OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 02:03:29 AM *
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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 204686 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,482



« Reply #1800 on: January 05, 2012, 05:23:07 PM »

I'm planning to attend a local old calendar church on Saturday for their Nativity Liturgy. I do not plan to receive Communion because I don't know the priest's expectations; though I do know that regular frequent communion is not their custom. I do commune regularly in my own church.

So why do I go? In my city of over 50000 it's the only Orthodox church. My own parish is in the next town about 20 km/ 12 mi away. I like to have at least a bit of an acquaintance with Orthodox Christians closer to home. I don't worship there regularly because their bishop insists on an almost exclusive use of the immigrant language. Unfortunately, the elderly congregation rarely exceeds a dozen. I'm hoping that because it's a Saturday, that other family members (no school, no work) will be persuaded to accompany their parents and grandparents.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1801 on: January 05, 2012, 11:35:34 PM »

I'm planning to attend a local old calendar church on Saturday for their Nativity Liturgy. I do not plan to receive Communion because I don't know the priest's expectations; though I do know that regular frequent communion is not their custom. I do commune regularly in my own church.

So why do I go? In my city of over 50000 it's the only Orthodox church. My own parish is in the next town about 20 km/ 12 mi away. I like to have at least a bit of an acquaintance with Orthodox Christians closer to home. I don't worship there regularly because their bishop insists on an almost exclusive use of the immigrant language. Unfortunately, the elderly congregation rarely exceeds a dozen. I'm hoping that because it's a Saturday, that other family members (no school, no work) will be persuaded to accompany their parents and grandparents.

Yes, the old "let the parish die peacefully" approach.  With only 12 members how do they have a priest?  Is he retired or is a rotation? 
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #1802 on: January 06, 2012, 09:09:36 AM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,482



« Reply #1803 on: January 06, 2012, 11:26:47 AM »

I'm planning to attend a local old calendar church on Saturday for their Nativity Liturgy. I do not plan to receive Communion because I don't know the priest's expectations; though I do know that regular frequent communion is not their custom. I do commune regularly in my own church.

So why do I go? In my city of over 50000 it's the only Orthodox church. My own parish is in the next town about 20 km/ 12 mi away. I like to have at least a bit of an acquaintance with Orthodox Christians closer to home. I don't worship there regularly because their bishop insists on an almost exclusive use of the immigrant language. Unfortunately, the elderly congregation rarely exceeds a dozen. I'm hoping that because it's a Saturday, that other family members (no school, no work) will be persuaded to accompany their parents and grandparents.

Yes, the old "let the parish die peacefully" approach.  With only 12 members how do they have a priest?  Is he retired or is a rotation? 
How many members on the books they have, I don't know. I've just seen the numbers that show up on my occasional visits there - (Julian) Nativity, and a couple of times when my own small - but alive - parish didn't have a service (diocesan gathering, our rental space unavailable, etc.). The priest looks after at least one other congregation and judging from his age, would suspect that he has pension income from some source.

What's really sad is that the cornerstone on the church in question reads 1969. It took just one generation. That's a lesson for all of us.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1804 on: January 06, 2012, 12:19:35 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 289


It is later than we think.


« Reply #1805 on: January 06, 2012, 01:26:22 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').


The fathers who established the calendar assigned the vernal equinox to a fixed date. The New Calendar maintains the traditional Paschalion but changes the fixed calendar, so the whole Typicon is pointless. The date of Pascha is going to continue to slip forward into the fixed year, so it will eventually coincide with the Dormition, and even Nativity. Yeah it's a long time off, but that is going to be the result. But of course, it's irrevelant because it's an 'arbitrary distinction'.



Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1806 on: January 06, 2012, 02:04:46 PM »

The fathers who established the calendar assigned the vernal equinox to a fixed date.

This is a false statement.
In the first place there are no "fathers who established the calendar".

In the second place, the Fathers who established the Paschalion at Nicea and in the centuries following did not assign the vernal equinox to a fixed date. If they had, then we would be using the 'official date' of the vernal equinox on the Julian calendar--which is 3/25. The Fathers at Nicea said 'vernal equinox'--without reference to any calendar. Then those Fathers went home and actually used the vernal equinox (which happened to be 3/21 on the Julian calendar in the 4th century--*if* you were in Rome or Constantinople. Alexandria wasn't using the Julian calendar at the time so it was a whole different date there). When they attempted to systemize the Paschalion--so that Pascha could be calculated by someone without access to a center of astronomical learning and/or predicted in the future, they didn't just pin it to a fixed date (which would have been the simple answer). We have their texts on the calculation of Pascha and the debates are all about accuracy--which Paschalion is going keep us in line with the vernal equinox for the longest period of time. Rome switched Paschalion's 3 times between Nicea and the 8th century--in each case, explicitly because they were convinced the new Paschalion was more accurate than the previous one. "accurate" being defined as relationship to the actual vernal equinox.

There are good reasons/arguments for continued use of the current Paschalion--fidelity to the example of the Fathers who established it is not one of them.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 02:06:19 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #1807 on: January 06, 2012, 04:06:02 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').

Again, you miss the point completely.  The cycle of services has little to do with actual calendar dates.  From the New Year (Sept. 1) till the next new year, the daily, weekly and monthly cycles take you through most of the Scriptures, and a fascinating array of Saints and Feasts that spell out the entire history of Salvation.  There is no problem with communing twice for a given Feast because it has nothing to do with communing (which takes place outside of time).  It is that when you are celebrating a Feast for the second time, you are neglecting the appointed celebration for that day.  The ultimate beauty is when the whole Church, in Heaven and on Earth, celebrate each wonderful day together in unity.  It is difficult enough given the rich array of Saints, both Universal and Local.  But when the evil one and his Papist and Massonic lap dogs broke the unity that did exist, he also caused a loss of understanding of the Holiness of the cycle.  Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1808 on: January 06, 2012, 04:56:10 PM »

IMO staying at home while all the Orthodox from town go to the Church because there is no Old-style parish is more evilish and breaks unity more.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1809 on: January 06, 2012, 11:52:34 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').

Again, you miss the point completely.  The cycle of services has little to do with actual calendar dates.  From the New Year (Sept. 1) till the next new year, the daily, weekly and monthly cycles take you through most of the Scriptures, and a fascinating array of Saints and Feasts that spell out the entire history of Salvation.  There is no problem with communing twice for a given Feast because it has nothing to do with communing (which takes place outside of time).  It is that when you are celebrating a Feast for the second time, you are neglecting the appointed celebration for that day.  The ultimate beauty is when the whole Church, in Heaven and on Earth, celebrate each wonderful day together in unity.  It is difficult enough given the rich array of Saints, both Universal and Local.  But when the evil one and his Papist and Massonic lap dogs broke the unity that did exist, he also caused a loss of understanding of the Holiness of the cycle.  Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.

So what have we learned today:

That Old Calendrist proponents
a) think a non-Apostolic practice is more important than participation in the Body and Blood of Christ (idolatry)
b) think their uni-calendar practice is 'the ultimate beauty' and holy compared to multiple calendars (meaning all those ancient Fathers, Basil, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyprian and indeed all the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical councils who peacefully used multiple calendars did not understand the 'ultimate beauty' of true worship. But
not to worry, we've fixed it for them and created a unity of Heavenly and Earthly worship they failed to do. Have to respect people who are more Orthodox than the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
c) apparently can't make their case without either making false statements (usually about what the Fathers said and did) or resorting to ad hominem.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1810 on: January 07, 2012, 12:11:22 AM »

Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.

Oh that we could all be so free from sin and from the grasp of the evil one as you, PunchRoll Eyes

I get that you're upset that some feasts were dropped when the Revised Julian Calendar was proposed. I get it. But what do you suggest is a better alternative, since the Julian calendar is mathematically incorrect, and becomes more and more illogical as the centuries go on?

For the record, I happen to celebrate feasts on the Old Calendar because the parish I currently attend and grew up in never switched. Knowing my parish as I do, it was really more out of the fact that we're a bunch of old curmudgeons that don't like change, more than any theological defense.  However, at various times in my life I have belonged to New Calendar parishes without issue.

I honestly don't understand why people from both groups can't get together and put together a calender that is both mathematically and theologically correct. I mean, aren't the Greeks the father of modern Math? And aren't some of the greatest mathematicians in the world Russian? And didn't the Arabs give us our number system? I mean, if anyone should be able to figure this out, it should be the Orthodox! lol  laugh
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1811 on: January 07, 2012, 01:29:42 AM »

Honestly, I don't see what the major issue is. It's not like one is communing twice a day. Sure, there's confusion, but it's not the fault of the layperson that there is confusion. It's the fault of the people who changed the calendar in the first place. All the rest are trying to do is live an Orthodox life. To me, it's rather ironic that as we sing about those who worshipped the stars being taught by a star to worship the Sun of Justice, we have instead turned away from His worship toward worshipping the stars squabbling over calendars.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,579


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1812 on: January 07, 2012, 01:34:21 AM »

Quote
So what have we learned today:

That Old Calendrist proponents
a) think a non-Apostolic practice is more important than participation in the Body and Blood of Christ (idolatry)
b) think their uni-calendar practice is 'the ultimate beauty' and holy compared to multiple calendars (meaning all those ancient Fathers, Basil, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyprian and indeed all the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical councils who peacefully used multiple calendars did not understand the 'ultimate beauty' of true worship. But not to worry, we've fixed it for them and created a unity of Heavenly and Earthly worship they failed to do. Have to respect people who are more Orthodox than the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
c) apparently can't make their case without either making false statements (usually about what the Fathers said and did) or resorting to ad hominem.

Brilliant, witega, just brilliant.  Kiss Kiss  Smiley
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1813 on: January 07, 2012, 01:43:15 AM »

Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.

Oh that we could all be so free from sin and from the grasp of the evil one as you, PunchRoll Eyes

I get that you're upset that some feasts were dropped when the Revised Julian Calendar was proposed. I get it. But what do you suggest is a better alternative, since the Julian calendar is mathematically incorrect, and becomes more and more illogical as the centuries go on?

For the record, I happen to celebrate feasts on the Old Calendar because the parish I currently attend and grew up in never switched. Knowing my parish as I do, it was really more out of the fact that we're a bunch of old curmudgeons that don't like change, more than any theological defense.  However, at various times in my life I have belonged to New Calendar parishes without issue.

I honestly don't understand why people from both groups can't get together and put together a calender that is both mathematically and theologically correct. I mean, aren't the Greeks the father of modern Math? And aren't some of the greatest mathematicians in the world Russian? And didn't the Arabs give us our number system? I mean, if anyone should be able to figure this out, it should be the Orthodox! lol  laugh

Lol.  A patient and sound answer.  Hopefully will sink in.  Christ is born
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1814 on: January 07, 2012, 01:52:25 AM »

Honestly, I don't see what the major issue is. It's not like one is communing twice a day. Sure, there's confusion, but it's not the fault of the layperson that there is confusion. It's the fault of the people who changed the calendar in the first place. All the rest are trying to do is live an Orthodox life. To me, it's rather ironic that as we sing about those who worshipped the stars being taught by a star to worship the Sun of Justice, we have instead turned away from His worship toward worshipping the stars squabbling over calendars.

Pretty good post.  The calendar should not have been changed without everyone on board.  Ironically, a Serb was the one who developed the NJC, but the Serbs did not follow.  But maybe that can be fixed in the near future, despite the naysayers, hopefully the patriarchates and bishops step up with a bunch of brass something or others and say "this is it."  Bishops and priests tend to get wishy washy with regard to trying to please people and especially to satisfy peoples' "feelings." Feelings are deceptive. Handmaiden is right, some are just curmudgeony (actually just part of our human illness), but if in unison all the bishops would step up and say "this is it," then that is it.   Even the ones who complain really want solid leadership. 
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,430


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #1815 on: January 07, 2012, 01:54:16 AM »

i like the idea of a single calendar, be it the old, the revised old, or even the calendar the Finns use. just pick one, and use it
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1816 on: January 07, 2012, 01:57:22 AM »

i like the idea of a single calendar, be it the old, the revised old, or even the calendar the Finns use. just pick one, and use it

The only thing we have had one of in Orthodoxy has been faith. I would like to keep it that way.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1817 on: January 07, 2012, 04:07:27 AM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').


The fathers who established the calendar
Did the Fathers ever establish a calendar?

assigned the vernal equinox to a fixed date. The New Calendar maintains the traditional Paschalion but changes the fixed calendar
WRONG! If we adopted the New Calendar totally, even for Pascha, this wouldn't be a problem. The problem you blame on the New Calendar is really the fault of the fact that we still follow the Old Julian Calendar in our reckoning of the date of Pascha while we follow the Revised Julian Calendar for everything else.

, so the whole Typicon is pointless.
How so?

The date of Pascha is going to continue to slip forward into the fixed year, so it will eventually coincide with the Dormition, and even Nativity. Yeah it's a long time off, but that is going to be the result.
Not once we finally anchor the Paschalion to the New Calendar.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 04:14:25 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1818 on: January 07, 2012, 04:24:08 AM »

The date of Pascha is going to continue to slip forward into the fixed year, so it will eventually coincide with the Dormition, and even Nativity. Yeah it's a long time off, but that is going to be the result.
Not once we finally anchor the Paschalion to the New Calendar.

We don't even have to go that far. If we just start literally following the text of the Nicean decision on Pascha rather than tieing ourselves to one particular mathematical model (which was the most accurate available in the 6th century, but is obviously not anymore) all the Typikon issues would go away--not to mention the possibility that someday Pascha will follow the autumnal equinox.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #1819 on: January 07, 2012, 08:17:58 AM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').

Again, you miss the point completely.  The cycle of services has little to do with actual calendar dates.  From the New Year (Sept. 1) till the next new year, the daily, weekly and monthly cycles take you through most of the Scriptures, and a fascinating array of Saints and Feasts that spell out the entire history of Salvation.  There is no problem with communing twice for a given Feast because it has nothing to do with communing (which takes place outside of time).  It is that when you are celebrating a Feast for the second time, you are neglecting the appointed celebration for that day.  The ultimate beauty is when the whole Church, in Heaven and on Earth, celebrate each wonderful day together in unity.  It is difficult enough given the rich array of Saints, both Universal and Local.  But when the evil one and his Papist and Massonic lap dogs broke the unity that did exist, he also caused a loss of understanding of the Holiness of the cycle.  Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.

I want to believe this is satire.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1820 on: January 07, 2012, 05:57:45 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').

The fathers who established the calendar assigned the vernal equinox to a fixed date. The New Calendar maintains the traditional Paschalion but changes the fixed calendar, so the whole Typicon is pointless. The date of Pascha is going to continue to slip forward into the fixed year, so it will eventually coincide with the Dormition, and even Nativity. Yeah it's a long time off, but that is going to be the result. But of course, it's irrevelant because it's an 'arbitrary distinction'.


Which Typikon?  St. Symeon of Thessalonika lamented that the city parishes were adopting the Savvas Typikon in his day.   There is no single typikon.  But like it or not, the Typikon of St. Savvas is a local typikon, and even more local than you might think.  It is the typikon of the monastery of St. Savvas in Jerusalem, a typikon which no other monastery nor Jerusalem in general besides has ever followed.  Mt. Athos never followed this typikon, but has its own.  St. Nikodemos says expressly that that the canons supercede liturgically both the typikon as well as established local practice.  The typikon is a wonderful tool.  It is far from etched in stone, since every week one must violate the Savvas Typikon (ustav) as it has contradictory rubrics in different chapters in the slavonic form, because it was added to in time.  I can guarantee that your priest does not follow the rubrics for censing in the typikon.  Instead, we simply amend it as they did not use the swinging censor in the monastery, but the katsia.  We follow the rubrics as they are stated with a swinging censor only at certain times, such as the "slava sviati" at Matins, for example. 
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #1821 on: January 07, 2012, 07:16:57 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').

Again, you miss the point completely.  The cycle of services has little to do with actual calendar dates.  From the New Year (Sept. 1) till the next new year, the daily, weekly and monthly cycles take you through most of the Scriptures, and a fascinating array of Saints and Feasts that spell out the entire history of Salvation.  There is no problem with communing twice for a given Feast because it has nothing to do with communing (which takes place outside of time).  It is that when you are celebrating a Feast for the second time, you are neglecting the appointed celebration for that day.  The ultimate beauty is when the whole Church, in Heaven and on Earth, celebrate each wonderful day together in unity.  It is difficult enough given the rich array of Saints, both Universal and Local.  But when the evil one and his Papist and Massonic lap dogs broke the unity that did exist, he also caused a loss of understanding of the Holiness of the cycle.  Oh, those who are enslaved will make their excuses as the Psalmist states, but the breaking of the cycle and the unity of the Heavenly and Earthly worship is the true evil of the thrice cursed new calendar, and those that promulgate it.

I want to believe this is satire.

I'm sure you would.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #1822 on: January 10, 2012, 10:09:26 PM »

But what is the difference between celebrating the same feast twice in two weeks and twice in two years? It's still the same feast.

If you do not know the difference between a week and a year in the cycle of services, you would probably not understand any explanation that I could give you.

But 'once a week' versus 'once a year' (or 'once a month' or 'once a decade') is an arbitrary distinction. If you are saying that distinction is important enough to control when/if people should partake of the Life-giving Mysteries, you really should be able to justify why 'twice a year' is different from 'twice a decade' or 'once a month'.

(Someone on the new calendar could, of course, point out that days and years are different from weeks and decades as the former are based on actual physical/astronomical phenomena rather than arbitrary human designations--but support for the Old Calendar requires a rejection of the linkage between humanity's arbitrary accounting of time and the actual physical phenomena it was originally based on)

Then of course, there's the fact that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead the same number of times He was born--yet we celebrate that every Sunday ('Lord's Day').


The fathers who established the calendar assigned the vernal equinox to a fixed date. The New Calendar maintains the traditional Paschalion but changes the fixed calendar, so the whole Typicon is pointless. The date of Pascha is going to continue to slip forward into the fixed year, so it will eventually coincide with the Dormition, and even Nativity. Yeah it's a long time off, but that is going to be the result. But of course, it's irrevelant because it's an 'arbitrary distinction'.





On the other hand, it would give everyone in the Southern Hemisphere a break, right?  It'll take about 22,000 years to give it to them, but still.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 289


It is later than we think.


« Reply #1823 on: January 11, 2012, 01:10:07 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.
Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,007


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #1824 on: January 11, 2012, 04:04:44 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


I agree. We must not compromise our Holy Orthodox Faith. These modernist and ecumenical innovations must cease.

It is time that Orthodox Christians stand up and reject the annual ecumenical Assisi event at which Patriarch Bartholomew participated.
His very presence at Assisi is a source of scandal and confusion to many.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 04:07:00 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1825 on: January 11, 2012, 05:26:11 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


Were all the motivations ecumenist?  The nation of Greece changed its civil calendar to the new calendar in 1923. The other nations in question had already done this civilly.  Was it not logical for the Church to look at doing the same?  Is this not an application of: "let the order of things ecclesial follow the civil model" (4th Ecumenical Council, St. Photius)?     
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1826 on: January 11, 2012, 05:44:34 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


You are confusing Paschalion and calender. A common enough mistake but one that makes it difficult to discuss this issue on any kind of factual basis.

Nicea did indeed establish a standard calculation of Pascha (though it's incorrect to say it was 'uniform' since the Paschal controversy between Irish and Roman missionaries in England in the 8th century, covered in any basic history of England, was over two different Paschalions which both met the criteria of Nicea). And in his letter announcing this decision, St. Constantine emphasized that the council had unified the dating of 'this one day' because as the Feast of Feasts, Pascha was special. The clear (and historically verifiable) corollary is that St. Constantine and the Fathers of the Council had not done anything to unify all the other days.

As for what happened to the other calenders -- well, the Copts and Armenians took theirs with them in the post-Chalcedon schism (i.e. at least 3 Ecumenical councils after Nicea). I've been unable to find any detail on when the Antiochian Patriarchate switched from the Macedonian to the Julian calendar, but it seems most likely that it occurred post-Ottoman conquest when the Ottomans put all Orthodox in their empire under the civil administration of the EP.

The claim that the New Calendar switch was done 'uncanonically' needs some kind of support. There has never been a General council of the Church which has made a ruling on the calendar. With no ecumenical canon on the topic, local synods are free to make their own decisions on the matter--which they have done. (As for the hobbyhorse of Patriarch Meletios, I suggest reading jah777's detailed account of the actual sources of the calendar change--Meletios was a role-player who wasn't even involved in most of the canonical votes by which various local churches implemented the New Calendar).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
BeeDeePee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 6


« Reply #1827 on: January 11, 2012, 08:25:18 PM »

I think my Church should accept new calendar, but I'm sure it's not going to happen, because there are a few bishops who think that calendar is something 'sacred' and 'unchangeable' . So, if SOC changed calendar, it would probably cause a schism.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #1828 on: January 11, 2012, 08:42:45 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


Were all the motivations ecumenist?  The nation of Greece changed its civil calendar to the new calendar in 1923. The other nations in question had already done this civilly.  Was it not logical for the Church to look at doing the same?  Is this not an application of: "let the order of things ecclesial follow the civil model" (4th Ecumenical Council, St. Photius)?     

Indeed, the old red herring of 'modernist and ecumenicalist' has been hurled way too often over the years to the extent that it is predictable and meaningless. No doubt the Tsar and Russia would have followed but for the Revolution as Russia was preparing to do prior to the Revolution.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #1829 on: January 11, 2012, 08:43:38 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


You are confusing Paschalion and calender. A common enough mistake but one that makes it difficult to discuss this issue on any kind of factual basis.

Nicea did indeed establish a standard calculation of Pascha (though it's incorrect to say it was 'uniform' since the Paschal controversy between Irish and Roman missionaries in England in the 8th century, covered in any basic history of England, was over two different Paschalions which both met the criteria of Nicea). And in his letter announcing this decision, St. Constantine emphasized that the council had unified the dating of 'this one day' because as the Feast of Feasts, Pascha was special. The clear (and historically verifiable) corollary is that St. Constantine and the Fathers of the Council had not done anything to unify all the other days.

As for what happened to the other calenders -- well, the Copts and Armenians took theirs with them in the post-Chalcedon schism (i.e. at least 3 Ecumenical councils after Nicea). I've been unable to find any detail on when the Antiochian Patriarchate switched from the Macedonian to the Julian calendar, but it seems most likely that it occurred post-Ottoman conquest when the Ottomans put all Orthodox in their empire under the civil administration of the EP.

The claim that the New Calendar switch was done 'uncanonically' needs some kind of support. There has never been a General council of the Church which has made a ruling on the calendar. With no ecumenical canon on the topic, local synods are free to make their own decisions on the matter--which they have done. (As for the hobbyhorse of Patriarch Meletios, I suggest reading jah777's detailed account of the actual sources of the calendar change--Meletios was a role-player who wasn't even involved in most of the canonical votes by which various local churches implemented the New Calendar).


Good heavens, why confound strongly held opinions with facts!  Wink Wink Wink
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #1830 on: January 11, 2012, 08:58:09 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


You are confusing Paschalion and calender. A common enough mistake but one that makes it difficult to discuss this issue on any kind of factual basis.

Nicea did indeed establish a standard calculation of Pascha (though it's incorrect to say it was 'uniform' since the Paschal controversy between Irish and Roman missionaries in England in the 8th century, covered in any basic history of England, was over two different Paschalions which both met the criteria of Nicea). And in his letter announcing this decision, St. Constantine emphasized that the council had unified the dating of 'this one day' because as the Feast of Feasts, Pascha was special. The clear (and historically verifiable) corollary is that St. Constantine and the Fathers of the Council had not done anything to unify all the other days.

As for what happened to the other calenders -- well, the Copts and Armenians took theirs with them in the post-Chalcedon schism (i.e. at least 3 Ecumenical councils after Nicea). I've been unable to find any detail on when the Antiochian Patriarchate switched from the Macedonian to the Julian calendar, but it seems most likely that it occurred post-Ottoman conquest when the Ottomans put all Orthodox in their empire under the civil administration of the EP.

The claim that the New Calendar switch was done 'uncanonically' needs some kind of support. There has never been a General council of the Church which has made a ruling on the calendar. With no ecumenical canon on the topic, local synods are free to make their own decisions on the matter--which they have done. (As for the hobbyhorse of Patriarch Meletios, I suggest reading jah777's detailed account of the actual sources of the calendar change--Meletios was a role-player who wasn't even involved in most of the canonical votes by which various local churches implemented the New Calendar).


Good heavens, why confound strongly held opinions with facts!  Wink Wink Wink

I think that the calendar issue has facets that are far removed from the claims of the Old Calenarists. First of all, it accentuates the "us" vs "them" mentality that helps in nation/ethnic building or rebuilding: If the Poles/Croats are for it, we Russians/Serbs must be against it. Second, it serves as a product differentiation for the converts: If you are going to reject Western religions (Roman Catholicism or Proterstantism), you might as well be as different from them as possible. Third, it reinforces claims for purity of praxis: We have held onto the praxis of our forefathers, while they changed/innovated (corollary is rubric-worshipping that some indulge in).
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1831 on: January 11, 2012, 09:07:35 PM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.


Were all the motivations ecumenist?  The nation of Greece changed its civil calendar to the new calendar in 1923. The other nations in question had already done this civilly.  Was it not logical for the Church to look at doing the same?  Is this not an application of: "let the order of things ecclesial follow the civil model" (4th Ecumenical Council, St. Photius)?     

Indeed, the old red herring of 'modernist and ecumenicalist' has been hurled way too often over the years to the extent that it is predictable and meaningless. No doubt the Tsar and Russia would have followed but for the Revolution as Russia was preparing to do prior to the Revolution.

Right, and to switch to the "red calendar" was unthinkable in Russia after the revolution.  New calendar was at that point no longer a discussion of the Synod of Bishops but an imposition by the atheists.  Therefore old calendar became a symbol of "silent" resistence.  I think at this point that Moscow Patriarchate as a whole, with the exception of ROCOR, is favorable toward a singly positioned calendar (it is not really a "new" calendar, as it is the same calendar that is positioned apart from each other by 13 days via distinct calculations of leap years).  As was already stated, there is considerable resistance in the Serbian Church as well. 
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1832 on: January 11, 2012, 09:18:55 PM »

Right, and to switch to the "red calendar" was unthinkable in Russia after the revolution.  New calendar was at that point no longer a discussion of the Synod of Bishops but an imposition by the atheists.  Therefore old calendar became a symbol of "silent" resistence.  I think at this point that Moscow Patriarchate as a whole, with the exception of ROCOR, is favorable toward a singly positioned calendar (it is not really a "new" calendar, as it is the same calendar that is positioned apart from each other by 13 days via distinct calculations of leap years).  As was already stated, there is considerable resistance in the Serbian Church as well. 

Slavs, be stubborn?! Say it ain't so Father, say it ain't so! Wink
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1833 on: January 12, 2012, 01:22:23 AM »

What Typikon is used is of little significance to the Orthodox Liturgical practice as a whole. What is important is how a major innovation in the Church done by Patriarch Meletios and a few local bishops under the name "Pan-Orthodox" instituted reforms that have harmed Church unity. The First Ecumenical Council established a uniform calculation of Pascha-- the Paschalion. It was to supersede local practices that caused liturgical confusion. What happened to all these "multiple calendars" that the Church used before? Where have they gone? The Church is called to unity. That can't happen when some of the churches celebrate the feasts thirteen days ahead of the others. As St. Papa Nicholas Planas said: "Whatever has been done uncanonically cannot stand--it will fall." I pray that unity will be established again and if the Church deems it necessary to change the calendar, that it will be done without modernist and ecumenicalist motivations.

Since when did unity equal uniformity?
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #1834 on: January 12, 2012, 03:21:07 AM »

Thank you FatherHll (Reply No. 1825) for pointing out what the motivation for the calendar change actually was, instead of reiterating the Julian Calendar proponents propaganda that may have some basis for the discussion at the time, but was not the actual cause that prompted the calendar change.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #1835 on: February 17, 2012, 05:33:32 AM »


I honestly don't understand why people from both groups can't get together and put together a calender that is both mathematically and theologically correct. I mean, aren't the Greeks the father of modern Math? And aren't some of the greatest mathematicians in the world Russian? And didn't the Arabs give us our number system? I mean, if anyone should be able to figure this out, it should be the Orthodox! lol  laugh

Good point! Smiley
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #1836 on: February 17, 2012, 08:04:10 AM »


Bob


PS Being something of a luddite, I have yet to figure out how the quote thing works....Smiley


At the top right corner of each post, you should see the word "Quote" in blue letters. Click on that.
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1837 on: February 17, 2012, 08:26:54 AM »

That post is 7,5-year-old.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #1838 on: February 17, 2012, 09:38:55 AM »

That post is 7,5-year-old.

He must work at the IRS.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1839 on: February 17, 2012, 10:26:51 AM »

That post is 7,5-year-old.

He must work at the IRS.
No wonder I always owe......
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #1840 on: February 17, 2012, 12:49:15 PM »

The anti-iconoclast bishops broke communion with the non-iconoclastic bishops and "walled themselves off", setting up a separate "jurisdiction." So did the bishops opposed to the Lyons and Florence unions. The issue of heresy and schism is complex, because sometimes the ones breaking off communion end up being justified (as in the cases of those opposed to iconoclasm, Lyons, and Florence) while at other times the ones breaking communion end up wrong (Novationism, Donatism, and Arensius in the 13th century come to mind).

I also note a tendency in some posters' posts towards indentifying themselves as the "normal" Orthodox Church or arguing by what is the "majority" view. I wonder when being normal or the majority ever mattered in Church history. I would just rather debate the issues instead of getting sidetracked by periperhal appeals to authority ("We are the official Church, you are not!") or using the numbers game, "We are the majority so you can't possibly be right!" I think too much is at stake; if the Old Calendarists are right, then a lot of people are being led astray; if the Old Calendarists are schismatics and wrong, then a lot of people are being led astray.  The issue calls for serious discussion and not attempts to win by debate points and bolster one's argument in this way.

Anastasios

Very well put.
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1841 on: February 17, 2012, 01:26:55 PM »

The anti-iconoclast bishops broke communion with the non-iconoclastic bishops and "walled themselves off", setting up a separate "jurisdiction." So did the bishops opposed to the Lyons and Florence unions. The issue of heresy and schism is complex, because sometimes the ones breaking off communion end up being justified (as in the cases of those opposed to iconoclasm, Lyons, and Florence) while at other times the ones breaking communion end up wrong (Novationism, Donatism, and Arensius in the 13th century come to mind).

I also note a tendency in some posters' posts towards indentifying themselves as the "normal" Orthodox Church or arguing by what is the "majority" view. I wonder when being normal or the majority ever mattered in Church history. I would just rather debate the issues instead of getting sidetracked by periperhal appeals to authority ("We are the official Church, you are not!") or using the numbers game, "We are the majority so you can't possibly be right!" I think too much is at stake; if the Old Calendarists are right, then a lot of people are being led astray; if the Old Calendarists are schismatics and wrong, then a lot of people are being led astray.  The issue calls for serious discussion and not attempts to win by debate points and bolster one's argument in this way.

Anastasios

Very well put.
Do you understand the context of that post, since it's now older than 7 years?
Logged
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #1842 on: February 17, 2012, 03:57:16 PM »


It is interesting that the Iranians and those in Iran's cultural sphere (Kurds, Assyrians, etc.) date the new year from the equinox.  They, however depend on a natural phenomenon which I've yet to understand: they watch a fish in a glass bowl.  The fish swims (supposedly) a different way once the sun passes the equator.  The sun is also observed every year by astronmers to confirm the date: it is not mid-night, but when the sun passes the equinox (or the fish swims the right way) that makes it official.

Well, I suppose if you can't get a groundhog . . . Wink
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1843 on: February 28, 2012, 01:39:50 PM »

If the new calendar was not, for all intents and purposes, invented by a Roman Pontiff, would there be such a hub-bub about it in Orthodoxy?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,969


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1844 on: February 28, 2012, 09:01:55 PM »

If the new calendar was not, for all intents and purposes, invented by a Roman Pontiff, would there be such a hub-bub about it in Orthodoxy?
Define "for all intents and purposes".
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.