OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 25, 2014, 11:46:37 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 57 58 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 219457 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #1440 on: May 10, 2011, 03:02:15 PM »

Why do some Old Calendar Orthodox slander the Gregorian calendar as the "Papist/Popes Calendar" when in reality the decision of Gregory 13the to adopt the new style was not based on theology, but on astronomical advice?  I could see a major argument being made for the Julian calendar based on tradition or the failure of an Ecumenical Council to implement the new style, but not an argument that the Gregorian is "heretical" simply because the Pope of Rome was the first to order its implementation.

Unfortunately I hear this argument being made a lot by Old Calendar Orthodox.  If someone could show my references or statements indicating that adoption of the Gregorian/New Style Calendar indicates acceptance of Papal supremacy or other RC beliefs then please do so?



Remembering, of course, that the "Julian" adjective refers to Gaius Julius Caesar, who in his role as head of the college of pontiffs was responsible for the Roman (i.e., pagan) calendar. His reform took place during his tenure as Dictator of the Roman Republic. Can we really not think of any better guide for the calculations of Christians than the head of the Roman religion?

The Julian calendar was the calendar of the early church simply because it was the calendar of the Roman Empire.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,577


« Reply #1441 on: May 10, 2011, 03:05:06 PM »

Traditionalists might argue that while it was the Julian calendar, that the Church baptized it, and thus it became the ecclesiastical calendar.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 03:05:18 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,195


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1442 on: May 10, 2011, 03:20:28 PM »

@jah77: Well, the Catholics don't say Christ is not the head of the Church. They say that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, i.e. he exercises Christ's authority on earth. Since the sigillion only says we must reject the teaching that the Pope is the head of the Church and not Christ, it clearly follows that we may accept the RC teaching that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.


Good try Jonathan!   Grin


All it has served to do is divide the faithful, create bickering, and water down the church. Can anyone provide a spiritual reason for changing? No, its all politics and back slapping. Considering the times we live in doesn't it make more sense to hold stronger to our traditions rather than change them? Volatility calls for us to buckle down, not revamp. What do I know though.

Yes, the local churches should all return to the Old Calendar.  Pray that we may see the day!     


Thanks. Isn't this fun? We can maybe have a whole thread devoted to this game of making various conciliar decisions mean the opposite of what they were obviously supposed to mean.
What makes the obvious so obvious? And how can we know what a conciliar decision was supposed to mean?
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,990


« Reply #1443 on: May 10, 2011, 03:32:33 PM »

Thanks. Isn't this fun? We can maybe have a whole thread devoted to this game of making various conciliar decisions mean the opposite of what they were obviously supposed to mean.


Well, as mentioned, there are two issues; whether 1) the words “and the New Menologion” were inserted later and were not part of the original (as is claimed by Hieromonk Theoklitos on Mt. Athos), and whether 2) one would fall under condemnation only for adopting *both* the New Paschalian and New Menologion.  There are other issues, but these are what I wanted to bring up here.  Regarding the first issue, the claim that Codex 772 was forged to include the "Menologion" along with the condemnation of the Paschalian, I still only have Hieromonk Theoklitos' word for it.  I'm told by a Greek friend of mine who has looked into this that there is a lot in Greek on the subject of the forgery which corroborates Hieromonk Theoklitos’ claim, but nothing has been translated for me yet and I can’t find anything else on the subject in English.  Regarding your comment on the second issue, the word "and" is not used in the same way in the 6th and 7th anathemas of 1583.  The 6th anathema states "That whosoever says that the Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ,... let every such person be anathematized."  The  words "and not Christ" are provided between commas, as though parenthetically, to emphasize what is implied when a person states that the "Pope is the head of the Church."  By saying the "Pope is the head of the Church", this implies that Christ is not, and so there is no need for one to actually say "Christ is not the head of the Church" in order for the anathema to be applicable. 

In the 7th anathema, the word “and” seems to indicate that the anathema applies to the “newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion” together.   

As far as your assertion about the:

game of making various conciliar decisions mean the opposite of what they were obviously supposed to mean.

Here we touch upon the “obvious meaning” of this conciliar decision.  This conciliar decision was signed by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  If the conciliar decision meant that adopting the New Calendar used by some local Orthodox churches constitutes a violation of the anathema, one would have to wonder why the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Serbia, Moscow, Antioch, etc. did not consider that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision when the latter adopted the New Calendar in 1924.  The rest of the Church obviously did not think that the State Church of Greece violated this decision, so the rest of the Church obviously did not agree with what you think was the obvious meaning or implication of this decision.  The only bishops who thought that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision by shifting the calendar by 13 days were the three renegade bishops in Greece who left the New Calendar State Church of Greece 11 years after the calendar change in 1935, and who then declared the State Church of Greece to be anathematized and graceless on account of having changed the calendar 11 yrs before.  So, should I believe the whole Church that remained in communion despite the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches, or three renegade bishops in Greece, regarding the obvious meaning of this conciliar decision? 

Of the three renegade bishops in Greece that took this position in 1935, one of them (Met Chrysostom of Zakynthos) realized his mistake and quickly abandoned the venture to return to the New Calendar State Church of Greece, and the other two of (Met Chrysostom of Florina and Met Germanus of Demetrias) changed their mind in 1937 after realizing that three bishops did not have the authority to declare an entire local Church (the State Church of Greece) to be outside of the Church, particularly while all other Patriarchates continued to recognize the State Church of Greece.  All throughout the 1940s, Met Chrysostom of Florina, while remaining on the Old Calendar, ridiculed the idea that the State Church of Greece became anathema by shifting the calendar 13 days.  All of this is enough to indicate the obvious inapplicability of these conciliar decisions to the adoption of the New Calendar by some local Orthodox churches in the 20th century. 

Thanks. Isn't this fun? We can maybe have a whole thread devoted to this game of making various conciliar decisions mean the opposite of what they were obviously supposed to mean.


Well, as mentioned, there are two issues; whether 1) the words “and the New Menologion” were inserted later and were not part of the original (as is claimed by Hieromonk Theoklitos on Mt. Athos), and whether 2) one would fall under condemnation only for adopting *both* the New Paschalian and New Menologion.  There are other issues, but these are what I wanted to bring up here.  Regarding the first issue, the claim that Codex 772 was forged to include the "Menologion" along with the condemnation of the Paschalian, I still only have Hieromonk Theoklitos' word for it.  I'm told by a Greek friend of mine who has looked into this that there is a lot in Greek on the subject of the forgery which corroborates Hieromonk Theoklitos’ claim, but nothing has been translated for me yet and I can’t find anything else on the subject in English.  Regarding your comment on the second issue, the word "and" is not used in the same way in the 6th and 7th anathemas of 1583.  The 6th anathema states "That whosoever says that the Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ,... let every such person be anathematized."  The  words "and not Christ" are provided between commas, as though parenthetically, to emphasize what is implied when a person states that the "Pope is the head of the Church."  By saying the "Pope is the head of the Church", this implies that Christ is not, and so there is no need for one to actually say "Christ is not the head of the Church" in order for the anathema to be applicable. 

In the 7th anathema, the word “and” seems to indicate that the anathema applies to the “newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion” together.   

As far as your assertion about the:

game of making various conciliar decisions mean the opposite of what they were obviously supposed to mean.

Here we touch upon the “obvious meaning” of this conciliar decision.  This conciliar decision was signed by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  If the conciliar decision meant that adopting the New Calendar used by some local Orthodox churches constitutes a violation of the anathema, one would have to wonder why the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Serbia, Moscow, Antioch, etc. did not consider that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision when the latter adopted the New Calendar in 1924.  The rest of the Church obviously did not think that the State Church of Greece violated this decision, so the rest of the Church obviously did not agree with what you think was the obvious meaning or implication of this decision.  The only bishops who thought that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision by shifting the calendar by 13 days were the three renegade bishops in Greece who left the New Calendar State Church of Greece 11 years after the calendar change in 1935, and who then declared the State Church of Greece to be anathematized and graceless on account of having changed the calendar 11 yrs before.  So, should I believe the whole Church that remained in communion despite the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches, or three renegade bishops in Greece, regarding the obvious meaning of this conciliar decision? 

Of the three renegade bishops in Greece that took this position in 1935, one of them (Met Chrysostom of Zakynthos) realized his mistake and quickly abandoned the venture to return to the New Calendar State Church of Greece, and the other two of (Met Chrysostom of Florina and Met Germanus of Demetrias) changed their mind in 1937 after realizing that three bishops did not have the authority to declare an entire local Church (the State Church of Greece) to be outside of the Church, particularly while all other Patriarchates continued to recognize the State Church of Greece.  All throughout the 1940s, Met Chrysostom of Florina, while remaining on the Old Calendar, ridiculed the idea that the State Church of Greece became anathema by shifting the calendar 13 days.  All of this is enough to indicate the obvious inapplicability of these conciliar decisions to the adoption of the New Calendar by some local Orthodox churches in the 20th century. 

Interestingly, the Bishop Ambrose of Methone of the Greek Old Calendarist "Synod in Resistance", while not being in communion with the rest of the Church, nevertheless agrees that the 16th century Pan-Orthodox decisions are not applicable here.  According to him:

Quote

“The 16th Century Synods anathematised the introduction of the new Papal Paschalion based on the New, Gregorian Calendar. They did not however specifically anathematise the peculiar hybrid used by the ‘Orthodox’ New-Calendarists who use the Julian Calendar for celebrating Pascha (in order to avoid the clear condemnations of those who change the Paschal calendar), but the New Calendar for the fixed feasts.”

http://sbn-nathanael.livejournal.com/, June 27, 2008.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 03:43:05 PM by jah777 » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1444 on: May 10, 2011, 04:00:28 PM »

Potato potahto.

Quote
Well, as mentioned, there are two issues; whether 1) the words “and the New Menologion” were inserted later and were not part of the original (as is claimed by Hieromonk Theoklitos on Mt. Athos), and whether 2) one would fall under condemnation only for adopting *both* the New Paschalian and New Menologion.  There are other issues, but these are what I wanted to bring up here.  Regarding the first issue, the claim that Codex 772 was forged to include the "Menologion" along with the condemnation of the Paschalian, I still only have Hieromonk Theoklitos' word for it.  I'm told by a Greek friend of mine who has looked into this that there is a lot in Greek on the subject of the forgery which corroborates Hieromonk Theoklitos’ claim, but nothing has been translated for me yet and I can’t find anything else on the subject in English.  Regarding your comment on the second issue, the word "and" is not used in the same way in the 6th and 7th anathemas of 1583.  The 6th anathema states "That whosoever says that the Pope is the head of the Church, and not Christ,... let every such person be anathematized."  The  words "and not Christ" are provided between commas, as though parenthetically, to emphasize what is implied when a person states that the "Pope is the head of the Church."  By saying the "Pope is the head of the Church", this implies that Christ is not, and so there is no need for one to actually say "Christ is not the head of the Church" in order for the anathema to be applicable.

In the 7th anathema, the word “and” seems to indicate that the anathema applies to the “newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion” together.   
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 04:01:30 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1445 on: May 10, 2011, 04:02:57 PM »

Quote
Interestingly, the Bishop Ambrose of Methone of the Greek Old Calendarist "Synod in Resistance", while not being in communion with the rest of the Church, nevertheless agrees that the 16th century Pan-Orthodox decisions are not applicable here.  According to him:

Quote

“The 16th Century Synods anathematised the introduction of the new Papal Paschalion based on the New, Gregorian Calendar. They did not however specifically anathematise the peculiar hybrid used by the ‘Orthodox’ New-Calendarists who use the Julian Calendar for celebrating Pascha (in order to avoid the clear condemnations of those who change the Paschal calendar), but the New Calendar for the fixed feasts.”

http://sbn-nathanael.livejournal.com/, June 27, 2008.

Wow, well I guess we'd all better change our minds. Bishop Ambrose has spoken!
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1446 on: May 10, 2011, 04:04:32 PM »


Quote
Of the three renegade bishops in Greece that took this position in 1935, one of them (Met Chrysostom of Zakynthos) realized his mistake and quickly abandoned the venture to return to the New Calendar State Church of Greece, and the other two of (Met Chrysostom of Florina and Met Germanus of Demetrias) changed their mind in 1937 after realizing that three bishops did not have the authority to declare an entire local Church (the State Church of Greece) to be outside of the Church, particularly while all other Patriarchates continued to recognize the State Church of Greece.  All throughout the 1940s, Met Chrysostom of Florina, while remaining on the Old Calendar, ridiculed the idea that the State Church of Greece became anathema by shifting the calendar 13 days.  All of this is enough to indicate the obvious inapplicability of these conciliar decisions to the adoption of the New Calendar by some local Orthodox churches in the 20th century. 


Hm, but then Met Chrysostoms publicly reaffirmed the 1935 declaration of faith in 1950. That was an interesting theory, though.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1447 on: May 10, 2011, 04:08:31 PM »



Quote
Here we touch upon the “obvious meaning” of this conciliar decision.  This conciliar decision was signed by the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.  If the conciliar decision meant that adopting the New Calendar used by some local Orthodox churches constitutes a violation of the anathema, one would have to wonder why the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Serbia, Moscow, Antioch, etc. did not consider that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision when the latter adopted the New Calendar in 1924.  The rest of the Church obviously did not think that the State Church of Greece violated this decision, so the rest of the Church obviously did not agree with what you think was the obvious meaning or implication of this decision.  The only bishops who thought that the State Church of Greece violated the conciliar decision by shifting the calendar by 13 days were the three renegade bishops in Greece who left the New Calendar State Church of Greece 11 years after the calendar change in 1935, and who then declared the State Church of Greece to be anathematized and graceless on account of having changed the calendar 11 yrs before.  So, should I believe the whole Church that remained in communion despite the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches, or three renegade bishops in Greece, regarding the obvious meaning of this conciliar decision? 


Yeah. I guess it isn't that obvious that celebrating Christmas, Theophany, Dormition, Transfiguration and almost every major saint's day at the same time would be important. I mean, why would anyone care about that?

Oh, and you forgot to include ROCOR in that list. Oops, sorry, I forgot, they broke communion with the new calendarists and entered into communion with us. Never mind.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #1448 on: May 10, 2011, 04:29:13 PM »

Lets just go back to the Old Calendar, both Paschalian and Menologion. The center of our years and lives should be Christ and church tradition not what some scientists deduct from the stars. Who cares if its more 'accurate'? Accurate to what? To who? All it has served to do is divide the faithful, create bickering, and water down the church. Can anyone provide a spiritual reason for changing? No, its all politics and back slapping. Considering the times we live in doesn't it make more sense to hold stronger to our traditions rather than change them? Volatility calls for us to buckle down, not revamp. What do I know though.
You have hit the mail on the head.  Christianity is about our relationship with God.  The ecclesiastical calendar - the Julian Calendar has served the Church - the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church well.  Calendar reform has achieved nothing positive except to separate 25% of Orthodoxy into one or another version of the New Calendar/Gregorian Calendar and 'Revised' Julian Calendar, from the majority of Orthodox Christians who remain faithful to the ecclesiastical calendar.

What was achieved by the New Calendarist reformers in this spiritually?  Nothing at all.  Who was pleased?  Ecumenists in the Roman Church perhaps. The Freemasons and Communists who wanted to see the unity of the Church broken, and who were unable to break the fidelity of the Russian Church to the Julian calendar.

There is no need spiritually to reduce Orthodox Christianity to any calendar revision, because the ecclesiastical calendar is about the things of God.  The secular calendar - the calendar of science has no bearing on our spiritual life.  Secularism will not save our souls.  It will destroy them. 

Patriarch Meletios is said to have been a Freemason. I don't know whether there was any connection between this and Patriarch Meletois IV (Metaxakis) supporting the New Calendar.   How a Mason got to be Ecumenical Patriarch is mind boggling.  How he railroaded the New Calendar is probably the stuff of conspiracy theory. Clearly the patriarch was a political player: Time magazine from 1923 notes:
Quote
Well-bearded Metataxis is one of the picturesque figures of the Levant. Jovial, simple in his fondness for a good story and careful in his selection of cigarettes, the Patriarch is continually confronted with politico-ecclesiastical difficulties which make his exalted position none too secure.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846018,00.html#ixzz1Lz0wfB7d


Quote
Let us pause to reflect on the period of history beginning in 1922, when Patriarch Meletios IV (Metaxakis), an infamous modernist and Mason, ascended to the Patriarchal throne. In 1923 he summoned the so-called "Pan-Orthodox Congress," which introduced the Gregorian calendar and discussed the possibility of a second marriage for priests. Concerning these changes, Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) wrote, "From the moment of that sorrowful Pan-Orthodox Congress of Patriarch Meletios (who gave such a self-proclaimed title to a meeting of four to six bishops and a few priests, without the participation of the other three Patriarchs), from the time of that un-Orthodox Congress, an act of vandalism was wrought against Orthodoxy. Many reforms were proposed, which the Church with terrible, binding curses had forbidden; reforms such as married bishops, a second marriage for clergy and the abolition of fasts. It is true that this un-Orthodox Congress did not succeed in officially promulgating all these impious violations of Church laws, limiting itself to proposing the institution of the New Style calendar and the celebration of all the holy days thirteen days earlier than proscribed, while leaving the Paschalia untouched. This senseless and pointless concession to Masonry and to Papism, which long ago had tried to institute such a change of calendar in their attempt to totally absorb the Unia in Latinism (the main external difference between the Uniates and Latins is the Old Style calendar of the former), violates the Apostolic ordinance of the Sts. Peter and Paul fast, for if the New Style calendar is followed, when Pascha falls on April 21 (O.S.) or later, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul occurs before the Sunday of All Saints, and therefore the preceding Fast is totally eliminated!"
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/quovadis.aspx

 However it was achieved - the New Calendar in whatever name you call it has brought nothing but harm to the Orthodox Church.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,990


« Reply #1449 on: May 10, 2011, 04:30:46 PM »

Hm, but then Met Chrysostoms publicly reaffirmed the 1935 declaration of faith in 1950. That was an interesting theory, though.

Which is strange, because not even two months later, on July 2, 1950, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina made the following statement in the national newspaper “Bradyne” (“Nightly”):

Quote
“The Synodical decision of 1935 does not finally apply until the (calendar issue) is discussed at the future Pan-Orthodox Council.”

A few years later, Met Chrysostom of Florina reposed, refusing to consecrate any other bishops to perpetuate the Old Calendarist schism.  I honestly don’t know why he signed that agreement in 1950, but it contradicted everything he wrote since 1937, and what he said and did after 1950.  


Yeah. I guess it isn't that obvious that celebrating Christmas, Theophany, Dormition, Transfiguration and almost every major saint's day at the same time would be important. I mean, why would anyone care about that?

This is certainly important, I agree, and I do hope and pray that all Orthodox churches will return to the Old Calendar.  Whether something is important or not important, ideal or not ideal, is a different matter than whether a local Church has become automatically anathematized and deprived of grace by changing the calendar by 13 days.


Oh, and you forgot to include ROCOR in that list. Oops, sorry, I forgot, they broke communion with the new calendarists and entered into communion with us. Never mind.

Why would I mention this?  Communion did not last long with the Greek Old Calendarists, and was never formally broken with the New Calendarists.  One of the problems of being in communion with the Greek Old Calendarists from the beginning was that ROCOR did not agree with them regarding the significance of the calendar change.  The two founding first hierarchs of ROCOR, Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Met Anastassy refused to get involved with the Greek Old Calendarists.  Sadly, the Synod decided to get involved in 1969, partly because two renegade bishops from ROCOR had secretly made bishops for the Greek Old Calendarists in direct defiance of Met Anastassy and the rest of the Synod years before.  ROCOR had some good intentions in getting involved, but soon realized their mistake.  Now we see that ROCOR really started to go off course after Met Anastassy, and we are glad to see the return today of the original spirit of ROCOR.    

Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #1450 on: May 10, 2011, 05:11:32 PM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1451 on: May 10, 2011, 06:21:12 PM »

Hm, but then Met Chrysostoms publicly reaffirmed the 1935 declaration of faith in 1950. That was an interesting theory, though.

Which is strange, because not even two months later, on July 2, 1950, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina made the following statement in the national newspaper “Bradyne” (“Nightly”):

Quote
“The Synodical decision of 1935 does not finally apply until the (calendar issue) is discussed at the future Pan-Orthodox Council.”

A few years later, Met Chrysostom of Florina reposed, refusing to consecrate any other bishops to perpetuate the Old Calendarist schism.  I honestly don’t know why he signed that agreement in 1950, but it contradicted everything he wrote since 1937, and what he said and did after 1950.  


Yeah. I guess it isn't that obvious that celebrating Christmas, Theophany, Dormition, Transfiguration and almost every major saint's day at the same time would be important. I mean, why would anyone care about that?

This is certainly important, I agree, and I do hope and pray that all Orthodox churches will return to the Old Calendar.  Whether something is important or not important, ideal or not ideal, is a different matter than whether a local Church has become automatically anathematized and deprived of grace by changing the calendar by 13 days.


Oh, and you forgot to include ROCOR in that list. Oops, sorry, I forgot, they broke communion with the new calendarists and entered into communion with us. Never mind.

Why would I mention this?  Communion did not last long with the Greek Old Calendarists, and was never formally broken with the New Calendarists.  One of the problems of being in communion with the Greek Old Calendarists from the beginning was that ROCOR did not agree with them regarding the significance of the calendar change.  The two founding first hierarchs of ROCOR, Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Met Anastassy refused to get involved with the Greek Old Calendarists.  Sadly, the Synod decided to get involved in 1969, partly because two renegade bishops from ROCOR had secretly made bishops for the Greek Old Calendarists in direct defiance of Met Anastassy and the rest of the Synod years before.  ROCOR had some good intentions in getting involved, but soon realized their mistake.  Now we see that ROCOR really started to go off course after Met Anastassy, and we are glad to see the return today of the original spirit of ROCOR.    



I know quite a few people in both our church and among the Russians that remember things rather differently. I'm sure they're all wrong, though. I mean, history is whatever the official textbooks say it is, right?

I think when Met Chrysostom said the 1935 decision should be confirmed by a later ecumenical decision, he in fact meant the following: the 1935 decision should be confirmed by a later ecumenical decision. The reason I make this bold logical leap is because I didn't see anything in that quotation that said or implied that the 1935 decision was not valid. It seems rather he adopted the same fence-sitting that Met Vitaly did in 1986: the 1983 anathema was not invalid, and yet did not apply to the actual ecumenists. I know, I know, I don't understand it either, but if Met Chrysostom actually meant the 1935 anathema had no authority whatsoever, you'd have thought he would just say so. Of course, you might be holding something back. Please don't keep us in suspense any longer!

Oh, and you're not in communion with Finland, right? Since they follow both the Western Paschalion and the Western Menologion, I thought that might come under your interpretation of the anathema. Unless you have yet another meaning for "and not" up your sleeve. We simply can't wait to hear what you have to say!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 06:26:59 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1452 on: May 10, 2011, 07:33:36 PM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

Well that's where you are wrong. You say it's only the "package" when really the troublesome part is the "contents." If you think the debate is about 13 days you are mistaken. It's about a mindset. It's about what precedence we'll set as a church, as a community. There was a time when most parishes were teaching Arianism. You'd go along with that out of 'holy obedience'? A wise man humbly discerns; he doesn't blindly follow.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #1453 on: May 10, 2011, 11:09:26 PM »

Well that's where you are wrong. You say it's only the "package" when really the troublesome part is the "contents." If you think the debate is about 13 days you are mistaken. It's about a mindset. It's about what precedence we'll set as a church, as a community. There was a time when most parishes were teaching Arianism. You'd go along with that out of 'holy obedience'? A wise man humbly discerns; he doesn't blindly follow.

It is said that at one time, Athanasius and twelve of his followers were the only known Orthodox left.  "Holy obedience" is exactly what the Antichrist is depending on.  He needs an ignorant laity that no longer reads and discerns and blindly follows whatever some "spiritual father" tells them.  Thank God for men like Athanasius, Maximos, St. Job of Pochaev, and men and women like them that gave their "Holy Obedience" to God, and not the Pope or Masons or others who wish to destroy the Church.  You could not be any more correct in your statement above.  It is NOT about the 13 days.  It is about the mindset that drove a wedge into the Church, not for God, but to please man.  There is no justification for this, only "excuses with excuses in sins".
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,990


« Reply #1454 on: May 10, 2011, 11:33:28 PM »

I know quite a few people in both our church and among the Russians that remember things rather differently. I'm sure they're all wrong, though. I mean, history is whatever the official textbooks say it is, right?


I thought history was whatever Vladimir Moss says?  Or, rather, according to Mr. Moss, isn’t history whatever the Hitler venerating, married, white supremacist Bishop Ambrose (von Sievers) says? 

I think when Met Chrysostom said the 1935 decision should be confirmed by a later ecumenical decision, he in fact meant the following: the 1935 decision should be confirmed by a later ecumenical decision. The reason I make this bold logical leap is because I didn't see anything in that quotation that said or implied that the 1935 decision was not valid.

Have you not read Met Chrysostom’s letters from 1937 through the 1940s?  The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies (CTOS) put out a book entitled “Resistance or Exclusion? The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene”, which contains a 1937 letter, a 1942 Pastoral Encyclical, and a 1945 Clarification from Met Chrysostom which clearly express his views on the subject of the 1924 calendar change and the 1935 Declaration that he had signed which declared the New Calendar State Church of Greece to be in schism and deprived of Divine Grace in its Mysteries on account of the adoption of the New Calendar.  In Met Chrysostom’s letters from 1937 through the 1940s, he sharply denounces Bishop Matthew of Vresthene for holding this view, calling it Protestantism and complete ignorance of Orthodox ecclesiology.  For a local church to be cut off from the rest of the Church, the rest of the Church would have to have a Pan-Orthodox Council and call the erring local church to a trial.  If the accused local church is called to trial and refuses to repent of their error, the rest of the Church can declare an anathema against a local church and depose its bishops and clergy.  Without a trial there is no deposition or anathematization, and as long as a hierarch or local church is recognized by the rest of the Church, they remain a part of the Church and are able to serve true and sanctifying mysteries.  This is not my view, but the view of Met Chrysostom of Florina.

Here are some excerpts:

Quote
A Letter by Bishop Chrysostomos, Former Metropolitan of Florina, to His Grace, Bishop Germanos (Varykopoulos) of the Cyclades, in Response to the Latter’s Open Letter of Octover 20, 1937
Nov 9, 1937
 


“Your Grace, as one who holds a doctorate in theology and a university degree, you surely cannot be ignorant of the following elementary and fundamental teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church:  The Divine Apostles founded the Church of Christ on earth, equipping and arming her with the power of God and the Grace of the All-holy Spirit, which is imparted to the Faithful through the Holy Mysteries.  Consequently, they alone have the right to establish or abolish a Church, that is, to declare her heretical or schismatic, when she deviates from the Orthodox Faith, and to render the Grace of Christ and the sanctifying power and energy of her Mysteries invalid or inefficacious.

“This right, that is, to establish or dissolve a Church, was imparted by the Divine Apostles to their disciples, and they imparted it to their successors, and in this way, through succession, this right devolved to the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

“According to this fundamental principle of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a Church only has validity and her Mysteries only have sanctifying Grace and energy, when she is established or recognized by the universal Orthodox Church, and she only loses her validity, and her Mysteries only lose their sanctifying power and energy, when, on account of some wrong belief, she is proclaimed heretical or schismatic by the entire Church, whose authentic opinion and final judgment are expressed by an Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Synod.”
-----
“This being so, everyone and every local Church is Protestantizing or Latinizing when he or it usurps or appropriates the prerogative of a Pan-Orthodox Synod and proceeds, on account of an uncanonical decision by a Church’s ruling Synod, to proclaim the latter schismatic and to pronounce her Mysteries invalid!”
----
“Likewise, Your Grace, you dissemble and utter outright falsehoods when you assert that it is unnecessary and superfluous to convene a Pan-Orthodox Synod or a major local Synod for the authoritative and definitive condemnation of the calendar innovation by the Archbishop [of the New Calendar State Church of Greece], since the Pan-Orthodox Synods of 1583, 1587, and 1593 condemned the Gregorian Calendar.

“And this is so, because you know fully well that the aforementioned Synods condemned the Gregorian Calendar, but that this condemnation concerns the Latins, who implemented this calendar in its entirety, whereas the Archbishop adopted half of it, applying it to the fixed Feasts and retaining the Old Calendar for Pascha and the moveable Feasts, precisely in order to bypass the obstacle of this condemnation.

“In view of this, the innovation of the Archbishop in applying the Gregorian Calendar only to the fixed Feasts and not to Pascha, which was the main reason why the Gregorian Calendar was condemned as conflicting the Seventh Apostolic Canon, is an issue that appears for the first time in the history of the Orthodox Church

“Consequently, the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod is not only not superfluous, as Your Grace declares ex cathedra, like another Pope, but is actually required for the canonical and authoritative adjudication of this issue.

“This is precisely why the other Orthodox Churches which stand on the ground of the traditional calendar have not broken off ecclesiastical communion with the innovating Archbishop [of Athens, who adopted the New Calendar], waiting to express their opinion and judgment until a Pan-Orthodox Synod should convene in the future, which alone has the right to try and condemn him, if he adheres obstinately to his innovation.

“And when Your Grace, like another Pope, characterizes us as heretics, because we have not proclaimed the Church of Greece schismatic and her Mysteries invalid on account of the Archbishop’s innovation….” 


 
Quote
A Pastoral Encyclical by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
January 27, 1942


“According to the Orthodox Faith and understanding, it is the whole Church, as the Treasurer of Grace, that establishes the Churches and endows them with the Mysteries and the Grace of the All-holy Spirit, and not a certain number of individual laity and clergy who, owing to a disagreement on some ecclesiastical issue that is capable of being resolved, have broken away from a recognized Orthodox Church, one that has not been stripped of its ecclesiastical validity or of the Grace of the All-holy Spirit following a trial and sentence pronounced by the entire Church.

“The idea that individuals, be they clergy or laity, are justified in establishing their own Church without the permission and recognition of the entire Church reeks of Protestantism, which does not regard the judgment and the mind of the whole Church as the precise rule and yardstick of Divine truth, but the judgment and the opinion of individuals who, according to the Protestant interpretation of the issue, represent the Grace and power of the Holy Spirit.  For this reason, a whole host of heresies has sprung up in the bosom of the Protestant Church, corresponding in number to the plethora of individual judgments and opinions, which are not guided or illumined by the Church.  The entire Church not ponly legitimates a particular Church as Orthodox, and recognizes it through the Grace of the All-holy Spirit, Whose Divine power, sanctifying nature, and will are expressed and manifested, according to the Orthodox Faith and understanding, through an Ecumenical Synod or a major local Synod, but also imparts an Orthodox character and canonical validity to the leaders of local Churches and ratifies this character and validity.  This is why, as soon as the leader of a local Church is elected, he is obligated to communicate his election and appointment to the other Orthodox Churches, exchanging what are called letters of commendation with them, through which the new leader of the Church receives the anointing of canonicity and authority to head his Church.  This is the order that prevails in the Orthodox Church and this is her age-old practice in matters of Orthodox character and the validity of Churches and their leaders. “
----------
“Never have any of the ancient or modern heretics or heresiarchs been declared schismatics and deposed by Hierarchs who disagreed with them acting in isolation, without a trial and a defense, but by Synods and canonically established ecclesiastical tribunals, before which such people are summoned to defend themselves, and are only deprived of their rights as Hierarchs and of their authority to govern a Church and to celebrate the Mysteries of the Church validly, when, after the issues have been sufficiently clarified by the Synodal tribunal, they refuse to renounce their error, persisting unyieldingly and obstinately in their heretical ideas and erroneous beliefs.”
------
“Thus, from a canonical standpoint, the following basic legal principle and dictum holds good:  ‘No one is to be condemned without a defense.’  Hence, in order for us to declare the innovating Hierarchs schismatics in actuality, as the conventicler Bishops have arbitrarily and uncanonically done, we would have to have all the requisite ecclesiastical and canonical wherewithal for setting up an ecclesiastical tribunal.  This cannot be done, except by a Church that is recognized by all the local Orthodox Churches as autocephalous and endowed with the right validly to condemn those of her clergy who sin, whether in faith or in morals.”
-----
“Let these men [the other Old Calendarist Bishops who insisted that the New Calendar State Church of Greece was schismatic and without grace] tell us:  to which Church do they belong, when, like Popes of the East, they have quite shamelessly appropriated the power of a Synod and have declared the Autocephalous Church of Greece, in whose name they received from us the rank of Bishop by the visitation of the All-holy and consecrating Spirit, to be actually schismatic?

“Since it is well known that none of the local Orthodox Churches that adheres to the Orthodox Calendar of the Fathers has recognized them as constituting an Autocephalous and independent Church, it is self-evident that they do not belong to a recognized Orthodox Church, but to the Church of their followers; and, consequently, they cannot have an Orthodox, but only a Protestant, character, because they derive the authority and the Grace of their ecclesiastical acts, not from the notion of the Church as the Treasurer of Grace, but from their persons and those of their followers, as the Protestants think and believe, who substitute their personal and individual character and authority for the Divine character and nature of the Church.  This, you see, is why the conventicler Bishops of Versthene and the Cyclades cannot have the Grace of Orthodoxy or the right to impart this Grace to those who follow them on this ecclesiastical downward slope of theirs, because they do not belong to the canonical Church, the sole Treasurer of Grace in an Orthodox sense…. f the conventicler Bishops behave as they have been behaving, it is obvious that, according to a precise understanding of the Canons, they are not right-believing but Protestantizers and that, under the pretext of a supposedly pure Orthodoxy and without fear of God, they are dashing themselves and their followers down into the soul-destroying abyss of wrong belief and spiritual perdition.”


Quote
A Clarification by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of His Pastoral Encyclical
Athens, January 18, 1945


“According to the fundamental principles of Orthodox ecclesiastical Canon Law, and according to the spirit of the dogmatic theology and the age-old practice of the Orthodox Church, the character of the Church, as a Divine and self-subsistent institution, is in principle different from, and independent of, that of the persons of the Bishops who represent and administer her.  For this reason, any ideas and opinions of the Bishops that may be erroneous from an Orthodox standpoint, insofar as they are not judged or condemned by a canonical and valid Synod as un-Orthodox and false, do not affect the Orthodox character of the Church to which the bishops belong.  For example, when one or more of the Bishops who belong to a ruling Church introduce into her an innovation that is at odds with the healthy and pure spirit of the Orthodox character of the Church, the sinful and anti-Orthodox character of this innovation weights on the innovating Bishops, as individuals, and renders them culpable before God and the entire Church; but it does not affect or diminish the Orthodox authority of the Church which they govern.  The Orthodox character of the Church is affected and her Divine authority is diminished only when the Bishops who govern her, and who have introduced the innovation, are tried by a valid Synod – either a major local Synod or an Ecumenical Synod – for wrong belief and an anti-Orthodox innovation, and, after being sufficiently enlightened, are unwilling to conform to the recommendations of the Synod or to reject t their wrong belief, adhering obstinately and unyieldingly thereto, in which case they are deposed by the Synod and excised from the universal body of the Orthodox Church.  We then read in Church the decree of deposition and excision whereby, together with the heretics, both the innovating Bishops and all the clergy in communion with them, as well as all of the laity who accept prayers and blessings from them, are anathematized and excommunicated. “
--------
“The demagogy and the opportunism of the contrary opinion lie, on the one hand, in the hope of attracting other converts to the Old Calendar, brandishing the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists as a bugbear, and, on the other hand, in keeping these followers, and especially the gullible and the lukewarm, in our sacred struggle.  But the use of such demagogic and illegitimate means in order to hunt after followers for our Orthodox faction, while it may be permitted by the Latin Church, which has as an ethical maxim the Jesuit dictum, ‘The end sanctifies the means,’ is not permitted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which always teaches aright the word of truth.”

I would be surprised if you didn’t already have this work, in which case I would recommend that you read again these letters of Met Chrysostom, one of the three bishops from the Church of Greece who initially broke communion with the Church of Greece in 1935 and declared the latter to be in schism and without grace.  It is very obvious that he renounced the 1935 declaration, that he believed (like Bishop Ambrose of Methone) that the 16th century anathemas are not applicable to the case of adopting the New Calendar while retaining the old Paschalian, and that no local Church could be considered in schism and without grace without being specifically declared so by a Pan-Orthodox Synod of living bishops.  These words of Metropolitan Chrysostom agree exactly with what I have been saying on this subject.  The only thing I disagree with in his letters is that he justifies breaking communion with the New Calendar State Church of Greece by citing the 15th canon of the First-Second Council which allows one to cease commemorating one’s bishop or chief hierarch only for publically preaching “some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers”.  According to Met Chrysostom’s own words quoted above, the 16th century anathemas aren’t directly applicable to the adoption of the New Calendar since the Paschalian was left intact, so how can the adoption of the New Calendar be considered a “heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers”? 


It seems rather he adopted the same fence-sitting that Met Vitaly did in 1986: the 1983 anathema was not invalid, and yet did not apply to the actual ecumenists. I know, I know, I don't understand it either, but if Met Chrysostom actually meant the 1935 anathema had no authority whatsoever, you'd have thought he would just say so. Of course, you might be holding something back. Please don't keep us in suspense any longer!

You are right that you do not understand Orthodox ecclesiology, but Met Chrysostom of Florina did, and Met Vitaly expressed the same understanding.  Past and general anathemas do not take on a life of their own, automatically deposing some hierarchs and depriving others of divine grace.  One can only be deposed or actually anathematized if they are accused of wrong doing, refuse to repent, and then are actually deposed or anathematized by a living Synod that has the valid authority to judge the matter. 


Oh, and you're not in communion with Finland, right? Since they follow both the Western Paschalion and the Western Menologion, I thought that might come under your interpretation of the anathema. Unless you have yet another meaning for "and not" up your sleeve. We simply can't wait to hear what you have to say!

Yes, Finland is recognized by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as being part of the Church and possessing sanctifying grace unless and until declared otherwise by the rest of the Church in a Pan-Orthodox Council.

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,577


« Reply #1455 on: May 10, 2011, 11:34:29 PM »

This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

What does it mean to be fundamentalist? Does it mean officially proclaiming that the opposing side is without grace? Then the new calendarists were fundamentalist before the old calendarists. Does it mean treating the opposing side with disrespect? Then perhaps both sides are at fault. Certainly both sides slung mud and made outlandish comments. However, the authorities were on the side of the new calendarists (one might even argue that the authorities were a major faction pushing for the implementation of the new calendar). Therefore, when communion was trampled, when icons were torn down and confiscated, when churches were bulldozed, when priests were forcibly shaved and humiliated, when bishops were exiled and confined to monasteries, when people were denied the right to marry, when children were declared illegitimate and therefore without inheritance rights, and when various other such things happened, it was the old calendarists who were suffering these things.

Does this prove that the old calendarists were right in their cause? No. And can we blame all new calendarists for such persecution? Of course not. Yet if the old calendarists reacted badly, or militantly, or perhaps if you favor them you would say instead steadfastly, one can understand that. Fundamentalist is used here as a pejorative, but I think, with the old calendarists, a more literal definition fits: those who hold faithfully to the fundamentals as they see them. I don't know that the old calendarists are right about ecumenism being a pan-heresy, or saying that this or that bishop has publically preached heresy, or that the calendar change was a schismatic act. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But I don't think the movement as a whole, over several generations and springing up in several places, can be labeled fundamentalist, if by that you mean to demean them.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1456 on: May 11, 2011, 01:14:43 AM »

Christos Voskrese!
Lets just go back to the Old Calendar, both Paschalian and Menologion. The center of our years and lives should be Christ and church tradition not what some scientists deduct from the stars. Who cares if its more 'accurate'? Accurate to what? To who? All it has served to do is divide the faithful, create bickering, and water down the church. Can anyone provide a spiritual reason for changing? No, its all politics and back slapping. Considering the times we live in doesn't it make more sense to hold stronger to our traditions rather than change them? Volatility calls for us to buckle down, not revamp. What do I know though.
You have hit the mail on the head.

On the side, and bent the nail.
Christianity is about our relationship with God.  The ecclesiastical calendar - the Julian Calendar has served the Church - the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church well.  Calendar reform has achieved nothing positive except to separate 25% of Orthodoxy into one or another version of the New Calendar/Gregorian Calendar and 'Revised' Julian Calendar, from the majority of Orthodox Christians who remain faithful to the ecclesiastical calendar.

What was achieved by the New Calendarist reformers in this spiritually?  Nothing at all.  Who was pleased?  Ecumenists in the Roman Church perhaps. The Freemasons and Communists who wanted to see the unity of the Church broken, and who were unable to break the fidelity of the Russian Church to the Julian calendar.
Ah, there you go again, with those unsubstantiated claims.

There is no need spiritually to reduce Orthodox Christianity to any calendar revision, because the ecclesiastical calendar is about the things of God.  The secular calendar - the calendar of science has no bearing on our spiritual life.
The Julian (as in Caesar, as in "render unto...") calendar is a secular calendar.  The fact that Julius Caesar issued it as pontifex maximus, head of the Roman pagan state cult, doesn't change that, at least for our purposes.

 
Secularism will not save our souls.  It will destroy them.
Then seek out the Quartedecimans, and join them.

Patriarch Meletios is said to have been a Freemason.
Was Milutin Milanković?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 01:16:20 AM 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
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1457 on: May 11, 2011, 11:02:51 AM »

Quote
Quote from: SubdeaconDavid on Yesterday at 01:29:13 PM

There is no need spiritually to reduce Orthodox Christianity to any calendar revision, because the ecclesiastical calendar is about the things of God.  The secular calendar - the calendar of science has no bearing on our spiritual life.

The Julian (as in Caesar, as in "render unto...") calendar is a secular calendar.  The fact that Julius Caesar issued it as pontifex maximus, head of the Roman pagan state cult, doesn't change that, at least for our purposes.

Why, then, change from one head of Rome's decree to another? I'm simple minded so I say if it's not broke why fix it? So that the Pope pats EO's on the back? So we can be more like people that we're not like? Hardly seems worth it.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #1458 on: May 11, 2011, 11:06:36 AM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

AMEN, my thoughts exactly. This entire discussion merits a big yawn...nothing new, nothing persuasive from the schismatics.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 11:07:02 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #1459 on: May 11, 2011, 12:31:36 PM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

Well that's where you are wrong. You say it's only the "package" when really the troublesome part is the "contents." If you think the debate is about 13 days you are mistaken. It's about a mindset. It's about what precedence we'll set as a church, as a community. There was a time when most parishes were teaching Arianism. You'd go along with that out of 'holy obedience'? A wise man humbly discerns; he doesn't blindly follow.

Are you suggesting that those following the Gregorian calendar are in an analogous situation to the followers of Arius? Surely not! The Julian calendar assumes the Earth is the center of our solar system, and, by extension, the center of the universe. Both assumptions are incorrect--demonstrably so. You say "a wise man humbly discerns." Admitting when one is mistaken is the heart of humble discernment. So I suppose we might ask what we want our calendar to do, and then we might ask if the Julian calendar does that. And we might honestly concede that it is astronomically inaccurate, whatever other virtues it may possess.

Where the argument becomes troubling, in my view, is the point at which some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar.

My comment about container vs. contents was meant to underline that the meaning of Pascha is more important than how the date is calculated. The expression about the devil being in the details can be taken several ways. Distracting us with endless arguments about things that are at best of secondary importance is one of his favorite ways of keeping us from focusing on Christ's true teachings. Julian vs. Gregorian; leavened vs. unleavened; etc., etc., etc. Christ made this point over and over in His debates with the fundamentalists of His own day. The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1460 on: May 11, 2011, 12:50:07 PM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

Well that's where you are wrong. You say it's only the "package" when really the troublesome part is the "contents." If you think the debate is about 13 days you are mistaken. It's about a mindset. It's about what precedence we'll set as a church, as a community. There was a time when most parishes were teaching Arianism. You'd go along with that out of 'holy obedience'? A wise man humbly discerns; he doesn't blindly follow.

Are you suggesting that those following the Gregorian calendar are in an analogous situation to the followers of Arius? Surely not! The Julian calendar assumes the Earth is the center of our solar system, and, by extension, the center of the universe. Both assumptions are incorrect--demonstrably so. You say "a wise man humbly discerns." Admitting when one is mistaken is the heart of humble discernment. So I suppose we might ask what we want our calendar to do, and then we might ask if the Julian calendar does that. And we might honestly concede that it is astronomically inaccurate, whatever other virtues it may possess.

Where the argument becomes troubling, in my view, is the point at which some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar.

My comment about container vs. contents was meant to underline that the meaning of Pascha is more important than how the date is calculated. The expression about the devil being in the details can be taken several ways. Distracting us with endless arguments about things that are at best of secondary importance is one of his favorite ways of keeping us from focusing on Christ's true teachings. Julian vs. Gregorian; leavened vs. unleavened; etc., etc., etc. Christ made this point over and over in His debates with the fundamentalists of His own day. The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

I think the calendar issue, when compounded with what many see as heretical ecumenism, is very similar to the situation with Arius in that you have a large portion of the church that goes along with it.

Why is astronomical accuracy the ideal? Why does that beat out the other virtues even you say it possesses? When has Orthodoxy placed up most value on science? You see it as correcting a wrong. I see it as trying to fix something that's not broken to garner favor by those who I don't think we need favor from.

Yes the Devil distracts us in many ways but that could be applied to virtually any argument. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. Otherwise let's change the cannon too since Jesus never explicitly spelled that out. For me and many others, the calendar was that line.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1461 on: May 11, 2011, 03:13:05 PM »

Christ is risen!
Why is astronomical accuracy the ideal?

Because the Fathers said so.
Why does that beat out the other virtues even you say it possesses?
Because it is the basis of them.
When has Orthodoxy placed up most value on science?
When we set up and implemented the Paschalion of the Council of Nicea I.
You see it as correcting a wrong. I see it as trying to fix something that's not broken to garner favor by those who I don't think we need favor from.
Then you are seeing things, like hallucinations.

Yes the Devil distracts us in many ways but that could be applied to virtually any argument. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. Otherwise let's change the cannon too since Jesus never explicitly spelled that out. For me and many others, the calendar was that line.
What "cannon" are you talking about?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 03:13:54 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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,612



« Reply #1462 on: May 11, 2011, 05:31:55 PM »

^I don't know, but Jimmy Buffet had similar concerns:  "the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder..." 
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,967


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #1463 on: May 11, 2011, 05:35:18 PM »

^I don't know, but Jimmy Buffet had similar concerns:  "the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder..."  

^ Mehmet the 2nd used them on us and that didn't turn out so well for us......
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 05:35:36 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,612



« Reply #1464 on: May 11, 2011, 05:39:35 PM »

^I don't know, but Jimmy Buffet had similar concerns:  "the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder..."  
^ Mehmet the 2nd used them on us and that didn't turn out so well for us......

Good point.  And who really knows how to load a cannon anymore?   I don't advocate their removal, they make a good addition to Fort De Soto for example.   Wink
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #1465 on: May 11, 2011, 05:55:42 PM »

^I don't know, but Jimmy Buffet had similar concerns:  "the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder..." 
^ Mehmet the 2nd used them on us and that didn't turn out so well for us......

Good point.  And who really knows how to load a cannon anymore?   I don't advocate their removal, they make a good addition to Fort De Soto for example.   Wink

There are plenty of us that can still load them.  Get me a battery of 12 pounder Napoleons and I will blast the heretics into the next galaxy.  If they are brass canon, we will celebrate afterward with a performance of the 1812 Overature.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1466 on: May 11, 2011, 06:17:02 PM »

^I don't know, but Jimmy Buffet had similar concerns:  "the cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder..." 
^ Mehmet the 2nd used them on us and that didn't turn out so well for us......

Good point.  And who really knows how to load a cannon anymore?   I don't advocate their removal, they make a good addition to Fort De Soto for example.   Wink

There are plenty of us that can still load them.  Get me a battery of 12 pounder Napoleons and I will blast the heretics into the next galaxy.  If they are brass canon, we will celebrate afterward with a performance of the 1812 Overature.

I once heard that played with a small artillery detachment standing by. It was kind of neat.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1467 on: May 11, 2011, 06:50:52 PM »

Christ is risen!
Why is astronomical accuracy the ideal?

Because the Fathers said so.
Why does that beat out the other virtues even you say it possesses?
Because it is the basis of them.
When has Orthodoxy placed up most value on science?
When we set up and implemented the Paschalion of the Council of Nicea I.
You see it as correcting a wrong. I see it as trying to fix something that's not broken to garner favor by those who I don't think we need favor from.
Then you are seeing things, like hallucinations.

Yes the Devil distracts us in many ways but that could be applied to virtually any argument. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. Otherwise let's change the cannon too since Jesus never explicitly spelled that out. For me and many others, the calendar was that line.
What "cannon" are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Bible, the canon. Sorry I missed the spelling mistake in my last post.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #1468 on: May 11, 2011, 07:03:53 PM »

Christ is risen!
Why is astronomical accuracy the ideal?

Because the Fathers said so.
Why does that beat out the other virtues even you say it possesses?
Because it is the basis of them.
When has Orthodoxy placed up most value on science?
When we set up and implemented the Paschalion of the Council of Nicea I.
You see it as correcting a wrong. I see it as trying to fix something that's not broken to garner favor by those who I don't think we need favor from.
Then you are seeing things, like hallucinations.

Yes the Devil distracts us in many ways but that could be applied to virtually any argument. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. Otherwise let's change the cannon too since Jesus never explicitly spelled that out. For me and many others, the calendar was that line.
What "cannon" are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Bible, the canon. Sorry I missed the spelling mistake in my last post.

Like the OT canon? I'm not talking about the Protestant issue with the OT, but disagreement among Orthodox on things like 4 Maccabees that some include and others don't.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1469 on: May 11, 2011, 07:12:47 PM »

Christ is risen!
Why is astronomical accuracy the ideal?

Because the Fathers said so.
Why does that beat out the other virtues even you say it possesses?
Because it is the basis of them.
When has Orthodoxy placed up most value on science?
When we set up and implemented the Paschalion of the Council of Nicea I.
You see it as correcting a wrong. I see it as trying to fix something that's not broken to garner favor by those who I don't think we need favor from.
Then you are seeing things, like hallucinations.

Yes the Devil distracts us in many ways but that could be applied to virtually any argument. At some point you must draw a line in the sand. Otherwise let's change the cannon too since Jesus never explicitly spelled that out. For me and many others, the calendar was that line.
What "cannon" are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Bible, the canon. Sorry I missed the spelling mistake in my last post.
Ah, that canon.  Still a stretch: Jesus used the Quartedecimans calendar.
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
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1470 on: May 11, 2011, 08:42:14 PM »

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1471 on: May 11, 2011, 08:43:45 PM »

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #1472 on: May 11, 2011, 08:45:40 PM »

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?

Well and how long did it even take those heterodox to accept it. Protestants in America even met it with strong opposition at first.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #1473 on: May 11, 2011, 08:50:59 PM »

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?

Ah, but you see, since the new calendarists use the Revised Julian calendar, any apparent coincidence between their celebrations and the Western churches is purely illusory. If they used the Revised Gregorian calendar, well, that would be something else. This is why it's so important to give everything the right label. Otherwise, people might actually draw their own conclusions from the facts and not simply regurgitate what has been fed to them by spoon.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #1474 on: May 11, 2011, 09:02:56 PM »

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?

I have not seen any.  Perhaps if I had seen any good fruit, I would not be as opposed to the new calendar.  As to this "Revised Julian Calendar" rot, it is more lies by the devil to confuse the people.  That is why I don't use the terms "Julian" and "Gregorian".  There is the Church Calendar, and there is the innovation of the Greeks known as the New Calendar.  Calling the New Calendar the "Revised Julian" comes from the same marketing dishonesty as calling a product "new and improved" when all you did was make the box smaller and charge more for it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1475 on: May 11, 2011, 10:47:58 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?
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
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1476 on: May 11, 2011, 10:56:08 PM »

Christ is risen!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.
But He did address the calendar issue "The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."

You can think

that is what the record says.
the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.
That was as true of three centuries after Nicea I.
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
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1477 on: May 11, 2011, 10:59:34 PM »

Christ is risen!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?

Ah, but you see, since the new calendarists use the Revised Julian calendar, any apparent coincidence between their celebrations and the Western churches is purely illusory. If they used the Revised Gregorian calendar, well, that would be something else.
And what did the Orthodox do for the 6+centuries before the Gregory calendar, all that celebrating with heretics? Shocked
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
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1478 on: May 11, 2011, 11:00:33 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?

thats not really an answer...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 11:01:21 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1479 on: May 11, 2011, 11:13:01 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?

thats not really an answer...
Then why did you bring it up?
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
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1480 on: May 12, 2011, 12:19:22 AM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?

thats not really an answer...
Then why did you bring it up?

your post makes no sense as a response to mine ... if switching to the New Calendar has brought no good fruit you can just say that
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 12:19:59 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 38,162



« Reply #1481 on: May 12, 2011, 12:36:47 AM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?

thats not really an answer...
Then why did you bring it up?

your post makes no sense as a response to mine ... if switching to the New Calendar has brought no good fruit you can just say that
and if clinging to the Old Calendar has brought no good fruit, you can just say that.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,195


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1482 on: May 12, 2011, 01:00:56 AM »

Christos Voskrese!
I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. I was responding to Hermogenes saying "some contributors seem to imply that the Julian calendar is part of Christ's teaching; that right after He told us to "Love one another as I have loved you" He told us that His Father prefers the Julian calendar." There are plenty of things that are central to the church that Christ didn't address directly.

You can think the calendar was changed to be more scientifically correct and that there were no other motives besides that; I just don't. For all the talk of it uniting Christians I fail to see that unity.

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?
Any good fruit from hanging onto the Old Calendar?

thats not really an answer...
Then why did you bring it up?

your post makes no sense as a response to mine ... if switching to the New Calendar has brought no good fruit you can just say that
Your post doesn't make much sense, either.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #1483 on: May 12, 2011, 01:47:22 AM »

NONE of this calendar stuff is absolute. We simply agree on a way to do things. I have always belonged to the same Orthodox jurisdiction, and I celebrate the feasts when my church tells me to celebrate them. If they decided to change that, unless the change they made was completely outlandish, impossible, and/or contrary to Scripture, I would most likely adhere to their decision--out of holy obedience, if for no other reason. Surely the meaning of a feast is more important than how the date was calculated? This is where I lose patience with fundamentalists of all stripes, when they obsess about the package to the extent of almost completely ignoring the contents.

AMEN, my thoughts exactly. This entire discussion merits a big yawn...nothing new, nothing persuasive from the schismatics.
   All of Orthodoxy was 'Old' Calendar until modernists made their changes. Calling canonical Orthodox schismatic is offensive, and not related to any arguments about the merits of the Calendar.  If you are bored by this don't participate.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 01:58:28 AM by SubdeaconDavid » Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #1484 on: May 12, 2011, 01:52:25 AM »

yah, so some Orthodox celebrate the feasts with heterodox Christians, but now the Orthodox don't all celebrate together! what an absurdity!

has there been any good fruit from the New Calendar?

I have not seen any.  Perhaps if I had seen any good fruit, I would not be as opposed to the new calendar.  As to this "Revised Julian Calendar" rot, it is more lies by the devil to confuse the people.  That is why I don't use the terms "Julian" and "Gregorian".  There is the Church Calendar, and there is the innovation of the Greeks known as the New Calendar.  Calling the New Calendar the "Revised Julian" comes from the same marketing dishonesty as calling a product "new and improved" when all you did was make the box smaller and charge more for it.
Quite right.  "Revised Julian" is a disingenuous attempt to make the New Calendar palatable to Orthodox Christians who follow the Church Calendar.  Lets remember.  One day you were all following the 'Julian' Church Calendar and through the stroke of a pen or two, your New Calendarist hierarchs wiped 13 days of saints from commemoration and made the devil and the heterodox rejoice.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort nobody cares 
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 57 58 »   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 0.228 seconds with 72 queries.