Disunity with the pagans as well, as I quoted. And as the Old Calendarists say is a virtue that must be insisted on:what did they do this year, since the Gregorian Easter fell on the same date as the Julian Pascha (though it would seem the Revised Julian would be April 17 in Chicago, but the moon is observed for that in Jerusalem, so I'm not sure). Make a rule to do it the next week?
I'm not sure how to respond, as the entire paragraph appears to be a list of non sequiturs. I don't think St. Paul was advocating unity with pagans. The rest is a litany of things having nothing to do with anything remotely related to my argument.
You are mixing your apples with your oranges.
I assume you are trying to make that case below.
The weaker were told to get used to uncircumcized Christians, and they told them not to eat food offered to idols.
Yes. The example given was eating the food offered to idols. It sets a principle. I'm unsure as to whether you are claiming the Holy Fathers superseded this principle at some time, the principle of caring for your brother does not exist . . .
They did not expostulate on theological arguments for and against eating the meat. They simply state, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols . . ."
You seem to believe St. Paul is arguing against those who say "no" to meat offered to idols, as they are gnostics. Yet the council clearly agreed with those who opposed eating the meat,
That wasn't an issue brought up. St. James was proactive and addressed.
What??? Which issue "wasn't brought up?" The issue of meat to idols was most certainly brought up, as I quoted the scripture which you have (apparently) read "thousands" of times. I contend that *why* the issue was decided the way it was is discussed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8. You may say that St. Paul's reasoning differs from that of the council. That would not negate the efficacy of St. Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians.
Further, I find it difficult to believe you can divine what was or was not discussed at a council occurring nearly 2000 years ago, at which I assume you will admit you were not personally present. How, precisely, would you be able to speak with such certainty about what was and was not "brought up?"
The gnostics had not yet appeard. So they were not around to agree with.
Nonsense. There were Jewish gnostics that predated Christ's birth.
This decision *clearly* agrees with my interpretation of the events discussed in 1 Corinthians 8 and not yours.
And some decided the Calendar was a dogma and went into schism over it.
Yes. They fell from the Church. Some would not have left the church had others not imposed the NC. That is what I am discussing. You appear here to be setting a straw man claiming I am an OC schismatic.
Unity is explains Acts 15. Unity is why the Church defined a single date for Easter, not to fulfill some scientific curiosity about the precise moment of the equinox. Yes, that was how they determined how to calculate the date, but the *reason* behind choosing *one* calculation was to ensure all Christians were unified on the celebration of the Resurrection. This is clearly in the spirit of 1 Corinthians and Acts 15.
Both of which point out that the idols are not really gods, and that circumcision doesn't save. Accuracy was a firm foundation for the Fathers to build on.
Accuracy? So because idols are not gods (accurate), it therefore follows that Easter must be celebrated on the day you and your mates decide because it is more accurate, regardless of the actual consequences to the Church or your brothers. Is that what you are saying? If it is, I highly recommend you read 1 Corinthians your 1001th time. This time pay attention.
Your jabs at the Russian and Serbian patriarchates are silly and appear mean spirited and lacking in charity.
I haven't taken a single jab at the Russian and Serbian patriarchates, both of which I am fond of. Just their self appointed defenders.
If this is intended to be an ad hominem against me, it's not a very good one. I do not need to "defend" either patriarchates, nor was I "defending" them or Old Calendarist schismatics. What I *am* arguing is that it is charitable to use the OC as it keeps others from falling into sin.
We are in communion with you. It doesn't scandalize us. We are not so weak as to believe we are saved by a calendar. Some in our jurisdictions would be scandalized and would leave. We choose to protect our weaker brothers and sisters with the hope they will mature.
Condemning the Revised calendar as inaccurate, and promoting the Old Calendar as the "Calendar of the Fathers" isn't going to make that happen.
Where have I condemned the revised calendar? This is just another straw man.
Why, may I ask, is your New Calendar so precious as to be more important than preventing schism? What principle leading to your position on the calendar trumps unity and brotherly love?
Why can't you all manage to do things like we do in Antioch. We don't have these calendar problems.
Why can't you answer two simple questions? Why is your New Calendar so precious as to be more important than preventing schism? What principle leading to your position on the calendar trumps unity and brotherly love?
So now that's three questions. Do your best to answer at least one, preferably one of the last two.