OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 26, 2014, 01:20:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 202624 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2160 on: August 29, 2013, 12:34:36 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian? Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
Well, when both look at the actual sun from the actual earth, they are going to resemble each other.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2161 on: August 29, 2013, 12:38:48 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2162 on: August 29, 2013, 12:40:27 PM »



Yes, this is what I believe.

OK, you are entitled to your beliefs, but I don't think the evidence you provided in any way proves or suggests that St Nektarios would have approved of adopting the new calendar.

Quote
Yes, but with St. Nektarios he is not simply venerated privately by Old Calendarists.  There are Old Calendarist churches named after him when no Old Calendarist Synod came together to officially recognize him as a saint, an authority they seem to have deferred to bishops with whom they are not in communion.


I'd have to look at the history of those churches dedicated to him. They may have been founded while members of the New Calendar church, and kept their dedication after they went over to the Old Calendar church. This would make sense particularly if these were former or current HOCNA churches. HOCNA, as you note, believed that the EP was still in the Church up until 1965, and St Nektarios was glorified by them in 1961.

It's interesting to note that the Alexandrian Patriarchate didn't recognize him until 1998.
I think I have shared a miracle in Egypt attributed to him before 1998
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2163 on: August 29, 2013, 12:52:45 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2164 on: August 29, 2013, 12:56:00 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2165 on: August 29, 2013, 12:57:18 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2166 on: August 29, 2013, 01:09:43 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
No, because there is no good reason to deny that it revised the Julian calendar.  The Gregorian one didn't need any revision.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2167 on: August 29, 2013, 01:12:25 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
Don't fall so much in love with your rhetoric that you think me blind to see no value in conceding to it. IIRC, plenty of people have given you evidence to support our views on the Revised Julian Calendar. It's not our fault if you won't even recognize our effort.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 01:14:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #2168 on: August 29, 2013, 01:19:22 PM »

Eastern Orthodox full moon (except in Finland.)


Lol.

Do old calendarist farmers in northern climes follow the Julian Calendar for their agricultural cycles? Good luck with that if you have a ninety day planting and harvest window.

I frankly don't care about the calendar but the Julian is clearly out of sync with reality and attempts to defend it on some sort of "proof" basis are silly and they make the church appear to be grounded in superstition rather than revealed Truth. It should not be a church dividing issue.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 01:20:16 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #2169 on: August 29, 2013, 01:34:40 PM »

Eastern Orthodox full moon (except in Finland.)


This is actually funny.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,896


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2170 on: August 29, 2013, 02:02:14 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 02:18:51 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 847



« Reply #2171 on: August 29, 2013, 04:37:55 PM »

Guys, you really need to get your acts together! This forum is not a place for fighting, but for a civilised discussion of the merits of the Old and New Calendars. I personally prefer the Old Calendar, particularly because the New Calendar was often forced on the churches where it was adopted. There are good exceptions like Poland, but nearly all New Calendar churches have Old Calendar equivalents (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria). In addition, some liturgical oddities appear, like no Fast of St. Peter when Pentecost happens late, if one is using the New Calendar. In addition, Kyriopascha disappears (Kyriopascha is when Annunciation and Pascha happen on the same date. For reference, the Greek Revolution started on Kyriopascha 1821.). This is not what a liturgical calendar should look like,IMHO. A liturgical calendar should be consistent, without loud bangs, smells, and disappearances Tongue Wink.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2172 on: August 29, 2013, 05:10:02 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
Don't fall so much in love with your rhetoric that you think me blind to see no value in conceding to it. IIRC, plenty of people have given you evidence to support our views on the Revised Julian Calendar. It's not our fault if you won't even recognize our effort.

I'll take the lack of supporting evidence as an implicit concession. Thanks.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2173 on: August 29, 2013, 05:12:48 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
No, because there is no good reason to deny that it revised the Julian calendar.  The Gregorian one didn't need any revision.

Yes, because once you revise the calendar, it's no longer the same calendar, UNLESS you can point to some feature of the revised calendar that it continues to share with the Julian. My point is there are no such features, and hence "revised Julian" is misleading, since the new calendar has zip to do with the traditional Julian calendar.

It's interesting that you claim the Gregorian one didn't need revision. I thought the whole point of the "revised Julian is not the Gregorian" argument was that the Gregorian calendar was imperfect and needed to be improved on, hence the revised Gregorian Julian.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2174 on: August 29, 2013, 05:23:07 PM »

Guys, you really need to get your acts together! This forum is not a place for fighting, but for a civilised discussion of the merits of the Old and New Calendars. I personally prefer the Old Calendar, particularly because the New Calendar was often forced on the churches where it was adopted. There are good exceptions like Poland, but nearly all New Calendar churches have Old Calendar equivalents (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria). In addition, some liturgical oddities appear, like no Fast of St. Peter when Pentecost happens late, if one is using the New Calendar. In addition, Kyriopascha disappears (Kyriopascha is when Annunciation and Pascha happen on the same date. For reference, the Greek Revolution started on Kyriopascha 1821.). This is not what a liturgical calendar should look like,IMHO. A liturgical calendar should be consistent, without loud bangs, smells, and disappearances Tongue Wink.

Thanks, ilyazhito. I think there is a kernel to the new calendarist position which has merit, namely the desire to sanctify the solar and lunar cycles. If we wish to focus on that aspect, then it makes sense to take astronomical accuracy into consideration.

The problem is that this question had come before the Church in the 16th century, when the Pope presented his new, accurate calendar, and the Church rejected it. Note that the Church did not dispute the Pope's claim to accuracy; rather, she pointed to the break with Tradition. So, following the Church's decisions in the 16th century, we Old Calendarists choose Tradition over astronomical accuracy.

Of course, there is the added dimension of Papism and ecumenism. Adopting the Papal calendar would give implicit authority to the heterodox Pope to decide matters of observance for the Orthodox Church, which was clearly unconscionable. Likewise, changing the calendar in a such a way as to align many of the most important feasts with Western, heterodox observance, and away from unity with Orthodox observance, was also unconscionable for the Old Calendarists. Not to mention the fact that, at the same time as the reformers were promoting calendar reform, they were also promoting ecumenism and more sweeping revisions to Church practice and teaching (viz the 1920 encyclical of EP locum tenens Met Dositheus), and indeed we saw later that the reformist churches were at the forefront of ecumenical activity. These various lines of evidence come together to support the Old Calendar position, in my view.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 05:23:26 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2175 on: August 29, 2013, 05:27:39 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,313


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #2176 on: August 29, 2013, 05:35:02 PM »

I also wonder about the inconsistency, though I think if you consider the history of the veneration of saints, it usually begins in an informal manner. Formal glorification by the Church is simply a recognition of a fact already established. I have seen Old Calendarists venerating St Nektarios, St Nikolai Velimirovic, St Nikodimos Agioritis and others who were only formally glorified by the New Calendar church, but the saints themselves can't be described as "new calendarist" saints, since they either reposed before the calendar change, or else they remained with the Old Calendar after the change.

I agree with you that formal canonisation by the Church is a recognition of what the Church has informally accepted already re: an individual's holiness.  But if the New Calendarists were the only group to canonise St Nektarios, and you don't consider them "The Church", and yet the body that you do recognise as "The Church" hasn't formally canonised him, how does that work exactly?  There are churches dedicated to him in your jurisdiction(s), and/or icons of St Nektarios as St Nektarios in your churches.  IIRC, there's one at St Markella's.  Is there a modern precedent for such formal devotion without formal canonisation? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2177 on: August 29, 2013, 05:37:28 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.
They vastly underestimated the lure of ignorance.

The proposal had been raised in Russia decades before, but the Bolshevik revolution interrupted discussion of it in the 1917 Synod.  Serbia, Romania and Greece (?) adopted the full revision, but were drawn back to just using the Menaion when the other Churches failed to adopt the revision.  That, however, was ephemeral.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2178 on: August 29, 2013, 05:42:03 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
No, because there is no good reason to deny that it revised the Julian calendar.  The Gregorian one didn't need any revision.

Yes, because once you revise the calendar, it's no longer the same calendar, UNLESS you can point to some feature of the revised calendar that it continues to share with the Julian. My point is there are no such features, and hence "revised Julian" is misleading, since the new calendar has zip to do with the traditional Julian calendar.

It's interesting that you claim the Gregorian one didn't need revision. I thought the whole point of the "revised Julian is not the Gregorian" argument was that the Gregorian calendar was imperfect and needed to be improved on, hence the revised Gregorian Julian.
you can't even get that right: is it any wonder you are way off?

The Milenkovic calendar had no reference to the Gregorian.  None, Nada. Not that it was more perfect or imperfect.  He was just focused on the fact that the Julian calendar missed the equinox by 13 days.

Btw, just for the record, if were a full scale adoption of the Gregorian calendar, like in Finland and some in Estonia, I'd be fine with that, no problem-why should I prefer a pagan pontifax maximus over a Christian one?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 05:43:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2179 on: August 29, 2013, 06:28:30 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
Don't fall so much in love with your rhetoric that you think me blind to see no value in conceding to it. IIRC, plenty of people have given you evidence to support our views on the Revised Julian Calendar. It's not our fault if you won't even recognize our effort.

I'll take the lack of supporting evidence as an implicit concession. Thanks.
You can and will do with my words anything you want to do, Jonathan. That doesn't make you right, though.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2180 on: August 29, 2013, 06:32:39 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
And yet he's still masquerading his opinions as facts. I don't expect to change peoples' minds when I do that. What makes Jonathan think he can expect to change peoples' minds when he does that?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 06:33:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2181 on: August 29, 2013, 08:13:30 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

Are you saying that it is not a fact that the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian?
I'm going to say that the question of similarities is often less a matter of absolute fact than of one's ability to associate concepts and things based on perceived likenesses.

Or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears over that, too?
I'm not the one sticking fingers in my ears, Jonathan.

OK, but what is the perceived likeness between the revised Julian and the traditional Julian, in your eyes? From my perspective, there is none, and I happen to think that is the reasonable inference, hence my opinion that those who insist on seeing some kind of special similarity are obtuse and impervious to reason.
That is certainly your opinion. Undecided

But why can't you simply come up with some evidence that supports your views about the revised Julian? Can't you just concede that in fact there is no good reason for calling the new calendar the "revised Julian"?
No, because there is no good reason to deny that it revised the Julian calendar.  The Gregorian one didn't need any revision.

Yes, because once you revise the calendar, it's no longer the same calendar, UNLESS you can point to some feature of the revised calendar that it continues to share with the Julian. My point is there are no such features, and hence "revised Julian" is misleading, since the new calendar has zip to do with the traditional Julian calendar.

It's interesting that you claim the Gregorian one didn't need revision. I thought the whole point of the "revised Julian is not the Gregorian" argument was that the Gregorian calendar was imperfect and needed to be improved on, hence the revised Gregorian Julian.
you can't even get that right: is it any wonder you are way off?

The Milenkovic calendar had no reference to the Gregorian.  None, Nada. Not that it was more perfect or imperfect.  He was just focused on the fact that the Julian calendar missed the equinox by 13 days.

Btw, just for the record, if were a full scale adoption of the Gregorian calendar, like in Finland and some in Estonia, I'd be fine with that, no problem-why should I prefer a pagan pontifax maximus over a Christian one?

This is playing semantic games. You seem to think that the Julian calendar somehow remains the Julian calendar after the revision. But it doesn't; it becomes a new calendar. How do I know this? Because it no longer shows any characteristics of the Julian calendar.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,017


« Reply #2182 on: August 29, 2013, 08:17:03 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
And yet he's still masquerading his opinions as facts. I don't expect to change peoples' minds when I do that. What makes Jonathan think he can expect to change peoples' minds when he does that?

It is a fact that the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. No one has offered any evidence to the contrary. ialmisry tried to offer evidence in the form of the epoch of the calendar, mistakenly believing the revised Julian epoch to be identical with the traditional Julian epoch, but I pointed out his error and gave a reference to back me up. Since then, all you or anybody else has done is repeat the mantra that the "revised Julian" is based on the Julian simply because it has "Julian" in the name. And you presume to accuse me of masquerading opinion as fact? I'm done here, thanks.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2183 on: August 29, 2013, 08:37:38 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
And yet he's still masquerading his opinions as facts. I don't expect to change peoples' minds when I do that. What makes Jonathan think he can expect to change peoples' minds when he does that?

It is a fact that the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian.
No, this is your personal perception, based on your own set of criteria, that the Revised Julian calendar is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian.

No one has offered any evidence to the contrary. ialmisry tried to offer evidence in the form of the epoch of the calendar, mistakenly believing the revised Julian epoch to be identical with the traditional Julian epoch, but I pointed out his error and gave a reference to back me up. Since then, all you or anybody else has done is repeat the mantra that the "revised Julian" is based on the Julian simply because it has "Julian" in the name.
Do note that since then--whenever then is--I have said nothing to repeat any mantra that the Revised Julian Calendar is based on the Julian.

And you presume to accuse me of masquerading opinion as fact?
Even if it is true that the Revised Julian Calendar is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian, that perception of similarity itself is not proof that the Revised Julian Calendar was intended to be based on the Gregorian Calendar and NOT on the Julian Calendar, as the creators of the Revised Julian Calendar themselves stated. Milutin Milankovic stated that his intent was to propose another revision of the Julian Calendar to be used in opposition to the Gregorian Calendar. Whether his Revised Julian Calendar is more similar to the Gregorian Calendar or not is immaterial to me. I trust his statement of intent over your repeated allegations that he and the calendar reformers intended to pull the wool over our eyes by foisting upon us something that is really nothing more than another version of the Gregorian Calendar.

I'm done here, thanks.
Bye.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 08:38:10 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2184 on: August 29, 2013, 10:05:12 PM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
And yet he's still masquerading his opinions as facts. I don't expect to change peoples' minds when I do that. What makes Jonathan think he can expect to change peoples' minds when he does that?

It is a fact that the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. No one has offered any evidence to the contrary. ialmisry tried to offer evidence in the form of the epoch of the calendar, mistakenly believing the revised Julian epoch to be identical with the traditional Julian epoch, but I pointed out his error and gave a reference to back me up.
I also provided the evidence (i.e. those writing at the time) that the old Julian epoch start didn't start that day on January 1 1 AD: Julian had to realign the calendar to the real rotation of the real earth around the real sun, which was completed in 45 BC (although another day was inserted in 41 BC so that market day of the old 8 day Roman week would not fall on January 1 40 BC, putting things off), but the pontifex added another day every 3 years, so that at the change of the epoch Augustus was still fiddling with it.  The calendar was not stabilized as the proleptic Julian calendar until 4 AD.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jah777
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,764


« Reply #2185 on: August 30, 2013, 08:14:25 AM »



Yes, this is what I believe.

OK, you are entitled to your beliefs, but I don't think the evidence you provided in any way proves or suggests that St Nektarios would have approved of adopting the new calendar.

St. Nektarios probably would not have approved of the New Calendar, but he certainly would not have approved of schism from the Church.  I know this for sure, but I am not saying this in order to convince you. 
Logged
jah777
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,764


« Reply #2186 on: August 30, 2013, 08:17:32 AM »

I imagine you'll probably come back with the canard that the "revised Julian" is not the Gregorian.
Well, if one doesn't want to deal with the facts, we can't do much for you.

I already explained the facts earlier, but you are too obtuse to recognize them.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!! Do you really expect that people are going to change their minds in response to opinions masqueraded as facts by an anonymous yahoo on an Internet discussion forum?

PeterTheAleut is not your real name, PtA. This is pot calling the kettle black!
Dr. Jonathan Gress is a real person, not an anonymous yahoo.
And yet he's still masquerading his opinions as facts. I don't expect to change peoples' minds when I do that. What makes Jonathan think he can expect to change peoples' minds when he does that?

It is a fact that the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. No one has offered any evidence to the contrary. ialmisry tried to offer evidence in the form of the epoch of the calendar, mistakenly believing the revised Julian epoch to be identical with the traditional Julian epoch, but I pointed out his error and gave a reference to back me up. Since then, all you or anybody else has done is repeat the mantra that the "revised Julian" is based on the Julian simply because it has "Julian" in the name. And you presume to accuse me of masquerading opinion as fact? I'm done here, thanks.

Jonathan, have you ever read "A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: The 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress" which contains all of the decisions and decrees which lead to the Church of Greece, and subsequently others, changing the calendar?  Please do let me know, as this is a very important question.
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #2187 on: August 30, 2013, 08:36:33 AM »

An honest, non provocative question..again coming from one with no passion either way regarding the calendar issue....As I see the old calendarists point of view, it appears that keeping true to tradition is one is their main points. (Along with anti-modernism and anti-papalism... I wonder what their pov would be if the NC were developed in the Ottoman's  or the Tsar's court by the same astronomers in the 17th century instead of in Rome ..I suspect we wouldnt be having this discussion. You know, the new Ottomanian or Romanovian Calendar...)

Anyway, geocentrism seems to be a part of the Julian regimen, yet we know (at least most of us know), that view of the cosmos is in error.  Is this a problem, if so, how is it reconciled?

Thanks...and I wish we all would be less angry about the issue.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 08:37:08 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2188 on: August 30, 2013, 08:55:30 AM »

Anyway, geocentrism seems to be a part of the Julian regimen, yet we know (at least most of us know), that view of the cosmos is in error.  Is this a problem, if so, how is it reconciled?
Not a problem: Copernicus used the Julian calendar.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,522



« Reply #2189 on: August 30, 2013, 10:12:58 AM »

An honest, non provocative question..again coming from one with no passion either way regarding the calendar issue....As I see the old calendarists point of view, it appears that keeping true to tradition is one is their main points. (Along with anti-modernism and anti-papalism... I wonder what their pov would be if the NC were developed in the Ottoman's  or the Tsar's court by the same astronomers in the 17th century instead of in Rome ..I suspect we wouldnt be having this discussion. You know, the new Ottomanian or Romanovian Calendar...)

Anyway, geocentrism seems to be a part of the Julian regimen, yet we know (at least most of us know), that view of the cosmos is in error.  Is this a problem, if so, how is it reconciled?

Thanks...and I wish we all would be less angry about the issue.

I think that the emotions that are displayed are due to frustration. Personally, I am amazed at the tenacity displayed by the Old calendarists. Those who use the Old Calendar but are in communion with those of us who use the Revised Julian are a bit less vehement and if drawn into an intelligence discussion eventually agree that if the entire church used the Revised, all the liturgical problems would go away and that the Revised is more in line with the practice and decrees of the Early Church. Their problem is the probability of schism by those who have conflated the liturgical order/calendar with the Julian Calendar and have given the Julian sacred properties. The answer is better catechism and more frequent communion; both of these two practices will help sweep out superstition and ignorance that linger amongst us.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,222


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #2190 on: August 30, 2013, 03:40:03 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

To be fair, this is a double-edged question.

Why were the Old Calendarists so hellbent on resisting the "New Calendar" even if it resulted in schism? I think all of the Church is accountable for the calendar thing.
Logged

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.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,896


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2191 on: August 30, 2013, 05:12:33 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

To be fair, this is a double-edged question.

Why were the Old Calendarists so hellbent on resisting the "New Calendar" even if it resulted in schism? I think all of the Church is accountable for the calendar thing.

Your question could be asked in reverse:

Why were the New Calendarists so hellbent on Ecumenism and appeasing Roman Catholics that they forced the "New Calendar" on everyone in spite of the fact that they knew it would lead to a schism?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2192 on: August 30, 2013, 05:14:09 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

To be fair, this is a double-edged question.

Why were the Old Calendarists so hellbent on resisting the "New Calendar" even if it resulted in schism? I think all of the Church is accountable for the calendar thing.

Your question could be asked in reverse:

Why were the New Calendarists so hellbent on Ecumenism and appeasing Roman Catholics that they forced the "New Calendar" on everyone in spite of the fact that they knew it would lead to a schism?
Maria, do make an effort to answer James's question.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 05:15:26 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2193 on: August 30, 2013, 05:42:16 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.
Who's to blame for the schism, Jonathan? It can be said that if your faction hadn't actively broken off from the Church to form a schism we would have no schism over which you could blame the other side. No one can drive your faction into schism if you're not first willing to go into schism.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 05:42:40 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,896


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2194 on: August 30, 2013, 05:51:59 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

I agree. In the biographical book on St. Nectarios that I had previously cited, Sotos Chondropoulos, the author, mentioned that AB Meletios and his friends in the Greek hierarchy wanted to bring the Orthodox Church into the 20th century and did not want it to appear so backwards especially to those in the West. Thus, he not only encouraged priests to shave their beards, and wear Roman Catholic clerical garbs, but also highly praised the Gregorian Calendar. St. Nectarios, who was serving as Dean, met opposition from his fellow faculty members and from the hierarchy when he encouraged his seminarians to grow beards and wear the priestly frock or raissa.

In other words, just like many Americanized Greeks who wanted to adopt American ways over Greek traditions, AB Meletios was embarassed for the backwardness of the Greeks, and wanted to bring them into the 20th century, even if that meant embracing anathemas by doing away with the Old Calendar.

Interestingly, St. Nicholas Planas lived in Athens and was able to meet with St. Nectarios there. Both men valued the Old Calendar as that was the only calendar used until 1924.

Once again, I will provide the reference to save your fingers.
Saint Nectarios: the Saint of our Century, by Sotos Chondropolos, translated by Peter and Aliki Los, Athens, 1997.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 06:17:51 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2195 on: August 30, 2013, 06:50:53 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

I agree. In the biographical book on St. Nectarios that I had previously cited, Sotos Chondropoulos, the author, mentioned that AB Meletios and his friends in the Greek hierarchy wanted to bring the Orthodox Church into the 20th century and did not want it to appear so backwards especially to those in the West. Thus, he not only encouraged priests to shave their beards, and wear Roman Catholic clerical garbs, but also highly praised the Gregorian Calendar. St. Nectarios, who was serving as Dean, met opposition from his fellow faculty members and from the hierarchy when he encouraged his seminarians to grow beards and wear the priestly frock or raissa
Wasn't it AB Meletios and his friends in the hierarchy who not only encouraged the New Calendar movement but also encouraged priests to abandon facial hair and the wearing of priestly frocks? (source: St. Nectarios)
I lolled. BTW, do you venerate New Calendarist Saints?
St. Nectarios died in 1920 before the mandatory imposition of the New Calendar in 1924.
He is not a new calendar saint, but a universal church saint.
And it was AB Meletios who harassed St. Nectarios while he was on his death bed.
Met./Ab/EP/Pope Meletius was too busy meddling in America and being deposed to be harrassing St. Nectarios on his death bed-where did you see it claimed (and substantiated) otherwise?

St. Nectarios was glorified after 1924, by the New Calendar Churches.  We only have "universal Church saints."

It was in one of his biographies. I have to go and find it. AB Meletius came to the island where St. Nectarios lay dying and demanded the impossible. Lord have mercy.

It wasn't until 1934 or 1935, that the first True Synod of Bishops was established. But this is off topic to this discussion on Old Calendar, so please do not push the issue.

The topic of discussion is Old vs. New Calendar, not St. Nectarios' glorification.
and who brought St. Nectarios up?

I did not bring up his glorification, you did.
IOW, you brought him up, expecting no followup.

In other words, just like many Americanized Greeks who wanted to adopt American ways over Greek traditions, AB Meletios was embarassed for the backwardness of the Greeks, and wanted to bring them into the 20th century, even if that meant embracing anathemas by doing away with the Old Calendar.
so that was sacred backwardness.

If they are in America, well...

If one wants to be bound by Greek tradition, stay in Greece.

Interestingly, St. Nicholas Planas lived in Athens and was able to meet with St. Nectarios there. Both men valued the Old Calendar as that was the only calendar used until 1924.
Valuing something when it is the only thing isn't terribly hard.

Once again, I will provide the reference to save your fingers.
Saint Nectarios: the Saint of our Century, by Sotos Chondropolos, translated by Peter and Aliki Los, Athens, 1997.
didn't save mine.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 102



« Reply #2196 on: August 30, 2013, 09:01:59 PM »

Maybe the reformers were tired of pretending that a full moon looks like this:



and decided to look at the sky as the early fathers did, and revise the calendar accordingly.  What other motivation need we attribute to them?

Milankovitch's motivations, at least, are on the record.  Concerning the solar calendar he wrote (translated from Milankovitch's German to English by Miriam Nancy Shields, 1924)
Quote
As is known, heretofore all the oriental Christian churches held fast to the Julian calendar, which is thirteen days behind the Gregorian.  This condition proved to be inconvenient, particularly in the newly organized South-Slav and Roumanian kingdoms, with their mixed Greek-Orthodox and Roman Catholic populations, whereby the otherwise numerous holidays were celebrated twice.  A reform of the Julian calendar was, therefore, an urgent necessity, especially since its inadequateness had been shown by science long ago.  A complete adoption of the Gregorian calendar was, however, not advisable either from a religious or scientific standpoint because the astronomical data concerning the length of the tropical year which lay at the base of the Gregorian reform are now replaced by others.
  (This last statement is no longer considered to be quite as obvious as it was in 1924.  There are arguments for preferring the Gregorian approximation to the tropical year over Milankovitch's.)

Concerning the lunar calendar, Milankovitch wrote:
Quote
The establishment of the date of Easter brought some difficulty to the Congress.  As is well known, the date of Easter depends on the phases of the moon, since Easter must fall on that Sunday which follows the first full moon after the vernal equinox.  This rule, which has been accepted by all Christian churches, is so clear and unequivocal that (it would seem) no difference would be possible in regard to the date of Easter if one determined the phases of the moon accurately and not by the old rules of reckoning which give inaccurate results....[Therefore] The ecumenical patriarch will request the observatories or chairs of celestial mechanics in Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest and Pulkowa (Petrograd) to compute long-time Easter tables, and will give them to all the orthodox churches.

If there is any heresy in these words of Milankovitch's it eludes me to perfection.

Milankovitch's article in German is at Astronomische Nachrichten, volume 220, 379-384 (1924). 
Miriam Nancy Shields's English translation is at Popular Astronomy, volume 32, 407-411 (1924).
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 09:13:55 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,896


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2197 on: August 30, 2013, 10:02:23 PM »

It should not be a church dividing issue.

Very good point, which brings us to the question: why did the New Calendarists insist on unilateral reform in spite of the schism it was causing within its own ranks? Clearly having an accurate calendar was more important to the New Calendarists than the unity of the Church.

I agree. In the biographical book on St. Nectarios that I had previously cited, Sotos Chondropoulos, the author, mentioned that AB Meletios and his friends in the Greek hierarchy wanted to bring the Orthodox Church into the 20th century and did not want it to appear so backwards especially to those in the West. Thus, he not only encouraged priests to shave their beards, and wear Roman Catholic clerical garbs, but also highly praised the Gregorian Calendar. St. Nectarios, who was serving as Dean, met opposition from his fellow faculty members and from the hierarchy when he encouraged his seminarians to grow beards and wear the priestly frock or raissa
Wasn't it AB Meletios and his friends in the hierarchy who not only encouraged the New Calendar movement but also encouraged priests to abandon facial hair and the wearing of priestly frocks? (source: St. Nectarios)
I lolled. BTW, do you venerate New Calendarist Saints?
St. Nectarios died in 1920 before the mandatory imposition of the New Calendar in 1924.
He is not a new calendar saint, but a universal church saint.
And it was AB Meletios who harassed St. Nectarios while he was on his death bed.
Met./Ab/EP/Pope Meletius was too busy meddling in America and being deposed to be harrassing St. Nectarios on his death bed-where did you see it claimed (and substantiated) otherwise?

St. Nectarios was glorified after 1924, by the New Calendar Churches.  We only have "universal Church saints."

It was in one of his biographies. I have to go and find it. AB Meletius came to the island where St. Nectarios lay dying and demanded the impossible. Lord have mercy.

It wasn't until 1934 or 1935, that the first True Synod of Bishops was established. But this is off topic to this discussion on Old Calendar, so please do not push the issue.

The topic of discussion is Old vs. New Calendar, not St. Nectarios' glorification.
and who brought St. Nectarios up?

I did not bring up his glorification, you did.
IOW, you brought him up, expecting no followup.

In other words, just like many Americanized Greeks who wanted to adopt American ways over Greek traditions, AB Meletios was embarassed for the backwardness of the Greeks, and wanted to bring them into the 20th century, even if that meant embracing anathemas by doing away with the Old Calendar.
so that was sacred backwardness.

If they are in America, well...

If one wants to be bound by Greek tradition, stay in Greece.

Interestingly, St. Nicholas Planas lived in Athens and was able to meet with St. Nectarios there. Both men valued the Old Calendar as that was the only calendar used until 1924.
Valuing something when it is the only thing isn't terribly hard.

St. Nectarios died in 1920, and just that year AB Meletios started promulgating the New Calendar. Since the priests in Athens were encouraged/commanded to use it, St. Nicholas Planas avoided it by going to a smaller parish so that he would be the only priest to celebrate the Old Calendar as his liturgies often took four to five hours due to his careful commemoration of all the names given to him for prayers. When called into AB Meletion's chancery to explain why he was avoiding the New Calendar, St. Nicholas Planas played like he was becoming senile in order to avoid the known temper of AB Meletios.

By the way, the miracle of the appearance of the Cross occurred less than one year after the establishment of the New Calendar (October 1924). This Holy Cross appeared over a little church in Athens, Greece, in Sept. 15/28, 1925, at the Old Calendar feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

It was St. Nicholas Planas who was celebrating the Old Calendar on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross in 1925 when the Cross appeared in the skies. That is why I gave the year 1924 as the police were actively enforcing the New Calendar.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/cross_sign.aspx
http://www.omologitis.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Papa-Nicholas-Planas-1851-1932-shepherd-endeavors/dp/0913026182
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 10:18:12 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,896


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2198 on: August 30, 2013, 10:08:48 PM »

It is sad that AB Meletios forced this New Calendar on the peoples.

Why did he have to use the FORCE OF LAW?

The MP never did force the New Calendar on his people, and to this day, the MP and the ROCOR use the Old Calendar.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2199 on: August 31, 2013, 01:37:18 AM »

By the way, the miracle of the appearance of the Cross occurred less than one year after the establishment of the New Calendar (October 1924). This Holy Cross appeared over a little church in Athens, Greece, in Sept. 15/28, 1925, at the Old Calendar feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
Why do you Old Calendarists see this miracle as support for your case against the New Calendarists? Why do you see this miracle as evidence that the Old Calendar is correct and the New Calendar wrong? Could this miracle not have been a sign, rather, that those who continued to follow the Old Calendar against state persecution were no less members of the Church than those who adopted the New Calendar, and that the adopters of the New Calendar were therefore wrong to persecute them?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 03:12:35 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,493


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2200 on: August 31, 2013, 01:41:16 AM »

It is sad that AB Meletios forced this New Calendar on the peoples.

Why did he have to use the FORCE OF LAW?
This is truly deplorable, but you are just as wrong to cite this truly deplorable action as evidence for the correctness of the Old Calendar against the New, if that's what you're doing.

The MP never did force the New Calendar on his people, and to this day, the MP and the ROCOR use the Old Calendar.
That statement makes absolutely no sense. If the MP never switched to the New Calendar himself, why would he even think to force the New Calendar on his people?
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #2201 on: August 31, 2013, 09:38:08 AM »

An honest, non provocative question..again coming from one with no passion either way regarding the calendar issue....As I see the old calendarists point of view, it appears that keeping true to tradition is one is their main points. (Along with anti-modernism and anti-papalism... I wonder what their pov would be if the NC were developed in the Ottoman's  or the Tsar's court by the same astronomers in the 17th century instead of in Rome ..I suspect we wouldnt be having this discussion. You know, the new Ottomanian or Romanovian Calendar...)

Anyway, geocentrism seems to be a part of the Julian regimen, yet we know (at least most of us know), that view of the cosmos is in error.  Is this a problem, if so, how is it reconciled?

Thanks...and I wish we all would be less angry about the issue.

I think that the emotions that are displayed are due to frustration. Personally, I am amazed at the tenacity displayed by the Old calendarists. Those who use the Old Calendar but are in communion with those of us who use the Revised Julian are a bit less vehement and if drawn into an intelligence discussion eventually agree that if the entire church used the Revised, all the liturgical problems would go away and that the Revised is more in line with the practice and decrees of the Early Church. Their problem is the probability of schism by those who have conflated the liturgical order/calendar with the Julian Calendar and have given the Julian sacred properties. The answer is better catechism and more frequent communion; both of these two practices will help sweep out superstition and ignorance that linger amongst us.

We voted three times in twenty years at St. Michael's to change. The last vote was 65/45% in favor about ten years ago. (Metropolitan Nicholas insisted on a greater than 80% favorable to consider approving the change.) We gave up for now. BUT  those of us who were in favor of change were not passionate and a large part of the no voters (many with tenuous connections, as in one person, no children etc...) threatened schism. So we remain Old Calendar. You can deny the obvious, but over the years fewer families are able to fully participate on the 7th as in the past. I have found that, irony of ironies, that those seeking the change are often more observant of starting to keep the fast and avoid "two Christmases" than many of the passionate OC supporters.

Better catechism to move us beyond emotion and superstition are needed, but I am no longer sanguine about this, I'm not going to needlessly fracture a parish so we muddle on. We need strong and gutsy leadership from our hierarchs but I'm not holding my breath.  
« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 09:42:50 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2202 on: August 31, 2013, 10:29:29 AM »


Interestingly, St. Nicholas Planas lived in Athens and was able to meet with St. Nectarios there. Both men valued the Old Calendar as that was the only calendar used until 1924.
Valuing something when it is the only thing isn't terribly hard.

St. Nectarios died in 1920, and just that year AB Meletios started promulgating the New Calendar.
In just that year AB Meletius was removed and forced to flee the country, ending up in America.

Since the priests in Athens were encouraged/commanded to use it, St. Nicholas Planas avoided it by going to a smaller parish so that he would be the only priest to celebrate the Old Calendar as his liturgies often took four to five hours due to his careful commemoration of all the names given to him for prayers. When called into AB Meletion's chancery to explain why he was avoiding the New Calendar, St. Nicholas Planas played like he was becoming senile in order to avoid the known temper of AB Meletios.

By the way, the miracle of the appearance of the Cross occurred less than one year after the establishment of the New Calendar (October 1924). This Holy Cross appeared over a little church in Athens, Greece, in Sept. 15/28, 1925, at the Old Calendar feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
"Only an evil and perverse generation seeks a sign"

Btw, nothing happened in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch or Cyprus when the switch was made.

It was St. Nicholas Planas who was celebrating the Old Calendar on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross in 1925 when the Cross appeared in the skies. That is why I gave the year 1924 as the police were actively enforcing the New Calendar.
Nothing of which has to do with Met/AB/EP/Pope Meletius.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #2203 on: August 31, 2013, 10:33:13 AM »

It is sad that AB Meletios forced this New Calendar on the peoples.

Why did he have to use the FORCE OF LAW?
What do you think Julius used? (although I'm against how the New Calendar was implemented in many-but not all-places).

Btw, Meletios didn't have the force of law, or Church for that matter, when the New Calendar was adopted.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2013, 10:34:28 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,020


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #2204 on: August 31, 2013, 10:58:27 AM »

It is sad that AB Meletios forced this New Calendar on the peoples.

Why did he have to use the FORCE OF LAW?
What do you think Julius used? (although I'm against how the New Calendar was implemented in many-but not all-places).

Btw, Meletios didn't have the force of law, or Church for that matter, when the New Calendar was adopted.



I suppose that when Caesar's governors ran into provincials who wanted to keep the old Egyptian Calendar, they simply dispatched a few surly legionnaires to set the dissidents on the right path!  Wink
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 72 queries.