OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 06:47:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 208850 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,300


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #2430 on: May 10, 2014, 08:56:24 AM »

Old Calenda 4 LIFE.

New rap album?
Logged

Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2431 on: May 10, 2014, 09:32:00 AM »

Has anyone ever heard that the Church of Jerusalem ever converted to the Revised Julian Calendar? I've never read that anywhere, and I am aware it advised the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 via telegram that that it could not convert because of their long standing agreement for use of the Shrines with the Roman Catholics and several Oriental Orthodox Churches. A guy on facebook is telling me this about the Church of Jerusalem. He claims it converted to the Revised Julian Calendar for one year and the Holy Light did not manifest that year, has anyone ever heard of this?

Yes I think it was about 1971 or thereabouts, under Patriarch Benedict, who also brought the Jerusalem Patriarchate into the World Council of Churches. His successor Patriarch Diodorus then withdrew the JP from the WCC.
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: 37,960



« Reply #2432 on: May 10, 2014, 09:37:50 AM »

By the way, this is an important development. The Polish Orthodox Church will return to the Old Calendar beginning with the Feast of All Saints. http://byztex.blogspot.ru/2014/03/polish-orthodox-church-returns-to-old.html This is unprecedented, for a new calendar body to return to the old calendar.
since 97% of the Church was on the Old Calendar before, it hardly left to return.

Sure, if you accept highly inflated figures for the numbers of Russian Orthodox members.
I was talking about Polish Orthodox members.  As for the Russians, you have to distinguish the Ukrainians, etc. in the Patriarchate of Mosocw, all of whom are on the Old Calendar, and all of whom outnumber the rest of us by a great deal.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2433 on: May 10, 2014, 09:40:21 AM »

By the way, this is an important development. The Polish Orthodox Church will return to the Old Calendar beginning with the Feast of All Saints. http://byztex.blogspot.ru/2014/03/polish-orthodox-church-returns-to-old.html This is unprecedented, for a new calendar body to return to the old calendar.
since 97% of the Church was on the Old Calendar before, it hardly left to return.

Sure, if you accept highly inflated figures for the numbers of Russian Orthodox members.
I was talking about Polish Orthodox members.  As for the Russians, you have to distinguish the Ukrainians, etc. in the Patriarchate of Mosocw, all of whom are on the Old Calendar, and all of whom outnumber the rest of us by a great deal.

Wait you're saying 97% of the Polish Church was already on the Old Calendar before this proposed change?
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: 37,960



« Reply #2434 on: May 10, 2014, 09:42:36 AM »

If we really want to get technical about events such as Pascha on the calendar, perhaps we should examine what EO St. Polycarp celebrated, which is the passover feast - not the Sunday after.  That is the true "old calendar".
You do realize that the Quartodecimans were condemned as heretics? Or, in your fascination with those alternate "successions" in  groups the Church has also condemned for heresy, does that fact really matter to you?
What about EO St. Polycarp, he argued for the passover?
Seeing that the Church didn't condemn the Quartodecimans retroactively but chose only to condemn those who held obstinately to their contrary practice even when the Church solidified its stance against them, I'm not sure this is a problem.
Btw, I think the problem of the Quartodecimans was that they celebrated the death date as the feast of the Resurrection, Christ dying on the 14th Nisan (hence Quartodeci).  Passover is the next day (which would be both the angel of death passing over and the harrowing of hell).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,960



« Reply #2435 on: May 10, 2014, 09:43:20 AM »

By the way, this is an important development. The Polish Orthodox Church will return to the Old Calendar beginning with the Feast of All Saints. http://byztex.blogspot.ru/2014/03/polish-orthodox-church-returns-to-old.html This is unprecedented, for a new calendar body to return to the old calendar.
since 97% of the Church was on the Old Calendar before, it hardly left to return.

Sure, if you accept highly inflated figures for the numbers of Russian Orthodox members.
I was talking about Polish Orthodox members.  As for the Russians, you have to distinguish the Ukrainians, etc. in the Patriarchate of Mosocw, all of whom are on the Old Calendar, and all of whom outnumber the rest of us by a great deal.

Wait you're saying 97% of the Polish Church was already on the Old Calendar before this proposed change?
That is what I saw reported.
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2436 on: May 10, 2014, 02:25:03 PM »

Passover is the next day
by which ialmisry meant that Passover is the 15th of Nisan. 

This is not quite right.  Strictly speaking, the Passover is the 14th of Nisan.  So Leviticus:

Quote from: Leviticus_23.5
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month between the two evenings, is the Lord's passover.  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread.

Careful first-century writers, such as Philo, observe this distinction. 

Since ancient times, however, "Passover" has been used loosely to refer to the feast of unleavened bread (Luke 22.1), and "Unleavened Bread" was sometimes loosely used to refer to the Passover!  (Mark 14.12).  In modern times, "Passover" has also come mean the 15th of Nisan itself, and the day marked as "Passover" on all our calendars is indeed the 15th of Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar.   But most of the early Christian writers on the calendar are more precise, using the word "Pascha" in a mathematical context to refer to the 14th day (not the 15th) of the 1st lunar month of springtime. 

Since this thread is partly about calendar mathematics, the distinction needs to be maintained here if nowhere else.
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
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #2437 on: May 11, 2014, 03:24:10 PM »


Or an awesome tattoo idea?

Christianity. Only with different calendar.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2438 on: May 12, 2014, 06:08:31 PM »

Has anyone ever heard that the Church of Jerusalem ever converted to the Revised Julian Calendar? I've never read that anywhere, and I am aware it advised the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 via telegram that that it could not convert because of their long standing agreement for use of the Shrines with the Roman Catholics and several Oriental Orthodox Churches. A guy on facebook is telling me this about the Church of Jerusalem. He claims it converted to the Revised Julian Calendar for one year and the Holy Light did not manifest that year, has anyone ever heard of this?
Of course we believe everything we see on Facebook, right? Right? Wink
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2439 on: June 28, 2014, 02:07:02 PM »

If we really want to get technical about events such as Pascha on the calendar, perhaps we should examine what EO St. Polycarp celebrated, which is the passover feast - not the Sunday after.  That is the true "old calendar".
You do realize that the Quartodecimans were condemned as heretics? Or, in your fascination with those alternate "successions" in  groups the Church has also condemned for heresy, does that fact really matter to you?
As scholar Sacha Stern has pointed out, applying the word "quartodeciman" to the late 2nd-century controversy over the Roman and Asian practices is anachronistic.  In the account in History 5.23ff, Eusebius never uses the word "quartodeciman"--at least not in my English translation--nor do any of the authors he quotes.  The word cannot confidently be held to have existed before the later 4th century.  (A work attributed to a 3rd century author, Hippolytus, uses "quartodeciman" in the caption to a chapter on the practice, but not in the text of the chapter itself.  A caption may be the work of a later editor.)  

Note also that the Asian practice focused on the 14th of Nisan, not on the day of the Passover Seder, which is the 15th. Eusebius calls the Asians' fast-breaking day "the fourteenth day of the lunar month...the day on which the Jews had been commanded to sacrifice the lamb" -- the day the lamb was slain, not the day on which it was eaten.  Polycrates, in the letter quoted by Eusebius, call it "the day the people put away the leaven."  The Mishnah, a source roughly contemporary with Polycrates,  indicates that the day of putting away the leaven is the 13th/14th of the lunar month, not the 14th/15th.  

Quote from: Mishnah
On the eve of the fourteenth day of Nisan men search for leaven by candlelight....Rabbi Meir said, "men may eat of it [leaven] until the fifth hour, and burn it at the beginning of the sixth....Rabban Gamaliel said, "men may eat ordinary food till the fourth hour, heave-offering until the fifth hour, but they burned the leaven at the sixth hour."

This is why I suspect, notwithstanding the views of many scholars (for a recent example, Bradshaw, though he relies entirely on secondary sources for his argument), that the Asian practice was to break the fast at the sunset that ended the 13th and began the 14th, or perhaps during the hours of daylight on the 14th, and not, as the scholars hold, during the nighttime hours that began the 15th.  But even if my hunch be wrong, it looks to me as though the Sunday custom is just as ancient as the Asian custom.  Sunday was a Christian holiday from very early.  The Christian Sunday assembly is attested well before any annual Christian festivals are.  (At least one scholar, Clemens Leonhard, tries to explain away the New Testament evidence for the Christian Lord's day, but I find his argument unconvincing).  It would have been just as easy for the earliest Christians to mark the annual Sunday of Unleavened Bread for special esteem as it would have been for them to mark out the 14th (or 15th) of Nisan for an annual festival.  

So the late-2nd century Asian practice was certainly old by the time it became controversial, but I can't find any proof that it was older than the Sunday practice.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 02:10:04 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
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2440 on: June 28, 2014, 02:08:16 PM »

Oops. Wrong button again.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 02:08:59 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
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2441 on: September 03, 2014, 10:11:58 AM »

In a much more recent but inappropriate thread reference was was made to the Paschalion being incompatible with the New Calendar?

The consequences of the introduction of the New Calendar indisputably are that the Apostles' Fast disappears altogether some years on the New Calendar and the hard won unity of the Liturgical calendar is disrupted year on year. Repeatedly some Fast while others Celebrate. And some even manage to slip from one to another. The Calendar question is only a non-issue if you close your eyes to such consequences, amongst others.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2442 on: September 03, 2014, 10:30:02 AM »

In a much more recent but inappropriate thread reference was was made to the Paschalion being incompatible with the New Calendar?

The consequences of the introduction of the New Calendar indisputably are that the Apostles' Fast disappears altogether some years on the New Calendar and the hard won unity of the Liturgical calendar is disrupted year on year. Repeatedly some Fast while others Celebrate. And some even manage to slip from one to another. The Calendar question is only a non-issue if you close your eyes to such consequences, amongst others.

The argument for the revised calendar is always that only the Western Paschalion was explicitly condemned, but essentially it's an argument from silence, since the Church also never explicitly said that changing the Menologion was permitted, and as many over the years have pointed out, trying to combine the revised calendar with the traditional Paschalion results in liturgical chaos. The two are clearly incompatible and the traditional Calendar as a whole is clearly indivisible, like Christ's garments. So yes, the only way to justify changing the Menologion is to ignore the fruits of the tree, as it were, and fall back on a highly legalistic form of reasoning.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #2443 on: September 03, 2014, 10:52:28 AM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar. In my mind, I respectfully disagree with the comment about rigid legalism as I would turn that charge around and apply it to those both within the historical Church and those outside of it who have made the calendar a defining mantra.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:54:08 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2444 on: September 03, 2014, 11:12:20 AM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar.

Thoughtful, but in a sense this response minimises the issue. The introduction was approached not in a conciliar manner but one more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy. It was blatantly divisive, the reasons given in 1920 were linked specifically to moving in step with the Non-Orthodox. The consequences Liturgically and in terms of the effect year on year of the cycle of Feasts and Fasts were clearly not thought through or no importance attached to them. Don't blame the Old Calendar movement, the responsibility lies squarely with the architects of this disruption and their successors - whose's cruelty at times beggared belief.

In more recent times the American politician Henry Kissinger said that the Greek Church had to change. Elsewhere others with a very different agenda sort to erase or neuter the Russian Church outside Russia, and largely succeeded in 2007.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 11:12:56 AM by Santagranddad » Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,166


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2445 on: September 03, 2014, 11:37:33 AM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar. In my mind, I respectfully disagree with the comment about rigid legalism as I would turn that charge around and apply it to those both within the historical Church and those outside of it who have made the calendar a defining mantra.

I ask you to check your history again. It was the New Calendar Modernists in the state Orthodox Church of Greece who outlawed the Old Calendar in 1924 and who persecuted the Old Calendarist imprisoning and even martyring them when they would not submit to the arguments of the Modernists.

Many of the properties of the Old Calendarists, on which St. Matthew the New Confessor (+1950) and others helped to built churches with their own hands were confiscated by the New Calendarists. Search and see if any of the Old Calendarists confiscated any of the properties and churches originally belonging to the New Calendarists. I doubt you will find any, and the only church properties that might be in the hands of True Orthodox were most likely originally theirs.

So, who caused the schism? It was the Modernists who unilaterally imposed the New Calendar so that they could celebrate Christmas with the Lutherans and Roman Catholics. What a loss!

Rigid legalism was exercised by the New Calendarists who demanded obedience to man rather than to God and who showed no love for the True Orthodox. On the other hand, the True Orthodox obeyed the Creator rather than the creature and held onto the traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church by honoring the Old Calendar. By their good example and love, many New Calendarists converted to the True Orthodox.

Reference: http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/The_Life_of_Saint_Matthew_the_New_Confessor.pdf
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 12:02:12 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2446 on: September 03, 2014, 12:10:18 PM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar. In my mind, I respectfully disagree with the comment about rigid legalism as I would turn that charge around and apply it to those both within the historical Church and those outside of it who have made the calendar a defining mantra.

I don't think it's legalistic to love a thing of beauty, and the traditional Church calendar, in its marvelous unity and coherence, where the fixed and movable calendars interlock in manifold ways but always in harmony, is a beautiful thing. When I talk about "legalism", I mean a kind of cold-hearted, rationalistic mindset that thinks nothing of destroying something as beautiful as this in order to satisfy the letter of some law or other.

And, as others point out, no Old Calendarist ever created a schism over the calendar. What happened was that some Orthodox faithful could not in good conscience follow the liturgical disaster that was the new calendar, and then it was the innovators that cut them off and declared them to be in schism, thereby cutting themselves off. When the traditionalists then later declared the innovators to be in schism, in was only in response to and in acknowledgment of what the innovators had already declared themselves.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 12:11:05 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2447 on: September 03, 2014, 12:18:20 PM »

In a much more recent but inappropriate thread reference was was made to the Paschalion being incompatible with the New Calendar?

The consequences of the introduction of the New Calendar indisputably are that the Apostles' Fast disappears altogether some years on the New Calendar and the hard won unity of the Liturgical calendar is disrupted year on year. Repeatedly some Fast while others Celebrate. And some even manage to slip from one to another. The Calendar question is only a non-issue if you close your eyes to such consequences, amongst others.

Why are you beating this dead horse? It has been shown over and over again that if the Church liturgical calendar and the civic calendar are the same, there would be no problems. I guess I must further clarify my point because some folks on the Julian think that it is the Church calendar. It is not, most emphatically. It is of course true that many jurisdictions on the Julian hide that fact by making senseless announcements such as Nativity of our Lord 7 January (25 December New Style), where in fact the Liturgical Calendar specifies December 25th as the day for the feast; it just happens to be celebrated by those using the Revised Julian calendar on that date, while those clinging to the wildly inaccurate Julian end up celebrating it 13 days later.

I will tell you why I favor the Revised Julian: it is because it best reflects the practice of the Early Church and because it is much better in reflecting God's time that is marked by astrological events that were set into motion by God. The other side of the coin is that the Julian calendar fails completely on those two criteria. I find it incomprehensible that otherwise smart folks cling to it.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2448 on: September 03, 2014, 12:50:59 PM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar.

Thoughtful, but in a sense this response minimises the issue. The introduction was approached not in a conciliar manner but one more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy. It was blatantly divisive, the reasons given in 1920 were linked specifically to moving in step with the Non-Orthodox. The consequences Liturgically and in terms of the effect year on year of the cycle of Feasts and Fasts were clearly not thought through or no importance attached to them. Don't blame the Old Calendar movement, the responsibility lies squarely with the architects of this disruption and their successors - whose's cruelty at times beggared belief.

In more recent times the American politician Henry Kissinger said that the Greek Church had to change. Elsewhere others with a very different agenda sort to erase or neuter the Russian Church outside Russia, and largely succeeded in 2007.
When the OCA adopted the New Calendar in 1970(?), did she do so out of submission to Constantinople? Or did she do so independently of any outside human authority? If the latter, how can you say that its adoption in the OCA was more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy?
Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2449 on: September 03, 2014, 01:22:12 PM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar.

Thoughtful, but in a sense this response minimises the issue. The introduction was approached not in a conciliar manner but one more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy. It was blatantly divisive, the reasons given in 1920 were linked specifically to moving in step with the Non-Orthodox. The consequences Liturgically and in terms of the effect year on year of the cycle of Feasts and Fasts were clearly not thought through or no importance attached to them. Don't blame the Old Calendar movement, the responsibility lies squarely with the architects of this disruption and their successors - whose's cruelty at times beggared belief.

In more recent times the American politician Henry Kissinger said that the Greek Church had to change. Elsewhere others with a very different agenda sort to erase or neuter the Russian Church outside Russia, and largely succeeded in 2007.
When the OCA adopted the New Calendar in 1970(?), did she do so out of submission to Constantinople? Or did she do so independently of any outside human authority? If the latter, how can you say that its adoption in the OCA was more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy?

I had in mind the originators of this innovation - decades before we ever heard of the OCA - may I add respectfully.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2450 on: September 03, 2014, 01:32:43 PM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar.

Thoughtful, but in a sense this response minimises the issue. The introduction was approached not in a conciliar manner but one more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy. It was blatantly divisive, the reasons given in 1920 were linked specifically to moving in step with the Non-Orthodox. The consequences Liturgically and in terms of the effect year on year of the cycle of Feasts and Fasts were clearly not thought through or no importance attached to them. Don't blame the Old Calendar movement, the responsibility lies squarely with the architects of this disruption and their successors - whose's cruelty at times beggared belief.

In more recent times the American politician Henry Kissinger said that the Greek Church had to change. Elsewhere others with a very different agenda sort to erase or neuter the Russian Church outside Russia, and largely succeeded in 2007.
When the OCA adopted the New Calendar in 1970(?), did she do so out of submission to Constantinople? Or did she do so independently of any outside human authority? If the latter, how can you say that its adoption in the OCA was more in keeping with a monarchical autocracy?

I had in mind the originators of this innovation - decades before we ever heard of the OCA - may I add respectfully.
Except that one of the reasons the OCA cited for their adoption of the New Calendar, IIRC, was that the Russian Church had taken up the issue of calendar reform in their All-Russian Council of 1917. Sadly, the Bolshevik Revolution later that year prevented the Council from really devoting much attention to the subject, leaving Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) of Constantinople to take on the task in what you consider the more autocratic manner.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 01:33:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2451 on: September 03, 2014, 01:34:04 PM »

In a much more recent but inappropriate thread reference was was made to the Paschalion being incompatible with the New Calendar?

The consequences of the introduction of the New Calendar indisputably are that the Apostles' Fast disappears altogether some years on the New Calendar and the hard won unity of the Liturgical calendar is disrupted year on year. Repeatedly some Fast while others Celebrate. And some even manage to slip from one to another. The Calendar question is only a non-issue if you close your eyes to such consequences, amongst others.

Why are you beating this dead horse? It has been shown over and over again that if the Church liturgical calendar and the civic calendar are the same, there would be no problems. I guess I must further clarify my point because some folks on the Julian think that it is the Church calendar. It is not, most emphatically. It is of course true that many jurisdictions on the Julian hide that fact by making senseless announcements such as Nativity of our Lord 7 January (25 December New Style), where in fact the Liturgical Calendar specifies December 25th as the day for the feast; it just happens to be celebrated by those using the Revised Julian calendar on that date, while those clinging to the wildly inaccurate Julian end up celebrating it 13 days later.

I will tell you why I favor the Revised Julian: it is because it best reflects the practice of the Early Church and because it is much better in reflecting God's time that is marked by astrological events that were set into motion by God. The other side of the coin is that the Julian calendar fails completely on those two criteria. I find it incomprehensible that otherwise smart folks cling to it.

If you are on the Julian calendar, then you celebrate on 25/12. There is no hiding. Of course, in the world day to day affairs run on another calendar. There is no hiding of that either. It does not require smart minds to assimilate either and smart folk know where they are in relation to either.

Having a higher degree education, it does make me laugh when having a different view gives others a sense of superiority.

That some wish it were a dead horse I don't doubt, but then the smart architects of the New Calendar ought to have been a lot cleverer and Christian than they were. Sadly they weren't and there are consequences. As to the astronomical element or personal preference, what do these weigh against the disruption of Liturgical unity you chose not to touch on at all?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2452 on: September 03, 2014, 02:02:08 PM »

The problem of the incompatibility of the traditional Paschalion and the traditional Menologion could, of course, be obviated by adopting the new calendar in its entirety. But of course that would without any doubt violate the anathema against the Papal Paschalion. Theoretically the Church might decide that the original reasons for the anathema, i.e. submission to the authority of a heretical Pope, were no longer valid, but I don't see that happening until the Orthodox withdraw from the ecumenical movement entirely.

Basically, the only argument for the new calendar that makes sense within Orthodox tradition is the idea of "baptizing the time" and sanctifying the seasons by fixing the liturgical seasons to them. I can definitely imagine, under the right circumstances, the Church reforming the calendar in this way, but everything in our current situation is so corrupted by syncretism and contempt for tradition and the beauty of the liturgical cycle that I have no confidence the Church can take this step at this point. And I also see something significant in the idea of a liturgical time being separate from worldly time and moving on its own cycle; it represents to me how the world is moving away from God and can only come back through humility and repentance, and not by arrogantly insisting that it knows best and the Church better submit or else.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2453 on: September 03, 2014, 02:07:56 PM »

The problem of the incompatibility of the traditional Paschalion and the traditional Menologion could, of course, be obviated by adopting the new calendar in its entirety. But of course that would without any doubt violate the anathema against the Papal Paschalion. Theoretically the Church might decide that the original reasons for the anathema, i.e. submission to the authority of a heretical Pope, were no longer valid, but I don't see that happening until the Orthodox withdraw from the ecumenical movement entirely.

Basically, the only argument for the new calendar that makes sense within Orthodox tradition is the idea of "baptizing the time" and sanctifying the seasons by fixing the liturgical seasons to them. I can definitely imagine, under the right circumstances, the Church reforming the calendar in this way, but everything in our current situation is so corrupted by syncretism and contempt for tradition and the beauty of the liturgical cycle that I have no confidence the Church can take this step at this point. And I also see something significant in the idea of a liturgical time being separate from worldly time and moving on its own cycle; it represents to me how the world is moving away from God and can only come back through humility and repentance, and not by arrogantly insisting that it knows best and the Church better submit or else.

Let me give you the mirror that you have misplaced.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 02:08:14 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2454 on: September 03, 2014, 02:10:19 PM »

In a much more recent but inappropriate thread reference was was made to the Paschalion being incompatible with the New Calendar?

The consequences of the introduction of the New Calendar indisputably are that the Apostles' Fast disappears altogether some years on the New Calendar and the hard won unity of the Liturgical calendar is disrupted year on year. Repeatedly some Fast while others Celebrate. And some even manage to slip from one to another. The Calendar question is only a non-issue if you close your eyes to such consequences, amongst others.

Why are you beating this dead horse? It has been shown over and over again that if the Church liturgical calendar and the civic calendar are the same, there would be no problems. I guess I must further clarify my point because some folks on the Julian think that it is the Church calendar. It is not, most emphatically. It is of course true that many jurisdictions on the Julian hide that fact by making senseless announcements such as Nativity of our Lord 7 January (25 December New Style), where in fact the Liturgical Calendar specifies December 25th as the day for the feast; it just happens to be celebrated by those using the Revised Julian calendar on that date, while those clinging to the wildly inaccurate Julian end up celebrating it 13 days later.

I will tell you why I favor the Revised Julian: it is because it best reflects the practice of the Early Church and because it is much better in reflecting God's time that is marked by astrological events that were set into motion by God. The other side of the coin is that the Julian calendar fails completely on those two criteria. I find it incomprehensible that otherwise smart folks cling to it.

If you are on the Julian calendar, then you celebrate on 25/12. There is no hiding. Of course, in the world day to day affairs run on another calendar. There is no hiding of that either. It does not require smart minds to assimilate either and smart folk know where they are in relation to either.

Having a higher degree education, it does make me laugh when having a different view gives others a sense of superiority.

That some wish it were a dead horse I don't doubt, but then the smart architects of the New Calendar ought to have been a lot cleverer and Christian than they were. Sadly they weren't and there are consequences. As to the astronomical element or personal preference, what do these weigh against the disruption of Liturgical unity you chose not to touch on at all?

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2455 on: September 03, 2014, 02:21:55 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2456 on: September 03, 2014, 02:30:29 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2457 on: September 03, 2014, 02:48:08 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion? 

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).  My Church uses the Gregorian calendar for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, as does the Finnish Church IIRC.  That is what I think ought to be done.  Or follow the Julian calendar for both.   

Frankly, your comments appear to me to be self-contradictory, and many of the defences of the Revised Julian calendar which I've read in this thread and elsewhere appear to depend on sophistries the main goal of which is to assert the legitimacy of the "official" Church over and against other minority groups.  It is an ecclesiastical fight, the calendar is just a front.  I don't care about that.  I care about the integrity of the liturgy.  And unless there is some rather major liturgical reorganisation, the received liturgical tradition works as designed only in an unmixed calendar: all Gregorian or all Julian.  On that much, I definitely agree with the Old Calendarists.                 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2458 on: September 03, 2014, 03:23:17 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   

Here is I come to that "default" conclusion. I start with the Liturgical calendar as the basis, to include the First Council's guidance on the celebration of Pascha. I then look at which of the two man-made calendars best fit in with the liturgical calendar. The ones that fits the best is the default one. The folks who cling to the Julian calendar cannot justify its continued used except by resorting to excuses (the catholics started this) or esoteric theories about sanctifying time. It is all very silly and tragic, particularly because of the heavy-handed way that the Revised Julian was imposed.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2459 on: September 03, 2014, 03:29:20 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion? 

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).  My Church uses the Gregorian calendar for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, as does the Finnish Church IIRC.  That is what I think ought to be done.  Or follow the Julian calendar for both.   

Frankly, your comments appear to me to be self-contradictory, and many of the defences of the Revised Julian calendar which I've read in this thread and elsewhere appear to depend on sophistries the main goal of which is to assert the legitimacy of the "official" Church over and against other minority groups.  It is an ecclesiastical fight, the calendar is just a front.  I don't care about that.  I care about the integrity of the liturgy.  And unless there is some rather major liturgical reorganisation, the received liturgical tradition works as designed only in an unmixed calendar: all Gregorian or all Julian.  On that much, I definitely agree with the Old Calendarists.                 

Mor--No disagreement here but the fault lies with the refusal of the Russian Orthodox Church to go along with Constantinople. It is the churches on the Revised Julian who condescended to use both calendars by agreeing to the use of the Julian for the Paschalion just so that all of Orthodoxy celebrates the Feast of Feasts on the same day, as called for the First Ecumenical Council. It is totally the fault of the Russian Church that we are in this stupid mess for if ROCOR had gone along with Moscow in the 1920s, we would all be using the Revised Julian, which was developed by a Serbian Orthodox scientist.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2460 on: September 03, 2014, 03:46:24 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default.  

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.    
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion?  

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).
Then what is it? I know very well what the Gregorian Calendar is, but you seem to think it's not what I think it is. You tell me what the Gregorian Calendar is NOT--according to you, it's not what I think it is--but you conveniently omit any statement of what it is. (BTW, your comments on the "Revised Julian" calendar show me that if anyone is mistaken on what one calendar or the other is, it's you.)

My Church uses the Gregorian calendar for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, as does the Finnish Church IIRC.  That is what I think ought to be done.  Or follow the Julian calendar for both.  

Frankly, your comments appear to me to be self-contradictory, and many of the defences of the Revised Julian calendar which I've read in this thread and elsewhere appear to depend on sophistries the main goal of which is to assert the legitimacy of the "official" Church over and against other minority groups.  It is an ecclesiastical fight, the calendar is just a front.  I don't care about that.  I care about the integrity of the liturgy.  And unless there is some rather major liturgical reorganisation, the received liturgical tradition works as designed only in an unmixed calendar: all Gregorian or all Julian.  On that much, I definitely agree with the Old Calendarists.              
If you read my earlier posts on this thread, you will note that I actually agree with you 100% on this. Whether you wish to call the New Calendar the Gregorian or the Revised Julian, I still agree that we need to follow it completely in both the Menologion AND the Paschalion, that this current mishmash of two different calendars that we New Calendarist EO follow is an abomination that needs to be corrected.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 03:51:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2461 on: September 03, 2014, 03:48:31 PM »

I hope none are blind. However some may chose to ignore a reality, the disruption of Liturgical unity and a calendar adjustment that loses a whole Apostles' Fast some years. And it was not those who are on what is sometimes called the 'Old Calendar' who brought about this situation.

What the world does should not necessarily dictate what the Church does, otherwise we would be sanctioning abortion, same sex marriage and determining that Ecology should be the prime concern of Christians.

As Mor Ephrem succinctly puts it, at a human level, only wholly one or the other is tenable. The so-called Revised Julian is neither one thing or the other. It's a messy compromise, neither fish nor fowl.

As to the supposed difficulties of having two different calendars running alongside each other in different spheres of activity, if simple farm workers can manage it then I despair of the smart minds that find it difficult. As to the rigid thinking that says if the civil calendar says 25/12 it MUST be the Nativity of Our Lord I may only shake my head and wonder. Wonder whether such thinking stems not from reasoning or obedience, but simply what suits.

For me the rupture between the two doesn't suit but Christianity again and again demands we chose the narrow path, and not the broad and easy one.

As for the notion that in the 1920s ROCOR held sway over any decisions Moscow may have made over the calendar, sounds like the cart leading the horse's bridle. An unlikely scenario.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 03:53:47 PM by Santagranddad » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2462 on: September 03, 2014, 03:51:00 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   

Here is I come to that "default" conclusion. I start with the Liturgical calendar as the basis, to include the First Council's guidance on the celebration of Pascha. I then look at which of the two man-made calendars best fit in with the liturgical calendar. The ones that fits the best is the default one. The folks who cling to the Julian calendar cannot justify its continued used except by resorting to excuses (the catholics started this) or esoteric theories about sanctifying time. It is all very silly and tragic, particularly because of the heavy-handed way that the Revised Julian was imposed.

But there are at least three man-made calendars in this discussion: the Julian, the Revised Julian, and the Gregorian, which everyone seems to think has the cooties because admitting otherwise would undermine the ecclesiastical bickering that much of this discussion is really about, IMO.  

Mor--No disagreement here but the fault lies with the refusal of the Russian Orthodox Church to go along with Constantinople. It is the churches on the Revised Julian who condescended to use both calendars by agreeing to the use of the Julian for the Paschalion just so that all of Orthodoxy celebrates the Feast of Feasts on the same day, as called for the First Ecumenical Council. It is totally the fault of the Russian Church that we are in this stupid mess for if ROCOR had gone along with Moscow in the 1920s, we would all be using the Revised Julian, which was developed by a Serbian Orthodox scientist.

Did Constantinople originally want to use the Gregorian calendar for both the Paschalion and the menologion and Russia refused?  If not, what are you contending?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2463 on: September 03, 2014, 03:54:03 PM »

I hope none are blind. However some may chose to ignore a reality, the disruption of Liturgical unity and a calendar adjustment that loses a whole Apostles' Fast some years. And it was not those who are on what is sometimes called the 'Old Calendar' who brought about this situation.

What the world does should not necessarily dictate what the Church does, otherwise we would be sanctioning abortion, same sex marriage and determining that Ecology should be the prime concern of Christians.

As Mor Ephrem succinctly puts it, at a human level, only wholly one or the other is tenable. The so-called Revised Julian is neither one thing or the other. It's a messy compromise, neither fish nor fowl.
And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2464 on: September 03, 2014, 04:02:25 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default.  

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.    
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion?  

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).
Then what is it? I know very well what the Gregorian Calendar is, but you seem to think it's not what I think it is. You tell me what the Gregorian Calendar is NOT--according to you, it's not what I think it is--but you conveniently omit any statement of what it is. (BTW, your comments on the "Revised Julian" calendar show me that if anyone is mistaken on what one calendar or the other is, it's you.)

I already answered your question by referring to the practice of my Church and that of the Finns, a reference which you quoted in the portion of this post which I cut out for space considerations. 

Now, will you answer my questions about the Revised Julian menologion and how it differs significantly from the Gregorian menologion? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2465 on: September 03, 2014, 04:05:13 PM »


As Mor Ephrem succinctly puts it, at a human level, only wholly one or the other is tenable. The so-called Revised Julian is neither one thing or the other. It's a messy compromise, neither fish nor fowl.
And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Your final sentence only serves to confirm that as I have asserted, the present Revised Julian calendar is a messy compromise, neither fish nor fowl. A calendar with integrity would not lose the Apostle's Fast from time to time. And a calendar move in the Church should only have been bought about in a conciliar fashion.

I don't want to be right, that matters not at all. The innovation and all it's consequences do, surely?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2466 on: September 03, 2014, 04:07:10 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default.  

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.    
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion?  

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).
Then what is it? I know very well what the Gregorian Calendar is, but you seem to think it's not what I think it is. You tell me what the Gregorian Calendar is NOT--according to you, it's not what I think it is--but you conveniently omit any statement of what it is. (BTW, your comments on the "Revised Julian" calendar show me that if anyone is mistaken on what one calendar or the other is, it's you.)

I already answered your question by referring to the practice of my Church and that of the Finns, a reference which you quoted in the portion of this post which I cut out for space considerations.
No, you only told me how your church uses the Gregorian Calendar. You said nothing about what the Gregorian Calendar is.

Now, will you answer my questions about the Revised Julian menologion and how it differs significantly from the Gregorian menologion? 
I don't see what the point is in answering this question.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2467 on: September 03, 2014, 04:08:01 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default.  

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.    
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion?  

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).
Then what is it? I know very well what the Gregorian Calendar is, but you seem to think it's not what I think it is. You tell me what the Gregorian Calendar is NOT--according to you, it's not what I think it is--but you conveniently omit any statement of what it is. (BTW, your comments on the "Revised Julian" calendar show me that if anyone is mistaken on what one calendar or the other is, it's you.)

I already answered your question by referring to the practice of my Church and that of the Finns, a reference which you quoted in the portion of this post which I cut out for space considerations.
No, you only told me how your church uses the Gregorian Calendar. You said nothing about what the Gregorian Calendar is.

Now, will you answer my questions about the Revised Julian menologion and how it differs significantly from the Gregorian menologion? 
I don't see what the point is in answering this question.

Very well.  Enjoy your day. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2468 on: September 03, 2014, 04:13:06 PM »

I'm with Mor Ephrem on this, sorry.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2469 on: September 03, 2014, 04:17:42 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default. 

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.   

Here is I come to that "default" conclusion. I start with the Liturgical calendar as the basis, to include the First Council's guidance on the celebration of Pascha. I then look at which of the two man-made calendars best fit in with the liturgical calendar. The ones that fits the best is the default one. The folks who cling to the Julian calendar cannot justify its continued used except by resorting to excuses (the catholics started this) or esoteric theories about sanctifying time. It is all very silly and tragic, particularly because of the heavy-handed way that the Revised Julian was imposed.

But there are at least three man-made calendars in this discussion: the Julian, the Revised Julian, and the Gregorian, which everyone seems to think has the cooties because admitting otherwise would undermine the ecclesiastical bickering that much of this discussion is really about, IMO.  

Mor--No disagreement here but the fault lies with the refusal of the Russian Orthodox Church to go along with Constantinople. It is the churches on the Revised Julian who condescended to use both calendars by agreeing to the use of the Julian for the Paschalion just so that all of Orthodoxy celebrates the Feast of Feasts on the same day, as called for the First Ecumenical Council. It is totally the fault of the Russian Church that we are in this stupid mess for if ROCOR had gone along with Moscow in the 1920s, we would all be using the Revised Julian, which was developed by a Serbian Orthodox scientist.

Did Constantinople originally want to use the Gregorian calendar for both the Paschalion and the menologion and Russia refused?  If not, what are you contending?  

It is my understanding that the Revised Julian was to have been used for all of the liturgical calendar, not just the Menologion. We know the Russian Church at the time was in great turmoil--indeed the entire Orthodox world was turned upside down with the demise of both the Ottoman and Russian Empires. ROCOR refused the Revised Julian and the Living Church accepted it (the latter being a fateful factor in determining the MP position against the Revised Julian). In any case, the rolling out of the new calendar was handled with a heavy hand in Greece, for example. On the other hand, those churches who used it decided not to push the issue with the rest of the local churches and accepted the concurrent use of both calendars so that the New Calendarists would not be violating the decision of the First Council for all churches to celebrate Pascha at the same day. I strongly suspect that had the ROC switched to the Revised Julian, all of the autocephalous churches would have followed suit. Moscow has not, with the unfortunate consequence for the New Calendarists that they must live with some disruptions of our liturgical life (such as the Apostles Fast), while the Old Calendarists can claim that their liturgical cycle is undisturbed. I agree with you that we should use one civic calendar to ensure an undisturbed liturgical cycle. BTW, I understand that the Gregorian is in play because of Finland, but in the rest of the EO churches, we are only considering the Revised and Old Julians. So, what is my contention? I continue to believe that the ROC should adopt the Revised Julian and that all of the rest of the local churches would fall in line, thus solving all problems caused by the current mixed use.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #2470 on: September 03, 2014, 04:27:26 PM »

Just because a man-made calendar says "December 25" does not make it so. In fact the Julian calendar lies about the date by pretending that January 7th is really not only the same month but also the same day as December 25th. How blind must one be not to see this?

Or does the Gregorian calendar lie?  IMO, all you've done is canonise one over the other by regarding one as the default.  

Personally, I think the best thing to do is adopt the Gregorian calendar in toto.  "Revised Julian" is rather silly unless you also reorganise significant blocks of the liturgical year.    
What do you think the Revised Julian Calendar is? If you think it's a conglomeration of the Gregorian Menologion and the Julian Paschalion, then you are mistaken. That's NOT the Revised Julian Calendar. What you call the Gregorian Calendar that we should adopt in toto is really the Revised Julian Calendar. Our problem is that we adopted the Revised Julian Calendar only for the Menologion but left the Paschalion on the Old Julian Calendar.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  What is the "Revised Julian" menologion?  How does it differ in any significant way from the "Gregorian" menologion?  

What I call "the Gregorian calendar that we should adopt in toto" is not what you seem to think it is (you should've asked).
Then what is it? I know very well what the Gregorian Calendar is, but you seem to think it's not what I think it is. You tell me what the Gregorian Calendar is NOT--according to you, it's not what I think it is--but you conveniently omit any statement of what it is. (BTW, your comments on the "Revised Julian" calendar show me that if anyone is mistaken on what one calendar or the other is, it's you.)

I already answered your question by referring to the practice of my Church and that of the Finns, a reference which you quoted in the portion of this post which I cut out for space considerations.  

Now, will you answer my questions about the Revised Julian menologion and how it differs significantly from the Gregorian menologion?  

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  Cheesy). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.  (ADDED: I may have to crow if I have to attend an Old Calendar parish. Really painted myself into a corner this time!)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 04:30:32 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2471 on: September 03, 2014, 04:29:43 PM »

It is my understanding that the Revised Julian was to have been used for all of the liturgical calendar, not just the Menologion. We know the Russian Church at the time was in great turmoil--indeed the entire Orthodox world was turned upside down with the demise of both the Ottoman and Russian Empires. ROCOR refused the Revised Julian and the Living Church accepted it (the latter being a fateful factor in determining the MP position against the Revised Julian). In any case, the rolling out of the new calendar was handled with a heavy hand in Greece, for example. On the other hand, those churches who used it decided not to push the issue with the rest of the local churches and accepted the concurrent use of both calendars so that the New Calendarists would not be violating the decision of the First Council for all churches to celebrate Pascha at the same day. I strongly suspect that had the ROC switched to the Revised Julian, all of the autocephalous churches would have followed suit. Moscow has not, with the unfortunate consequence for the New Calendarists that they must live with some disruptions of our liturgical life (such as the Apostles Fast), while the Old Calendarists can claim that their liturgical cycle is undisturbed. I agree with you that we should use one civic calendar to ensure an undisturbed liturgical cycle. BTW, I understand that the Gregorian is in play because of Finland, but in the rest of the EO churches, we are only considering the Revised and Old Julians. So, what is my contention? I continue to believe that the ROC should adopt the Revised Julian and that all of the rest of the local churches would fall in line, thus solving all problems caused by the current mixed use.

Thanks, Carl.  

Perhaps you can answer my question.  What is the difference, if any, between the "Revised Julian" menologion and the "Gregorian" menologion?  I'll add another: what is the difference, if any, between the "Revised Julian" paschalion and the "Gregorian" paschalion?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2472 on: September 03, 2014, 04:32:54 PM »

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,458


« Reply #2473 on: September 03, 2014, 04:37:08 PM »

The problem of the incompatibility of the traditional Paschalion and the traditional Menologion could, of course, be obviated by adopting the new calendar in its entirety. But of course that would without any doubt violate the anathema against the Papal Paschalion. Theoretically the Church might decide that the original reasons for the anathema, i.e. submission to the authority of a heretical Pope, were no longer valid, but I don't see that happening until the Orthodox withdraw from the ecumenical movement entirely.

Basically, the only argument for the new calendar that makes sense within Orthodox tradition is the idea of "baptizing the time" and sanctifying the seasons by fixing the liturgical seasons to them. I can definitely imagine, under the right circumstances, the Church reforming the calendar in this way, but everything in our current situation is so corrupted by syncretism and contempt for tradition and the beauty of the liturgical cycle that I have no confidence the Church can take this step at this point. And I also see something significant in the idea of a liturgical time being separate from worldly time and moving on its own cycle; it represents to me how the world is moving away from God and can only come back through humility and repentance, and not by arrogantly insisting that it knows best and the Church better submit or else.

Let me give you the mirror that you have misplaced.

What on earth are you talking about? What did you think I mean by the Church? I can tell you that it refers to those bishops and their followers that are faithful to Tradition, which is the Church by definition. If you think I was referring to your bishops, then you are mistaken. They are the ones of the world who are demanding the Church submit to them.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2474 on: September 03, 2014, 04:42:04 PM »

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  Cheesy). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Thanks again, you anticipated my question while I was writing it.  

I'm less interested in mathematical precision than I am with liturgical integrity.  While you argue that there is no "Revised Julian Menologion", but rather only one Menologion and Paschalion for the whole Church, Peter seems to argue that problems with the Revised Julian as currently used among "New Calendarists" arise from the use of two different calendars for two different cycles:

And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Basically, what I would like to know is if use of the Revised Julian calendar for both the fixed feasts and the Paschal cycle would alleviate the liturgical problems which come with use of the Revised Julian calendar as it is currently implemented?  For example, will there always be an Apostles' Fast?  Does St George's feast always come after Pascha?  And so on.  Full use of the Gregorian calendar or the old Julian calendar achieve/preserve this integrity.  Would full use of the Revised Julian do the same?  If so, how?  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 »   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 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.