Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 244034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,081
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2025 on: December 21, 2012, 03:49:30 PM »
As with all things in Orthodoxy, I think the church should have reached a consensus about the calendar before any changes were initiated; we should be celebrating the same services of the day world wide.  I criticize the government of Greece for forcing the matter that has resulted in this mess we been experiencing the past 88 years. I don't have a strong opinion about either calendar; I just think the church should be celebrating and commemorating together.  "Some feast while others fast," as one of the Old Calendar bishops has said.  I could accept allowing for exceptions within each church, but each of the Holy Orthodox Churches should be of one mind about the church's calendar.

That's exactly my opinion also. I don't care how we sort it out but we ought to do so - and whatever we end up with must not continue to result in the absurdity of fasts that end before they begin.
You do realize that that has nothing to do with the New Calendar per se? The non-existence of the Apostles Fast that happens every so often for New Calendar churches is because we follow the New Calendar menologion while still following the Old Calendar paschalion. If we were to synchronize even the paschalion with the New Calendar, then we would always have a significant Apostles Fast.

Yes, I do. That was actually noted in my original post on the other thread, it's just that Michal chose not to quote that bit here and I saw no particular reason to repeat myself. I was flagging it up as an absurdity of the status quo which needs fixing, not laying the blame for it at the door of the New Calendar. I'd be perfectly happy if we all went onto the New Calendar (which, by the way, is not actually quite the same as the Gregorian, Choy, they'll eventually drift apart) with a New Paschalion. I'd have no issue with everyone shifting to the Revised Julian Calendar in toto, nor with everyone reverting to the old Julian Calendar but the current situation is simply absurd.

James

IMHO the tendency for those parishes on the new calendar to have modernist tendencies speaks for itself; especially those who fall directly under the ecumenical patriarch. A freemason who bought the patriarchate from the rightly elected bishop, unilaterally forced this on the churches under his jurisdiction. Then he used secular authorities by means of harassment, imprisonment, torture , and murder to force this change upon clergy and laymen alike. Im pretty sure this might be against a Church canon or two... Hey what does that matter? Were more advanced now. This is progress damn it!

What patriarch are you accusing of these things?

Various ones but of course the initial implementation of the calendar by Mataxicus. More like the chair of the of the pseudo patriarchate.

@KShaft: You are being obliged to list the names of those you're accusing, together with evidence to support your accusations. You are also being warned for not giving Patriarch Meletius with his proper title as required with the forum rules. You are given 48 hours to comply this request.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 03:52:13 PM by Michał Kalina »

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,617
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2026 on: December 21, 2012, 05:50:37 PM »
No, that's not what I said.  I simply noted what is the Jewish formula for computation of Passover and thus, why the Orthodox computation for the date of Pascha would need to wait for the conclusion of Passover.
But you're still saying that Passover has to be calculated first, then Pascha. If we "need to wait for the conclusion of Passover" we must first know when Passover is. Therefore, you are saying that one factor in determining the date of Pascha is dependent on Jewish calculations.

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,147
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2027 on: December 21, 2012, 07:06:30 PM »
No, the Orthodox computation uses the traditional Jewish formula for what should be their calculation for the date of Passover---Orthodox technicians claim the variances in the calendar the Jews use (I don't know which one it is) and some errors render their contemporary computation wrong sometimes--so the Orthodox perform the computation based on the 1st Ecumenical Synod formula and the practices resulting therefrom traditionally utilized.

In another matter, I've been thinking about this issue and have a recollection that a Pre-Conciliar Commission of the forthcoming "Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church" raised the question as to whether "Zonaras' rule," awaiting completion of Passover, may not be as vital as once thought.  Their report was years ago, perhaps 30 years ago; I don't know where to find the report and what commentary has been received by the General Secretariat from the Holy Orthodox Churches in this regard, except to say that I do know that moderate, rational separated Old Calendarists, challenged that position.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline Peacemaker

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,268
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2028 on: January 26, 2013, 07:44:59 PM »
Here is an interview with Abbot Schema-archimandrite JOACHIM (PARR). He is an Elder in the Russian Orthodox Church and his monastery is in New York. They are starting a skete here in the city where I live and he is very wise. I think he hits the nail on the head with this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZgNrqDK8-8

"Q:  I wanted to ask you in reference to, is it possible for Orthodox Church to except new pascha calendar?

>Archmandrit Joachim: Settling of the date of the calendar is something the entire Church has to do. It's not a heresy to change the calendar. But it breaks the unity of the Church, if the majority of the Church follows the old calendar and a portion of the Church for whatever reason follows the new calendar. They didn't understand what the calendar is for in the first place. The calendar is for the entire Church to celebrate at the same time, the same celebration of the reality of our faith. If you change that, you are no longer in unity. If your birthday is on Jun 1rst, and you celebrate it on June 1rst on the old calendar and I think you are celebrating it on the new calendar, and so I come and see you with gifts on the 13ths of June. And you say, "what are you doing?" "I'm here to celebrate your birthday." "It's already done."

So it's a matter of uniting the Church. It's always the whole Church. Who makes decisions for the Church, it can never be individuals. No matter how many individuals. We have to understand why we do things. The Church does not need to be modernized. The Church lives and exist outside of time. It is never old, it is always new, and the Church is always today and now. When we celebrate a holiday or feast day, that feast is happening at that moment. It is not just something that happened 2,000 years ago. So changing the calendar, is not understanding the mind of the Church. We should celebrate with them, but we shouldn't condemn them.

Q: So what do you think we should do, we can't celebrate pascha with these others of the Church, they changed the calender in 1920.

>Archmandrit Joachim: It is not for you to decide, you are in the Church, you are in the Church of Russia. It is our Patriarch and Senate who decides who serves with us and who doesn't. Not your decision. If the Patriarch says we serve with the Finish Church, then we serve with the Finish Church. It doesn't mean you agree with what they are doing. But there is a greater reality than calendars. And that's the unity of the Chalice. And they partake of the same Chalice as we do.

Remember the life of Jesus. When He invited prostitutes, He invited tax collectors, He invited people who were struggling. The ones who thought they were virtuous by keeping the law, The Lord reminded them, there was God, who calls and chooses, and who are you to say no. He welcomed them all, because at the time it wasn't about laws. It was about someone asking for forgiveness if we sin. And the Pharisees said, "how can you heal on the Sabbath? The law says, no work." He says, God is above the law. It's God who says, and lets us. Don't make the mistake and think you're God. When you decide for yourself it doesn't work. "

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,081
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2029 on: January 26, 2013, 07:46:13 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 07:46:25 PM by Michał Kalina »

Online Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,603
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2030 on: January 26, 2013, 07:49:05 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.

In Finland it is, and he seemed to be talking about the Finnish Church...
We all have an El Guapo to face. Be brave, and fight like lions!

Form a 'brute squad' then!

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,081
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2031 on: January 26, 2013, 07:53:51 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.

In Finland it is, and he seemed to be talking about the Finnish Church...

The New Calendar was introduced in 1923, not in 1920.

Online Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,603
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2032 on: January 26, 2013, 07:56:47 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.

In Finland it is, and he seemed to be talking about the Finnish Church...

The New Calendar was introduced in 1923, not in 1920.

True, it was the heretical encyclical that was from 1920. Though I'm pretty sure most of the new calendarists didn't start adopting it until 1924, though there might have been that "pan"-Orthodox meeting in 1923.
We all have an El Guapo to face. Be brave, and fight like lions!

Form a 'brute squad' then!

Offline Peacemaker

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,268
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2033 on: January 26, 2013, 07:57:16 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.

In Finland it is, and he seemed to be talking about the Finnish Church...

The New Calendar was introduced in 1923, not in 1920.
Forgive me if my typing has scandalized you. I played the video and typed it out the best I could while listening to it, the Elder speaks very low in that video. The Russian man may have said the "1920's" and I just didn't hear it.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 07:58:22 PM by Peacemaker »

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,081
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2034 on: January 26, 2013, 08:00:41 PM »
Nice except the Pascha date is not changed.

In Finland it is, and he seemed to be talking about the Finnish Church...

The New Calendar was introduced in 1923, not in 1920.
Forgive me if my typing has scandalized you. I played the video and typed it out the best I could while listening to it, the Elder speaks very low in that video. The Russian man may have said the "1920's" and I just didn't hear it.

I'm picking on. I'm sorry.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,427
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Holy Apostles Fast, see you next year I hope
« Reply #2035 on: February 04, 2013, 03:47:06 PM »
One of the few benefits of having Gregorian Calendar instead of Revised Julian Calendar is that we don't have problems like that.

+1. Also we actually have the proper date for the equinox.

Offline Alpo

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • My borcht recipe is better than your borcht recipe
Re: Holy Apostles Fast, see you next year I hope
« Reply #2036 on: February 04, 2013, 04:05:57 PM »
One of the few benefits of having Gregorian Calendar instead of Revised Julian Calendar is that we don't have problems like that.

+1. Also we actually have the proper date for the equinox.

Indian OOs use Gregorian Calendar?

I would actually much prefer Julian Calendar since I believe the most importat aspect of calendar is the unity of the Church. If the whole Church decided to switch to the Gregorian Calendar I wouldn't mind a bit but until that happens I believe all should stick with Julian Calendar.

Offline choy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,316
Re: Holy Apostles Fast, see you next year I hope
« Reply #2037 on: February 04, 2013, 04:09:29 PM »
One of the few benefits of having Gregorian Calendar instead of Revised Julian Calendar is that we don't have problems like that.

+1. Also we actually have the proper date for the equinox.

Indian OOs use Gregorian Calendar?

I would actually much prefer Julian Calendar since I believe the most importat aspect of calendar is the unity of the Church. If the whole Church decided to switch to the Gregorian Calendar I wouldn't mind a bit but until that happens I believe all should stick with Julian Calendar.

Agreed.  The whole point of the canons for Pascha is that the intention is for entire Christendom to celebrate the Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  So Gregorian, Julian, Chinese Lunar, Mayan, etc., it doesn't really matter which calendar you use as long as all the Churches celebrate Pascha together.

Offline sheenj

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,427
  • St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church
Re: Holy Apostles Fast, see you next year I hope
« Reply #2038 on: February 04, 2013, 04:12:12 PM »
One of the few benefits of having Gregorian Calendar instead of Revised Julian Calendar is that we don't have problems like that.

+1. Also we actually have the proper date for the equinox.

Indian OOs use Gregorian Calendar?

I would actually much prefer Julian Calendar since I believe the most importat aspect of calendar is the unity of the Church. If the whole Church decided to switch to the Gregorian Calendar I wouldn't mind a bit but until that happens I believe all should stick with Julian Calendar.

Yeah we switched around 1950 because IIRC there was a big push at the time for all Indian Christians to celebrate pascha at the same time. Keep in mind this was before the 1965 council of Addis Ababa so there wasn't that much contact between us the other OO churches, besides the Syrians, at the time.

So in a way, we switched to keep the spirit of the canon.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 04:12:50 PM by sheenj »

Offline Incognito777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2039 on: February 13, 2013, 12:00:36 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,008
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2040 on: February 13, 2013, 12:05:35 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

I own the book. Not what I would call an inspiring read. I am committed to the Old Calendar when living where I have a choice, but I'm not going to join one of the many competing rival Greek churches over the matter. I am of the opinion that the Old Calendar should be retained until it is universally adopted by all of the Orthodox Churches. The manner in which and the reasons why the New Calendar was implemented were unconscionable.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2041 on: February 13, 2013, 12:33:13 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

Rubbish. All Orthodox use the same Paschalion, irrespective of whether the old or new calendar is used. The Orthodox do NOT determine the date of Pascha in the same way the non-Orthodox do.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Online Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,603
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2042 on: February 13, 2013, 12:50:34 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

Rubbish. All Orthodox use the same Paschalion, irrespective of whether the old or new calendar is used. The Orthodox do NOT determine the date of Pascha in the same way the non-Orthodox do.

Finland?
We all have an El Guapo to face. Be brave, and fight like lions!

Form a 'brute squad' then!

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2043 on: February 13, 2013, 12:58:56 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

Rubbish. All Orthodox use the same Paschalion, irrespective of whether the old or new calendar is used. The Orthodox do NOT determine the date of Pascha in the same way the non-Orthodox do.

Finland?

Of course I know about Finland, but that is an irregularity which has nothing to do with Orthodox praxis, and everything to do with Finnish law.  :police:
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Online Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,603
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2044 on: February 13, 2013, 01:00:52 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

Rubbish. All Orthodox use the same Paschalion, irrespective of whether the old or new calendar is used. The Orthodox do NOT determine the date of Pascha in the same way the non-Orthodox do.

Finland?

Of course I know about Finland, but that is an irregularity which has nothing to do with Orthodox praxis, and everything to do with Finnish law.  :police:

I don't remember the details of the situation, but I thought it was about tax breaks or official recognition or something along those lines...? Would they be prohibited from worshipping if they celebrated pascha on a different day?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 01:01:13 AM by Asteriktos »
We all have an El Guapo to face. Be brave, and fight like lions!

Form a 'brute squad' then!

Offline chrevbel

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2045 on: February 13, 2013, 02:33:02 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope.
Comments like this puzzle me.  You revile the one because it is attributed it to the pope.  Yet you revere the other, attributed to Julius Caesar?

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,013
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2046 on: February 13, 2013, 02:48:28 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope. The new calendar has been condemned around 13 times, and there is no justification for an Orthodox Christian to use it. Read THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ECUMENISM.

I own the book. Not what I would call an inspiring read. I am committed to the Old Calendar when living where I have a choice, but I'm not going to join one of the many competing rival Greek churches over the matter. I am of the opinion that the Old Calendar should be retained until it is universally adopted by all of the Orthodox Churches. The manner in which and the reasons why the New Calendar was implemented were unconscionable.

Bolding my emphasis.
I agree.
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,680
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2047 on: February 13, 2013, 05:08:58 AM »
The new revised Julian calendar is functionally identical to the Gregorian Calendar of the pope.
Comments like this puzzle me.  You revile the one because it is attributed it to the pope.  Yet you revere the other, attributed to Julius Caesar?

You must mean St. Julius the Czar...
"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."
-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Offline Eldo55

  • LORD HAVE MERCY...
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • SPIRITUAL FORCE ~ Faith Is Power
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2048 on: February 17, 2013, 04:46:19 PM »
You fast now and then, but I am never refreshed by any food; you often keep vigil, but I never fall asleep. Only in one thing are you better than I am and I acknowledge that.” Macarius said to him, “What is that?” and he replied, “It is because of your humility alone that I cannot overcome you.”

Offline orthros

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2049 on: March 09, 2013, 05:03:40 PM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Global Moderator
  • Merarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,560
  • Michał Kalina's biggest fan
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2050 on: March 09, 2013, 10:39:45 PM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

What if both calendars are wrong?
I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that

Offline orthros

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2051 on: March 09, 2013, 10:43:15 PM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

What if both calendars are wrong?

Well, then I guess there are going to be a lot of red faces in the hereafter   ;D

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,299
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2052 on: March 10, 2013, 10:00:28 PM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

What if both calendars are wrong?

Two pints.

1. The Old Calendar is not only wronmg, it gets worse in the future. IAW, the trajectory is bad.

2. The New Calendar is the proposal of a Serbian scientist. Case closed.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2053 on: March 12, 2013, 01:57:03 AM »
  Show me where Christ inserted the calender issue into the Deposit of Faith and then the strawman argument has validity.
I read somewhere that some Orthodox insist on the the Julian calendar and say that the calendar has theological implications.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2054 on: March 12, 2013, 02:07:36 AM »
  Show me where Christ inserted the calender issue into the Deposit of Faith and then the strawman argument has validity.
I read somewhere that some Orthodox insist on the the Julian calendar and say that the calendar has theological implications.

They're mistaken.

If this were the case, then it would not be possible for there to be full communion between the canonical Churches of Greece, Romania, Antioch, Cyprus and Bulgaria (all on the new calendar) and the canonical Churches of Russia, Serbia, Ukraine Jerusalem, etc which are on the old calendar. The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,147
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2055 on: March 12, 2013, 03:17:49 AM »
Re. Reply No. 2054

Well stated.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2056 on: March 12, 2013, 03:32:00 AM »
The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
Why would the Orthodox Patriarchs anathematise an anomoly? "...God had forewarned and pre-armed the Orthodox against the innovation: in 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar, and in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it."
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/445/-orthodox-churches-new-calendar-(1918-1939)/

 

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2057 on: March 12, 2013, 03:40:22 AM »
The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
Why would the Orthodox Patriarchs anathematise an anomoly? "...God had forewarned and pre-armed the Orthodox against the innovation: in 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar, and in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it."
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/445/-orthodox-churches-new-calendar-(1918-1939)/

 

If you care to trawl through this thread, Stanley, you'll find that the condemnation was, and is, over the Roman Paschalion and the Roman Menologion, not the new calendar itself. All canonical Orthodox Churches celebrate Great Lent, Pascha, and all the movable feasts whose commemoration dates are determined by the date of Pascha, at the same time. And, yes, I know about Finland.
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,065
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2058 on: March 12, 2013, 08:47:45 AM »
The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
Why would the Orthodox Patriarchs anathematise an anomoly? "...God had forewarned and pre-armed the Orthodox against the innovation: in 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar, and in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it."
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/445/-orthodox-churches-new-calendar-(1918-1939)/

As LBK indicated, it was only the Gregorian Paschalian that was condemned by the Pan-Orthodox Councils because the manner of calculating Pascha was decided by an Ecumencal Council.  There is a so-called "Sigillian" of the 1583 Pan-Orthodox Council that supposedly anathematized the Gregorian "Menologion" as well as the Gregorian "Paschalian", but even the Old Calendarist "Synod in Resistance" acknowledges that this "Sigillian" is a fraud and no such anathema was declared at the 1583 Council.  For more on this, see the following notes by the "Synod in Resistance":

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2011/07/04/20110704aSigillion/20110704aSigillion.pdf

The whole "New Calendar is under anathema" argument is simply a myth.  Among other things, it ignores the fact that the New Calendar is specifically NOT the Gregorian Calendar, the New Calendar Menolodion and Paschalian are different from the Gregorian Menologion and Paschalian.  In other words, even if the Pan-Orthodox Councils DID anathematize the Gregorian Calendar (and not just the Paschalian), these anathemas still would not apply to the New Calendar used by the Orthodox.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,036
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Will ALL Christians ever become one? Thought?
« Reply #2059 on: March 12, 2013, 03:52:10 PM »
The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
Why would the Orthodox Patriarchs anathematise an anomoly? "...God had forewarned and pre-armed the Orthodox against the innovation: in 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar, and in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it."
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/445/-orthodox-churches-new-calendar-(1918-1939)/

 
Do be aware, Stanley, that, even though this thread is a sticky, it's still on the Faith Issues board.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline mike

  • The Jerk
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 22,081
  • Scarecrow is watching you
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Makurian Orthodox
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2060 on: March 13, 2013, 10:15:32 AM »
The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, but not, repeat, not, a heresy.
Why would the Orthodox Patriarchs anathematise an anomoly? "...God had forewarned and pre-armed the Orthodox against the innovation: in 1583, 1587 and 1593, the Eastern Patriarchs had anathematized the new calendar, and in 1904 all of the Local Churches had condemned it."
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/445/-orthodox-churches-new-calendar-(1918-1939)/

 
Do be aware, Stanley, that, even though this thread is a sticky, it's still on the Faith Issues board.

I moved his initial post here.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 10:16:34 AM by Michał Kalina »

Offline Putnik Namernik

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2061 on: March 13, 2013, 11:23:49 AM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

What if both calendars are wrong?

They both appear to be wrong...It is my belief that the Gregorian calendar was not implemented because it was more correct than Julian, but in order to appear to the mainstream Christianity...as there are many other instances of such things happening...The problem which I see is the intention to modify Orthodoxy in order to make it more appealing to wider masses...I find that wrong.  It is not Orthodoxy that needs to be changed...it is us that need to change...We need to improve ourselves instead of limiting ourselves through appealing to our weaknesses.

I do not doubt the good intention of our hierarchs, but am afraid that it may lead us in a wrong direction...If there was a need to change the calendar then it should have happened in a different (pan-Orthodox) level so schism would have been avoided...I also wonder what good has this new calendar brought us?  Serbian scientist Milankovic has proposed his calendar which is apparently more correct than Julian and Gregorian, but the question remains whether Julian calendar has become obsolete...I personally do not believe it to be case.

Offline Basil 320

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,147
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2062 on: March 13, 2013, 12:26:25 PM »
A big factor in the need to revise the Julian Calendar was the movement of the world, civilly, to the Gregorian Calendar, with pressure from the civil governments of the Orthodox nations.  Great Britain held out to the conversion until 1752 (or so), but did succumb because the world had been adopting the Gregorian as their civil calendar. One reason that was holding off the conversion, is that the scientific community was feeling that another calendar would soon be introduced to correct the errors of the Gregorian Calendar.  But the matter that forced the change was the pressure, demand actually, that the Greek government put upon Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens primarily because Greece felt the need to commemorate the Feast Day of the Annunciation to the Theotokos on the same day as the celebration of Greek Independence, as it had occurred in 1821, the traditional date that marked the beginning of the Greek Revolution for its independence from Ottoman Turkey.  Archbishop Chrysostoms pressured Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII, his church being desperate for the financial support provided by the Greek government due to large contributions of property to the Greek state years prior---although Greece was not providing the necessary support due to lack thereof, at the time.  Patriarch Gregory opposed the calendar reform, but reluctantly agreed to the conversion to the Revised Julian Calendar.
"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: Greek Old Calendarism and Canonical Greek Orthodoxy in America
« Reply #2063 on: March 13, 2013, 02:05:10 PM »
I don't understand a lot of the calendar controversy, but if there is truth associated with it, new or old, then it makes sense to protect those truths.  Not intending to create schisms, but merely to defend that which is right.

What if both calendars are wrong?

They both appear to be wrong...It is my belief that the Gregorian calendar was not implemented because it was more correct than Julian, but in order to appear to the mainstream Christianity...as there are many other instances of such things happening...The problem which I see is the intention to modify Orthodoxy in order to make it more appealing to wider masses...I find that wrong.  It is not Orthodoxy that needs to be changed...it is us that need to change...We need to improve ourselves instead of limiting ourselves through appealing to our weaknesses.

I do not doubt the good intention of our hierarchs, but am afraid that it may lead us in a wrong direction...If there was a need to change the calendar then it should have happened in a different (pan-Orthodox) level so schism would have been avoided...I also wonder what good has this new calendar brought us?  Serbian scientist Milankovic has proposed his calendar which is apparently more correct than Julian and Gregorian, but the question remains whether Julian calendar has become obsolete...I personally do not believe it to be case.
Go out on the Vernal Equinox Julian style, and see if the day and night are of equal length.
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 Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
The olde Old Calendar
« Reply #2064 on: April 08, 2013, 02:00:32 AM »
The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 02:04:48 AM by Dionysii »

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2065 on: April 25, 2013, 08:01:29 PM »
No, the Orthodox computation uses the traditional Jewish formula for what should be their calculation for the date of Passover---Orthodox technicians claim the variances in the calendar the Jews use (I don't know which one it is) and some errors render their contemporary computation wrong sometimes--so the Orthodox perform the computation based on the 1st Ecumenical Synod formula and the practices resulting therefrom traditionally utilized.

If the present-day Jewish computations can be deemed "wrong" there must be some objective standard of accuracy by which they are measured.  What is this standard?   On what basis do the "Orthodox technicians" deem the modern-day Jewish date of Passover to be sometimes "wrong"?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 08:01:58 PM by Mockingbird »
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: Old vs. New Calendar?
« Reply #2066 on: May 16, 2013, 08:53:34 PM »
Still waiting to hear from those "Orthodox technicians."

I have never yet met anyone who (a) belives that the Zonaras proviso is an explicit rule used in the Julian computation of Easter and who also (b) can describe the mathematical details of this supposed rule.

The canon about Jewish physicians is the 11th of Trullo:
Quote
Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.


Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,008
Re: The olde Old Calendar
« Reply #2067 on: May 16, 2013, 09:53:05 PM »
The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era

But if I'm following this correctly, then the actual date of the day and month would be identical, and only the number of the year would be different, correct? So there was still no interruption in universally uniform commemorations/feasts for major holidays?

Online Jonathan Gress

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,669
Re: The olde Old Calendar
« Reply #2068 on: May 16, 2013, 10:13:42 PM »
The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era

But if I'm following this correctly, then the actual date of the day and month would be identical, and only the number of the year would be different, correct? So there was still no interruption in universally uniform commemorations/feasts for major holidays?

Yeah this was a total red herring. Not to mention the fact that Peter the Great only changed the year of reckoning for the civil calendar; the Russian Church, as with the rest of the Orthodox Church, continues to count years from the Creation.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,522
Re: The olde Old Calendar
« Reply #2069 on: May 16, 2013, 11:10:29 PM »
The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era

But if I'm following this correctly, then the actual date of the day and month would be identical, and only the number of the year would be different, correct? So there was still no interruption in universally uniform commemorations/feasts for major holidays?

Yeah this was a total red herring. Not to mention the fact that Peter the Great only changed the year of reckoning for the civil calendar; the Russian Church, as with the rest of the Orthodox Church, continues to count years from the Creation.
Ah, no.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate switched (or rather, added) to the AD system in 1628. And the Russian Church used (and uses) 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