OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 11:57:01 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 209177 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #270 on: January 07, 2005, 05:35:20 PM »

Traditionalist has many meanings, Demetri. There are traditionalists within the State Church of Greece, the EP, the MP, besides the various "traditionalist synods." The ROCOR is seens as legitimate by pretty much everyone except the SCOBA hardliners and the EP. Patriarch Alexei II doesn't see the ROCOR as schismatic, nor do the the Patriarchs of Serbia or Jerusalem. My only point in posting is to point out that the lack of love goes both ways, that both sides share the fault.

And for the record I do attend a ROCOR parish - but I attend for a variety of reasons much more pragmatic than the whole calendar issue. I also frequent a monastery here that is under the EP and recieve the mysteries there as well. When I leave for the Holy Mountain I will be staying at monasteries that commorate the Patriach. An honest view of history and self criticism are not schism.
Logged
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #271 on: January 07, 2005, 06:13:30 PM »

Quote
I see our +¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é is now a "Traditionalist"! So be it. Do I assume that once ROC(OR) rejoins ROC that you will then migrate to another church, perhaps one that is outright irregular at best? I hope not, but if so, that's Free Will in action.
The Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios (properly refered to herein) WAS controversial to be sure and the Church of Greece wrong in many, many things in the past, but your judgmental statements, as radical as many I've read eslewhere by superOthodox, sicken me in their lack of Love.
In point of fact these schismatic churches are pretty much evaporating in the old country, finding their only growth in the convert-heavy diaspora of Australia and America. I wonder why?
Schism is the greater error.
And I apologize in advance if I've misread the tone of your post on this, the Feastday of the Nativity of our Lord.

If you are going to attack someone for being jugmental attack me! Leave Nektarios alone. Second I would like to know who you get your info on Meletios Metaxakis from. Third why do rush to defend Metaxakis as merely controversial but have no respect for ROCOR when all it did was defend, with heartfelt Love, the Orthodox Faith from an anti-Christian Atheist regime and a church structure infiltratrated by apostates? a structure that did nothing while the Orthodox faithful were being slaughtered!
Four How does this constitute schism when 'official' Orthodoxy recognizes and has recognized ROCOR? the GOA did up till 1968!
Five are the 'superOrthodox' wrong to be angry when their Old Calendar brethren were killed and beaten by those of the 'official' Church? look at what happened in Greece and Romania for mercies sake!

Quote
I see our +¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é is now a "Traditionalist"! So be it. Do I assume that once ROC(OR) rejoins ROC that you will then migrate to another church, perhaps one that is outright irregular at best? I hope not, but if so, that's Free Will in action.

Call me crazy if this passes as non-judgmental Christian Love.

Quote
Another dimension to the problem is the oversimplification of ecclesiology. There have been times in Church history when Saints (yes Saints) have broken communion with each other. The Church on Earth bears the iniquities of the humans that run it - thus the overlapping jurisdictions in diaspora. Thus the existence of traditionalist synods and state churches. While not perfect, perhaps someday through repentance there can be reunion.
- +¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é

It takes very little reading to find examples of this! St.Cyprian and the Pope, St. Nilus and St.Joseph, etc.

Quote
Why should it be different in this case, especially since Nektarios doesn't seem to be attacking anyone, but rather certain words and deeds?

Exactly! I hope all of us here would shake hands if we met rather than try to beat each other up. If my AA priest was able to be good friends with Fr.Alexey Young of ROCOR why can't all of us?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2005, 06:14:56 PM by Sabbas » Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #272 on: January 07, 2005, 06:30:41 PM »

If you all want to discuss each other's personal lives take it to a private message.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #273 on: January 07, 2005, 09:17:14 PM »

Traditionalist has many meanings, Demetri.  There are traditionalists within the State Church of Greece, the EP, the MP, besides the various "traditionalist synods."  The ROCOR is seens as legitimate by pretty much everyone except the SCOBA hardliners and the EP.  Patriarch Alexei II doesn't see the ROCOR as schismatic, nor do the the Patriarchs of Serbia or Jerusalem.  My only point in posting is to point out that the lack of love goes both ways, that both sides share the fault. 

And for the record I do attend a ROCOR parish - but I attend for a variety of reasons much more pragmatic than the whole calendar issue.  I also frequent a monastery here that is under the EP and recieve the mysteries there as well.  When I leave for the Holy Mountain I will be staying at monasteries that commorate the Patriach.  An honest view of history and self criticism are not schism.   

Fortunately, +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¦-ü+¦++-é, you and I know each other well enough that we understand the other better than some other (not-yet-Orthodox) responders do. In point of fact the ROCOR broke communion. I am not aware of any mutual anathemas being exchanged. Perhaps they are correct or maybe not in their 'walling-off". Time will tell. SCOBA in point of fact still considers ROCOR canonical and Orthodox. My point of contention is with the schismatic synods which, in their separation, dare to judge their fellow bishops in condemnation. Those groups I ignore totally and without "due' respect.  I just want you to understand the difference between and among these definitions of "traditionalist" ( a label you have now attached to yourself).

Sabbas's comments I am afraid I must ignore, however. His tirade warrants no other reply.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #274 on: January 07, 2005, 09:56:58 PM »

+ò-à +++++¦+¦+»-ä+¦

I agree with you that extremism is not good for the Church and that in recent times the Greek Old Calendarists (along with the ROCOR break offs) have further marginalized themselves from the Church.  But as is being seen now the witness of the ROCOR is paying off and could have a large (positive) affect on the MP.  My sincere hope is that someday the state Church of Greece will re-unite with the old calendarists and provide a unified witness against the rising forces opposed to Orthodoxy in the world. 

I do understand very well what the role of traditionalism is within the EP/state church (where I will likely find myself in the future).  There is a reason why my walls are covered in pictures of Elders Cleopas, Porphyrios, Philotheos, Paisios, Ephraim, St. Silouan et al who never left the confines of thier state church yet angered many within it by their traditonalism. 



Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #275 on: January 08, 2005, 02:36:16 AM »

+ò-à +++++¦+¦+»-ä+¦

I agree with you that extremism is not good for the Church and that in recent times the Greek Old Calendarists (along with the ROCOR break offs) have further marginalized themselves from the Church. But as is being seen now the witness of the ROCOR is paying off and could have a large (positive) affect on the MP. My sincere hope is that someday the state Church of Greece will re-unite with the old calendarists and provide a unified witness against the rising forces opposed to Orthodoxy in the world.

I am so glad to see that you DID understand my post! Yes, ROCOR is fulfilling its exact purpose, preserving the ROC (if only some will let it succeed.) Please remember I am on very good terms with my local ROCOR priest.
As to Greece however, the squabbling factions of Old Calendarists are fighting themselves and thus hurting, not healing, the Church. But I'm sure you picked up on that as well.
Quote
I do understand very well what the role of traditionalism is within the EP/state church (where I will likely find myself in the future). There is a reason why my walls are covered in pictures of Elders Cleopas, Porphyrios, Philotheos, Paisios, Ephraim, St. Silouan et al who never left the confines of thier state church yet angered many within it by their traditonalism.

Again, you understand me well. I do not recall St Mark of Ephesus stating anything beyond a refusal to sign the Union of 1439 - no anathemas, no wallings-off, no unloving condemnations, just a statement and a continuance of Orthodoxy. He won.

Well done.

Demetri, under the EP AND Old Calendar
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #276 on: January 08, 2005, 03:35:57 AM »

There was a period of intense squabbling among Old Calendarists in the 1970's. But in 1985, almost all of the Greek Old Calendarists were reunited under Archbishop Chrysostomos II. Apart from him and Metropolitan Cyprian, there are not any other large, viable, and consitent Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions. There are a few very small and vocal groups that do squabble but some of them are almost vagantes. The vast majority of Greek Old Calendarists are under the Synod of Chrysostomos II.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: January 23, 2005, 06:34:08 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #277 on: January 08, 2005, 10:50:44 AM »

er, Anastasios, then do you not really mean "the vast majority of what is left" of the Old Calendarists? A defense of their actions in this manner seems most odd.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #278 on: January 08, 2005, 12:54:34 PM »

er, Anastasios, then do you not really mean "the vast majority of what is left" of the Old Calendarists? A defense of their actions in this manner seems most odd.

Demetri

I am not defending anyone, but rather am saying that while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.  Yes, the number of Old Calendarists is going down, but so is the number of people in the State Church who practice Orthodoxy.  I think any Church divisision is sad and do not condone schisms in the Church.  I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #279 on: January 08, 2005, 06:16:41 PM »

Quote
I am not defending anyone, but rather am saying that while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.  Yes, the number of Old Calendarists is going down, but so is the number of people in the State Church who practice Orthodoxy.  I think any Church divisision is sad and do not condone schisms in the Church.  I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

Anastasios

I agree whole heartedly with Anastasios's statement.

Quote
while many (online) say that the Old Calendar movement is fracturing endlessly, the vast majority of Old Calendarists is united under one Synod.

This is what I have also noticed and it really bugs me. By far the majority of Old Calendarists in resistance are either in the GOC or with Metropolitan Cyprian in the GSR, who has helped organize and is in full communion with the Old Calendar synods of Bulgaria, Romania, and Milan in addition to being in full communion with ROCOR and having close ties to the JP.  http://www.synodinresistance.gr/Dioikisi_en/Adelfesen.html   http://www.onr.com/user/milan/index.html

Quote
I think the Old Calendarists were right about the separation on the basis of faith but I certainly think they ruined the witness by the constant in-fighting in the period 1974-1985 (the Matthewite separation was shameful in 1937 but what really messed things up was the tenure of Archbishop Auxentios in the 1970's).

I totally agree and I think this is why so many in official Orthodoxy think that it's all cut and dry; "they left the Church" when in fact they are in protest and cut themselves off from a jurisdiction. When I read about all that took place under Archbishop Auxentios I began to wonder if the man was suffering from a slight mental illness.

Another thing I think many are failing to see is that the calendar is but a part and symbol of something greater and far more pernicious that may bring the need for another Ecumenical Council.
Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #280 on: January 09, 2005, 02:18:36 AM »

Well, my new friend Sabbas, I can see this thread is going to meander totally off the Old vs. New Calendar topic. I find it more than interesting that, outside of Greece -but including some synods even there, all the Old Calendarist churches you cite are virtually ROCOR creations (I think you canadd  Georgia to this list as well). Despite my respect for ROCOR, I get extremely angry at this outright uncanonical meddling in the sees of other churches. One wrong is not corrected by another.
You are correct, however, in that there is more going on than just a calendar issue, especially considering that the Church of Constantinople has entirely Old Calendar dioceses, some dioceses with both calendars including the GOAA which up to 1991 had two OC parishes. Also, among the 'normal' Orthodox (to use a term coined by Bishop Tikhon - OCA) OC and NC churches are in full communion. I guess it bothers the Old Calendarists that the 'normal' churches DON'T see a divisive issue here as they do. I am sure I will hear now an anti-ecumenist tirade in response here.
Go for it. Smiley

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #281 on: January 09, 2005, 02:40:16 AM »

I remember reading a quote from a ROCOR council in the late 1960's or early 1970's, when the consecration of old Calendarist bishops for Greek Old Calendarist group(s) was being discussed. I don't recall whether this was said by Archbp. Averky or Met. Vitaly; but anyway, the bishop in question basically said (if my brain is not too far gone) that he would never have done anything so bold himself, but that it was in the end something that was done and had to be dealt with as an already-accomplished (and not totally bad) event. Whether it should have been done or not, whether it was canonical or not, I think is an argument that love can help us get past. What is important is, where do we go from here? I think we are headed in the right direction...
« Last Edit: January 09, 2005, 02:43:34 AM by Paradosis » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #282 on: January 09, 2005, 09:36:12 AM »

Thank you for adding that, Paradosis. I am optimistic too.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #283 on: January 11, 2005, 10:34:14 PM »

An interesting quote I ran across today: "Let us throw ourselves together on our knees before the Lord. Do you share with us our unity; let us share with you your contrition; and let charity cover the multitude of sins." - Bl. Augustine, On Baptism (Against the Donatists), 2, 13
« Last Edit: January 11, 2005, 10:39:05 PM by Paradosis » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #284 on: January 28, 2005, 06:56:31 AM »

Hi,

I'm new here. I'm a convert to the Orthodox Church (formerly a Protestant). I discovered Orthodoxy whilst working for a charity in Romania in 1995 and, after a lot of dithering became a catechumen and was accepted into the Church about 3 years ago now. Anyway, enough background, on with the question.

Sorry if this has been raised before, but does anyone hold any strong opinions on the calendar, i.e. whether the Old or New is correct? Obviously, I follow the New Calendar along with the rest of my jurisdiction, but I wouldn't consider myself a New Calendarist as such, I'd rather just be Orthodox (if you understand what I mean). For a long time, this didn't really concern me, but I'm now starting to wonder. The Old Calendar does seem to have a number of things in its favour and the New Calendar is certainly not accepted by all the churches - in fact, that lack of liturgical unity is one of my biggest issues.

When I go back to Romania (which I do often), I see the problems over the calendar only too clearly - the True Orthodox Church of Romania (Old Calendarist) has its base in Slatioara which isn't far from where I used to work. Frankly it saddens me to see the divisions, but I do wonder about the validity of the New Calendar. Once or twice I've spoken to people who do follow the Old Calendar who have advised me that I should change jurisdictions over the issue.

Can someone with more experience of the Orthodox faith than my paltry 3 years offer me some advice on this issue? I'm only too aware that converts can get rather over-zealous and a touch pharisaical (been there, done that - unfortunately) and I'd rather not go that way, but if the New Calendar really is the problem some say it is, then I'd rather not go that way either. Please help, even if you're just another recent convert like myself - it really would be useful for me to have a variety of views on this.

In Christ,

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #285 on: January 28, 2005, 08:45:41 AM »

Welcome James,
Here in Greece we have a similiar situation to that of Romania where most of the church is on the new calendar and a small group on the old calendar have cut themselves off. However we also have the monasteries on Mount Athos which are all on the old calendar but remain in full communion with the Church of Greece which is on the new. The monks from Mount Athos happily take part in new calender services when they leave the Holy Mountain, and pilgrims from Greece on the new calendar happily take part in old calendar services on Mount Athos.

Personally, I would prefer the Church of Greece went back to the old calendar and I know there are many priests who feel the same way. I would be overjoyed if this happened in my lifetime.

John.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #286 on: January 28, 2005, 08:57:07 AM »

John,

Thanks for the reply. I think I'm in more or less the same situation you are - I wish that the Romanian church would go back to the Old Calendar but am currently stuck following the New. The thing is, that I feel like I owe a great debt to the Romanian church (and particularly to two saints and one fantastic monk) for leading me to the Truth, so I really don't want to go anywhere else. I certainly don't want to be part of a tiny walled off church either - I respect the opinions of the TOCR members, but I feel they've taken their protest too far. I take it your advice would be to stick with the status quo and pray for change?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #287 on: January 28, 2005, 09:09:35 AM »

Stick with the canonical church which is in communion with other canonical churches.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #288 on: January 28, 2005, 11:42:12 AM »

Sorry to disagree with my esteemed global moderator who of course is entitled to his opinion which I respect--

I dislike the term canonical being thrown around. Uncanonical churches to me are the vagante churches set up by pseudo-bishops like Aftimios Ofiesh (deposed for getting married in the 1930's but went on to make other churches).  The Old Calendar movement, on the other hand, is canonical since it follows the canons.Communion with other churches is an ideal but not a preqrequisite for being Orthodox if one accepts we are in an age of falling away from the truth (not saying I accept or do not accept that premise)--ultimately the ones following the Fathers and living the faith as passed down to them are the canoinical and right body.

That's why I can't second Prodromos's advice; it's too simple.  There are too many factors involved.  You need to pray about the issue and read literature from both sides and then make an informed decision; don't just base arguments on "who's official."  I suppose as I have done with baptism of converts I could create a short bibliography of the issue of the calendar from both points of view if you are interested.

Anastasios

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #289 on: January 28, 2005, 12:10:00 PM »

James,

You might want to look in this recent thread that went over the calendar... http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php/topic,4576.0.html

I'll clarify what Prodromos wrote. The TOCR is schismatic. It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions. It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction. Exercise of such lawful authority isn't justification for the Protestantization of the Orthodox Church where each becomes his own bishop.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #290 on: January 28, 2005, 02:33:11 PM »

In Strelets' opinion the TOCR is schismatic, but I disagree. As a point of reference, the TOCR  is in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right and those churches which are on the New Calendar are in a grey area, as are the extremist Old Calendarists that anathematize everyone. I would say the best course of action would be to be in the ROCOR, Serbian patriarchate, Jerusalem Patriarchate, or one of the moderate Traditionalist Churches such as the TOC of Greece.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: January 28, 2005, 02:34:04 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #291 on: January 28, 2005, 02:43:06 PM »

Hi, James, and welcome to the forum.

The whole calendar thing seems to be overblown, imo, by these groups like the TOCR who, as has already been mentioned, actually wall themselves off from other Orthodox Churches.  What's even more frustrating (and what I think proves the ludicrousness of the situation) are these groups who attempt to sever communion with New Calendar jursidictions, yet who are perfectly content to remain in communion with other Old C jurisdictions who are themselves still in communion with the New C jurisdictions!  It just seems to be a sort of legalism, where technically they're not in communion with those who have the "wrong calendar" (so they're still "OK") but they have only moved a step back from the problem by accepting those who accept those who do.

I personally prefer the Old C, but see the logic behind the New C -- to correspond to the civil calendar of the day.  It's just too bad it was thrown upon some parts of the Orthodox world in such a haphazard and ill-meant fashion.

As for Anastasios' take on Prodromos' advice, well...I don't think it just comes down to a view of "following the canons," because this begs the question: which jurisdictions are "following the canons"?  My advice would be to look at the churches no one has a problem with--i.e., the Old C ones the "synods in resistance" still commune with (Serbia, Jerusalem et al) and see what they do.  As it is, they've not severed communion over Calendar--ultimately no one in communion with them really has--so I wouldn't be so quick to jump ship over something that we as an Orthodox family haven't yet made a "deal-breaker."

It's a mess, yeah.  But not one we have to leave the house over.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #292 on: January 28, 2005, 03:22:18 PM »

I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right...

Why?  Local Synods have made certain liturgical changes at times that differed with other existing practices, and this has not always led to a breaking away.  What makes the Calendar different? 
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
NickolaiOJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 48


Forgive Me, the Sinner.


« Reply #293 on: January 28, 2005, 03:32:52 PM »

I just  don't get the big deal.  some Churches chose to follow the civil calender of the land that they lived in.  Which is what happened when the Church started using the Julian calender.  It's not like the Church created the Julian Calender.  They just used it becuase it was there.

I really have no problem with either calender.  I would just like some agreement on which calender we should use, even though I know this won't happen. 
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #294 on: January 28, 2005, 04:06:17 PM »



Why? Local Synods have made certain liturgical changes at times that differed with other existing practices, and this has not always led to a breaking away. What makes the Calendar different?

The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon.  The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained.  Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches. Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #295 on: January 28, 2005, 05:29:32 PM »

In Strelets' opinion the TOCR is schismatic, but I disagree. As a point of reference, the TOCR is in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

They are in schism with the Romanian Church. I'm not sure the communion-by-association rule really exists, or that anyone really practices it. If that's the case, then the True O jurisdictions that have declared other jurisdictions, such as the EP, to be schismatic and/or heretical, are therefore schismatics/heretics themselves through a logical chain of communions.

Quote
I disagree that a local Synod has the right to change the Calendar; I would say only an ecumenical council has that right...

Given that no EC ever adopted a calendar, it doesn't follow that an EC is required for a Church to use the civil calendar it happened to fall under. The use of the civil calendar seems to be a given, much like using other technology for telling time (digital watches come to mind). Why stop at calendars? How about creating a new jurisdiction that uses the Roman water clock like the Apostles?

Quote
The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon. The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained.

So what you're saying is that unity was already maintained, before they made this effort? 1700 years of unity passed by and suddenly a rule arose out of thin air that a single typikon was necessary for all Orthodox???

Quote
Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches.

But the bishops and local synods have always had the prerogative in deciding the standards for discipline within the liturgical life of their jurisdictions so long as the decisions of the ECs were maintained. Changing the calendar within one's jurisdiction to the civil one does not do violence against any canon law in the ECs. On the contrary, breaking communion from your bishop and setting up shop in the same city and region does.

Quote
Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

Huh? One could just as easily say the process continues and it's coalescing into the one universal usage of the Revised Julian Calendar. And it's my understanding that parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India never used the Julian Calendar.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #296 on: January 28, 2005, 05:52:41 PM »

And it's my understanding that parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India never used the Julian Calendar.

I'll get back to the rest of this post sometime later (I heard the chapel bell ring a few minutes ago), but I just wanted to say that in India, the Julian Calendar was used until 1953, when the full Gregorian Calendar was adopted for reasons similar to those the Finns cite when defending their change.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2005, 05:53:09 PM by Mor Ephrem » 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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #297 on: January 28, 2005, 05:56:34 PM »

James

I've seen things in pretty much every post that I both agree and disagree with. *shrugs* I've only been Orthodox three years myself, but my own advice is to just take your time, pray, study, read scripture, cultivate the virtues, and trust in God to lead you. "Well-reasoned hesitation [is better] than inconsiderate haste" (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 2) Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #298 on: January 28, 2005, 06:00:08 PM »

Stelets,

I have a feeling we are on totally different wavelengths and debating this issue with you is causing me to feel several negative emotions and an intense desire to start debating you full force. But I really don't want to do that, for one because I am an administrator of the site and I don't want to be at the center of a conflict on this issue specifically, and also because I just don't have the energy right now to do it. I apologize if I in any way offended you in anything I said and you can have the last word if you so desire. Have a blessed day.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #299 on: January 28, 2005, 06:41:37 PM »

I'll get back to the rest of this post sometime later (I heard the chapel bell ring a few minutes ago), but I just wanted to say that in India, the Julian Calendar was used until 1953, when the full Gregorian Calendar was adopted for reasons similar to those the Finns cite when defending their change.

I'd like to read more about it. My understanding was that the vernal equinox for the Indian Orthodox was determined differently than in the other Julian Calendar lands, which made it a de facto revised Julian Calendar of sorts. Nevertheless, there were over two dozen calendars in India until the civil calendar reform in in 1957, which established one civil calendar and was followed by the Malankara Church. This would support the tradition of using the civil calendar.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #300 on: January 28, 2005, 08:38:13 PM »



I'd like to read more about it.  My understanding was that the vernal equinox for the Indian Orthodox was determined differently than in the other Julian Calendar lands, which made it a de facto revised Julian Calendar of sorts.  Nevertheless, there were over two dozen calendars in India until the civil calendar reform in in 1957, which established one civil calendar and was followed by the Malankara Church.  This would support the tradition of using the civil calendar.

I am not aware that the Malayalam calendar was used to calculate the vernal equinox, and thus the date of Easter.  Everything I've read has claimed that it was the Julian Calendar which the Orthodox used to calculate the moveable feasts.  In 1953, this was changed: the govt. did not want to give the people two sets of Christian holy days off (most everyone who works in India gets several religious holidays off, whether or not they are adherents of those religions), so they said we could either switch calendars and go with the Western dates so that everyone could be off and go to church or keep the Orthodox dates and not get the days off.  Thinking it better to change dates and have everyone celebrate rather than keep the old dates and see few people at services, they changed calendars.  I remember hearing somewhere (maybe Paul2004 can comment) that some Hindu holiday for which the schoolchildren were usually off coincided with Orthodox Christmas (6 January--I think this was before the Julian added a day), and so the vacation was called "Christmas Break" or something like that.  I could be wrong about this, though. 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the switch, given the reasons.  Ideally, I'd like to see the old calendar restored, at least in America (where, I think, it might actually be easier to restore it among Indian Orthodox, all things considered).  But as long as the calendar is consistent, not mixing and matching (like the Revised Julian), I think it can work.   

The Orthodox Church by the 1400's had become unified in its liturgical practice universally by adopting a single typikon. The Russians made a specific effort to adopt the typikon of the Greek Church in the 17th century so that this unity would be maintained. Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness and as such should operate in concert with the other local churches. Having different calendars is a direct contradiction to the process by which for the previous 1500 years the various local practices coalesced into one universal usage.

I know you said you were bowing out of this discussion, but I will pose my question anyway, leaving it up to you whether or not you want to answer this publically.  It is my understanding that the calendar is different from the Typikon (the book which tells you how to celebrate the services, what to sing, how to blend texts for different combinations of feasts, etc.).  I have no problem with the entire EO world adopting a single Typikon in the 1400's; that is their prerogative, since they all share the Byzantine rite (regardless of anyone's opinions on our Churches, I would hesitate to say that "the Orthodox Church" became unified in its liturgical practice, since the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Ethiopians, and Indians, united in a common confession of Orthodox faith, were able to co-exist with different languages and rites, and, in this "smaller world" of ours, are no less able to do so--but I digress). 

The universal adoption of the Sabbaite Typikon is not a dogmatic issue, and neither is the calendar.  EOxy has within it a very small Western rite following: they don't use the same rite as the majority of their co-religionists, but I don't think anyone would doubt their Orthodoxy (unless one wanted to call the Orthodoxy of the Antiochian Archdiocese into question).  Multiplicity of rites does not constitute a break in unity or necessitate a break in communion, and neither should a calendar.  Furthermore, it seems to me that the calendar cannot be brought into this discussion, since the Julian Calendar was in existence long before there were schisms which cut off different liturgical families from each other.  There was unity back then, as well as diversity.     

Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness?  Judged by what standard?  According to Eucharistic ecclesiology (which you may or may not subscribe to, I am not sure), every local Church is the Church in its fulness, or is equal to it.  Throughout the history of the Church, local Churches have issued guidelines for their own people, often without sending delegates all over the world to consult with the leaders of other local Churches about it--what you propose might be an ideal, but reality looks different to me.  The example that comes to mind most quickly is the canonisation of saints.  Properly, the recognition of saints is the prerogative of the entire Church.  But local Churches often canonise locally, and let other local Churches decide about whether or not to recognise that for themselves and include them in their own respective calendars.  It may happen in EOxy that this regularly happens over the course of time (that a saint from one local Church comes to be accepted and venerated everywhere), but that does not need to happen *before* canonisation occurs, nor do the other Churches have to investigate the matter themselves, or send representatives to the Church in question to join them in canonising the person.  I think local Synods do have the authority to make disciplinary decisions for their own flocks independent of other local Churches, and this need not be a source for division.  The wisdom of such decisions and the way they were/are carried out are legitimate points to criticise, but I am not sure we can say local Synods don't have the authority to make the actual decisions.       
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #301 on: January 28, 2005, 11:05:04 PM »

Mor Ephrem,

I don't know if Anastasios plans on answering here, or if he is even going to return to thre thread to read it, so I did want to say something at least about...

Quote
Local Synods are not the Church in its fulness? Judged by what standard? According to Eucharistic ecclesiology (which you may or may not subscribe to, I am not sure), every local Church is the Church in its fulness, or is equal to it.

At first, I had a similar reaction as you. Obviously on it's face this seems to contradict orthodox ecclesiology, especially as articulated by Fathers like Ignatius. But, what I think Anastasios meant was, while local bishops could do as they wished, they were nonetheless part of a larger body and could not simply do everything they wanted independent of the rest of the body. The arm cannot go one direction while the leg goes in the other. There is a limited distance that they can go apart before they either get yanked back or leave the body. I think this is what Anastasios was talking about. So, it's all fine and good, and his prerogative, for a bishop to make liturgical changes; however, if the bishop decides that priests are to do the Moon Walk ala Michael Jackson before giving out communion, then that's something that the rest of the Churches can take note of and say something about. He is technically independent and equal to the other bishops, but he is still part of the body of Christ and therefore can't be allowed to introduce innovations that would harm the flock. I assume that that was what Anastasios meant, that while this bishop would have the "fulness" on the local level and in no way be lacking anything that God provides to his own (sacraments, virtues, etc.), nonetheless he was only "part" of the "fulness" of the entire body of Christ, to whose judgment he has to submit himself.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2005, 11:07:55 PM by Paradosis » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #302 on: January 28, 2005, 11:46:38 PM »

Ugh the Moonwalk. That brings back bad memories.  Shocked
Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #303 on: January 29, 2005, 12:52:31 AM »

He is technically independent and equal to the other bishops, but he is still part of the body of Christ and therefore can't be allowed to introduce innovations that would harm the flock.

But here's the kicker... these other bishops and synods are in full communion with the guys who adopted the RJC. While the dissenting priest/bishop thinks his jurisdiction has just tried to make him do the moonwalk, so to speak, and therefore has abandoned Orthodoxy, the other synods don't agree that it's a matter worthy of separation. It makes no pastoral or theological sense to say it's better to join, say the Serbian Church in my town, than the OCA one when the Serbs are in the WCC, they receive communion in my parish, we receive communion in theirs, their priest is clean shaven and dresses like a Catholic outside of the parish, they have pews, and their icons look Western.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #304 on: January 29, 2005, 01:23:51 AM »

Dear Justin,

I submit that there is a difference between the new calendar and the Moonwalk.  Tongue

Part of my problem is that I'm looking at this issue through the lens of experience which EO by and large don't seem to have (or had, and seem to have forgotten).  You are in the Russian Church, Anastasios feels more Greek, others Carpatho-Russian, others Ukrainian, etc.  In the end, all of your mother Churches are relatively close to each other, and for the major part of Church history, that's what you are used to...relative geographic proximity, identical rites, pan-"Hellenic"/"Byzantine" culture, etc.  Rewind a bit, and you have Churches as far away from Rome as India also in communion with your own Church: Churches with different rites, more spread out, differing in culture and custom.  Do you really expect that Indians are gonna travel to Constantinople to inform St. Gregory the Theologian about their lectionary so that they can change it to conform to that of Constantinople?  Do you really expect Armenians to go to Gaul and say "Hey guys, we are using unleavened bread, what about you?"  Do you expect Latins in Spain to go to Ethiopia and talk about how Pope Gregory the Great gave them permission to baptise with one single immersion in order to combat Arianism (I know, this is later, but I'm trying to make a point)? 

No one felt the need to move *only* with the consent and blessing of the *entire* Church.  The Church, even in its local manifestations, had/has the authority to make disciplinary changes which it thinks are best suited to the conditions it currently finds itself in, as long as they don't compromise the Faith: that's not to say they can change everything willy-nilly, but they have authority.  If the local Churches don't have this power, then what?  You can argue that an ecumenical council has such power, but then a council is only ecumenical if it is received as such, not because of some external criteria which, when present, automatically render a council ecumenical (you can't say "an ecumenical council proclaims the true Orthodox faith, hence it is ecumenical"; even local councils can do that and not be regarded as ecumenical).  If you have a council, and it is not received ecumenically, then what do you do? 

I'm not suggesting that the local Churches have the authority to literally go out on a limb--as you alluded to, they can only move so far, like an arm or leg on the body--but neither am I content to see the local Churches bound in a straitjacket, unable to move at all because in the latter part of the second millenium, all the "Greeks" decided to do everything the same way.  Fundamentally, the Churches have the ability to be "diverse" without being "strange" to each other, to live in different conditions in different ways without breaking communion with those who, confessing the same Orthodox faith, live in their own conditions in their own ways.  I don't see why all EO *must* be on one calendar: I can certainly see why it is preferable, but I don't see why it is a strict ontological necessity, since it is the faith, and not the calendar, which unites Orthodox (and it seems the vast majority of EO in the world live precisely in this way).

If you want to criticise the motivations behind the change, I think that's fair game.                 
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
Kardia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #305 on: January 29, 2005, 02:59:44 AM »

I claim no real understanding of the differences, though I think I understand the basics.  Having come from a religion that could argue on end the definition of one word in a scripture, or whether someone could sit in a different pew, I don't particularly enjoy getting involved in disagreements.  Finding Orthodoxy has been so -- beyond words, actually -- life-changing, amazing, awesome, that I really am in a wonderful place of looking forward to my baptism, crismation, and finally receiving the Wonderful and Holy Mysteries.  I've had the glorious and loving experience of seeing two priests in this area actually help each other during their respective services -- one old calendar, one new.  They are close friends, and speak highly of each other.  I feel totally comfortable in both places.  As it turned out, I am being baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. 

My question is this:  How does following one calendar or another actually affect the development of one's character, of one's spiritual/mental/physical life as a Christian?  How does one or the other make one more Godlike, and how does one compared to the other help one on the journey toward Theosis?
Is that not what we are to do be doing as Orthodox Christians? 

I make no claim to know anything --- I have so far to go, so much to learn.  My view is this; if there comes a time in my journey that making a change is significant in the development of my "becoming", I will deal with it then.  Until then, I have so much to do and change, I will focus on those things.  And I am grateful to have two wonderful priests for which I have tremendous admiration, that come from both old and new calendar.  It is clear at this time that God has brought me to this parish, the Greek Church.  Thank You and Praise You, God, for leading me Home!

Kardia
Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #306 on: January 29, 2005, 01:30:53 PM »

Quote
My question is this: How does following one calendar or another actually affect the development of one's character, of one's spiritual/mental/physical life as a Christian? How does one or the other make one more Godlike, and how does one compared to the other help one on the journey toward Theosis?

Neither calendars has any bearing on the questions you asked. Following one or the other does not change the facts of your salvation, your Christology, your standing in the Church, nor your fidelity to the Orthodox Faith. Rather, I believe that if you do believe it affects the theosis of your brothers and sisters, then you've already let it impact your own in a highly negative way. Like Mor Ephrem, I've not seen any of the "problems" in celebrating services in mixed calendars among the jurisdictions in communion with each other in real life, though you'd get the impression that such was the case by discussions like this online. If it were truly the case that all the Old Calendar jurisdictions and their synods believed it was a barrier to shared communion and believed it was an uncanonical change, then the theory might be credible. But that's not the reality. For those groups that say otherwise... you need to look at their truth claims, read the actual canon laws invoked (and not their altered translations), who supports their interpretations, whether there is any precedent for their actions (i.e. creating new jurisdictions), and above all talk with live priests in your area. You'll find groups making a lot of noise online, who might have more bishops and priests than actual lay members.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #307 on: January 29, 2005, 04:12:44 PM »



I'll clarify what Prodromos wrote.  The TOCR is schismatic.  It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions.  It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction.  Exercise of such lawful authority isn't justification for the Protestantization of the Orthodox Church where each becomes his own bishop.

Strelets,
It seems the OCA previously fell into the category you mention.

You said : It's best to stick with those Orthodox Churches that've maintained sacramental unity with their brothers and sisters rather than those who willfully disobeyed their bishops and formed new jurisdictions

After the Metropolia's break with the administration of ROCOR for no justifiable reason and formation of a new "jurisdiction", to the time of the Metropolia's Autocephaly in 1970, there are a good number of years where this jurisdiction "disobeyed their bishops"...and not even over doctrinal matters.
Also, from where have you gotten this notion that it's within the canonical rights of a a jurisdiction to decide which calendar they will use? If it's canonical, which canon are you citing?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #308 on: January 29, 2005, 04:32:25 PM »

It's within the canonical rights of the bishops and synods to determine the calendar and other matters of liturgical discipline within their jurisdiction. 

I'd also like to quote:

Act 7 of the Council of Constantinople (20 Nov 1583 o.s.):

      "He that does not follow the customs of the Church  and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have  decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar  which have been laid down as law for us to follow,  but desire to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and  calendar, let him, as well as the impious astronomers who contradicts all the decrees of the  Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them,  be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assembly of the Faithful." [/i]

Now, whether or not you or I accept this council, it seems that this pronouncement raises some problems when each synod decides its own calendar.  Just how much weight will this question be given by each Synod(seems like quite a bit in the case of the abovementioned council)? Is it a question of doctrine for each Synod (again, seems to be to the folks above)? If it is a question of doctrine for some, and its  change will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity, and in reality it was initiated for no other purpose than "getting along" with the heterodox, maybe it is an important question- one bigger than local synods.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2005, 08:24:23 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #309 on: January 29, 2005, 07:03:36 PM »

Bogo,

First of all--good to hear from you again!  It's been awhile...

Secondly, about question you asked concerning the council--

If [the calendar] is a question of doctrine for some, and it's a change will will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity, and in reality it was initiated for no other purpose than "getting along" with the heterodox, maybe it is an important question- one bigger than local synods.

...What were the reasons for these labels--"impious astronomers who contradict all the decrees of the  Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them"--were they called this because they truly WERE seeking to contradict the Holy Councils?  DID they IN ACTUALITY contradict them?  Or were they called this by this council simply because those who reckoned it weren't Orthodox? 

According to my understanding (which, I admit, isn't the best or most thorough), the majority of the actual dates were kept unaltered.  For example, St. Peter was still commemorated on June 29, Nativity was still on Dec. 25th, the basic formula for determining Pascha was left the same though applied differently.  The basic PREMISE of the calendar--iow, its structure for commemorating saints and sacred dates--was largely left alone, which appears to be the main issue; only the accuracy with which it was applied to the dates was changed. 

I agree that the reasons for adopting the New C at the time they were initially adopted were ridiculous; as you said, it was just to "get along" with the heterodox.  Again, though, that was at the time they were initially adopted.  I do not hear these reasons being touted by Orthodox hierarchs or faithful at present.  Astronomical correctness, redeeming the time as the world understands it by infusing it with holy meaning--these are the reasons for corresponding with the civil calendar to reckon the dates.  To equate New C efforts of today with the misguided motives of past heirarchs is a bit hasty.

Mor--very good points.  I agree with everything you said, especially the lack of unity in praxis throughout the still-whole--and by whole I mean catholic whole, complete--Church.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #310 on: January 29, 2005, 10:14:01 PM »

After the Metropolia's break with the administration of ROCOR for no justifiable reason and formation of a new "jurisdiction", to the time of the Metropolia's Autocephaly in 1970, there are a good number of years where this jurisdiction "disobeyed their bishops"...and not even over doctrinal matters.

The problem with this logic is that the OCA has maintained communion with the so-called "world" Orthodox Churches. Nevertheless, my words were directed to the ever splitting groups who habitually add "Genuine" or "True" in front of their names, as if an Untrue Orthodoxy is even possible. ROCOR is another matter, especially since they're on track to rejoining the MP.

Also, from where have you gotten this notion that it's within the canonical rights of a a jurisdiction to decide which calendar they will use? If it's canonical, which canon are you citing?

There's a logical fallacy in that question somewhere. It's perfectly legal for me to drive a car painted pink with lime green polka dots... where's the law that says I can drive a car painted pink with lime green polka dots? The calendar was established in no Ecumenical Council. Thusly, it's perfectly legal for synods to change it. This is evidenced by the fact that the Moscow, Serbian, and Jerusalem Patriarchates find no claim against the New Calendar jurisdictions.

I'd also like to quote:

Act 7 of the Council of Constantinople (20 Nov 1583 o.s.):

   "He that does not follow the customs of the Church and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar which have been laid down as law for us to follow, but desire to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and calendar, let him, as well as the impious astronomers who contradicts all the decrees of the Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them, be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assembly of the Faithful." [/i]

I'm afraid we went through this passage before, so I'll just rehash my earlier comments. The first sentence you posted actually reads:

"That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the new Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful."

The bolded areas are what gets changed when you look at a True O site, and that's why I wrote earlier that one needs to investigate the matter for themselves, speak with live priests, rather than accept at face value what someone posts online. The Menologion is not the Julian Calendar. The New Calendar jurisdictions have maintained the Paschal formula of the First EC, and they use the same Menologion as the Old Calendar Churches. We did not adopt the Pope's Menologion. This Council you sited was condemning the actions of the Pope which broke the Paschal requirements, not simply because it was a change.

If it is a question of doctrine for some, and itschange will effectively cause a liturgical break down in the typikon and in Christian unity...

I believe Mor answered the liturgical unity question quite adequately.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #311 on: January 29, 2005, 10:30:06 PM »

I would rather say nothing more here, but I guess since I opened my yap I'm obligated to Smiley Mor Ephrem, I agree with the principles you outlines, but I do not think they are applicable to the calendar situation for the following reasons:

1) Though the revised Julian Calendar has not been explicitly condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Council, I think the 20 or more councils that weighed in on the general issue of the calendar between the 17th century and 1924 make it pretty clear that, for EO's, you just shouldn't tamper with the calendar. Thus, I don't think it's acceptable to treat it as though it is something a bishop came up with on his own, not knowing that other Orthodox would react in a strongly negative way.

2) There was certainly no lack of communication or problems of that sort. So while I agree with what you said about the difficulty of communications in ancient times, I don't think it applies to the modern era.

3) Persecutions arose, as did a divisions which left millions (over the past 80 years) possibly in schism (wait, did I just use Met. Chrysostomos of Florina's concept of "potential schism"? Smiley ). If the Fathers were right in saying that it is not just those who are formally sentenced and executed by the state who are martyrs, but those who also die because they were practicing their faith, then I would say that the admittedly very rare cases of martyrdom have continued up to this day. But just if we were speaking of the division alone: what could possibly justify new calendarists maintaining the status quo in a situation like this?

4) The majority of the world's Orthodox remain Old Calendar, and even within New Calendar bodies opposition to the calendar innovation is easily demonstrable.

5) The calendar innovation goes against not just a few Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 17th century, but against the very spirit of Orthodoxy, in that it changes tradition willy nilly for no justifiable reason. Does it effect someone's salvation? I would say no. But then, others disagree, and I personally wouldn't want to take that chance. The 7th Ecumenical Council, with all the Fathers, speak against throwing off the traditions handed down to us; without a justifiable reason anyway. St. John Chrysostom said somewhere "It is tradition, seek no further." I don't think St. John was affirming a blind anti-intellectualism, but I do think the spirit of what he was saying was valid, and applicable in this particular case.

6) It gives us liturgical chaos, where in the same city (and sometimes in the same parish) one Christian is fasting while another is celebrating a feast. Sometimes entire chunks of the liturgical calendar are cut out of the New Calendar (e.g., the Apostles Fast).

I debated with myself all day whether to post a response. On the first page I tried to take a decidedly non-partisan approach, which I think is best. After that, to my discredit, I allowed myself to get into a "defend the faith" mode. Or more accurately, defend my beliefs, which is neither necessary nor beneficial.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #312 on: January 30, 2005, 01:58:02 AM »

Quote
Persecutions arose, as did a divisions which left millions (over the past 80 years) possibly in schism (wait, did I just use Met. Chrysostomos of Florina's concept of "potential schism"? ).

Millions of Old Calendarists are in schism? Where??? By the way, should we dump the Chalcedonian Council? Or, on a smaller scale, should the MP and ROCOR revert back to the two finger blessing, so as to allow the Old Believers back in? Or does the MP have the right to make those local liturgical changes as it sees fit? Let's not limit our arbitrary rules of accomodation towards the dissent of a dissaffected minority.

Quote
The majority of the world's Orthodox remain Old Calendar, and even within New Calendar bodies opposition to the calendar innovation is easily demonstrable.

And yet... they are in communion and get along just fine. There's no justification therefore in breaking communion, an act with which most Old Calendar Orthodox disagree.

Quote
But then, others disagree, and I personally wouldn't want to take that chance. The 7th Ecumenical Council, with all the Fathers, speak against throwing off the traditions handed down to us; without a justifiable reason anyway.

Care to enumerate this list of traditions they referred to? Or does anything one classifies as "tradition" count as much? The fallacy of broad definition seems to be at play, where a broadly phrased word gets interpreted to me anything in particular. It seems to me, at least, that tradition was a benchmark established for testing whether a doctrine was correct, and what wasn't. The Fathers couldn't have intended that any traditional practice was a matter of Faith or else we'd still be Jews and sacrificing lambs on the fire.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2005, 01:59:44 AM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #313 on: January 30, 2005, 02:18:02 AM »

Quote
By the way, should be dump the Chalcedonian Council?

That is an ironic argument to make in favor of the new calendarists. The synods that broke away from the state churches in Greece, Romania, Bulgarie etc. main protest besides the calendar change is ecumenism which seeks to dump the Chalcedonian council.

As a side note I support the traditionalists within the State Church of Greece that are opposed to the Ecumenism and modernism such as Metropilitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos and others. But to slander and malign the Old Calendarists is still wrong, IMO.

Also: your new interpretation of the Syond of Constantinople in 1583 seems off to me. You are tryign to say there is a difference of intention between them stating Menaion and one person translating it calendar. When the intent was clearly to condmen the Gregorian Calendar, your attempt to play with the words doesn't hold up. The fathers of that council clearly were opposed to the Gregorian Calendar.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2005, 02:22:55 AM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é » Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #314 on: January 30, 2005, 06:14:57 PM »

Quote
Quote
By the way, should be dump the Chalcedonian Council?
That is an ironic argument to make in favor of the new calendarists.

It's not an argument at all in favor of the RJC. It's an argument against the idea that a synod of bishops can't do something because some will choose to leave the Church. That in itself can't be a standard for any synodal/conciliar decision, or else we'd never have had a Paschal formula imposed upon competing formulas at the time of the First EC.

The synods that broke away from the state churches in Greece, Romania, Bulgarie etc. main protest besides the calendar change is ecumenism which seeks to dump the Chalcedonian council.

And that's further evidence that they're out of tune with reality. Tell me which new calendar jurisdiction, infected by such ecumenicism, is seeking to dump the Chalcedonian council. Quotes and documents, please.

As a side note I support the traditionalists within the State Church of Greece that are opposed to the Ecumenism and modernism such as Metropilitan Hierotheos of Nafpatkos and others. But to slander and malign the Old Calendarists is still wrong, IMO.

The issue that I see continuously cropping up in these discussions is a conflation between being an Old Calendarist and being in a schismatic organization. Most of the Old Calendarists are in communion with their New Calendarist brothers and sisters and, rightly, don't abuse this issue as an excuse to break communion. That's the matter I have addressed.

Also: your new interpretation of the Syond of Constantinople in 1583 seems off to me. You are tryign to say there is a difference of intention between them stating Menaion and one person translating it calendar. When the intent was clearly to condmen the Gregorian Calendar, your attempt to play with the words doesn't hold up. The fathers of that council clearly were opposed to the Gregorian Calendar.

They were opposed to it because it broke the Paschal formula established at the First EC, not just for the sake of opposing it. You can't simply oppose something for no reason. The Revised Julian Calendar adopted by the New Calendar jurisidictions fully abides by the Paschal formula and continues using the same Menologion.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
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 0.177 seconds with 72 queries.