OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 04:01:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   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 55 56 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 207032 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1215 on: June 14, 2010, 01:29:37 AM »


I notice that LBK brought this to our attention yesterday and coming, as it says, from the horse's (Milankovic's) mouth, it is probably not rhetoric.

orthodoxlurker
Quote
It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.


Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion

I think you are referring to what you cited, the monograph on the harvard.edu site, viz.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D  A search does not show that I have cited it myself.  Mind you, I am not altogether sure that the search engine for the forum is altogether accurate; a search on the same word can bring up different results.    Would you give me the reference for my citation please.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1216 on: June 14, 2010, 02:31:27 AM »

From Reply #980 of This Thread:
A monograph from Veselka Trajkovska (Astronomical Observatory, Belgrade) which contributes to our discussion.

"On the Fundamental Contribution of Maxim Trpkovic's
Project to the Pan-Orthodox Solution of
the Calendar Reform in Constantinople in 1923"

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

Abstract: "In this paper Maksim Trpkovic's contribution to the calendar reform from the
late XIX century and the first decades of the XX one is discussed. The importance and
the contribution of his project in the solving of the calendar reform at the Pan-
Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in 1923 is specially presented. In this context
one also considers the controverse question whether the modification of Trpkovic's
project [the leap year modification] done at the Congress by Milutin
Milankovic is Trpkovic-Milankovic's calendar or Milankovic's calendar."

Full monograph :: http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf


From Reply #985 of This Thread:
Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

 http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.  Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.


From Reply #991 of This Thread:
If one reads Veselka Trajkovska's monograph  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf  one will see that the Revised Julian Calendar is a bit of a bastard Calendar, because the hierarchs who adopted it lacked the fortitude to adopt a truly accurate Calendar and accepted a compromise which enabled them to be in step with the Gregorian Calendar for the next almost 900 years - by which time it will be someone else's problem.

In number 5279 of the Astronomische Nachrichten, issued on March 18, 1924, is an article by Milankovic, dated October, 1923. Its title is "The End of the Julian Calendar and the New Calendar of the Eastern Churches."  Milankovic, as indicated below, was a delegate to the council which decided upon this new calendar; it is an improvement over the Gregorian calendar.

Milankovic: "I had the honor to take part in this congress as delegate of the government of the Serbs, Croatians and Slovenes and as a representative of astronomical science. Therefore I may be permitted to report on the important decisions of this congress in regard to the question of the calendar, and to explain them briefly."

Note one of his comments: "But **in order not to go too far and make a new divergence between the dates of the two Christian calendars in future time**, a leap-year rule proposed by me was accepted, which differs from the Gregorian but nevertheless agrees with it until the year 2800."

As orthodoxlurker said - straight from the horse's mouth

So the contribution of Milankovic was to make an adjustment to Trpkovic's Calendar.  Milankovic states that the purpose of his leap year adjustment was not driven by a desire for scientific accuracy but by the desire of the bishops at the Council to bring the Calendar into close synchronisation with the Roman Catholic Calendar.  Milankovic gave the bishops what they wanted and achieved this synchronisation of the Catholic and Orthodox religious calendars until the year 2800.  

See
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/orthodox-reform.html


And From Reply #1001 of This Thread:
This is quite interesting in Trajkovska's monograph.  She is saying that Milankovic's change of Trpkovic's calendar over the leap year calculation actually degraded Trpkovic's calendar scientifically, making it less astronomically accurate and also out of touch with the Church requirements for the dating of the vernal equinox.

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

"Trpkovic wanted with his intercalation to put the vernal-equinox date
on March 21 (in accordance with the natural equinox and also following one of
the principal requirements of the Church), whereas Milankovic achieved an
accordance with the Gregorian Calendar over a longer period (at the cost of
allowing the vernal equinox to occur on March 20).

"As written by various authors (Zivkovic (1923, 1927, 1929), Vukicevic (1932),
Miskovic (1966), Jankovic (1985), Keckic (2001)) Trpkovic's solution was better
than Milankovic's [1 and references therein]. As a disadvantage of Milankovic's
solution many of them mention Milankovic's effort to be in accordance with the
Gregorian calendar as much as possible because this calendar is also incorrect
and, consequently, in both calendars the vernal equinox occurs more frequently
on March 20 thus being discordant with natural equinox and the Church
requirements concerning the date for Easter."


If you recall correctly, you'll remember that you made this work of Trajkovska central to your arguments on this thread, so much so that you made passing reference to this in Reply #1170 above.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 02:36:36 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1217 on: June 14, 2010, 02:37:10 AM »

Thank you for those citations.  I thought you were referring to the harvard.edu site, viz.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D and so it is no surprise that my search did not bring it up under my screen name.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #1218 on: June 14, 2010, 05:10:08 AM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1.   From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.    Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3.   Milankovic’s calendar.
4.   Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1219 on: June 14, 2010, 01:17:44 PM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1.   From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.    Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3.   Milankovic’s calendar.
4.   Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
To my knowledge, no one uses the original, unaltered Trpković Calendar.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1220 on: June 14, 2010, 07:33:19 PM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?

If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 07:34:03 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #1221 on: June 15, 2010, 12:36:09 AM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?

If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1222 on: June 15, 2010, 12:55:36 AM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?

If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
Yes.  The Milanković variant of the Trpković Calendar, which we commonly call the Milanković Calendar (or sometimes the Trpković-Milanković Calendar) is the calendar the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1923 ultimately accepted and the calendar currently used by all New Calendar Orthodox Churches as the Revised Julian Calendar.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1223 on: June 15, 2010, 05:01:52 AM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?

If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.

If you read the information presented by LBK in post 1176, the answer to that has to be no.  The Serbian Church proposed the Trpkovic Calendar to the Pan-Orthodox Synod and the Synod accepted it.  Milankovic's contribution, while at the Synod, was to tweak the leap year calculation of the Trpkovic Calendar in order to achieve the desire of the bishops to obtain a calendar in synch with the Church of Rome's.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1224 on: June 15, 2010, 06:18:49 AM »


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  laugh

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.



Well let’s see.
 I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?

If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.

If you read the information presented by LBK in post 1176, the answer to that has to be no.  The Serbian Church proposed the Trpkovic Calendar to the Pan-Orthodox Synod and the Synod accepted it.  Milankovic's contribution, while at the Synod, was to tweak the leap year calculation of the Trpkovic Calendar in order to achieve the desire of the bishops to obtain a calendar in synch with the Church of Rome's.
1.  LBK didn't offer anything substantive and new in that post except a criticism of me.
2.  The end result of Milankovic's tweaking of the Trpkovic Calendar IS the Milankovic Calendar (which is why I also referred to the Milankovic Calendar as the Trpkovic-Milankovic Calendar to make that connection more apparent).
« Last Edit: June 15, 2010, 06:20:48 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,585


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #1225 on: July 22, 2010, 05:30:25 PM »

New, but I would rather the old.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1226 on: July 22, 2010, 06:28:50 PM »

I would prefer the old calendar, as the Church for a long time was largely united in the dates of its major commemorations through it, and the new calendar did not come with the general consent of the Church, but rather divided the dates of commemoration. I think this is the primary benefit of following the old calendar: that is represents a history of unity between the churches. However, I don't really have any other issues with the new calendars (Revised Julian and Gregorian) beyond their being divisive.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« Reply #1227 on: August 03, 2010, 11:22:57 AM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
Logged
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 #1228 on: August 03, 2010, 02:14:19 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,823



« Reply #1229 on: August 03, 2010, 02:43:47 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!

I did not see a smiley or such after you post. So, it boils down to not having a KyrioPascha???!!!??? Tongue Roll Eyes Embarrassed Angry Sad Shocked
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1230 on: August 03, 2010, 02:57:57 PM »

I haven't experienced any and I suppose I won't. It's not an issue for me.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
visitor
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Let's just leave it at a Canonical one, okay?
Posts: 110


« Reply #1231 on: August 03, 2010, 03:46:44 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!


Wow. You lost me, bud.










Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1232 on: August 03, 2010, 03:50:57 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #1233 on: August 03, 2010, 05:38:16 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.

You can't really separate the "piecemeal approach to updating the calendar" from the "New Calendar itself". The New Calendar "itself" is piecemeal through and through. And so yes things like the Apostles' Fast and Kyriopascha are legitimate issues. But the way it was implemented was also piecemeal. We should always strive to maintain unity; to me issues of calendrical inaccuracy take second place to "oneness of mind, brotherly love, and piety". So just having a council is not even enough IMO; rather we should really try our best ti bring everybody together so we have as much agreement as possible. ALL calendars are imperfect, whether Julian, revised Julian, or Gregorian. I'm partial to the Old Calendar only because I think its imperfection was not and is not a decent reason to divide the Church. I just have never heard a good reason why we had to revise the calendar, and given all the discord doing so has caused, I think New Calendarists ought to be able to provide a really good reason why the change was so pressing and necessary.

That said, I'd have no problem losing 13 days if the WHOLE church, in a conciliar, consensus-driven way decided to change to a New Calendar. That way, as you said, we could have a slightly more accurate calendar and still have the Apostles' fast and Kyriopascha, and the liturgical seasons would even correspond to the (northern hemisphere) natural seasons!

BTW, there is absolutely no reason we need to be "in synch" with the calendar of Rome, or even the civil calendar. I'm all for revisions based on science. But I think trying to "fit in" with heretics and pagans is rather lame. If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's. Maybe then in a few hundred years it'll be the Latins who will have to revise their calendar to be in synch with us! Lol
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 05:48:08 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1234 on: August 03, 2010, 06:05:03 PM »

If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's.
We already did that in 1923.  Have you not been reading this thread? Wink  A primer on the debates I've had here with Irish Hermit should show what I mean.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 06:05:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #1235 on: August 03, 2010, 06:18:34 PM »

If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's.
We already did that in 1923.  Have you not been reading this thread? Wink  A primer on the debates I've had here with Irish Hermit should show what I mean.

No you didn't do that. I said put this to rest. If you had done that, why is it the majority of Orthodox Christians use the Old Calendar but some use a different calendar. This thread is evidence that nothing has happened to put things to rest. What I'm saying is I wouldn't begrudge anyone wanting to make another attempt, but to make sure this time everyone actually agrees.

And yes I'm aware the revised Julian is slightly better than Rome's, but in terms if being "in synch" I was referring to this:
Quote
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

I just couldn't care less about being in synch with Rome.

But science has advanced even since 1923 so we should be able to have an even better one than the revised Julian. Let's just make sure we get less of a mess this time if we try again.



« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 06:20:55 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1236 on: August 03, 2010, 07:23:30 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves

If you think about it, it's really the New Calendar(s) that is the point of division, rather than the old, because until recently (100 years ago and beyond) all used the old.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1237 on: August 03, 2010, 07:38:54 PM »

The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.

The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.

Good point.

Then again, I don't know that it really matters whether a calendar can have KyrioPascha or not.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1238 on: August 03, 2010, 08:10:29 PM »


We should always strive to maintain unity; to me issues of calendrical inaccuracy take second place to "oneness of mind, brotherly love, and piety". So just having a council is not even enough IMO; rather we should really try our best ti bring everybody together so we have as much agreement as possible.

Your approach agrees with Saint John Chrysostom's.

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times
would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."   

~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha.  He was willing to accept inexactness rather than have division and schism.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #1239 on: August 03, 2010, 08:43:19 PM »

I guess I am just a little suspicious of the circumstances under which the new calendar was initiated. I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to correct me. But the so called pan orthodox conference/council that came up with it only had about 12 bishops present from the entire world, representing only 3 or 4 Churches, and was headed by the great innovator Meletios of Constantinople. He was the primate of 4 autocephalous churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Athens. To my knowledge he was deposed from all four positions. He had also been exiled from the Church of Jerusalem. There is also many claims that he was a rampant free mason. If by their fruits you will know them...what can possibly be said of this man and the calendar that he introduced?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 08:48:36 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #1240 on: August 03, 2010, 11:08:13 PM »

I guess I am just a little suspicious of the circumstances under which the new calendar was initiated. I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to correct me. But the so called pan orthodox conference/council that came up with it only had about 12 bishops present from the entire world, representing only 3 or 4 Churches, and was headed by the great innovator Meletios of Constantinople. He was the primate of 4 autocephalous churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Athens. To my knowledge he was deposed from all four positions. He had also been exiled from the Church of Jerusalem. There is also many claims that he was a rampant free mason. If by their fruits you will know them...what can possibly be said of this man and the calendar that he introduced?
   Innovative and controversial. Those qualities aren't always bad traits to have. If my wrist watch was off by a couple of hours wouldn't I want to alien it to the correct time of day? This issue is no different. I'm quite sure that one day these new calenders will have to be once again revised. It's obvious that the mathematics and tools that are used to determine what the cosmos does is at flaw here and readjustment is needed to keep things somewhat aliened with what nature is doing.
  The calender issue in Greece was more or less a political issue rather than one of innovation. It was between the Royalists and Venizelists and filtered into the church creating much controversy at a time while the county was in a power struggle. These things take time to pan out I suppose.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1241 on: August 03, 2010, 11:17:14 PM »

I guess I am just a little suspicious of the circumstances under which the new calendar was initiated. I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to correct me. But the so called pan orthodox conference/council that came up with it only had about 12 bishops present from the entire world, representing only 3 or 4 Churches, and was headed by the great innovator Meletios of Constantinople. He was the primate of 4 autocephalous churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Athens. To my knowledge he was deposed from all four positions. He had also been exiled from the Church of Jerusalem. There is also many claims that he was a rampant free mason. If by their fruits you will know them...what can possibly be said of this man and the calendar that he introduced?

The entire Church career of Patriarch Meletios was a catastrophe.  He was run out of see after see, patriarchate after patriarchate.

The 1923 Synod which brought in the calendar change was held in May.  Two weeks later in June a crowd of Christians attacked the Phanar and wanted to railroad the Patriarch out of Istanbul.   Their attempt was not a success, But one month later in July P. Meletios himself resigned the Patriarchate of Constantinople and left Turkey.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #1242 on: August 04, 2010, 12:01:32 AM »

I guess I am just a little suspicious of the circumstances under which the new calendar was initiated. I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to correct me. But the so called pan orthodox conference/council that came up with it only had about 12 bishops present from the entire world, representing only 3 or 4 Churches, and was headed by the great innovator Meletios of Constantinople. He was the primate of 4 autocephalous churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Athens. To my knowledge he was deposed from all four positions. He had also been exiled from the Church of Jerusalem. There is also many claims that he was a rampant free mason. If by their fruits you will know them...what can possibly be said of this man and the calendar that he introduced?
   Innovative and controversial. Those qualities aren't always bad traits to have. If my wrist watch was off by a couple of hours wouldn't I want to alien it to the correct time of day? This issue is no different. I'm quite sure that one day these new calenders will have to be once again revised. It's obvious that the mathematics and tools that are used to determine what the cosmos does is at flaw here and readjustment is needed to keep things somewhat aliened with what nature is doing.
  The calender issue in Greece was more or less a political issue rather than one of innovation. It was between the Royalists and Venizelists and filtered into the church creating much controversy at a time while the county was in a power struggle. These things take time to pan out I suppose.

You would be adjusting your watch as an individual; we as the Church, however, are not individuals, but brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, members of a family, God's family, of one body, the Body of Christ. As such, we make decisions in a conciliar, catholic way. We don't unilaterally change our watch. Instead, we do everything we do "decently and in order" so that we may be one. One with each other, one with God.

Furthermore, the analogy of a watch that is slow or fast and calendrical inaccuracy is a bit misleading. This is an oversimplification, but as I understand things, the watch functions properly by ticking off, so to speak, correctly measured units of "time", which units are basically arbitrarily defined. Thus, a sort of ideal, in vacuo, "perfect" watch/clock, is theoretically possible...theoretically. But all solar-lunar calendars are, on the other hand, inherently flawed, because the ratio of lunar orbit time / solar orbit time is not an integer. (I welcome correction on all this by folks more knowledgeable.) Perhaps this inexorable discrepancy was intended by God to teach us something. I don't know.

In my estimation, the Old Calendar itself is not very defensible, but the Old Calendarist position is highly defensible, so long as it prioritizes unity over other, lesser concerns. Contrariwise, the New Calendar itself is certainly defensible (on scientific grounds, for example), but the New Calendarist position is hardly defensible, so long as it prioritizes other, lesser concerns over unity.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #1243 on: August 04, 2010, 12:21:25 AM »

The Old Calendar totally rocks harder.
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #1244 on: August 04, 2010, 12:23:48 AM »

The Old Calendar totally rocks harder.
That goes without saying.  Grin
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1245 on: August 04, 2010, 03:17:52 AM »

The Old Calendar totally rocks harder.
This is a serious discussion, not a game of one-upmanship.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,066



« Reply #1246 on: August 04, 2010, 06:19:40 AM »

A few points of clarification related to several recent posts; too tired to look for the corroboration, but I know the following to be generally factual.  (It may appear that I'm on both sides of the issue, which to a large extent, I am.  Bottom line being, whether for or against a calendar change, Orthodox tradition calls for conciliar action and consensus.  Due to communications problems and political realities during the 1920's, the traditional process was aborted, and 87 years later, "Some feast, while others fast," within our One Holy Church.)

A significant problem with the implementation of the "Revised Julian Calendar" is that it wasn't a conciliar decision.  Constantinople, the convener of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923, was the only Ancient Patriarchate therein represented.  There was some consultation with Jerusalem during the conference, which indicated that it could not switch calendars due to the arrangements with the other denominations in regard to use of the shrines.  The Church of Russia does not seem to be represented (while the civil war raged, and the Church was so subject to suppression and the persecution of the Bolshevik Communists), although the former Archbishop of the Church of Russia's North American Archdiocese, Alexandr, participated, it doesn't seem he was authorized to represent the Patriarchate of Moscow, though he somewhat acted as if he was so authorized, and was treated as such.  Archbishop Anastasi, of the ROCOR attended (perhaps it was Metropolitan Antony, I can't recall for sure), but left during the conference.  His reason for leaving isn't documented (to my knowledge), but supporters of the separated Old Calendarists (Traditionalists, Resisters) indicate it was due to the innovations being proposed.  Besides Constantinople, the Churches of Serbia, Romania, Greece, and Cyprus were represented.

The Congress did not believe itself to have the competence to implement any of its recommended changes.  It expected either the respective first hierarch or the synods of each of the Holy Orthodox Churches would vote upon the recommendations.

Separated Julian Calendarist supporters claim that a popular upraising of the faithful prompted Patriarch Meletios' resignation from the Ecumenical Throne, but it was Turkey's demand for his resignation at the negotiations of the Treaty of Lausanne, with the contingency that without it, they would continue to demand the removal of the Patriarchate from Turkey, that effected his resignation.  Venizelos himself was therefore forced to agree to this demand and pressured +Meletios to resign.

+Meletios was forced to leave Jerusalem, while he was a priest (or perhaps a deacon).  He was elected and enthroned Bishop of Kition, in the Church of Cyprus.  He was later elected Metropolitan of Athens and Archbishop of Greece after Metropolitan Theoklitos was deposed, upon the election of Venizelos as Prime Minister of Greece.  Later, when the Royalists regained power, in 1920 (+/-), he moved to America, in exile.  He convened the 1st Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in September, 1921, in a move toward securing the recognition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, due to the disputes with the Church of Greece.  In November, 1921, he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch.  The traditionalists provide evidence of this election having been faulty, but he was enthroned.  He soon after initiated the rescission of the "Tomos of 1908" that had authorized the Church of Greece to serve the Greeks abroad, who were not organized ecclesiastically, and then established the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of (N&S) America under the Patriarchate (1922).  The Church of Greece had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, prior to his being elected to the Ecumenical Throne; it was pressured to rescind its action after his Patriarchal election.  After his resignation, he retired first to Mt. Athos, then to a suburb of Athens.  In 1926 (+/-), he was elected Patriarch of Alexandria, with the assistance of the British government.  He may have indicated a desire to be considered for election to the Throne of Jerusalem, but nothing came of that initiative.  He reposed while serving the Alexandrian Throne and is buried in Alexandria.  Separated Julian Calendar supporters assert that on his death bed, while ailing, he exclaimed, "I am suffering because I divided the Church."

While he was Ecumenical Patriarch, the Church of Constantinople did not change calendars.  It does seem that he sent the recommendations of the Pan-Orthodox Congress to the Holy Orthodox Churches, seeking their comments.

On March 1, 1923, the government of Greece converted its civil calendar to the Gregorian, in order to be in line with the West, to which it was aligning.  But it found that the Greek nation was too accustomed to celebrating Greek Independence Day concurrent with the Feast of the Annunciation, as it had in 1821, the year the revolution was declared.  The government put extraordinary pressure upon Chrysostomos, the Archbishop of Athens, who in turn pressured the Patriarchate to make the change; the Church's financial dependence on the state, being a major factor in this matter.  +Chrysostomos had participated in a commission that assessed the calendar situation in 1919.  The commission reported the need for a pan-Orthodox consensus on this matter, especially the agreement of the Ecumenical Throne.  Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII, successor to +Meletios, consented to the pressure of the Church of Greece, and Archbishop Chrysostomos implemented the calendar change on March 10, 1924.  It was essentially, the government of Greece which forced this conversion, without pan-Orthodox consensus.  The Church of Romania accepted the change soon after; in 1926 (+/-), with +Meletios on the Alexandrian Throne, the Patriarchate of Alexandria made the change---it was in the mid-1940's that the Patriarchate of Antioch changed calendars; and the Church of Bulgaria changed in 1968.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 06:41:03 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 #1247 on: August 04, 2010, 08:33:56 AM »

If Buddhists, Shen, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be bothered to have a non-secular religious calendar that varies from the secular, civil calendar, why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #1248 on: August 04, 2010, 10:28:34 AM »

I was going from memory so I was incorrect on him being the Archbishop of Cyprus. However, he did try to get elected to this post but he failed and according to this article http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/meletios.htm , even though still Metropolitan of Kition left for his See and flock for Athens. So he was the head of three autocephalous Churches of which it appears he was deposed from two? and exiled from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem for "activities against the Holy Sepulchre". Nor was the new Calendar the limit of his modernist (can't think of a better description right now) vision for the Orthodox Church. It does appear that the Great Masonic Lodge of Greece has him down as a famous member. So I guess my next question is can an Orthodox Christian be a freemason?

http://www.grandlodge.gr/Famous_gr_home.html
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #1249 on: August 04, 2010, 11:58:43 AM »



You would be adjusting your watch as an individual; we as the Church, however, are not individuals, but brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, members of a family, God's family, of one body, the Body of Christ. As such, we make decisions in a conciliar, catholic way. We don't unilaterally change our watch. Instead, we do everything we do "decently and in order" so that we may be one. One with each other, one with God.

Furthermore, the analogy of a watch that is slow or fast and calendrical inaccuracy is a bit misleading. This is an oversimplification, but as I understand things, the watch functions properly by ticking off, so to speak, correctly measured units of "time", which units are basically arbitrarily defined. Thus, a sort of ideal, in vacuo, "perfect" watch/clock, is theoretically possible...theoretically. But all solar-lunar calendars are, on the other hand, inherently flawed, because the ratio of lunar orbit time / solar orbit time is not an integer. (I welcome correction on all this by folks more knowledgeable.) Perhaps this inexorable discrepancy was intended by God to teach us something. I don't know.

Lets ask ourselves if the cosmos is suppose to conform with our mathematics? It's the best tool we have but still insufficient at a precise measurement. Or rather it's precision is lost over time.

Quote
In my estimation, the Old Calendar itself is not very defensible, but the Old Calendarist position is highly defensible, so long as it prioritizes unity over other, lesser concerns. Contrariwise, the New Calendar itself is certainly defensible (on scientific grounds, for example), but the New Calendarist position is hardly defensible, so long as it prioritizes other, lesser concerns over unity.

The civil calender in Greece was changed first under Eleftherios Venizelos. Simply because of an alliance with America and the west. Unity of orthodoxy had nothing to do with it.  It was more or less a civil issue. The government mandated the change and than strong armed the church into it because the state is and was a major contributor to church funding and because loyalists too Venizelos pushed the reforms. Now don't tell me that you don't believe that bishops and clergy aren't allowed to form partnerships with prevailing governments. It's bin happening since St. Constantine the Great took the throne. The church is spread over many lands and conformity with prevailing governments should be understood and acknowledged as unwanted change through exterior pressures. These issues shouldn't put a chasm between brothers.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #1250 on: August 04, 2010, 12:58:07 PM »

Quote
The government mandated the change and than strong armed the church into it because the state is and was a major contributor to church funding and because loyalists too Venizelos pushed the reforms.

This--the strong-arming of the Church--was the fundamental error in Greek calendar policy that made it possible for Old-Calendarism to arise as a halfway-viable schism.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1251 on: August 04, 2010, 03:22:56 PM »

A few points of clarification related to several recent posts; too tired to look for the corroboration, but I know the following to be generally factual.  (It may appear that I'm on both sides of the issue, which to a large extent, I am.  Bottom line being, whether for or against a calendar change, Orthodox tradition calls for conciliar action and consensus.  Due to communications problems and political realities during the 1920's, the traditional process was aborted, and 87 years later, "Some feast, while others fast," within our One Holy Church.)

A significant problem with the implementation of the "Revised Julian Calendar" is that it wasn't a conciliar decision.  Constantinople, the convener of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923, was the only Ancient Patriarchate therein represented.  There was some consultation with Jerusalem during the conference, which indicated that it could not switch calendars due to the arrangements with the other denominations in regard to use of the shrines.  The Church of Russia does not seem to be represented (while the civil war raged, and the Church was so subject to suppression and the persecution of the Bolshevik Communists), although the former Archbishop of the Church of Russia's North American Archdiocese, Alexandr, participated, it doesn't seem he was authorized to represent the Patriarchate of Moscow, though he somewhat acted as if he was so authorized, and was treated as such.  Archbishop Anastasi, of the ROCOR attended (perhaps it was Metropolitan Antony, I can't recall for sure), but left during the conference.  His reason for leaving isn't documented (to my knowledge), but supporters of the separated Old Calendarists (Traditionalists, Resisters) indicate it was due to the innovations being proposed.  Besides Constantinople, the Churches of Serbia, Romania, Greece, and Cyprus were represented.

The Congress did not believe itself to have the competence to implement any of its recommended changes.  It expected either the respective first hierarch or the synods of each of the Holy Orthodox Churches would vote upon the recommendations.

Separated Julian Calendarist supporters claim that a popular upraising of the faithful prompted Patriarch Meletios' resignation from the Ecumenical Throne, but it was Turkey's demand for his resignation at the negotiations of the Treaty of Lausanne, with the contingency that without it, they would continue to demand the removal of the Patriarchate from Turkey, that effected his resignation.  Venizelos himself was therefore forced to agree to this demand and pressured +Meletios to resign.

+Meletios was forced to leave Jerusalem, while he was a priest (or perhaps a deacon).  He was elected and enthroned Bishop of Kition, in the Church of Cyprus.  He was later elected Metropolitan of Athens and Archbishop of Greece after Metropolitan Theoklitos was deposed, upon the election of Venizelos as Prime Minister of Greece.  Later, when the Royalists regained power, in 1920 (+/-), he moved to America, in exile.  He convened the 1st Clergy-Laity Congress of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in September, 1921, in a move toward securing the recognition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, due to the disputes with the Church of Greece.  In November, 1921, he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch.  The traditionalists provide evidence of this election having been faulty, but he was enthroned.  He soon after initiated the rescission of the "Tomos of 1908" that had authorized the Church of Greece to serve the Greeks abroad, who were not organized ecclesiastically, and then established the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of (N&S) America under the Patriarchate (1922).  The Church of Greece had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, prior to his being elected to the Ecumenical Throne; it was pressured to rescind its action after his Patriarchal election.  After his resignation, he retired first to Mt. Athos, then to a suburb of Athens.  In 1926 (+/-), he was elected Patriarch of Alexandria, with the assistance of the British government.  He may have indicated a desire to be considered for election to the Throne of Jerusalem, but nothing came of that initiative.  He reposed while serving the Alexandrian Throne and is buried in Alexandria.  Separated Julian Calendar supporters assert that on his death bed, while ailing, he exclaimed, "I am suffering because I divided the Church."

While he was Ecumenical Patriarch, the Church of Constantinople did not change calendars.  It does seem that he sent the recommendations of the Pan-Orthodox Congress to the Holy Orthodox Churches, seeking their comments.

On March 1, 1923, the government of Greece converted its civil calendar to the Gregorian, in order to be in line with the West, to which it was aligning.  But it found that the Greek nation was too accustomed to celebrating Greek Independence Day concurrent with the Feast of the Annunciation, as it had in 1821, the year the revolution was declared.  The government put extraordinary pressure upon Chrysostomos, the Archbishop of Athens, who in turn pressured the Patriarchate to make the change; the Church's financial dependence on the state, being a major factor in this matter.  +Chrysostomos had participated in a commission that assessed the calendar situation in 1919.  The commission reported the need for a pan-Orthodox consensus on this matter, especially the agreement of the Ecumenical Throne.  Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII, successor to +Meletios, consented to the pressure of the Church of Greece, and Archbishop Chrysostomos implemented the calendar change on March 10, 1924.  It was essentially, the government of Greece which forced this conversion, without pan-Orthodox consensus.  The Church of Romania accepted the change soon after; in 1926 (+/-), with +Meletios on the Alexandrian Throne, the Patriarchate of Alexandria made the change---it was in the mid-1940's that the Patriarchate of Antioch changed calendars; and the Church of Bulgaria changed in 1968.
Do you have any online sources for this material?  If so, could you please post some links?  Thank you.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #1252 on: August 04, 2010, 03:28:05 PM »

If Buddhists, Shen, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be bothered to have a non-secular religious calendar that varies from the secular, civil calendar, why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Let's do things the way the Buddhists and Muslims do seems an extremely odd argument to me.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1253 on: August 04, 2010, 03:40:47 PM »

If Buddhists, Shen, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be bothered to have a non-secular religious calendar that varies from the secular, civil calendar, why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Let's do things the way the Buddhists and Muslims do seems an extremely odd argument to me.

That's not the substance of his argument, though, as I see it. Some people object to having different calendars for secular and religious uses, and Nigula is simply saying that with many other people, this is not a problem.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #1254 on: August 04, 2010, 04:19:21 PM »

... why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Let's do things the way the Buddhists and Muslims do seems an extremely odd argument to me.
That's not the substance of his argument, though, as I see it.
Not verbatim, you're right.  That's why I wrote it in italics, rather than in quotes.  But the argument is comparable.  If it's good enough for them, then why not for us is a closer paraphrase.  But does that argument generalize at all?  Is there a single other aspect of our faith which we'd try to explain with that reasoning?  And even if there is, the argument gets us nowhere anyway, because the logical next question is simply if calendar X is okay for Protestants, then why is it not good enough for us?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #1255 on: August 04, 2010, 07:12:28 PM »

The Old Calendar totally rocks harder.
This is a serious discussion, not a game of one-upmanship.

Well done. You totally belittled me and one-upped me with that comment.
Logged
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 #1256 on: August 04, 2010, 08:27:02 PM »

... why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Let's do things the way the Buddhists and Muslims do seems an extremely odd argument to me.
That's not the substance of his argument, though, as I see it.
Not verbatim, you're right.  That's why I wrote it in italics, rather than in quotes.  But the argument is comparable.  If it's good enough for them, then why not for us is a closer paraphrase.  But does that argument generalize at all?  Is there a single other aspect of our faith which we'd try to explain with that reasoning?  And even if there is, the argument gets us nowhere anyway, because the logical next question is simply if calendar X is okay for Protestants, then why is it not good enough for us?
Yes you took my post completely out of context. Let me rephrase for you.

Okay, if heretics and Pagans can hold fast to the traditions handed down to them, then why cannot we Christians, who claim to hold fast to traditions of the past, and are called to do the same, be inconvenienced to do the ?
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #1257 on: August 04, 2010, 08:45:43 PM »

If Buddhists, Shen, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be bothered to have a non-secular religious calendar that varies from the secular, civil calendar, why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?

I think it is our Lord who said it best, because we are in the world but not of the world. 
Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #1258 on: August 05, 2010, 09:10:29 PM »

... why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?
Let's do things the way the Buddhists and Muslims do seems an extremely odd argument to me.
That's not the substance of his argument, though, as I see it.
Not verbatim, you're right.  That's why I wrote it in italics, rather than in quotes.  But the argument is comparable.  If it's good enough for them, then why not for us is a closer paraphrase.  But does that argument generalize at all?  Is there a single other aspect of our faith which we'd try to explain with that reasoning?  And even if there is, the argument gets us nowhere anyway, because the logical next question is simply if calendar X is okay for Protestants, then why is it not good enough for us?
Yes you took my post completely out of context. Let me rephrase for you.

Okay, if heretics and Pagans can hold fast to the traditions handed down to them, then why cannot we Christians, who claim to hold fast to traditions of the past, and are called to do the same, be inconvenienced to do the ?

This style of argument, rhetorically comparing the good to the wicked, is 100% legitimate, and was used by the Lord himself when he compared God to earthly fathers, who, though wicked, will not give their children stones to eat.

The point being made is that it is totally possible to be a modern Christian person, in the world not of it, with an exotic calendar.

The fact that Greece "forced" the Church to change is a lame excuse. Alliances/Symphony is fine. Allowing state powers to cause a rupture in the Church is not.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 09:12:29 PM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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 #1259 on: August 05, 2010, 11:37:25 PM »

If Buddhists, Shen, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be bothered to have a non-secular religious calendar that varies from the secular, civil calendar, why is too much of a bother for us to do the same?

I think it is our Lord who said it best, because we are in the world but not of the world. 

Yes, so we do not need to use a calendar of the world.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
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 55 56 »   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 0.215 seconds with 72 queries.