Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 234904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cymbyz

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1890 on: March 10, 2012, 01:41:35 AM »
Yes, every year divisible by 4.
The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,147
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1891 on: March 10, 2012, 05:27:04 AM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Online genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,585
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1892 on: March 10, 2012, 12:09:29 PM »
Yes, the Julian Calendar has leap years. Too many, in fact, to keep pace properly with the seasons. That is the reason for the divergence of calendars.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,671
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1893 on: March 10, 2012, 02:17:10 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 02:21:00 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1894 on: March 10, 2012, 04:11:13 PM »
The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.
I don't think that there will be more than 2 days difference between the two calendars in the next 6000 years:

Gregorian minus Revised Julian date differences
 Century
 Difference
 
100
 0
 
200
 −1
 
300
 −1
 
400
 0
 
500
 0
 
600
 −1
 
700
 −1
 
800
 0
 
900
 0
 
1000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
1100
 −1
 
1200
 0
 
1300
 0
 
1400
 0
 
1500
 −1
 
1600
 0
 
1700
 0
 
1800
 0
 
1900
 0
 
2000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
2100
 0
 
2200
 0
 
2300
 0
 
2400
 0
 
2500
 0
 
2600
 0
 
2700
 0
 
2800
 +1
 
2900
 0
 
3000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
3100
 0
 
3200
 +1
 
3300
 0
 
3400
 0
 
3500
 0
 
3600
 +1
 
3700
 +1
 
3800
 0
 
3900
 0
 
4000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
4100
 +1
 
4200
 0
 
4300
 0
 
4400
 +1
 
4500
 +1
 
4600
 +1
 
4700
 0
 
4800
 +1
 
4900
 +1
 
5000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
5100
 0
 
5200
 +1
 
5300
 +1
 
5400
 +1
 
5500
 +1
 
5600
 +1
 
5700
 +1
 
5800
 +1
 
5900
 +1
 
6000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
6100
 +1
 
6200
 +1
 
6300
 +1
 
6400
 +2
 
6500
 +1
 
6600
 +1
 
6700
 +1
 
6800
 +2
 
6900
 +1
 
7000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
7100
 +1
 
7200
 +2
 
7300
 +2
 
7400
 +1
 
7500
 +1
 
7600
 +2
 
7700
 +2
 
7800
 +1
 
7900
 +1
 
8000
 +2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar

Online Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,315
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1895 on: March 10, 2012, 04:43:02 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?

Online Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,315
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1896 on: March 10, 2012, 04:53:08 PM »
The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.
I don't think that there will be more than 2 days difference between the two calendars in the next 6000 years:

Gregorian minus Revised Julian date differences
 Century
 Difference
 
100
 0
 
200
 −1
 
300
 −1
 
400
 0
 
500
 0
 
600
 −1
 
700
 −1
 
800
 0
 
900
 0
 
1000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
1100
 −1
 
1200
 0
 
1300
 0
 
1400
 0
 
1500
 −1
 
1600
 0
 
1700
 0
 
1800
 0
 
1900
 0
 
2000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
2100
 0
 
2200
 0
 
2300
 0
 
2400
 0
 
2500
 0
 
2600
 0
 
2700
 0
 
2800
 +1
 
2900
 0
 
3000
 0
 


Century
 Difference
 
3100
 0
 
3200
 +1
 
3300
 0
 
3400
 0
 
3500
 0
 
3600
 +1
 
3700
 +1
 
3800
 0
 
3900
 0
 
4000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
4100
 +1
 
4200
 0
 
4300
 0
 
4400
 +1
 
4500
 +1
 
4600
 +1
 
4700
 0
 
4800
 +1
 
4900
 +1
 
5000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
5100
 0
 
5200
 +1
 
5300
 +1
 
5400
 +1
 
5500
 +1
 
5600
 +1
 
5700
 +1
 
5800
 +1
 
5900
 +1
 
6000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
6100
 +1
 
6200
 +1
 
6300
 +1
 
6400
 +2
 
6500
 +1
 
6600
 +1
 
6700
 +1
 
6800
 +2
 
6900
 +1
 
7000
 +1
 


Century
 Difference
 
7100
 +1
 
7200
 +2
 
7300
 +2
 
7400
 +1
 
7500
 +1
 
7600
 +2
 
7700
 +2
 
7800
 +1
 
7900
 +1
 
8000
 +2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar

Are those differences cumulative?

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 21,986
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1897 on: March 10, 2012, 04:56:58 PM »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,671
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1898 on: March 10, 2012, 04:58:51 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
Why? Wasn't the Gregorian calendar a revision to the Julian, thus making it the "Revised Julian" calendar of its day? The reason it's called the Gregorian Calendar and not the Revised Julian Calendar of 1582 is to honor Pope Gregory XIII, who mandated that the Julian Calendar be updated in 1582.

Besides, it was the Julian Calendar, NOT the Gregorian Calendar, that the Church was using prior to 1923. Why submit a revision to a calendar we never used?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 05:01:55 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Online Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,315
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1899 on: March 10, 2012, 06:46:07 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
Why? Wasn't the Gregorian calendar a revision to the Julian, thus making it the "Revised Julian" calendar of its day? The reason it's called the Gregorian Calendar and not the Revised Julian Calendar of 1582 is to honor Pope Gregory XIII, who mandated that the Julian Calendar be updated in 1582.

Besides, it was the Julian Calendar, NOT the Gregorian Calendar, that the Church was using prior to 1923. Why submit a revision to a calendar we never used?

But the revisions were based on the Gregorian, not the Julian. For example, the epoch of the so-called "Revised Julian" is on a Monday, while that of the traditional Julian is the preceding Saturday. This means that both Gregorian and "Revised Julian" January 1, 1AD, is traditional Julian Jan 3, 1AD. I submit that the label "Revised Julian" is intentionally misleading, to make people think that it is only a variation of the traditional calendar, when in fact it is a variation of the Gregorian calendar.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 06:47:50 PM by Jonathan Gress »

Offline KShaft

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Calendar question.....
« Reply #1900 on: March 15, 2012, 02:43:34 AM »
Of course, if piety and number of converts is how we mark the Faith, then we should really convert to Islam

Islam has numerous converts? I've always assumed that number of Muslims is increasing due to large families and not because of converts.

I thought it was because if you didn't convert they'd kill ya or treat ya like dog feces (and kill you later), or take your daughters and marry em to a muslim 'man' whereupon if she didn't act right they'd kill her and then come and kill you for having a crappy daughter.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,749
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1901 on: March 16, 2012, 06:09:18 PM »
I would like to ask, is the Gregorian more scientifically sound than the Julian or Revised? Are there proofs of this, yes or no?

PP
"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

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1902 on: March 16, 2012, 08:59:47 PM »
I would like to ask, is the Gregorian more scientifically sound than the Julian or Revised? Are there proofs of this, yes or no?

PP
Both the Gregorian and Revised Julian calendar are more astronomically accurate than the Julian calendar. With reference to the difference in astronomical accuracy between the Gregorian and the Revised Julian, according to the Orthodox Wikipedia: “…for a few thousand years the Revised Julian Calendar doesn't do as good a job as the Gregorian Calendar at keeping the vernal equinox on or close to March 21. But the length of a day is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (due to tidal acceleration), so the number of days per year decreases by about 0.0001 each millennium. This means that in the long run, the Revised Julian Calendar will also be inaccurate even if the mean tropical year is the basis.” http://orthodoxwiki.org/Revised_Julian_Calendar

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,225
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1903 on: March 16, 2012, 11:14:13 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
Why? Wasn't the Gregorian calendar a revision to the Julian, thus making it the "Revised Julian" calendar of its day? The reason it's called the Gregorian Calendar and not the Revised Julian Calendar of 1582 is to honor Pope Gregory XIII, who mandated that the Julian Calendar be updated in 1582.

Besides, it was the Julian Calendar, NOT the Gregorian Calendar, that the Church was using prior to 1923. Why submit a revision to a calendar we never used?

But the revisions were based on the Gregorian, not the Julian. For example, the epoch of the so-called "Revised Julian" is on a Monday, while that of the traditional Julian is the preceding Saturday. This means that both Gregorian and "Revised Julian" January 1, 1AD, is traditional Julian Jan 3, 1AD. I submit that the label "Revised Julian" is intentionally misleading, to make people think that it is only a variation of the traditional calendar, when in fact it is a variation of the Gregorian calendar.

It does not matter if the calendar that we use is called the Gressian Calendar as long as it is not the old and decrepit Julian one. As a tool to reckon God's time, the Julian calendar is so erroneous that if one were to compare it to a cadaver, it would be past the smelly stage.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1904 on: March 17, 2012, 01:52:19 AM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
Why? Wasn't the Gregorian calendar a revision to the Julian, thus making it the "Revised Julian" calendar of its day? The reason it's called the Gregorian Calendar and not the Revised Julian Calendar of 1582 is to honor Pope Gregory XIII, who mandated that the Julian Calendar be updated in 1582.

Besides, it was the Julian Calendar, NOT the Gregorian Calendar, that the Church was using prior to 1923. Why submit a revision to a calendar we never used?

But the revisions were based on the Gregorian, not the Julian. For example, the epoch of the so-called "Revised Julian" is on a Monday, while that of the traditional Julian is the preceding Saturday. This means that both Gregorian and "Revised Julian" January 1, 1AD, is traditional Julian Jan 3, 1AD. I submit that the label "Revised Julian" is intentionally misleading, to make people think that it is only a variation of the traditional calendar, when in fact it is a variation of the Gregorian calendar.

It does not matter if the calendar that we use is called the Gressian Calendar as long as it is not the old and decrepit Julian one. As a tool to reckon God's time, the Julian calendar is so erroneous that if one were to compare it to a cadaver, it would be past the smelly stage.
LOL.

I remember when the Soviets came out with its version of a space shuttle, and persons were accusing the Soviets of just copying American design

when an aeronautic engineer pointed out that the Soviets did not have a different set of laws of aerodynamics that they had to deal with, while the US had its own set. There was just so different it could be without failing to fly.

The Revised Julian calendar resembles the Gregorian because they both deal with the same real sun the Bible talks about in Genesis 1 as signs for seasons.  The original calculations dealt with the same real moon as well, but that wasn't adopted.  Hence revised Julian, because it brought the Julian calendar in line with that real sun, instead of just repeating outdated calculations based on faulty figures.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1905 on: March 17, 2012, 01:52:19 AM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
Why? Wasn't the Gregorian calendar a revision to the Julian, thus making it the "Revised Julian" calendar of its day? The reason it's called the Gregorian Calendar and not the Revised Julian Calendar of 1582 is to honor Pope Gregory XIII, who mandated that the Julian Calendar be updated in 1582.

Besides, it was the Julian Calendar, NOT the Gregorian Calendar, that the Church was using prior to 1923. Why submit a revision to a calendar we never used?

But the revisions were based on the Gregorian, not the Julian.
No, they were not.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1906 on: March 17, 2012, 01:52:19 AM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
No, as the Gregorian calendar played no role in its calculations, and had nothing to do with it.  The various Orthodox states adopted the Gregorian calendar, but their Orthodox Churches, if they adopted the revised Julian, did so later at a different time.  Egypt adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1875, but the Church of Alexandria did not adopt the revised Julian until 1926.
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

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1907 on: March 17, 2012, 12:39:46 PM »
I remember when the Soviets came out with its version of a space shuttle, and persons were accusing the Soviets of just copying American design

when an aeronautic engineer pointed out that the Soviets did not have a different set of laws of aerodynamics that they had to deal with, while the US had its own set. There was just so different it could be without failing to fly.

This isn't the only aircraft/spacecraft design that has been copied. Also, the physics impact necessity of design, not method of design. There are many other methods of putting people in space, than the shuttle.

Probably not one of your better analogies.

I'm going to need this.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,801
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1908 on: March 17, 2012, 04:20:11 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?

It is a lie used by the Masons to try and fool Orthodox people into believing that the New Calendar is not Satanic.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Online Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,315
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1909 on: March 17, 2012, 05:55:16 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
No, as the Gregorian calendar played no role in its calculations, and had nothing to do with it.  The various Orthodox states adopted the Gregorian calendar, but their Orthodox Churches, if they adopted the revised Julian, did so later at a different time.  Egypt adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1875, but the Church of Alexandria did not adopt the revised Julian until 1926.

How do you explain the fact that the epoch of the "Revised Julian" and the Gregorian are the same? There is no astronomical reason to align the epoch of the "revised Julian" with the Gregorian, rather than with the traditional Julian, and if you wanted to convince me that the new calendar was a version of the traditional calendar sanctioned by tradition, rather than a version of the Gregorian calendar which was anathematized by the Church, this kind of fact doesn't help your case.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1910 on: March 18, 2012, 10:40:55 PM »
I remember when the Soviets came out with its version of a space shuttle, and persons were accusing the Soviets of just copying American design

when an aeronautic engineer pointed out that the Soviets did not have a different set of laws of aerodynamics that they had to deal with, while the US had its own set. There was just so different it could be without failing to fly.

This isn't the only aircraft/spacecraft design that has been copied. Also, the physics impact necessity of design, not method of design. There are many other methods of putting people in space, than the shuttle.

Probably not one of your better analogies.
You missed the point: they didn't copy it.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,391
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1911 on: March 19, 2012, 02:07:04 PM »
As I recall,  the Julian Calendar has leap years, in fact, I think it is a matter of seconds in the leap year that distinguish it from the Gregorian Calendar.  Informed comments welcome.
The Julian Calendar considers every year evenly divisible by 4 to be a leap year.

The Gregorian Calendar does the same except for those years divisible by 100, which it treats differently. On this calendar, only those century years divisible by 400 count as leap years.

           Julian    Gregorian
1800 -   Yes          No
1900 -   Yes          No
2000 -   Yes         Yes
2100 -   Yes          No

As a result, the Julian and Gregorian calendars grow three days farther apart every 400 years. You may never notice a change in your lifetime, but if you look back over the centuries, you'll see a big change.

The Revised Julian Calendar, the calendar currently in use in the New Calendar churches, is even more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar, however, by an order of about 3-4 days per millennium.

I've never understood why the new calendar is called the "revised Julian". Since it resembles the Gregorian far more than the Julian, wouldn't a more accurate name be "revised Gregorian"?
No, as the Gregorian calendar played no role in its calculations, and had nothing to do with it.  The various Orthodox states adopted the Gregorian calendar, but their Orthodox Churches, if they adopted the revised Julian, did so later at a different time.  Egypt adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1875, but the Church of Alexandria did not adopt the revised Julian until 1926.

How do you explain the fact that the epoch of the "Revised Julian" and the Gregorian are the same? There is no astronomical reason to align the epoch of the "revised Julian" with the Gregorian, rather than with the traditional Julian

Because the revised Julian (no quotation marks) and the Gregorian both deal with the same real sun that the real earth really revolves around.  The old Julian calendar (no quotation marks) contains the errors of the old pagan pontifex maximus intercaculating days (e.g. in 41 a day was inserted to avoid a pagan feast with a market day in 40 BC.  Papyri from the time of Christ show the calendar was not regularized in the first century.  Hence the revised Julian and Gregorian calculating according to the real sun and the earth's real orbit, rather than the Old Julian Calendar repeating the old pagan errors.  So your astronomical reason is reality, rather than error consecrated by time.

and if you wanted to convince me that the new calendar was a version of the traditional calendar sanctioned by tradition
I'm not foolish enough to want to convince you of anything.

rather than a version of the Gregorian calendar which was anathematized by the Church, this kind of fact doesn't help your case.
The sky does.
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

Offline вєликаго

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1912 on: June 21, 2012, 11:07:18 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 11:09:12 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,059
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1913 on: June 21, 2012, 11:32:46 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

When the New Calendar was introduced, it was understood that both the Old Julian and the Gregorian were flawed and inaccurate.  The Julian was shifted by 13 days in Greece because Greece had adopted the Gregorian for the civil calendar and placed pressure on the Church hierarchy to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The hierarchy said that they could not accept the Gregorian, since doing so would be exploited by Rome, but agreed to shift the Julian in order to be more accurate and in line with the civil calendar.  The Patriarch of Constantinople at that time proposed this revision to the Julian as a temporary measure until an altogether new calendar could be produced that would be more scientifically accurate and consistent with the Church canons.  It was hoped that the Orthodox Church could develop and propose such a calendar through the League of Nations, and the entire world would see its superiority over the Gregorian and adopt it.  This whole effort, of course, was very misguided; and the unilateral way in which individual Orthodox churches (starting with Greece) introduced the New Calendar (Revised Julian) was very problematic and has had some very unfortunate results.  Obviously, the goal of developing an altogether new calendar never occurred, and the local Orthodox churches did not agree on the acceptance of the New Calendar, so we are left with the unfortunate situation of local Orthodox churches fasting and feasting at different times.   

Offline вєликаго

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1914 on: June 21, 2012, 11:37:11 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

When the New Calendar was introduced, it was understood that both the Old Julian and the Gregorian were flawed and inaccurate.  The Julian was shifted by 13 days in Greece because Greece had adopted the Gregorian for the civil calendar and placed pressure on the Church hierarchy to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The hierarchy said that they could not accept the Gregorian, since doing so would be exploited by Rome, but agreed to shift the Julian in order to be more accurate and in line with the civil calendar.  The Patriarch of Constantinople at that time proposed this revision to the Julian as a temporary measure until an altogether new calendar could be produced that would be more scientifically accurate and consistent with the Church canons.  It was hoped that the Orthodox Church could develop and propose such a calendar through the League of Nations, and the entire world would see its superiority over the Gregorian and adopt it.  This whole effort, of course, was very misguided; and the unilateral way in which individual Orthodox churches (starting with Greece) introduced the New Calendar (Revised Julian) was very problematic and has had some very unfortunate results.  Obviously, the goal of developing an altogether new calendar never occurred, and the local Orthodox churches did not agree on the acceptance of the New Calendar, so we are left with the unfortunate situation of local Orthodox churches fasting and feasting at different times.  


Thank you for taking the time to let me know. My suggest then would be to move all the dates back to Old Calendar and then implement the more accurate way of keeping time.  
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 11:37:34 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,059
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1915 on: June 21, 2012, 11:43:59 AM »
My suggest then would be to move all the dates back to Old Calendar and then implement the more accurate way of keeping time. 

For what its worth, my suggestion would also be to return to the Old Calendar until such a time that all Orthodox churches might agree to change the calendar.  I'm not a bishop, however, so I have to pray for those that are, regarding this issue. 
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 11:44:51 AM by jah777 »

Offline chrevbel

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1916 on: June 24, 2012, 03:56:33 PM »
For what its worth, my suggestion would also be to return to the Old Calendar ...
My suggestion would be to stop using things like this:
Quote from: jah777
The hierarchy said that they could not accept the Gregorian, since doing so would be exploited by Rome...
...as a component of church decision making in the first place.  Ecclesiastical decisions based on the political motives of someone outside the church?  Huh???

Offline Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,938
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1917 on: July 17, 2012, 07:08:24 PM »
On NFTU's July 1 radio show they've challenged people who defend ecumenism or oppose old calendarism to come on their show and discuss or debate with them. Anyone interested?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 07:10:21 PM by Asteriktos »
"I try to be good hard worker man, but refrigemator so messy... so, so messy."

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,749
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1918 on: July 18, 2012, 08:31:09 AM »
On NFTU's July 1 radio show they've challenged people who defend ecumenism or oppose old calendarism to come on their show and discuss or debate with them. Anyone interested?
I would, but such things are a fool's errand. I have my opinion, and they have theirs. it would just become a "who can GOT'CHA! first" thing.

PP
"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

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,225
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1919 on: July 18, 2012, 09:39:55 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar reform was based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity: December 25th in both the Church and revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes. That is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churches that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, because the Paschal Cycle is based on the latter. That is so because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their ways and adopt the Revised Julian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 09:43:18 AM by Second Chance »

Offline Manalive

  • Иоанн
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
  • It is later than we think.
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1920 on: July 18, 2012, 09:51:21 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,152
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1921 on: July 18, 2012, 10:10:20 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar reform was based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity: December 25th in both the Church and revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes. That is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churches that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, because the Paschal Cycle is based on the latter. That is so because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their ways and adopt the Revised Julian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

Like I've said before, my grandfather and my wife's grandmother were both born before 1900 and the last day the Julian Calendar slipped another day behind the Gregorian. Both were born on January the 6th NS, which was the Nativity, December 25th OS. When the 20th century dawned, both had their birthday on the Eve of the Nativity as the 7th of January NS became the Nativity, December 25th OS. Yet another head spinner indeed.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 10:11:09 AM by podkarpatska »

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,225
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1922 on: July 18, 2012, 11:22:33 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P

There is already one common Church calendar--the one that says Nativity=December 25, Annunciation=March 25, etc. I suspect you meant to say "...everyone returns to the Old Julian Calendar..." Of course, if everybody was on one calendar (either the old or the new), there would not be a problem, no?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,671
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1923 on: July 19, 2012, 12:04:52 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
When will you people stop trotting out this old canard? The short-to-nonexistent Apostles Fast those on the New Calendar observe in some years is not the fault of the New Calendar per se. It's the fault of our continued observance of the Old Calendar for Pascha as we follow the New Calendar for the menologion. Celebrate Pascha on the New Calendar as we do all the other feasts, and we go back to having an actual Apostles Fast every year.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1924 on: July 19, 2012, 12:22:04 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
When will you people stop trotting out this old canard? The short-to-nonexistent Apostles Fast those on the New Calendar observe in some years is not the fault of the New Calendar per se. It's the fault of our continued observance of the Old Calendar for Pascha as we follow the New Calendar for the menologion. Celebrate Pascha on the New Calendar as we do all the other feasts, and we go back to having an actual Apostles Fast every year.
What I think your pointing out, however, is an example of being lukewarm; the results leading to even more error, i,e. pick a calendar  -- in the words of Christ Jesus -- "I would that you be hot or cold". [Source = revelations 3:15]

(No offense intended.)

« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 12:29:55 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,671
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1925 on: July 19, 2012, 12:28:29 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
When will you people stop trotting out this old canard? The short-to-nonexistent Apostles Fast those on the New Calendar observe in some years is not the fault of the New Calendar per se. It's the fault of our continued observance of the Old Calendar for Pascha as we follow the New Calendar for the menologion. Celebrate Pascha on the New Calendar as we do all the other feasts, and we go back to having an actual Apostles Fast every year.
What I think your pointing out, however, is an example of being lukewarm; the results leading to even more error, i,e. pick a calendar  -- in the words of Christ Jesus -- "I would that you be hot or cold".

(No offense intended.)
Yeah, I see what you mean. We should choose to follow either the New Calendar in its entirety (my personal preference) or stick with the Old. This layering of two calendars on top of each other seems rather schizophrenic to me.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 12:29:04 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,518
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1926 on: July 19, 2012, 12:37:47 AM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
When will you people stop trotting out this old canard? The short-to-nonexistent Apostles Fast those on the New Calendar observe in some years is not the fault of the New Calendar per se. It's the fault of our continued observance of the Old Calendar for Pascha as we follow the New Calendar for the menologion. Celebrate Pascha on the New Calendar as we do all the other feasts, and we go back to having an actual Apostles Fast every year.
What I think your pointing out, however, is an example of being lukewarm; the results leading to even more error, i,e. pick a calendar  -- in the words of Christ Jesus -- "I would that you be hot or cold".

(No offense intended.)
Yeah, I see what you mean. We should choose to follow either the New Calendar in its entirety (my personal preference) or stick with the Old. This layering of two calendars on top of each other seems rather schizophrenic to me.

Yes, and that is one reason why I chose to leave the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church -- I wanted to put aside the schizophrenia of trying to be Orthodox in communion with Rome. Communion with Rome means following the New Calendar Paschalion.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!

Offline Justin Kissel

  • Formerly a *, now a ☆
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 30,938
  • Faith: Agnosticish
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1927 on: July 20, 2012, 05:01:32 PM »
On NFTU's July 1 radio show they've challenged people who defend ecumenism or oppose old calendarism to come on their show and discuss or debate with them. Anyone interested?
I would, but such things are a fool's errand. I have my opinion, and they have theirs. it would just become a "who can GOT'CHA! first" thing.

PP

Yeah, maybe you're right. Eh, well if it does happen I'd still like to listen! :)
"I try to be good hard worker man, but refrigemator so messy... so, so messy."

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,225
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1928 on: July 20, 2012, 06:48:03 PM »
Forgive me if this has already been asked?

But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian? That is why did they not just update (the calendar) where it was -- so that it more accurately kept time?

I might be wrong, if so please let me know.

The Orthodox calendar effort was indeed based on the desire to ensure that the civil calendar that the Church used was both more correct astronomically and better reflected the Church calendar. A good example may the date for Nativity, whose feast day is December 25th in both the Church and Revised Julian calendars but falls 13 days later (in a different month and year) in the old Julian calendar. Now, it is true that the Gregorian and the Revised Julian calendars are very close to each other; that is because they are both revisions of the old Julian calendar which was wildly inaccurate, if one looks at a man-made calendar as an attempt to accurately reflect Natural Law. Thus, a man-made calendar should reflect days, weeks, months, years, as well as major astronomical events, such as the solstices and equinoxes--that is, a man-made calendar should reflect as accurately as possible the order of the universe as God created and ordained.

Today, those local churchers that are using the Revised Julian Calendar are in effect also using the Old Julian Calendar, beacuse the Paschal Cycle is basedd on the latter. Why, because all Orthodox Churches desire to celebrate Pascha together and some local churches have unfortunately decided to remnain on the Old Calendar. I pray that they will see the error of their wauys and adiot the Revised Juklian Calendar, so that no one will ever ask that dreaded question "But when they updated the Calendar why did they align all the feast days etc with the Gregorian?"  ;)

I pray for the day when everyone returns to the Church calendar and we can move forward from there. Errors. ::) You'll be the one having a -2 day fasting period for the Apostles fast next year.  :o

 :P
When will you people stop trotting out this old canard? The short-to-nonexistent Apostles Fast those on the New Calendar observe in some years is not the fault of the New Calendar per se. It's the fault of our continued observance of the Old Calendar for Pascha as we follow the New Calendar for the menologion. Celebrate Pascha on the New Calendar as we do all the other feasts, and we go back to having an actual Apostles Fast every year.
What I think your pointing out, however, is an example of being lukewarm; the results leading to even more error, i,e. pick a calendar  -- in the words of Christ Jesus -- "I would that you be hot or cold".

(No offense intended.)
Yeah, I see what you mean. We should choose to follow either the New Calendar in its entirety (my personal preference) or stick with the Old. This layering of two calendars on top of each other seems rather schizophrenic to me.

Yes, and that is one reason why I chose to leave the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church -- I wanted to put aside the schizophrenia of trying to be Orthodox in communion with Rome. Communion with Rome means following the New Calendar Paschalion.

Again, those of us who are following both the common church calendar and the civic Revised Julian calendar, are also using the same Paschalion as observed by those Churches that use the civic Old Julian Calendar. Too bad that there are so many folks like you who conflate the Church and civic calendars. But, to use your terminology, no one follows a New Calendar Paschalion.

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 21,986
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1929 on: July 21, 2012, 08:04:47 AM »
no one follows a New Calendar Paschalion.

Finland?

Offline вєликаго

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1930 on: July 22, 2012, 12:07:03 AM »
no one follows a New Calendar Paschalion.

Finland?

And Its my understanding the Patriarch of Constantinople   blesses them to do so? I could be wrong, however.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,270
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1931 on: July 22, 2012, 02:04:02 AM »
Does it even matter?
Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.

Offline вєликаго

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1932 on: July 22, 2012, 02:07:55 AM »
Does it even matter?

What is your criteria for mattering? Is it possible it could matter to you?

As for me, it matters, or I would not have brought it up.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,671
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1933 on: July 22, 2012, 02:59:03 AM »
Does it even matter?
Yes, it does. It would show that the EP is actually open to supporting the use of the New Calendar Paschalion, which may be of great importance to some on both sides of the great calendar controversy.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 03:05:28 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,270
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #1934 on: July 22, 2012, 05:26:44 AM »
...What is your criteria for mattering?

Is it essential for salvation? No. I doubt God cares what calendar we use and I doubt that our faith is really in any danger because of a mere calendar. Does it really matter what day we celebrate the feasts, fasts and special events on? No. But what matters is that we do them anyway regardless of when. I doubt that God is going to overlook all of our faith, works, piety and devotion just because we are doing it a week early or a week late. Doesn't God transcend time and warn against petty issues? Anyone who would commit schism over a calendar is pretty hyperdox along with anyone willing to issue anathema against someone just because they prefer the old calendar.
Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.