthodoxy? Instead of protesting in favor of the delusional ones, who as schismatics lose their soul, since neither the blood of martyrdom does not rinse the schism, it is wise to enlighten them to return to the Church of Christ abandoning their conventicles. And all this I adduced, because they ask me as being one of the elders of Mount Athos, who has seen many things.

With the love of Christ
Monk Theoklitos the Dionysiatis
Mount Athos

Journal Orthodox Press, 28 February 2003

*For us Greeks, fr Theocletus, together with fr Porphyrios, elder Paisios, fr Iakovos Tsalikis (who appeared miraculously at Athos recently, 18 years after his death), fr Theophilus Zervakos, fr Gervasius Paraskevopoulos, are already saints.   
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on January 28, 2009, 02:33:58 PM
Quote
Wicked zealots?

Quote
were dominated by suspicions and by their secret conceit and suffered from the «ου με πείσης καν με πείσης» (“do not persuade me even if you do so”) were the ones who rioted that the Church subsided to a cult.

You should be more careful with the articles you post on this site. As an administrator, I have been very careful to not allow some zealots to post overly inflammatory posts here about your Church, so you should refrain from posting inflammatory posts against mine.

This site consists of New Calendar Eastern Orthodox, Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian/Oriental Orthodox, who all participate. No one is required to think the other sides are Orthodox/canonical/acceptable, but respect is expected in order that discussion and dialogue might continue. Articles which are well-reasoned and non-inflammatory are acceptable, but things that use terms like yours should be avoided.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: CCTE on March 21, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 21, 2009, 12:23:13 PM
If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.

2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches, joint prayer with heterodox, joint theological commissions that produce agreed statements, etc.

3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

If that were the case, we would have no reason not to be in communion with each other. But from my experience, there are large numbers of people that think the above are not serious issues or that things like the New Calendar and Ecumenism are good ideas, so I doubt there will be any movement on this any time soon.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 21, 2009, 04:08:23 PM
If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???
Quote
2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches, joint prayer with heterodox, joint theological commissions that produce agreed statements, etc.
Can't argue with that (except concerning the OO).
Quote
3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.
Can't argue with that either.

Quote
If that were the case, we would have no reason not to be in communion with each other. But from my experience, there are large numbers of people that think the above are not serious issues or that things like the New Calendar and Ecumenism are good ideas, so I doubt there will be any movement on this any time soon.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on March 21, 2009, 04:15:39 PM
3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 21, 2009, 06:30:32 PM
1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 21, 2009, 08:36:26 PM
If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???

Are you actually asking this question sincerely?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 21, 2009, 08:37:16 PM
3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...

They have been documented enough. I don't feel the need to rehash all of our objections, unless you sincerely have no idea what practices we see and object to.  Even on orthodoxinfo.com though they list most of them.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 21, 2009, 10:17:53 PM
2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches....
 
Can't argue with that either.

Sure can.  The participation of Saint Mark of Ephesus  -for several years!-   in the ecumenist Council of Florence, would indicate that he could well be participating in the WCC if he were alive on earth today.

It's a fact which some Orthodox prefer to ignore since it deflates their arguments against what they term "world Orthodoxy."
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 21, 2009, 10:27:59 PM
2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches....
 
Can't argue with that either.

Sure can.  The participation of Saint Mark of Ephesus  -for several years!-   in the ecumenist Council of Florence, would indicate that he could well be participating in the WCC if he were alive on earth today.
It's a fact which some Orthodox prefer to ignore since it deflates their arguments against what they term "world Orthodoxy."

Right. Like we never thought about that one before.

At any rate, a few years does not equal 60-80 years.  St Mark went home eventually.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 21, 2009, 10:59:46 PM
1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 21, 2009, 11:00:29 PM
If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???

Are you actually asking this question sincerely?

Yes.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 22, 2009, 01:07:17 AM
1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
If you think the Old Calendar is broken, can you give much more than your usual simplistic, one-liner statement of how it's broken?  (IOW, your standard one-lined answers to questions often come across as very flippant and dismissive.  The posts where you explain your point of view in more detail I actually find quite informative and much more interesting.)

I gave you a reason that many Old Calendarists see as a very good theological reason to keep the Old Calendar.  Don't you think, then, that the onus is on you to offer them more compelling reasons to embrace the innovation of the New Calendar than merely "It (the Old Calendar) is broke"?  Even if some Old Calendarists were to see their calendar as broken, is it possible that they may see the New Calendar (as we know it) to be even worse and, therefore, not a viable alternative?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Νεκτάριος on March 22, 2009, 05:01:07 AM
3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...

They have been documented enough. I don't feel the need to rehash all of our objections, unless you sincerely have no idea what practices we see and object to.  Even on orthodoxinfo.com though they list most of them.

Fr Anastasios, I disagree that you can so easily dismiss defining modernism.  For instance is frequent communion modernism?  Even frequent communion with the proper preparation violated centuries of established practice, as was pointed on in a recent thread.  I've met clean shaven and stereotypically modernist SCOBA priests who have insisted that one can't really be Orthodox and accept the scientific evidence regarding biology as accurate.  If modernism is actually an heresy, it ought to be able to define it - yet I have never seen a coherent definition.  While I can see actual disagreement between groups that accept some variant of the branch theory and those that don't, when the focus remains on "modernism" the parallels with the Old Believers remain the strongest (as realistically, their only objection was "modernism").     
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on March 22, 2009, 06:27:47 AM
First, we've tried here, both by ozgeorge and myself, to sustain a discussion of 'eccumenism' vs. 'false ecumenism' and seen the topic die out that I wonder sometimes if the issue is real, or an excuse. I say this as one who does question certain events and practices of today, but without a clear definition, is there an argument?

Second, IIRC, at one time Fr. Anastasios while at SVOTS described how the RJC disturbed some cycle in our worship. I would be most appreciative if he could again, here, repeat that insight.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: username! on March 22, 2009, 08:42:54 AM
Every year I must discard of my old calender and then in the back of the church I pick up a new calender.  But if one may ask my calender is the Julian Calender, not the old calender.  The term old calender sounds like a smear campaign in promoting the revised Julian Calender.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2009, 09:17:44 AM
Every year I must discard of my old calender and then in the back of the church I pick up a new calender.  But if one may ask my calender is the Julian Calender, not the old calender.  The term old calender sounds like a smear campaign in promoting the revised Julian Calender.
LOL, only in America and the Modern Age.  Otherwise, Old was always good, nay, better.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2009, 09:28:50 AM
1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? ???
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
If you think the Old Calendar is broken, can you give much more than your usual simplistic, one-liner statement of how it's broken?  (IOW, your standard one-lined answers to questions often come across as very flippant and dismissive.  The posts where you explain your point of view in more detail I actually find quite informative and much more interesting.)

I gave you a reason that many Old Calendarists see as a very good theological reason to keep the Old Calendar.  Don't you think, then, that the onus is on you to offer them more compelling reasons to embrace the innovation of the New Calendar than merely "It (the Old Calendar) is broke"?  Even if some Old Calendarists were to see their calendar as broken, is it possible that they may see the New Calendar (as we know it) to be even worse and, therefore, not a viable alternative?


The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 22, 2009, 04:15:27 PM
The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.

If that is the case, then why is the Equinox pre-defined as March 21 (April 3 on the Gregorian Calendar), and thus we have a formula that can be used to perpetually figure out the date of Pascha (the Gaussian formula)?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on March 22, 2009, 04:25:03 PM
Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Tallitot on March 22, 2009, 04:26:22 PM
Interestingly there are no "calander disputes" among Jews. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform...we may disagree about driving on Saturday, but we all know when Passover starts.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 22, 2009, 04:34:53 PM
I'm having more fun discussing Nektarios's question about defining modernism with him on IM than I would in this thread. So sorry guys, I deleted my post above ;)
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2009, 04:35:09 PM
The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.

If that is the case, then why is the Equinox pre-defined as March 21 (April 3 on the Gregorian Calendar), and thus we have a formula that can be used to perpetually figure out the date of Pascha (the Gaussian formula).

Because the Equinox was/is March 21: leap year is calculated to keep it that way.

It is interesting that the Iranians and those in Iran's cultural sphere (Kurds, Assyrians, etc.) date the new year from the equinox.  They, however depend on a natural phenomenon which I've yet to understand: they watch a fish in a glass bowl.  The fish swims (supposedly) a different way once the sun passes the equator.  The sun is also observed every year by astronmers to confirm the date: it is not mid-night, but when the sun passes the equinox (or the fish swims the right way) that makes it official.

Alexandria, as the rest of Egypt, wasn't on the Roman calendar but the Egyptian/Coptic calendar: the Egyptians noticed early that the star Sirius rose when the Nile rose.  The calendar was dated from that date.  But they didn't pick up on the need of a leap year, although they noticed the discrepancy.  So in hieroglyphics you have dates with two dates Old Style (365 year cycle) and New Style (astronomical observation).  Julius Caesar reformed the Old Roman semi-lunar (which also began with March) on the basis of the Egyptian.  We have references to the Egyptian calendar for dates across the Greco-Roman world, because of its accuracy.  

It is because the Gregorian/Revised Julian calendar intercalates so that the calendar accords with the tropical year, i.e. the equinox stays on March 20/21 and doesn't move.  Btw, the date is different in the hemispheres so a designation of, say, according to Jerusalem, would be necessary for calendar reform.


The whole equinox requirement is from the OT and the Hebrew calendar: the Hebrews in Christ's time would check to see if the barley had ripened.  If it hadn't, a leap month (hence the new moon requirement) would be inserted.  It is formulated now that way because it eliminates any dependence on the Jews for our calculations, and keeps the Resurrection after the Passover.  The Sunday requirement is for obvious reasons.

Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.

On the basis of both OT and NT they are calculated from Pashca "the first of months."

Interestingly there are no "calander disputes" among Jews. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform...we may disagree about driving on Saturday, but we all know when Passover starts.

Actually no, the Karaites differ.  And this uninamity has not always been the case, e.g. the Essenes differed in their dating.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Anastasios on March 22, 2009, 04:39:31 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 22, 2009, 04:43:57 PM
Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.
I'm confused. ???  Pascha IS a non-fixed feast.

A few arguments I've seen against the current practice in New Calendar churches of celebrating Pascha (together with the Triodion and the Pentecostarion) on the Julian "Old" Calendar and the fixed feasts of the Menaion on the Revised Julian "New" Calendar:


For more information on what I'm talking about, click the following link:  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calsci_ch9.aspx
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 22, 2009, 04:53:07 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.
This, however, runs counter to my understanding of why the same Nicene Fathers made the Church of Alexandria, the home of the Roman world's most advanced astronomical "school", the final arbiter on when Pascha would be celebrated in a given year.  The fact that the Nicene Fathers did this indicates to me that the Fathers DID consider astronomical accuracy a very important concern.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: mike on March 22, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.
I'm confused. ???  Pascha IS a non-fixed feast.

I mistook these two terms, sorry.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 22, 2009, 07:11:24 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.

No, it wasn't arbitrary.  The tropical equinox was know, and was chosen because it wasn't arbitrary, i.e. had an observable, objective reality.  They were aware of arbitrary calendars that were regressing.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 22, 2009, 07:17:22 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.

No, it wasn't arbitrary.  The tropical equinox was know, and was chosen because it wasn't arbitrary, i.e. had an observable, objective reality.  They were aware of arbitrary calendars that were regressing.
Didn't it have something to do with the fact that the vernal equinox, which had been set to March 21 in the days of Julius Caesar, was occurring on March 25 by the time of the Nicene Council?  So, to make the Paschal calendar more astronomically correct, the Nicene Fathers reset the date of the vernal equinox back to March 21 and made the astronomical summit of the world, Alexandria, the final arbiter of the date of Pascha.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ozgeorge on March 22, 2009, 08:49:22 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.

No, it wasn't arbitrary.  The tropical equinox was know, and was chosen because it wasn't arbitrary, i.e. had an observable, objective reality.  They were aware of arbitrary calendars that were regressing.
Didn't it have something to do with the fact that the vernal equinox, which had been set to March 21 in the days of Julius Caesar, was occurring on March 25 by the time of the Nicene Council?  So, to make the Paschal calendar more astronomically correct, the Nicene Fathers reset the date of the vernal equinox back to March 21 and made the astronomical summit of the world, Alexandria, the final arbiter of the date of Pascha.
I thought it was the opposite. Julius Caesar appointed the Equinox to be March 25th, however, by the time of the Nicean Council, the actual Astronomical Equinox was occurring on March 21st due to the progression of the Equinoxes, therefore this was determined to be the date of the March Equinox.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 22, 2009, 09:00:38 PM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.

No, it wasn't arbitrary.  The tropical equinox was know, and was chosen because it wasn't arbitrary, i.e. had an observable, objective reality.  They were aware of arbitrary calendars that were regressing.
Didn't it have something to do with the fact that the vernal equinox, which had been set to March 21 in the days of Julius Caesar, was occurring on March 25 by the time of the Nicene Council?  So, to make the Paschal calendar more astronomically correct, the Nicene Fathers reset the date of the vernal equinox back to March 21 and made the astronomical summit of the world, Alexandria, the final arbiter of the date of Pascha.
I thought it was the opposite. Julius Caesar appointed the Equinox to be March 25th, however, by the time of the Nicean Council, the actual Astronomical Equinox was occurring on March 21st due to the progression of the Equinoxes, therefore this was determined to be the date of the March Equinox.
You're probably right.  I may have just had my mind in reverse.  As March 25 slides down in relation to the vernal equinox, the equinox will happen earlier and earlier in relation to March 25, thus making the vernal equinox fall on March 21 in about 400 years (after Julius Caesar, d. 44 B.C.).  Even so, my point remains the same: that the Fathers of the Council of Nicea considered astronomical correctness important enough to adjust their reckoning of the first day of [Northern Hemisphere] spring accordingly.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on March 23, 2009, 12:24:55 AM
But the fact that an arbitrary date was selected as the equinox, when in fact the fathers new it was arbitrary, shows that astronomical accuracy was not their primary concern.  Their proper concern was order and uniformity.

I respectfully disagree, it has always been a question of astronomical accuracy. They picked the middle value from a range of only three dates:  the vernal equinox falls on either March 20, 21, or 22, with the first two being more common. On the modern secular calendar, the vernal equinox is currently falling mainly on the 20th, while in many years of the 20th Century, it was falling mainly on the 21st.

Respectfully,
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: ialmisry on March 23, 2009, 08:10:20 AM
Not that it is totally germaine, but interesting none the less, the Ottoman Constition's translation (1909 revision) says this:
Quote
Art. 41. Both houses of Parliament shall meet without being summoned on the 1st (14th) November of every year.
http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1876constitution.htm
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on March 23, 2009, 10:40:32 AM
I wonder what the Turkish Republic's states (and if any pressure influence had been put on Constantinople to make a change)?
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: witega on March 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM
You're probably right.  I may have just had my mind in reverse.  As March 25 slides down in relation to the vernal equinox, the equinox will happen earlier and earlier in relation to March 25, thus making the vernal equinox fall on March 21 in about 400 years (after Julius Caesar, d. 44 B.C.).  Even so, my point remains the same: that the Fathers of the Council of Nicea considered astronomical correctness important enough to adjust their reckoning of the first day of [Northern Hemisphere] spring accordingly.

With the correction, you are correct. And this gets at how the Old Calendar is broken in its own terms. The Fathers of Nicea did not mention March 21 or March 25 at all. The documents which emerged from Nicea mention only the actual astronomical event of the equinox itself. That in the subsequent years, we see the churches using March 21 rather than March 25th shows that the Fathers meant, as they said, the actual equinox and not some arbitrary calendrical equinox.

The Old Calendar is broken because for quite some time it has been in violation of the ruling of Nicea. We are technically still coming after the equinox, but we could have Pascha in October and still be 'technically coming after the equinox'. If we are to actually follow the ruling of Nicea as it was written, and as it was interpreted by the bishops who were actually there in subsequent years, we need to go back to using the actual equinox for the calculation.
Title: Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 23, 2009, 12:31:26 PM