OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 08:05:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 213992 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2340 on: March 24, 2014, 01:47:07 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2341 on: March 24, 2014, 01:57:36 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.

Actions like praying with the Pope? Sure, that sends an unambiguous message that the Patriarch does not believe the Pope to be within the Church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2342 on: March 24, 2014, 02:10:05 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.

Actions like praying with the Pope? Sure, that sends an unambiguous message that the Patriarch does not believe the Pope to be within the Church.
And you subject even that to your interpretation and presume to tell us what it means. I personally don't know. I don't want to presume to know. I just don't see any reason to trust your interpretation of events.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2343 on: March 24, 2014, 02:30:25 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.

Actions like praying with the Pope? Sure, that sends an unambiguous message that the Patriarch does not believe the Pope to be within the Church.

Obviously you have not studied Orthodox Canon Law from a competent source. Nothing is more dangerous for someone to try to interpret the canon law of the Orthodox Church without proper training in the principles and history of Orthodox canon law. Every canon must be understood within its proper context. At the time that the canons were written to which you refer heretic had a specific meaning. St. Basil defines an heretic as one who worships a different God, not as someone who does not accept the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worship the same God. We both accept the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and renounce the same heresies that they condemned. Therefore the argument can be made that the ancient canons forbidding prayer with heretics do not apply in this case.
Even if they applied, there is always the principle of economy that allows competent authority, and the Ecumenical Patriarch is certainly competent authority, to dispense with a literal following of the canons for good reason. The one line that cannot be crossed and which has not been crossed is sharing Communion with non-Orthodox.
I personally to not approve of prayer with non-Orthodox because I believe that it creates a false illusion that a union exists that does not exist. However, it is not my place to judge the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 353



« Reply #2344 on: March 24, 2014, 02:33:24 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2345 on: March 24, 2014, 02:38:11 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.

Actions like praying with the Pope? Sure, that sends an unambiguous message that the Patriarch does not believe the Pope to be within the Church.
And you subject even that to your interpretation and presume to tell us what it means. I personally don't know. I don't want to presume to know. I just don't see any reason to trust your interpretation of events.

Fine. And while we're at it, let's just deny every other statement about objective fact ever made, since every such claim is open to criticisms of unexamined subjectivity. Just ask orthonorm.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2346 on: March 24, 2014, 02:42:11 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2347 on: March 24, 2014, 03:02:53 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Orthodox involved in ecumenism have consistently and very clearly rejected the Protestant Branch Theory. Instead, the Orthodox in ecumenical dialogues and meetings have always maintained the Orthodox belief that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the fullness of the truth and is the "living representation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Documents presented at ecumenical meetings by Orthodox argue that the Church has not been divided, but exists in all its fullness in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Again read the documents that I have cited. They show the true nature of Orthodox ecumenism, not the false claims of adherents to non-canonical groups who are outside of the canonical Eastern Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2348 on: March 24, 2014, 03:33:59 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
I'm not trying to provide a textual analysis of words written in a news article. I prefer to interpret one's words in the light of one's actions, which I think Fr. John has described very well.

Actions like praying with the Pope? Sure, that sends an unambiguous message that the Patriarch does not believe the Pope to be within the Church.
And you subject even that to your interpretation and presume to tell us what it means. I personally don't know. I don't want to presume to know. I just don't see any reason to trust your interpretation of events.

Fine. And while we're at it, let's just deny every other statement about objective fact ever made,
No, I just choose to not trust your spin on things.

since every such claim is open to criticisms of unexamined subjectivity. Just ask orthonorm.
But some people are more given to unexamined subjectivity than others. You are but one person representing one person's view of the world. You are not the final arbiter of truth.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2349 on: March 24, 2014, 03:36:08 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #2350 on: March 24, 2014, 05:44:19 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.

If he were to somehow understand nuances, he would not be a member of a schismatic, uncanonical group.
Second Chance, I feel it is necessary that I should give you a 14-day warning for the statement made here, calling the Church Jonathan belongs to "schismatic, uncanonical".  While it is true it is separated from the Church you belong to, the rules clearly state, as you may well know, that this direct hit/judgment against any of the designated churches of this site's rules, whether EO, OO, or Traditionalist/Old-Calendar, is forbidden in the public fora.  If you feel the need to appeal the warning, please PM me.  Forgive me.  --Mina

UPDATE (3/25/14 16:35 EST):

It has been brought to my attention that you have not broken the rules and that it was my fault.  I want to express my sincere apologies.  It seems according to the rules, we have a certain level of discussions allowed particularly because this is in the Free-for-all section:

Quote
When used in this section:
Discussion: Fairly simple.  Talking about something.
Debate: Discussion including contesting the meaning or application of an argument, story, etc.
Light Polemics: Debate with pejorative language used toward an opposing POV, system of belief, or corporate entity.  No profanity or vulgarity.
Full Polemics: Light Polemics with pejorative language used toward opposing users or other individuals.  Strong language allowed to a point, as established by precedent and guidelines already published.

...

Free-For-All (Religious and Non-Religious): Discussion, debate, light polemics.  Other faiths can butt heads with the Orthodox here.  Ad hominems are not permitted.  These forums are a lot looser with rules than the other moderated fora.  Be warned prior to reading and posting; things can get a little heated!  Free-For-All threads should be started in one of the sub-fora (Religious Topics, and Non-Religious Topics), not in the general Free-For-All area.

Therefore, I am revoking my warning.  I'd like to thank PetertheAleut for bring this to my attention.

Forgive me.

--Mina


« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:12:15 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 298


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #2351 on: March 24, 2014, 05:55:52 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Yeah, I feel like we shouldn't be throwing around the terms "Church", "sister Church", "Church of Christ" etc. We should use these terms clearly and shouldn't be redefining or expanding their meanings to suit ecumenical dialogue. And even though they may not be comprising their faith, I think it is confusing and unhelpful to use important words like "Church" liberally. Nevertheless, Jonathan, I think you are overreacting, and your insults and ad hominems towards Peter are uncalled for. And I think you might me misunderstanding these documents.
Logged

"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

*Taking a break from this forum to sort out my spiritual life and to start taking school and other stuff seriously
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2352 on: March 24, 2014, 06:59:21 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.

What's unclear about those words? OK let's get feedback from others here. If Patriarch didn't mean that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches are part of a single Christian church, then what could he mean? What's another possible interpretation? I can't think of any, but maybe the smarter among you can help me out here.

I'm sorry I snapped at you and accused you of being stupid or dishonest. Maybe you're being honest and you genuinely have a different reading of those words that makes sense. Could you please share it with us?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2353 on: March 24, 2014, 07:01:54 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Yeah, I feel like we shouldn't be throwing around the terms "Church", "sister Church", "Church of Christ" etc. We should use these terms clearly and shouldn't be redefining or expanding their meanings to suit ecumenical dialogue. And even though they may not be comprising their faith, I think it is confusing and unhelpful to use important words like "Church" liberally. Nevertheless, Jonathan, I think you are overreacting, and your insults and ad hominems towards Peter are uncalled for. And I think you might me misunderstanding these documents.

I'm sorry if I overreacted. I would appreciate it, however, if others here could offer some other plausible interpretation of the Patriarch's words. To me it's obvious what they mean and what the Patriarch intended and I honestly just can't think of any other way to interpret them.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2354 on: March 24, 2014, 07:23:45 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.

What's unclear about those words? OK let's get feedback from others here. If Patriarch didn't mean that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches are part of a single Christian church, then what could he mean? What's another possible interpretation? I can't think of any, but maybe the smarter among you can help me out here.

I'm sorry I snapped at you and accused you of being stupid or dishonest. Maybe you're being honest and you genuinely have a different reading of those words that makes sense. Could you please share it with us?
Sometimes it's best to just not interpret someone else's words. If His All Holiness was here on this forum to answer questions about what he meant to communicate by his word usage, that would certainly be a blessing to all of us, but we don't have that luxury. In his absence, I think the most accurate thing you can say is, "I don't know what he's trying to say."
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2355 on: March 24, 2014, 09:16:33 PM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.

What's unclear about those words? OK let's get feedback from others here. If Patriarch didn't mean that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches are part of a single Christian church, then what could he mean? What's another possible interpretation? I can't think of any, but maybe the smarter among you can help me out here.

I'm sorry I snapped at you and accused you of being stupid or dishonest. Maybe you're being honest and you genuinely have a different reading of those words that makes sense. Could you please share it with us?
Sometimes it's best to just not interpret someone else's words. If His All Holiness was here on this forum to answer questions about what he meant to communicate by his word usage, that would certainly be a blessing to all of us, but we don't have that luxury. In his absence, I think the most accurate thing you can say is, "I don't know what he's trying to say."

Claiming ignorance or incomprehension would work if his words were ambiguous, but they are not. I don't think you're helping your case by refusing to offer a plausible alternative interpretation. To be frank, it sounds like you are just refusing to acknowledge that he expressed blatantly heretical views when confronted with the evidence.

At this point, in your shoes, I would probably say something like "Yep, that sounds heretical, but as I believe he wouldn't say anything heretical since I am convinced he is Orthodox, he must have meant something other than what it sounds like he meant."

And yes I would welcome a clarification on his part, if he could participate in this forum.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2356 on: March 25, 2014, 12:12:33 AM »

Again, I think Jonathan has a point. Maybe this is just my experience of traditionalist Catholicism talking, but it seems to me that the idea of "one Church" has traditionally been taken very seriously in both the Roman and Orthodox churches. Therefore, the sudden use of the terms "Church" (with a capital C), "sister Church", or "Church of Christ" to refer to anything other than one's own Church seems to indicate the belief that the other group mentioned is also part, or a branch, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

So though actions do speak louder than words, and I don't believe the Orthodox Church is as compromised with the heretical brand of ecumenism as Jonathan believes it is, but their representatives are making persistent use of "branch theory" terminology (because it worryingly seems to have become the only acceptable kind in the ecumenical movement), and they should take into consideration that this will be interpreted, both by heterodox and by Old Calendarists, as saying that they believe in such a theory.

Thanks, Regnare. I appreciate that maybe some people don't think such heretical statements should be taken "seriously", if one assumes for the sake of argument that heretical statements need to be made in a narrowly defined context to "count". Possibly the Patriarch is absolved of the responsibility to uphold Orthodox ecclesiology when he is being interviewed for TV, or something like that. But to simply deny the plain sense of his words on some flimsy excuse that the plain sense is just someone's subjective interpretation is really reaching.
What's really reaching, Jonathan, is for you to interpret someone's unclear words and make your interpretation out to be their plain sense. Things are generally a lot more nuanced than you think they are.

What's unclear about those words? OK let's get feedback from others here. If Patriarch didn't mean that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches are part of a single Christian church, then what could he mean? What's another possible interpretation? I can't think of any, but maybe the smarter among you can help me out here.

I'm sorry I snapped at you and accused you of being stupid or dishonest. Maybe you're being honest and you genuinely have a different reading of those words that makes sense. Could you please share it with us?
Sometimes it's best to just not interpret someone else's words. If His All Holiness was here on this forum to answer questions about what he meant to communicate by his word usage, that would certainly be a blessing to all of us, but we don't have that luxury. In his absence, I think the most accurate thing you can say is, "I don't know what he's trying to say."

Claiming ignorance or incomprehension would work if his words were ambiguous, but they are not.
Only to you they are not. That's the problem. You see black and white where there's actually a cornucopia of color.

I don't think you're helping your case by refusing to offer a plausible alternative interpretation.
You're the one with a burden to prove something here. By stating simply that I don't know, I have nothing to prove.

To be frank, it sounds like you are just refusing to acknowledge that he expressed blatantly heretical views when confronted with the evidence.
Wouldn't be the first time you've ever projected such motives onto me. You fail to make a convincing case, but rather than admit your failure, you would rather blame me for being intentionally obtuse or worse.

At this point, in your shoes, I would probably say something like "Yep, that sounds heretical, but as I believe he wouldn't say anything heretical since I am convinced he is Orthodox, he must have meant something other than what it sounds like he meant."
It's a good thing you don't stand in my shoes, for I would have to take them back from you.

And yes I would welcome a clarification on his part, if he could participate in this forum.
Yeah, you might find that you're so wrong about him and repent of having passed judgment so hastily against him.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2357 on: March 29, 2014, 12:06:24 AM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?

We will only be part of the same Church when the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope can concelebrate the Divine Liturgy. That can only happen after we have resolved all doctrinal differences between us. We are a long way from that and the Ecumenical Patriarch knows it. His words were simply typical of the flowery language air that is frequently found in the language in that part of the world. The comment about sister Churches is not that off base, because for the first 1,000 years of Christian history we were united and shared the same Faith. The Catholics are not pagans. This evening as I began Little Compline, a phrase in the first prayer, "O Heavenly King..." addressed to the Holy Spirit. In this we state that the Holy Spirit is "in all places and fillest all things." That would include Roman Catholics and Protestants as well. They do have a measure of the truth and therefore are partially Orthodox. Only Eastern Orthodoxy has the fullness of the truth, but that does mean that there is total darkness outside of the Orthodox Church.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2358 on: March 29, 2014, 05:34:00 PM »

I have also consulted Schaff's history of the Church which states that the Gregorian Calendar date of Pascha violated the rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
Schaff was mistaken, as anyone else is who relies on him.  He makes two basic mistakes, just as many others do:

a) He confuses the 14th of Nisan, the Passover strictly so-called, with the 15th of Nisan, the first day of Unleavened Bread, loosely and popularly also called "Passover." 

b) He assumes that there must be some built-in dependence of the Christian Easter cycle on the Rabbinic calendar, when in fact the Easter cycle was designed to be independent of any Jewish calendar.   
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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2359 on: March 29, 2014, 08:40:49 PM »

I have also consulted Schaff's history of the Church which states that the Gregorian Calendar date of Pascha violated the rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
Schaff was mistaken, as anyone else is who relies on him.  He makes two basic mistakes, just as many others do:

a) He confuses the 14th of Nisan, the Passover strictly so-called, with the 15th of Nisan, the first day of Unleavened Bread, loosely and popularly also called "Passover." 

b) He assumes that there must be some built-in dependence of the Christian Easter cycle on the Rabbinic calendar, when in fact the Easter cycle was designed to be independent of any Jewish calendar.   

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.  Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha. The controversy was between the Churches in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) which celebrated Pascha on the day of the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the week and Rome that celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. Historians agree that the 1st Council of Nicaea adopted the Roman practice. Thus according to Nicaea I, Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover, which was celebrated on the 14 of Nissan, which was the day of the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Since the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, the Western Easter can fall on or before the Jewish Passover which is a violation of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. We also know that the council entrusted Alexandria not Rome with determining the date of Pascha. When Rome abandoned the Pascallion from Alexandria, it violated the standards set by the First Ecumenical Council something which Eastern Orthodox cannot recognize.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #2360 on: March 29, 2014, 10:07:01 PM »

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.  Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha....

Fr. John W. Morris
Father, I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but the little bit that I have read about the history of the Jewish calendar seems to suggest that it has undergone changes since Nicaea I. (source)

So my question is this: must the Orthodox revise the date of Pascha to conform to changes in the Jewish calendar that have an effect on the date of the celebration of their Passover?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2361 on: March 29, 2014, 10:26:25 PM »

I have also consulted Schaff's history of the Church which states that the Gregorian Calendar date of Pascha violated the rules of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
Schaff was mistaken, as anyone else is who relies on him.  He makes two basic mistakes, just as many others do:

a) He confuses the 14th of Nisan, the Passover strictly so-called, with the 15th of Nisan, the first day of Unleavened Bread, loosely and popularly also called "Passover." 

b) He assumes that there must be some built-in dependence of the Christian Easter cycle on the Rabbinic calendar, when in fact the Easter cycle was designed to be independent of any Jewish calendar.   

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.  Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha. The controversy was between the Churches in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) which celebrated Pascha on the day of the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the week and Rome that celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. Historians agree that the 1st Council of Nicaea adopted the Roman practice.
Actually, the Roman practice was to celebrate Pascha on the Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox regardless of when the Jews celebrate their Passover. If the Jews were to schedule their Passover after the second full moon of spring, would we be required to follow them in their error? If so, why should we seek to re-enslave ourselves to Jewish practice? I see that I've asked these questions before, but you've never answered them.

Thus according to Nicaea I, Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover,
No, according to Zonaras's misinterpretation of Nicea.

which was celebrated on the 14 of Nissan, which was the day of the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Since the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, the Western Easter can fall on or before the Jewish Passover which is a violation of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. We also know that the council entrusted Alexandria not Rome with determining the date of Pascha. When Rome abandoned the Pascallion from Alexandria, it violated the standards set by the First Ecumenical Council something which Eastern Orthodox cannot recognize.
We Orthodox may have other problems with the Roman Paschalion, and this may be one of them, but I don't think the problem of the Jewish Passover is really another one of those problems.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2362 on: March 29, 2014, 10:39:05 PM »

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.  Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha....

Fr. John W. Morris
Father, I know that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but the little bit that I have read about the history of the Jewish calendar seems to suggest that it has undergone changes since Nicaea I. (source)

So my question is this: must the Orthodox revise the date of Pascha to conform to changes in the Jewish calendar that have an effect on the date of the celebration of their Passover?

No. The Orthodox use the old Jewish calculations to calculate the Mosaic Passover. Quite frequently a table of Orthodox dates for Pascha also lists the Mosaic Passover. According to Info Please, "The Eastern Church sets the date of Easter according to the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem, site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection." However, "The Western church does not use the actual, or astronomically correct date for the vernal equinox, but a fixed date (March 21). And by full moon it does not mean the astronomical full moon but the "ecclesiastical moon," which is based on tables created by the church. These constructs allow the date of Easter to be calculated in advance rather than determined by actual astronomical observances, which are naturally less predictable."
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/easter1.html

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2363 on: March 29, 2014, 11:00:54 PM »

"The Eastern Church sets the date of Easter according to the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem, site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection."

BS!

Considering that the Orthodox use their own ecclesiastical equinox, which now falls almost two weeks after the actual equinox, the above quoted statement could not be any more false! This makes me wonder from what spurious sources infoplease.com gets their "information".
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 11:01:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2364 on: March 29, 2014, 11:19:38 PM »

"The Eastern Church sets the date of Easter according to the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem, site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection."

BS!

Considering that the Orthodox use their own ecclesiastical equinox, which now falls almost two weeks after the actual equinox, the above quoted statement could not be any more false! This makes me wonder from what spurious sources infoplease.com gets their "information".

You are probably right, but the Gregorian Calendar does not use the actual equinox either. Perhaps we should revise our tables based on the actual equinox, but that decision is way above my pay grade.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,768


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #2365 on: March 30, 2014, 12:06:40 AM »

It's above my downgrade as well, but it does seem odd when supporters of the Julian calendar make the argument that it should be used because it was in use at the time of the Apostolic Church and the patristic era while arguing to support an artificial calculation of the equinox - an observable event defined by its very name. The entire situation is so muddied, it begs to be resolved - one definitive way or another, by a Council.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2366 on: March 30, 2014, 02:26:22 AM »

It's above my downgrade as well, but it does seem odd when supporters of the Julian calendar make the argument that it should be used because it was in use at the time of the Apostolic Church and the patristic era while arguing to support an artificial calculation of the equinox - an observable event defined by its very name. The entire situation is so muddied, it begs to be resolved - one definitive way or another, by a Council.
Welcome to earth.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #2367 on: March 30, 2014, 10:32:02 AM »

It's above my downgrade as well, but it does seem odd when supporters of the Julian calendar make the argument that it should be used because it was in use at the time of the Apostolic Church and the patristic era while arguing to support an artificial calculation of the equinox - an observable event defined by its very name. The entire situation is so muddied, it begs to be resolved - one definitive way or another, by a Council.
I don't understand the fuss about the calendar issue. It seems to me like the calendar is an arbitrary, man made counting of the passing days, so why should it involve my eternal salvation as to whether you say today is March 29 or you say today is March 30? 
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2368 on: March 30, 2014, 02:22:10 PM »

It's above my downgrade as well, but it does seem odd when supporters of the Julian calendar make the argument that it should be used because it was in use at the time of the Apostolic Church and the patristic era while arguing to support an artificial calculation of the equinox - an observable event defined by its very name. The entire situation is so muddied, it begs to be resolved - one definitive way or another, by a Council.
I don't understand the fuss about the calendar issue. It seems to me like the calendar is an arbitrary, man made counting of the passing days, so why should it involve my eternal salvation as to whether you say today is March 29 or you say today is March 30? 

It does not. Of all the fights during the history of the Church, I believe that the calendar conflict is the dumbest of them all. It makes no theological difference which calendar one uses.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,081



« Reply #2369 on: March 30, 2014, 06:27:58 PM »

It's above my downgrade as well, but it does seem odd when supporters of the Julian calendar make the argument that it should be used because it was in use at the time of the Apostolic Church and the patristic era while arguing to support an artificial calculation of the equinox - an observable event defined by its very name. The entire situation is so muddied, it begs to be resolved - one definitive way or another, by a Council.
I don't understand the fuss about the calendar issue. It seems to me like the calendar is an arbitrary, man made counting of the passing days, so why should it involve my eternal salvation as to whether you say today is March 29 or you say today is March 30? 

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,301


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #2370 on: March 30, 2014, 07:19:18 PM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 07:39:11 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2371 on: March 30, 2014, 08:33:47 PM »

"The Eastern Church sets the date of Easter according to the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem, site of the Crucifixion and Resurrection."

BS!

Considering that the Orthodox use their own ecclesiastical equinox, which now falls almost two weeks after the actual equinox, the above quoted statement could not be any more false! This makes me wonder from what spurious sources infoplease.com gets their "information".
Would that everyone could see the absurdity of this old canard as quickly as PeterTheAleut does.  But it continues to be repeated across the data webs.  Here is my theory of its origin.  On p. 413 of the mid-1970's edition of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac was this statement:

Quote
At a meeting of a Congress of the Orthodox Oriental Churches held in Constantinople in May, 1923, the Julian calendar was replaced by a modified Gregorian calendar...[in which] Easter is determined by the astronomical Moon for the meridian of Jerusalem.

This was correct as far as it goes (though the churches in question are now generally called "Eastern Orthodox" rather than "Orthodox Oriental", and Milankovitch considered his calendar a modification of the Julian calendar, not of the Gregorian).  The Julian paschalion was indeed "replaced" at the meeting in 1923.  But it was never replaced permanently anywhere in actual practice.  The authors of the Explanatory Supplement, knowing nothing of the cultural politics of Eastern Orthodoxy, mistakenly assumed that what the bishops decided must have been put into practice, for they wrote in the paragraph immediately preceding the one just quoted, "Easter has occasionally been determined astronomically, e.g., by the German Protestants from 1700 to 1776, in Sweden from 1740 to 1844, and by the Eastern Orthodox Churches since 1923."  Thus, I reason, was born the canard that the EO churches determine Easter astronomically.  As noted above, it continues to be repeated even though a few minutes' consultation of any good almanac for a few successive years can show that this is seldom the case.

If you want to estimate Julian Easter using astronomical measurements, a fairly reliable, though not infallible, estimate is to predict it for the Sunday following the 4th day after the 1st full moon on or after March 30th.  This method works for all the years 2014 through 2032 inclusive except for 2024 and 2027, when it fails because in those years the Eastern Orthodox full moon is 5 days, rather than 4 days, later than the astronomical full moon, and this 5th day after the astronomical full moon is a Sunday.  
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 08:53:17 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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,081



« Reply #2372 on: March 30, 2014, 09:30:10 PM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

I believe the Church's calendar is "Holy;" each day of the Church Year being holy, each season, but I don't think Julius Caesar's Calendar is holy by any means.

By the way, I'm laughing at your reiteration of my use of "Holy" otherwise; I don't recall referring to a "Holy Monastery," though I may have; I typically refer to the forthcoming assembly of the bishops of the Holy Orthodox Churches as the "Holy and Great Synod (Council)...," which is the name the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches have been using in reference to it.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2373 on: March 30, 2014, 11:02:21 PM »

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.
As I have argued above, if by "Jewish Passover" is meant "the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar", then the consensus in wrong.  The modern Rabbinic calendar did not even exist at the time of the Council, so the Julian Paschalion cannot have any built-in mathematical dependence on it.

Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha. The controversy was between the Churches in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) which celebrated Pascha on the day of the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the week and Rome that celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover.
I'll believe in these hypothetical "minutes of Nicea" when you can produce them.  I agree, though that we have enough evidence to make a good guess at what the council decided.  And what it decided is almost nothing like what you describe.

Eusebius states the issue succinctly in the 5th chapter of his Life of Constantine
Quote from: Eusebius
Some claimed that it was fit to follow the custom of the Jews; others claimed that the season [καιρος] ought to be observed accurately [ακριβη].
There is nothing here about weekday vs. Sunday observance.  It is about accuracy.  The "custom of the Jews" was considered unsuitable by some because it did not always "observe" the "season" accurately, not because it failed to place the festival on Sunday.

What this "custom of the Jews" was, and in what way it was inaccurate, is revealed by a number of sources.  The 21st chapter of the Syriac Didascalia orders,
Quote from: Didascalia
Study to complete your vigil in the midst of [the Jewish days of] Unleavened Bread.
But the Didascalia makes clear that Easter is always to be on Sunday.  So it was not a question of Sunday observance, but of who should decide when the days of Unleavened Bread should fall.

We know that in that period, some Jewish communities set their Unleavened Bread before the Spring equinox. The Chronicon Paschale quotes Peter, bishop of Alexandria in the early 4th century, as stating "the men [i.e. Jewish folk] of the present day celebrate [Passover] before the equinox."  Post-conciliar sources, such as the Sardica Paschal Table and the anonymous homily of 387, indicate that some Jewish communities continued in the 4th century to place their 14th of Nisan, and hence the days of Unleavened Bread, before the equinox in most years.  Those who followed the practice described in the Didascalia and held their Easter within the Jewish days of Unleavened Bread would then sometimes have celebrated before the equinox.  This was the "inaccuracy" in the "custom of the Jews", the "extraordinary mistake" complained of by Anatolius of Laodicea:  celebrating Easter at the end of winter instead of in the springtime, the "season of joy" according to Eusebius:
Quote from: Eusebius
When the sun traverses the first segment of its path [i.e. crosses the spring equinox], the moon with its fullness of light acts in parallel and restores the course of the night to the brightness of day...at this time the fields of the countryside are pregnant with seeds, and the trees teem with fruit and delight in Gods gifts, and yield to farmers the blessing of recompense for their labors.--De Solemnitate Paschali 2.  Translation by Mark Delcogliano.

The place where this custom was followed can also be known, and it was not Asia minor; it was Syria.  The Didascalia is a Syrian work.  The list of regions that, at the time of the Council, already follow the practice approved at Nicea is found in the 19th chapter of Eusebius's Life of Constantine:
Quote from: Eusebius
[T]he city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia.
The province of Asia already follows the approved custom.  The holdout region is Syria, which is not listed. 

According to Nicaea I, Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover, which was celebrated on the 14 of Nissan, which was the day of the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Since the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, the Western Easter can fall on or before the Jewish Passover which is a violation of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council.
These two statements contradict each other.  If the "Jewish Passover" that Easter must "follow" is "the first full moon following the Spring Equinox", than the Gregorian calendar never sets Easter before the "Jewish Passover" defined in this way.  Gregorian Easter is, to a good approximation, the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox.  (The only time in the near future when this will not be the case will be in 2019, when there is an astronomical full moon shortly after the equinox that the Gregorian approximation misses.)  But if the "Jewish Passover" is something that the Gregorian Easter can fall "before", then it must be something other than the Spring full moon, such as the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar, which in about 3 years of every 19 comes at the time of the second full moon after the equinox.  So which is it?  Is it the first full moon of Spring, or the Rabbinic Matzoth, that is the "Passover" that Easter must be "after"?

We also know that the council entrusted Alexandria not Rome with determining the date of Pascha.
We can reasonably conclude that the council did no such thing.  St. Athanasius's behavior in the years following the council is completely inconsistent with any such claim of privilege.  The first bishop of Alexandria to make this bizarre claim of privilege seems to have been Cyril. The council, in fact, seems to have left all details of the computation to be worked out in practice by consultation among the bishops of the major cities.  This is what the record shows St. Athanasius actually doing.

When Rome abandoned the Pascallion from Alexandria, it violated the standards set by the First Ecumenical Council
If "the standard set by the First Ecumenical Council" is to set Easter to the Sunday after the first full moon of Spring, then it is the Gregorian paschalion that meets this standard almost always, while the Julian paschalion meets it almost never.
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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2374 on: March 30, 2014, 11:58:00 PM »

During the discussions that followed the Aleppo proposal for a common date for Pascha by a committee of the World Council of Churches, the consensus of opinion of the Orthodox Church is that one of the rules that was laid down at Nicaea I was that the Christian Pascha must fall following the Jewish Passover.
As I have argued above, if by "Jewish Passover" is meant "the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar", then the consensus in wrong.  The modern Rabbinic calendar did not even exist at the time of the Council, so the Julian Paschalion cannot have any built-in mathematical dependence on it.

Unfortunately, the minutes of the 1st Ecumenical Council have been lost. However, from other sources, we can determine its conclusions on the date of Pascha. The controversy was between the Churches in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) which celebrated Pascha on the day of the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the week and Rome that celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover.
I'll believe in these hypothetical "minutes of Nicea" when you can produce them.  I agree, though that we have enough evidence to make a good guess at what the council decided.  And what it decided is almost nothing like what you describe.

Eusebius states the issue succinctly in the 5th chapter of his Life of Constantine
Quote from: Eusebius
Some claimed that it was fit to follow the custom of the Jews; others claimed that the season [καιρος] ought to be observed accurately [ακριβη].
There is nothing here about weekday vs. Sunday observance.  It is about accuracy.  The "custom of the Jews" was considered unsuitable by some because it did not always "observe" the "season" accurately, not because it failed to place the festival on Sunday.

What this "custom of the Jews" was, and in what way it was inaccurate, is revealed by a number of sources.  The 21st chapter of the Syriac Didascalia orders,
Quote from: Didascalia
Study to complete your vigil in the midst of [the Jewish days of] Unleavened Bread.
But the Didascalia makes clear that Easter is always to be on Sunday.  So it was not a question of Sunday observance, but of who should decide when the days of Unleavened Bread should fall.

We know that in that period, some Jewish communities set their Unleavened Bread before the Spring equinox. The Chronicon Paschale quotes Peter, bishop of Alexandria in the early 4th century, as stating "the men [i.e. Jewish folk] of the present day celebrate [Passover] before the equinox."  Post-conciliar sources, such as the Sardica Paschal Table and the anonymous homily of 387, indicate that some Jewish communities continued in the 4th century to place their 14th of Nisan, and hence the days of Unleavened Bread, before the equinox in most years.  Those who followed the practice described in the Didascalia and held their Easter within the Jewish days of Unleavened Bread would then sometimes have celebrated before the equinox.  This was the "inaccuracy" in the "custom of the Jews", the "extraordinary mistake" complained of by Anatolius of Laodicea:  celebrating Easter at the end of winter instead of in the springtime, the "season of joy" according to Eusebius:
Quote from: Eusebius
When the sun traverses the first segment of its path [i.e. crosses the spring equinox], the moon with its fullness of light acts in parallel and restores the course of the night to the brightness of day...at this time the fields of the countryside are pregnant with seeds, and the trees teem with fruit and delight in Gods gifts, and yield to farmers the blessing of recompense for their labors.--De Solemnitate Paschali 2.  Translation by Mark Delcogliano.

The place where this custom was followed can also be known, and it was not Asia minor; it was Syria.  The Didascalia is a Syrian work.  The list of regions that, at the time of the Council, already follow the practice approved at Nicea is found in the 19th chapter of Eusebius's Life of Constantine:
Quote from: Eusebius
[T]he city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia.
The province of Asia already follows the approved custom.  The holdout region is Syria, which is not listed. 

According to Nicaea I, Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover, which was celebrated on the 14 of Nissan, which was the day of the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. Since the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, the Western Easter can fall on or before the Jewish Passover which is a violation of the decision of the First Ecumenical Council.
These two statements contradict each other.  If the "Jewish Passover" that Easter must "follow" is "the first full moon following the Spring Equinox", than the Gregorian calendar never sets Easter before the "Jewish Passover" defined in this way.  Gregorian Easter is, to a good approximation, the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox.  (The only time in the near future when this will not be the case will be in 2019, when there is an astronomical full moon shortly after the equinox that the Gregorian approximation misses.)  But if the "Jewish Passover" is something that the Gregorian Easter can fall "before", then it must be something other than the Spring full moon, such as the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar, which in about 3 years of every 19 comes at the time of the second full moon after the equinox.  So which is it?  Is it the first full moon of Spring, or the Rabbinic Matzoth, that is the "Passover" that Easter must be "after"?

We also know that the council entrusted Alexandria not Rome with determining the date of Pascha.
We can reasonably conclude that the council did no such thing.  St. Athanasius's behavior in the years following the council is completely inconsistent with any such claim of privilege.  The first bishop of Alexandria to make this bizarre claim of privilege seems to have been Cyril. The council, in fact, seems to have left all details of the computation to be worked out in practice by consultation among the bishops of the major cities.  This is what the record shows St. Athanasius actually doing.

When Rome abandoned the Pascallion from Alexandria, it violated the standards set by the First Ecumenical Council
If "the standard set by the First Ecumenical Council" is to set Easter to the Sunday after the first full moon of Spring, then it is the Gregorian paschalion that meets this standard almost always, while the Julian paschalion meets it almost never.

Your knowledge of Church history is incomplete. Have you never heard of the Festal Letters of St. Athanasius?  St. Athanasius did fulfill the mandate of the council and sent Festal Letters to inform the other Churches when to celebrate Pascha. The 39 Festal Letter established the final form of the canon of the New Testament in 367. 
The conflict between Rome and the Churches in Asia Minor was over when to celebrate Pascha led to the decision of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325.  Rome celebrated Pascha on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover which fell on the day of the first full moon following the Spring Equinox. The Churches in Asia Minor celebrated Pascha on the day of the Jewish Passover regardless of the day of the Week. The 1st Council in Nicaea decided to follow the Roman custom and gave Alexandria the responsibility to calculate the date of Pascha independent of the Jewish calculations based on first full moon following the Spring Equinox.
Canon VII. (VIII.) of the Holy Apostles, which was accepted by the Council in Trullo in 692 which was recognized by the 7th Ecumenical Council as a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council states: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the  vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed."   The consensus reached by the Eastern Orthodox after the Aleppo proposal of 1997 by a committee of the World Council of Churches that all Christians celebrate Pascha on the Sunday following the first full moon following the actual Spring Equinox was that the proposal was unacceptable because failed to include a provision following this canon which according to the consensus of Orthodox scholars requires that Pascha be celebrated after the Jewish Passover. The Gregorian calculation of Pascha allows the Western Easter to take place during or before the Jewish Passover.
Rome did not accept the Alexandrian calculations until 457. The difference was that Alexandria used a 19 year cycle, while Rome used an 84 year cycle. The British clung to the older Roman 84 year cycle until the Synod of Whitby in 664. With the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, Rome began to use its own calculations. So it is a matter of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. The First Ecumenical Council has greater authority than the Roman Pope. The 1st Ecumenical Council gave the authority to calculate the date of Pascha to Alexandria not Rome. The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to obey the First Ecumenical Council and uses the Alexandrian tables for the date of Pascha. Rome does not obey the Ecumenical Council.  Therefore, Schaff was correct. The Gregorian Calendar calculations of the date of Pascha violate the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 12:26:42 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,352


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2375 on: March 31, 2014, 01:20:58 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,081



« Reply #2376 on: March 31, 2014, 10:31:09 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2377 on: March 31, 2014, 10:34:45 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?

That depends whether you believe said churches are still part of the Orthodox Church after having adopted the new calendar.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #2378 on: March 31, 2014, 10:36:46 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy".  

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?

That depends whether you believe said churches are still part of the Orthodox Church after having adopted the new calendar.

:yawn
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 10:37:11 AM by Elisha » Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,967


« Reply #2379 on: March 31, 2014, 11:12:37 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?

That depends whether you believe said churches are still part of the Orthodox Church after having adopted the new calendar.

For those who believe in the unity and catholicity of the Church it is not a question.  No local Orthodox Church that served on the Old Calendar broke communion with any local Orthodox Church that adopted the New Calendar. 
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2380 on: March 31, 2014, 11:13:31 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?

That depends whether you believe said churches are still part of the Orthodox Church after having adopted the new calendar.

For those who believe in the unity and catholicity of the Church it is not a question.  No local Orthodox Church that served on the Old Calendar broke communion with any local Orthodox Church that adopted the New Calendar. 

ROCOR did in the 1960s.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,967


« Reply #2381 on: March 31, 2014, 11:26:47 AM »

Oh, don't you know, our Old Calendarist friends believe the Julian Calendar was sanctified by its use by the church; they even refer to it as the "Church Calendar." (This is not my opinion.)

This is a funny opinion comment coming from someone who consistently refers to "Holy Orthodoxy", "Holy Orthodox Church", "Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches", "Holy Archdiocese", "Holy Monastery", "Great and Holy Council", "Holy and Sacred Synod", and so on.  Yet, the Calendar cannot even be considered "ecclesiastical", let alone "holy". 

Good point, Mor.

When did the Church Cycle of Feasts become secularized?

I wonder, given 90 years of use by several of the Holy Orthodox Churches, including the Ancient Patriarchates except the Church of Jerusalem, is the "Revised Julian Calendar" sanctified?

That depends whether you believe said churches are still part of the Orthodox Church after having adopted the new calendar.

For those who believe in the unity and catholicity of the Church it is not a question.  No local Orthodox Church that served on the Old Calendar broke communion with any local Orthodox Church that adopted the New Calendar. 

ROCOR did in the 1960s.

ROCOR did not break communion with any local Orthodox Church when the local Orthodox churches adopted the New Calendar.  Nor did ROCOR ever believe that a local Orthodox church ceased to be so after adopting the New Calendar.

Btw, an interesting interview of Met Kallistos (Ware) from last year was just recently posted on the ROCOR Studies site and contains some interesting information from this period, for instance:

Quote
I first came across this attitude when I was in Jordanville as a layman in 1960. I went to stay there with a letter from Mother Elizabeth [from the ROCOR convent in London], and I was made very welcome. But then Fr. Constantine (Zaitsev) discovered that I belonged to the Greek Church, and he was not very pleased about that. He said to me, “Yes, we are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but this will not last very much longer.” That was the first time that I had come across this attitude in the Russian Church Abroad. I went to him for confession, he gave me absolution and blessed me to receive Communion. But he said, “It will be better if you only go to Communion in Russian churches,” meaning those of the Zarubezhnaya Tserkov. That was what I did at that time. Fr. George Sheremetev [a ROCOR priest in London] never adopted that attitude.

When I told Fr. George Grabbe, the future Archbishop Gregory, that I had been told that I should not go to Communion in Greek churches if I received Communion in the Russian Church Abroad, he was very indignant. He said, “Who told you that?!” I didn’t mention Fr. Constantine’s name because I didn’t want to make trouble. I just said, “Oh, well — I heard this.” At that time Fr. George Grabbe was very definite: “We are in Communion with the other Orthodox Churches, except for the Moscow Patriarchate, and except for difficulties in Jerusalem.” Because, I think, the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the 1950′s said that clergy of the Church Abroad could not celebrate in the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem changed in attitude later. But at that time he was most emphatic that we are in communion, that we have brotherly relations — particularly, he said, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria out priests in North Africa have very close contacts with the Greek clergy. For example, they arranged their holidays so that when the Greek priest goes on holiday the Russian priest looks after the people, and when the Russian priest goes on holiday his people are looked after by the Greek priest.

Well, of course, Fr. George Grabbe changed later and adopted very much the strict view, under the influence, I fear, of Fr. Panteleimon of the Monastery of the Holy Transfiguration in Boston. That’s all sort of background to my time.

When I was ordained priest by the Greeks in 1966, for several years I served regularly in the Russian convent in London with Mother Elizabeth. Fr. George Sheremetev was the chaplain to the convent. His health was bad. He had trouble with his heart, and he was always worried that he might have a heart attack during the Liturgy. So he asked me to come and help with feasts like Christmas (on the old calendar) when I was free and didn’t have duties in Oxford. That continued until 1970.

http://www.rocorstudies.org/interviews/2014/03/27/metropolitan-kallistos-ware-rocor-emphasis-on-assetic-and-liturgical-tradition-is-very-much-needed-today/

So, it is very clear that throughout the 1960s, Greek clergy who served on the New Calendar were permitted to serve communion in ROCOR parishes and that Greek clergy were not at all considered "outside of the Church" by ROCOR.  ROCOR's concerns were primarily with regard to Ecumenism, and even then I think that the historical record will show that ROCOR's fall into increasing fanaticism can be mostly attributable to the tragic figure of the deposed priestmonk Panteleimon, his influence on ROCOR and on Fr. George/Bp. Gregory (Grabbe), and the latter's influence on Met Philaret. 

All that being said, my comment was that no local Orthodox Church that served on the Old Calendar considered those local Orthodox churches who adopted the New Calendar to have fallen away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  You mentioned ROCOR, who never held to this view either, but it should also be mentioned that ROCOR never believed that they were a local Orthodox Church but only part of a local Orthodox Church, the Church in Russia. 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 11:46:08 AM by jah777 » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2382 on: March 31, 2014, 12:19:45 PM »

You said that no local Orthodox Church broke communion with the new calendarists, and I produced a counter-example of ROCOR, which in the 1960s began the process of breaking communion, as evinced already in 1960 by the opinion of Fr Constantine (a learned theologian much admired by Fr Seraphim Rose, among others), and becoming complete by 1969, when ROCOR entered into communion with the Old Calendar church of Greece. I don't see why it matters whether ROCOR broke communion in the 1920s or the 1960s, since the fact remains that they did break communion.

It is true that ROCOR never represented the whole church of Russia, but the traditional position of ROCOR was that its counterpart in Russia was the Catacomb Church, i.e. those who hadn't signed the Declaration of Met Sergius, not the Moscow Patriarchate. I don't know if we have any evidence for the attitude of the Catacomb Church to the new calendarists, but I can't imagine it was positive, given their rejection of the "Living Church". They probably had more immediate things to worry about, though, like not being shot or sent to the gulag.

You could probably find examples of concelebration with new calendarists even after 1969 in Europe, which was under the jurisdiction of Abp Anthony of Geneva, who was the only member of the Synod who did not sign the act of communion with the GOC synod of Abp Auxentius of Athens. But that only shows that he was an outlier and not representative of ROCOR's position, which was of solidarity with the old calendarists.

If Bishop Gregory was so brainwashed by Fr Panteleimon, why didn't he join Fr Panteleimon and join HOCNA when they left ROCOR in the 1980s? It sounds rather that he had a mind of his own, as did Met Philaret. Was Fr Constantine also brainwashed by Fr Panteleimon in 1960, when Fr Panteleimon was still with the new calendarists? Or perhaps Fr George was brainwashed by Fr Constantine? These accusations of brainwashing are easy to make, hard to substantiate.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #2383 on: March 31, 2014, 12:27:11 PM »

You said that no local Orthodox Church broke communion with the new calendarists, and I produced a counter-example of ROCOR
ROCOR has never been, nor claimed to be, a local Orthodox Church.

As for ROCOR's claims of “solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb" (Alexander Solzhenitsyn), it makes a lot of claims.
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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,669


« Reply #2384 on: March 31, 2014, 12:30:13 PM »

You said that no local Orthodox Church broke communion with the new calendarists, and I produced a counter-example of ROCOR
ROCOR has never been, nor claimed to be, a local Orthodox Church.

As for ROCOR's claims of “solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb" (Alexander Solzhenitsyn), it makes a lot of claims.

I respect Solzhenitsyn, but he's not an authority on theology or church organization.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 12:30:32 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort nobody cares 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.228 seconds with 72 queries.