OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 11:03:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 191659 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Orthodox Swamp Thing
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - San Francisco & The West
Posts: 56



« Reply #1125 on: March 11, 2010, 01:54:34 PM »

Think there is a lot made out of nothing regarding the old vs. new calendar debate over which one is more accurate. However, I do see some valid points that Orthodox Brothers & Sisters in the faith make for using the Old Calendar. However, we should wholeheartedly debate the issue but don't divide. I personally would like to see the Old Calendar to be used throughout Orthodoxy cause it's the calendar that was used way back when and if it ain't broke then don't screw with it..... And personally for me it's a hook to the past and part of the historical foundation of the Orthodox faith......
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1126 on: March 11, 2010, 01:58:26 PM »

Think there is a lot made out of nothing regarding the old vs. new calendar debate over which one is more accurate. However, I do see some valid points that Orthodox Brothers & Sisters in the faith make for using the Old Calendar. However, we should wholeheartedly debate the issue but don't divide. I personally would like to see the Old Calendar to be used throughout Orthodoxy cause it's the calendar that was used way back when and if it ain't broke then don't screw with it..... And personally for me it's a hook to the past and part of the historical foundation of the Orthodox faith......

That's the problem: it's broke.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Orthodox Swamp Thing
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - San Francisco & The West
Posts: 56



« Reply #1127 on: March 11, 2010, 05:09:23 PM »

The Calendar Question
by Andrew Bond

Surely, more nonsense has been written about this subject in Orthodox journals than about almost any other ecclesiastical controversy. This year, another jurisdiction, the "Orthodox Church in America," has introduced a change of calendar, so perhaps this is a convenient moment to re-examine the arguments for and against such a change. The official announcement by the OCA merely stated that the New Calendar would be adopted on the Church's New Year Day (1st Sept.) 1982, but gave no actual reasons for this decision. However, the official newspaper of the OCA, The Orthodox Church, in its February 1982 issue published a lengthy apologia.

The gist of the OCA argument seems to be that, although there is only one Julian Calendar, there are four versions of it that have been used at different times. Thus the impression given is that there is no continuous tradition, and that changes to the calendar have taken place before, and that another is, therefore, quite in order. The article is described as a "Memorandum of Explanation by the Holy Synod," and claims that the "data presented are taken from published documents from Constantinople in 1923 and from Moscow in 1948."

Let us examine the data cited in this article. The first item is the "Original Julian Calendar," worked out by the astronomer Sosigenes for Julius Caesar and introduced in 44 B.C. There was an inaccuracy in his calculations of about eleven minutes per year, which nobody disputes. Then we come to something called the "Old Style Julian Calendar." Here it is necessary to quote in full: "The 'Old Style' Julian Calendar dates from A.D. 325. By the fourth century the spring equinox was arriving on March 21st according to the 'Original' Julian Calendar. When the First Ecumenical Council met in Nicea in 325 to settle the date for celebrating Pascha, the Church adopted the 'Original' Julian Calendar and ruled that Pascha shall be observed on the first Sunday, after the first full moon, after the spring equinox on March 21st and independent of the Jewish Passover. The Council did not correct the calendar, nor did it set the spring equinox date back to March 25th where it was in the first place. By fixing a faulty civil calendar date to a fixed phenomenon in nature, the Church created for herself a calendar problem." [Emphasis mine. A.B.] Having told us that the Council adopted the "Original Julian Calendar" and made no changes, what does the next sentence mean? It says, "The 'Old Style' Julian Calendar dates from A. D. 325 and not from the year B.C. 44, as is commonly believed." Clearly from the evidence given, the "Original" and the "Old Style" are one and the same thing! In any event, this brings us to the question of authority.

In the Orthodox Church we accept infallibility, not in a personal, papal sense, but as the voice of Christ's Church expressed through an Ecumenical Council. Thus, even if a change had been made in A. D. 325, which it was not, it would have been quite legitimate and binding on all Christians, simply because it is only an Ecumenical Council that can order these aspects of the Church's liturgical discipline. This is why Pope Gregory in 1582 and Patriarch Meletios in 1923 acted in defiance of Holy Tradition. They did something they had not the right to do, by usurping and taking to themselves the authority that rightly belongs to a General Council.

The next exhibit in the OCA article is called the "New Style Julian Calendar," but is actually the Gregorian Adjustment named after Pope Gregory XIII, introduced in 1582 and commonly called the Gregorian Calendar. The memorandum notes that this adjustment more or less corrects the eleven minute error, and then goes on to tell us about the "Revised Julian Calendar," which has the curious characteristic that "until about the year 2200 both the 'New Style' and the 'Revised' versions of the Julian Calendar will coincide" (!).

These are all false and misleading distinctions. There is only one Julian Calendar—not an "Original, "Old Style," "New Style," or "Revised." No amount of invented distinctions and superfluous information can mask these facts: 1) The Julian Calendar has remained unchanged and in continuous use for over two thousand years; 2) The other church calendar is called the "Gregorian Calendar,"—not the "New Style Julian Calendar."

+ + +
One claim often made in favor of "calendar reform" is that it would be more convenient to have the festivals, such as Christmas, at the same time as they are celebrated by everyone else. But where was the Gregorian Adjustment first introduced into the Orthodox Church? Not in the diaspora, but in places like Constantinople, Greece and Romania, where almost all the Christians are Orthodox. When Pope Gregory XIII introduced his adjustment, he tried to pressure the Orthodox Church into doing the same, but a synod which met in 1583 gave him a very firm reply. Carrying the signatures of Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, Patriarch Sylvester of Alexandria and Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem, the document states: "Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils have decreed, and the Holy Pascha and calendar which they enacted well for us to follow, but wants to follow the newly invented Paschalion [method of fixing the date of Easter] and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and, opposing the Councils, wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church, which we have inherited from our Fathers, let any such have the anathema and let him be outside the Church and the Assembly of the Faithful." A very different spirit prevailed in 1923, when an "Inter-Orthodox Congress" was called together by Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople. Its agenda also included proposals to allow bishops to be married and to allow a priest to remarry after the death of his first wife. The congress was attended by delegates from Constantinople, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia (which rejected the calendar change) and Romania. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem refused to send delegates, the Patriarch of Alexandria did not reply to the invitation and the Church of Bulgaria was not invited.

In the diaspora, a certain tension can exist in a mixed marriage, where there may be pressure on the Orthodox partner to conform to the local custom at a time like Christmas. However, domestic convenience is not the criterion for determining liturgical discipline. Every Christmas time in the West there are heard numerous religious voices lamenting the fact that Christmas is so commercialized. We who are Orthodox do not have a commercialized Christmas because we celebrate it on a day that the world around us regards as an ordinary working day. Why give up this advantage? In this respect, the Jewish community sets us an example. They are deeply involved in commerce in Europe, America and elsewhere, but they have not changed the dates of their festivals to coincide with secular holidays, although doubtless their businesses would profit by doing so.

The desire for astronomical accuracy is just a red herring. If it really were an important consideration, surely the advocates of the Gregorian Adjustment would use the Gregorian reckoning for everything, including Easter. By not doing so, they seek to avoid the condemnation of the First Canon of the Synod of Antioch (A.D. 341) which says that if any bishop, priest or deacon disturbs the good order of the Church by "observing Easter (at the same time) with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall henceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them." No room for doubt there about the attitude of the Church to those who celebrate Easter at the same time as the Passover; yet, think how often the Latin West does just that. But in seeking to avoid this transgression, the Orthodox Christians who use the Gregorian Calendar fall into another trap by celebrating Easter sometimes in May, which is also also forbidden.

It is indeed fortunate that the liturgical order of the Church does not depend on astronomical accuracy. Far more important to us is the unbroken unity of the Church. This has several aspects, of which the unbroken cycle of liturgical prayer is one. By dropping thirteen days in making the Gregorian Adjustment, we break this continuous liturgical cycle and thus violently disrupt the unity of the Church, by which we are at one with all our fellow Orthodox believers now and through the centuries. Which is preferable: unity of prayer with the saints and all Orthodox Christians or, by adjusting the liturgical cycle, unity with Pope Gregory and the Latin/Protestant West?

The OCA memorandum concludes: "If the Orthodox Church is the Pillar of Truth, it cannot afford to ignore the scientific truths discovered by man. How can we claim: I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.... and refuse to accept the truth of the scientific measurements of the length of the year he created?" Yes, the Orthodox Church is the Pillar of Truth, and for this very reason, we must defend the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils as God's revealed and timeless Truth. Scientific truth is much more unreliable. That everything is,composed of four elements, that the sun revolves around the earth, that the earth is flat, and many other things have, in their time, been regarded as scientific truth, but our saving faith has never depended on such "truths. " Make no mistake, the line of reasoning that advocates the adoption of the Gregorian Adjustment will open the flood gates to other and more serious innovations. The Queen of Feasts, Easter, is already under attack. Already, some Orthodox hierarchs are suggesting that we do not really have any objections to a fixed day for Easter, and that we could fall into line with the suggestion of the Pope and the World Council of Churches on this issue. Sadly, some simple souls will be led into believing that this is true, when in reality any such suggestion is utterly condemned by numerous canons.

This whole insidious process leads the faithful, often in trusting naively, further and further away from the Ark of Salvation. First, break the liturgical cycle of the fixed-date festivals, and then settle a fixed date for Easter, all in the name of a spurious unity with those who deny Orthodoxy. Having detached most of the faithful from any true understanding of Holy Tradition and the nature of the Church, it will be quite a short step to destroy a principle of worship that has always characterized the religion of the True God. This is the seven-day or weekly cycle of prayer. Throughout the time of the Old Covenant, as God Himself commanded Moses, every seventh day was a day of prayer. When almost everything else relating to the Old Covenant was superseded by Christ, the resurrection guaranteed that the seven-day cycle of worship would continue unbroken. This also could soon be under threat by the introduction of the "World-wide Calendar." This anti-Christian abomination has been accepted, in principle, by the governments of the world. The only thing they cannot agree upon is when and how to introduce it. Its basic premise is that commerce would be able to plan production schedules more effectively if all holidays were at the same time each year. In other words, the plan guarantees that Christmas Day would always be a Sunday and New Year's Eve, a Saturday. The odd day each year (a year is 52 weeks and one day long) would be disposed of by adding "World Day" at the end of December. So the sequence would be "Saturday," December 31; followed by "World Day;" followed by "Sunday,"January 1. In a Leap Year, a second "World Day" would be inserted between the last day of June and the first day of July. In this calendar the day designated as "Sunday" could actually be any day of the week, and the seven day cycle of worship would be disrupted every year, and twice every Leap Year. Doubtless, the Latin/Protestant West will regard this as being of no importance and accept the change with alacrity, when it comes. If the Orthodox Christians who presently use the Gregorian Adjustment continue to do so, their domestic convenience will again be shattered. They will have unity with nobody, neither with their fellow Orthodox nor with the West and the modern world.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1128 on: March 11, 2010, 05:31:06 PM »

The Calendar Question
by Andrew Bond
Can you give us a link to where you found this article?  Thank you.
Logged
Orthodox Swamp Thing
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - San Francisco & The West
Posts: 56



« Reply #1129 on: March 11, 2010, 09:13:33 PM »

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calendar_bond.aspx
Logged
Orthodox Swamp Thing
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - San Francisco & The West
Posts: 56



« Reply #1130 on: March 12, 2010, 12:03:50 PM »

THE PROBLEM that has been created in the Orthodox Church by the introduction of the New Calendar, known as the Gregorian Calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it into the Latin Church in 1582), is one that worried the late Greek Elder, Blessed Philotheos (Zervakos), very much, from the time of its introduction into the Orthodox Church in 1924 until his death. He dwelt upon it in his publications and in his letters of counsel to those who were under his spiritual direction.[1] The New, Papal Calendar and Its Fruits [To Neon, Papikon Hemerologion kai hoi Karpoi Autou]—a 40-page pamphlet—is his most extensive treatment of this innovation. It was published at Thessaloniki by the periodical Saint Nectarios. The date when it was published is not listed. From internal evidence, particularly the reference to an article by Archbishop Iakovos (of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America), which appeared on September 25, 1967, it is clear that it was published sometime after that date.

Two quotations at the beginning of the pamphlet serve as an introduction to what Father Philotheos has to say. The first, taken from the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, states: "If someone sets aside any tradition [of the Church], written or unwritten, let him be anathema." The second, which is taken from St. Augustine, says: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish." The discussion of the Calendar innovation starts with an explanation of how it was introduced into the Church of Constantinople in 1924 by Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis and soon, the same year, by Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Athens. (Later, the New Calendar was adopted by the Patriarchates of Bulgaria, Rumania, and Alexandria. The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Serbia, and Russia, the Archbishopric of Mount Sinai, and the Holy Mountain of Athos have avoided this innovation.)

The holy Elder states that when he learned that the New Calendar was going to be introduced into the Church of Greece, he wrote a letter to Archbishop Chrysostomos entreating him not to introduce the Papal Calendar, because this innovation would divide the Church into hostile parts. He remarked that "the Traditional, Old Calendar neither caused any harm to the Church in the past nor is causing any harm now, whereas the adoption of the New Calendar would banish peace from the Christian population of Greece, would cause divisions, confusion, malice, and turmoil" (pp. 4-5).

Chrysostomos, he says, did not heed this counsel and proceeded to introduce the New Calendar. The consequences were exactly those which Blessed Philotheos had foreseen. This prompted him to write a second letter to Chrysostomos, in which he said: "The fruits of the New Calendar which you introduced thoughtlessly, anticanonically, and unlawfully are the banishment of love and the generation of malice. It banished happiness and brought sorrow. It banished peace and brought division, disputes, quarrels, and warfare. Before, the Christians were united and you divided them. The Orthodox Church, which for twenty centuries was one, you divided into two: that of the Old Calendarists and that of the New Calendarists" (p. 6). Unfortunately, remarks the venerable Elder, Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos paid no attention to this letter, either.

From that time on, he goes on to say, there began the fruits of the New Calendar. "The first ones to reap these fruits," he observes, "were those who introduced it" (p. 7). He explains that the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis was beaten by zealous Orthodox Christians of Constantinople and was forced to seek refuge in Greece.... After a time, he became Patriarch of Alexandria. Then he sought to become Patriarch of the more prestigious Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Having failed in this, he fell sick from sorrow. Tortured by disease and censured by his conscience, Meletios Metaxakis died saying: "I am suffering because I split the Church" (p. 7).

As far as Archbishop Chrysostomos is concerned, Father Philotheos informs the reader that this innovator was struck in the face and head with scissors as he stood at the Bishop’s Throne in a Church in the city of Piraeus. The man who struck him was a barber who wanted to humiliate him by shearing off his beard. Father Philotheos proceeds to describe in detail various other fruits of the New Calendar innovation: divisions, dissensions, quarrels, hatreds, various forms of going astray (pp. 8-31).

While deploring the behavior of fanatics of both sides—Old Calendarists and New Calendarists—the Elder asserts that "the Old Calendarists did well in not accepting the Papal Calendar—which was introduced into the Orthodox Church anticanonically and unlawfully—and following the Traditional, Old Calendar, which was handed down to us by the Holy Fathers of the First Holy Œcumenical Synod" (p. 28).

Having described some of the evil fruits of the Calendar innovation, Father Philotheos proceeds to give advice as to what should be done in order to reunite the members of the Orthodox Church and put an end to the grievous dissensions and hatreds. As far as Greece is concerned, he says that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should meet and canonically and lawfully reject the New Calendar and introduce the Old, Traditional one. "If the government should object, let the government keep the New Calendar for its dealings and correspondence with other nations; while the Church ought to keep for itself the Old Calendar for its holy feasts" (p. 32). He adds that "if perchance some clergymen and laymen, who are philo-Papists or philo-Protestants, innovators and modernists, should oppose this, the Church should admonish them once or twice. If they do not repent but persist in their opposition, the Church should expel them as corrupt members" (p. 32).

Continuing, Father Philotheos adds that the rejection of the New Calendar and the restoration of the Traditional one is necessary not only in order to put an end to the division of the Church, to dissensions and hatreds, but also for the following reasons: a) because following the Old Calendar is a tradition of the Church, and those who reject it are subject to the anathema of the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, which is quoted at the beginning of his treatise; and b) because the introduction of the New Calendar abolishes the Fast of the Holy Apostles, which is an old tradition of the Church: sometimes it abolishes this fast completely and sometimes reduces it to only one or two days. (Originally, this fast was a seven-day one, then it became longer.)

Finally, Blessed Philotheos notes that as a Church calendar the New Calendar has been condemned and anathematized by three Regional Synods (in 1583, 1587, and 1593). This pamphlet has the merit of putting the Calendar problem in proper perspective, dealing with its essential aspects in a brief, clear, incisive manner. New Calendarists think that the question is about thirteen days, about astronomical correctness, and view the Old Calendarists as simply stubborn, ignorant persons who are averse to scientific improvements. Father Philotheos makes no mention of "astronomical correctness" vs. "astronomical incorrectness," because this is not really the point at issue. What is at issue is whether Orthodox Christians should remain faithful to Tradition, or are free to innovate as they please, with a view to some political or other secular expediency, without regard to the Church’s canonical way of doing things and without regard to foreseeable evil consequences ("fruits") of their innovations for the Church.

It should be added that the New Calendar was introduced into the Orthodox Church not for the sake of astronomical correctness, but as the first step in achieving a forced, false union of the Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox New Calendarist Christian bodies, for the sake of certain secular advantages which such a union was expected to have. This was to be the beginning of the Orthodox Church’s participation in the "Ecumenical Movement"—a movement which has further divided the Orthodox Church into mutually hostile parties: the Ecumenists and the anti-Ecumenists. All the Greek Old Calendarists are anti-Ecumenists, while some of the New Calendarists are Ecumenists and others are anti-Ecumenists. Thus, the evil fruits of the introduction of the New Calendar, which the Blessed Elder clearly foresaw, keep growing in number.

I personally think we should heed the advice of the 7th Holy Œcumenical Synod......

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zervakos_calendar.aspx
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1131 on: March 12, 2010, 12:46:09 PM »

^Soooo when you wrote
Quote
Think there is a lot made out of nothing regarding the old vs. new calendar debate over which one is more accurate. However, I do see some valid points that Orthodox Brothers & Sisters in the faith make for using the Old Calendar.

what you meant to say was "the supporters of the New Calendar stand on nothing."


Of course, you are wrong.  Just some highlights.

The reason why Old Calendarists insist on identifying the New Calendar with the Gregorian Calendar is because they want to damn it with various prior decisions, which they pry out of their context, on the "Papist Calendar."  The revised Julian is based on the work of the Serbian Orthodox Milutin Milanković, not Gregory.  To keep repeating that the New Calendarists (except for Finland) are following the Vatican (as opposed to the actual universe) discredits any argument that follows.

Definitions are infallible. Canons are not.

The New Calendar, if adopted for the Paschalion, would never celebrate Passover with the Jews, so that has nothing to do with the nonadoption of it, yet.

The Fathers stated that Alexandria should compute the date of Pascha due to the superiority of its astronomers.  Several Egyptian papyri show the interest in the accuracy of the calendar (for tax purposes: that's what that indication date means on all those bulls that the Old Calendarists like to wave).  Rome was supposed to get the date from Alexandria and announce it to the world, but it took Rome quite some time (a century) to comply.

And the equanox falls on March 21/22 on the New Calendar and the Gregorian, March 8/9 on the Old Calendar.

Where in the world do you get this "canons?"
Quote
the Orthodox Christians who use the Gregorian Calendar fall into another trap by celebrating Easter sometimes in May, which is also also forbidden
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1132 on: March 12, 2010, 01:06:31 PM »

@ witega

Since the Copts and Armenians had left the Orthodox Church by the end of the fifth century, we are still talking about over a thousand years of a common calendar for all the Orthodox by the 16th century.

Btw, even if the Copts "left" the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Alexandria still used the "Coptic" Calendar (since it is based on the seasons of the Nile Valley, that just made sense).


Quote
The Church by the 16th century certainly believed the common calendar was mandated by Tradition. Your only argument so far has been that the councils of 1583, 1587 and 1593 were not expressing the voice of the Church. That argument itself is based on what appears to me a legalistic and scholastic notion that only what has been bequeathed to us in written form may express the authority of the Holy Spirit, and that therefore the Council of 1583 was in error in attributing the common calendar to the authority of the Church, since there was no previous document explicitly mandating a common calendar, except whatever may be implicit in the written mandates for a common Pascha, which obviously must depend on a common calendar in some form. The consideration that perhaps the Councils of the 16th century were also appealing to unwritten Tradition, and the universal custom of the Orthodox Church as had been established by then for so many centuries, seems not to have crossed your mind.

As the phyletism of the Phanar does not seem to have crossed yours.  Many pronouncements from Constantinople show no clue about the actual state of Alexandria and Antioch, e.g. the forbidding of the Alexandrian and Antiochian rites, which did not occur until nearly a millenium after Chalcedon.

Quote
Heresy and schism are promoted by the Evil One, but I don't see how you get from there to implying that the unity of the calendar is the fault of the Evil One. Unity seems to me the evidence of Divine action. How exactly would you describe the effect your new calendar has had on the Church? Is it from God?
What do you say of the effects of clinging to the Old Calendar for the sake that it is "Old?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1133 on: March 12, 2010, 01:09:00 PM »

I hate to say it but some folks (like Mr. Gress) are incapable of seeing reason. Perhaps the best thing is to let him live in his fantasy land; this issue is of no real consequence.
Of no real consequence to whom?  I wouldn't be so dismissive of the opinions of others if I were you, for you run the risk of having your own opinions dismissed by others, and in the same way.

I do not believe that I arrived at my conclusion hastily for this issue has been debated for a long time (over 1000 posts in this thread alone). Secondly, everybody seems to be repeating the same thing over and over again. Thirdly, Isa, Witega and yourself, among others, have conclusively shown certain facts that Mr. Gress has continuously ignored or failed to refute. Finally, I would ask if the calendar is ordained by God, if the use of any particular calendar is necessary for one's salvation, and if the use of differing calendars has constrained most folks from inter-communion. The answers are No, No and No. Some of these Old Calendarists (unlike the vast majority of them) are making a mountain out of mole hill, and even a much smaller minority are using it as a reason for schism and condemnation. So, yes this issue is of real consequence to a few brethren but so is a really rare disease (for those people who are afflicted by it). However, unlike those people with the rare disease, this issue is a self-imposed handicap to those folks who make it such a consequential matter.
Belated "Excellent post."

Btw, never form an opinion with the concern that it may be dismissed.  Pure gold fears no fire.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1134 on: March 12, 2010, 01:25:02 PM »

^

Thanks for making my point.
Second Chance,

It really all boils down to the spirit of western idealism, secularism, Protestantism, nihilism, and the list that goes on and on. The reason the calendar is as big of as issue as it is is the spirit behind the change. The calendar within in itself is not salvific, but the spirit behind it sure influences greatly the direction different jurisdictions have taken. It is so much more then just about dates...

New Calendar churches are much more open to adopting western secularism, adopting Protestant idealism, and liberalism in general. Don't have to be a genius to figure this out. Just look at the three biggest, and most liberal in the U.S. GOA, AOC, & OCA.

O please!  The Old Calendare didn't save Russia from the Bolsheviks, nor Serbia from Tito.  Romania, on the new calendar under one of the most bizarre and severe Stalinist regimes, emerged from communism practically intact.

Jerusalem is the most secularized as it has adopted western style liberal nationalism to its core, to the great disgrace of Orthodoxy.  I don't know what you mean by Protestant idealism.


Quote
I do agree that schism is most unfortunate and it is best to pray and love our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
"Always remember that at the Last Judgment we are judged for loving Him, or failing to love Him, in the least person."

—Archbishop Anastasios of Albania
amen to my fellow New Calendarist.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1135 on: March 12, 2010, 01:27:25 PM »

As the phyletism of the Phanar

Give it a rest ialmisry.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1136 on: March 12, 2010, 01:29:29 PM »

As the phyletism of the Phanar

Give it a rest ialmisry.



When the Phanar desists.

The Old Calendar do have a point, when they point out that the Phanar arrogated to itself the power to change the calendar for all the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 01:30:52 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1137 on: March 12, 2010, 01:30:41 PM »

As the phyletism of the Phanar

Give it a rest ialmisry.



When the Phanar desists.

Yes, of course.
There's no possible way this might all be in your head is there? Roll Eyes
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1138 on: March 12, 2010, 01:32:52 PM »

As the phyletism of the Phanar

Give it a rest ialmisry.



When the Phanar desists.

Yes, of course.
There's no possible way this might all be in your head is there? Roll Eyes
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html
Nope.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1139 on: March 12, 2010, 01:37:35 PM »

Yes, I know what your online infallible oracle thinks too. How about you try this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11532.0.html
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1140 on: March 12, 2010, 01:40:05 PM »

Thread locked pending moderatorial review.
Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1141 on: June 09, 2010, 02:00:09 PM »

CONTEXT NOTE:  The following segment split off from here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg444758.html#msg444758

Additionally, seeing how much time has elapsed since the events that forced us to lock this thread, I'm going to reopen it in the hope that the situation doesn't happen again.  Please work to make my decision worthwhile.  Thank you.

- PtA




Better put us back on the holy calendar...  police
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 12:08:55 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #1142 on: June 09, 2010, 02:16:14 PM »

Better put us back on the holy calendar...  police

I did not notice a smiley, so I will assume that you meant what you wrote. My response is simply that "holy" and "calendar" do not go hand in hand.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1143 on: June 09, 2010, 02:23:12 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 02:23:38 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,343



« Reply #1144 on: June 09, 2010, 02:28:40 PM »


Better put us back on the holy calendar...  police

I did not notice a smiley, so I will assume that you meant what you wrote. My response is simply that "holy" and "calendar" do not go hand in hand.

Is time not sacred in the Holy Orthodox Church?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #1145 on: June 09, 2010, 02:31:07 PM »


Better put us back on the holy calendar...  police

I did not notice a smiley, so I will assume that you meant what you wrote. My response is simply that "holy" and "calendar" do not go hand in hand.

Is time not sacred in the Holy Orthodox Church?

Sure; anything that God has made is holy. Not so in the case of a man-made calendar, even if it is used by holy men for holy purposes.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #1146 on: June 09, 2010, 05:21:08 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made.  So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2010, 05:37:35 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1147 on: June 10, 2010, 12:34:21 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made.  So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.

The Old Calendar is perfect from the ecclesiastical point of view and that is what is most important... the calendar we have now is not... When the reformed calendar will satisfy the ecclesiastical perfection than i`ll give the caeser what belongs to the caeser...

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1148 on: June 10, 2010, 12:58:36 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made.  So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.

The Old Calendar is perfect from the ecclesiastical point of view and that is what is most important... the calendar we have now is not... When the reformed calendar will satisfy the ecclesiastical perfection than i`ll give the caeser what belongs to the caeser...
LOL. You are aware that the original Caesar gave you the Old Calendar, no?  That's why it is called Julian, as in Julius Caesar.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1149 on: June 10, 2010, 01:02:53 PM »

irony ...  i`m not old calendaristic btw..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #1150 on: June 10, 2010, 02:50:11 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made.  So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.

The Old Calendar is perfect from the ecclesiastical point of view and that is what is most important... the calendar we have now is not... When the reformed calendar will satisfy the ecclesiastical perfection than i`ll give the caeser what belongs to the caeser...



Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1151 on: June 10, 2010, 08:53:31 PM »


Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1.  We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.

2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?
Logged
scamandrius
Dr., Rdr. Scamandrius to you :)
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,343



« Reply #1152 on: June 11, 2010, 10:49:54 AM »


2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

Father, can  you provide more information on the proposed more accurate calendar by Milankovic? I've not heard of it.  Thanks.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1153 on: June 11, 2010, 12:11:42 PM »

2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

Father, can  you provide more information on the proposed more accurate calendar by Milankovic? I've not heard of it.  Thanks.

Ever since he posted that note, I've been trying to remember where it was posted on this site before... It would be easier for me to just use the search function.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1154 on: June 11, 2010, 12:19:08 PM »

Oh, right...

Hearkening to a more contentious thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346412.html#msg346412
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1155 on: June 11, 2010, 01:09:49 PM »

You don`t think the Old Calendar is holy?If not, why?

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made.  So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.

The Old Calendar is perfect from the ecclesiastical point of view and that is what is most important... the calendar we have now is not... When the reformed calendar will satisfy the ecclesiastical perfection than i`ll give the caeser what belongs to the caeser...



Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

I don`t know how you agree with me... I said exactly the oposite... The most correct calendar is the Old.. i.e Julian Calendar of the Church
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #1156 on: June 11, 2010, 01:09:53 PM »


Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1.  We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.

2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?
You honestly believe that by trotting out this old canard so long after you last brought it out that people will just forget the go-round we had refuting it?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346142.html#msg346142

Do note that I made a formal request for evidence of your claim.  I don't recall that I ever saw this evidence.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 01:33:52 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1157 on: June 11, 2010, 02:24:11 PM »

The most correct calendar is the Old.. i.e Julian Calendar of the Church

Look, I don't mean to stir up too much, but I think statements like the above do the discussion a disservice.  One can argue that we should use the Old for unity's sake (i.e. no one should be on the Revised calendar unless all are on it); one can argue that we should use it because the Fathers used it; etc.  But don't say it's "more correct," because it is easily demonstrable that the Equinox (which is part of the calendar) is not April 3/March21, but is rather March 21/March 8.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #1158 on: June 11, 2010, 03:02:24 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves.. It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc... It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #1159 on: June 11, 2010, 03:37:06 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves.. It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc... It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...
So how are we supposed to coincide our secular calendar with the Old Calendar? Are we supposed to use the Old Calendar for everything or just for Church?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1160 on: June 11, 2010, 03:40:45 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves..

I generally don't, and I don't encourage anyone else to.

It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc...

Correct in all ecclesial (ecclesiastical) elements?  Sure.

It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar?  Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?"  They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun.  Weird, no?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1161 on: June 11, 2010, 03:55:22 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves.. It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc... It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...
because the ecclesiastical sun rises and sets (btw, does the ecclesiastical sun still revolve around the eccelsiastical earth?) ecclesiastically within 12 EST (Ecclesiastical Standard Time) ecclesiastical hours on the ecclesiastical equal-night (the meaning of equinox in the ecclesiastical dictionary, something the Fathers new from their ecclesiastical dictionary:Ισημερία meaning "equal-day").

Do we also use ecclesiastical water in our baptism and ecclesiastical bread and ecclesistical wine so we can commune ecclesiastically with Christ in our hearts (our ecclesiastical hearts, of course), like the Christian Scientists?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1162 on: June 11, 2010, 04:22:56 PM »

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar?  Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?"  They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun.  Weird, no?

I should have been more precise in my rantings - it's not actually solar-ly determined (only apparently so), but rather due to the rotation, angle, axis, etc. of our dear planet (which are influenced by the sun).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #1163 on: June 11, 2010, 04:44:19 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves.. It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc... It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...
So how are we supposed to coincide our secular calendar with the Old Calendar? Are we supposed to use the Old Calendar for everything or just for Church?

Just the Church, like the Jews, Muslims, Buddhisms, etc. do. It does not seem to pose a problem for them, why us?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,626



« Reply #1164 on: June 11, 2010, 05:17:23 PM »

Fr. let`s not lie to ourselves.. It is not because the fathers used it that the Old is more accurate.. but because it`s correctly ecclesial in counting fasts, feasts ,liturghy, chants, hymns etc... It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...
So how are we supposed to coincide our secular calendar with the Old Calendar? Are we supposed to use the Old Calendar for everything or just for Church?

Just the Church, like the Jews, Muslims, Buddhisms, etc. do. It does not seem to pose a problem for them, why us?
The Jews in Palestine use the Jewish calendar, the Muslims in Muslim countries the Muslim calender (the solar calendar, used for taxes, varies from country to country), and the Buddhists have their New Year in February, on the Chinese calendar.  The Gregorian calendar is used only because the world markets go by it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #1165 on: June 11, 2010, 05:54:29 PM »

The Gregorian calendar is used only because the world markets go by it.

Good point
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1166 on: June 11, 2010, 06:51:13 PM »


2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

Father, can  you provide more information on the proposed more accurate calendar by Milankovic? I've not heard of it.  Thanks.

Dear Scamandrius,

I caused immense upset to some members with a thread on Milankovic's calendar which was proposed to the bishops in Constantinople in 1924.  I really hesitate to call down upon my poor old head all the opprobrium a second time.

If you do a search with Milankovic those messages should pop up.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #1167 on: June 11, 2010, 10:38:33 PM »

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar?  Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?"  They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun.  Weird, no?

I should have been more precise in my rantings - it's not actually solar-ly determined (only apparently so), but rather due to the rotation, angle, axis, etc. of our dear planet (which are influenced by the sun).

Father, I agree with what you said but according to some of our respondents, since you posted on 6/11/2010 according to the website, I cannot respond to you for another 13 days since 6/11/2010 has not happened yet on the old calendar, and will not happen for 13 days from now.  I should preface the remainder of my comments by stating that my parish is old calendar.  I surely hope that none of your old calendar accusers if they wrote a check today signed it dated 6/11/2010, since according to them that is not today's date.   I hope that if they made any business transactions, that they did not sign it dated 6/11/2010.   Here is my question, to all the die hard old calendarists who have no appreciation for the new calendar whatsoever--is today, the date of my posting this message, 6/11/2010 or is it not?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #1168 on: June 11, 2010, 10:49:47 PM »

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.
1.  We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time? 

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic.  That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years.   Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #1169 on: June 11, 2010, 11:08:49 PM »

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.
1.  We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2.  We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.)   What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time? 

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic.  That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years.   Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian. 
How many calendars do the Orthodox have in all? I am counting three so far? The Julian, the revised Julian and the Gregorian? I am not sure if there is one revised Julian or two revised Julians? But anyway, in the year 2800, you will have three different Orthodox opinions on what day it is today?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2010, 11:10:06 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.202 seconds with 72 queries.