OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 12:30:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 204399 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #585 on: January 27, 2009, 01:05:17 AM »


Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

That's a very common misconception.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #586 on: January 27, 2009, 01:12:10 AM »

Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

based on the calculations of Alexandria, as the Fathers decreed.

We are using the calculations for Pascha that Alexandria uses, which are have always been made according to the Julian Calendar.  Say for some theoretical reason the Church decided in council ecumenically to alter the calculation. It would not be bound to use Alexandria's calculation tables anymore, but it could. Either way, I fail to see the point though, because Alexandria's calculation tables assume the vernal equinox is on March 21. The question is simply, when is March 21.

Quote
How does the sigillion of 1583 trump the council of 1923?

The former was considered to be authoritative and accepted by the Catholic mind of the Church, and was the result of a council that presented a united Orthodox witness to the West (Calendars were not the only things discussed at that series of councils) whereas 1923 was a local council with divisive results which has seen a massive schism since its aims were begun to be implemented.

I've read Vested in Grace by Allen which goes in to some of the aspects of the 1923 Council dealing with priestly remarriage but I've not had a chance to read Fr Patrick V's book on the Council since it is so new and I have so many other books to read first....but reading the Encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be" sets the whole tone of the 1923 Council that followed.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #587 on: January 27, 2009, 01:17:55 AM »

So do you all think that an 8th Ecumenical Council dealing with the calendar will ever be convened?  I don't think so, because as I understand it a council that is truly Ecumenical could not be held until full communion was restored with the "Catholic" Church.  Is this wrong?  Could a pan-Orthodox council be called that would require the submission of all Orthodox churches to the results if it was not an Ecumenical council?

There is no need to have Rome to have an ecumenical council. And they obviously don't see the need to have us to continue to have their ecumenical councils since they are up to 21 now!  Tongue

I think that I have the philosophical terms right, but someone correct me if I am wrong... a Council is not a priori ecumenical or authoritative. It's only a posteriori recognized as true by being accepted by the whole Church.  There have been councils called with the intent to be ecumenical that ended up being considered robber councils for instance.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #588 on: January 27, 2009, 01:23:00 AM »

Quote
although I do enjoy the taste of the soup made from tripe I must admit...

If you're Greek, that figures.  laugh laugh

Oh forgot to mention that I'm not Greek...I've only had tripe soup with my Hispanic friends actually Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #589 on: January 27, 2009, 02:41:21 AM »

[
Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

If the Revised Julian people based their calculation for Pascha on the Revised Julian Calendar, they would end up with a Pascha and a Pentecost which is out of step with both the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar.

To avoid this they simply ignore the Revised Julian Calendar for this calculation and revert to the Julian Calendar.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #590 on: January 27, 2009, 03:49:10 AM »

If the Revised Julian people based their calculation for Pascha on the Revised Julian Calendar, they would end up with a Pascha and a Pentecost which is out of step with both the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar.

To avoid this they simply ignore the Revised Julian Calendar for this calculation and revert to the Julian Calendar.

Father, calculating the Northern Vernal Equinox according to the Julian Date of March 21st is precisely why it is a "Revised Julian" and not a "Gregorian" Calendar.
How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #591 on: January 27, 2009, 03:56:49 AM »


Quote
Their calculation of Pascha is based on the Julian Calendar.  That is why their Paschalion differs from the Gregorian Paschalion

C'mon, already! The western calculation for Pascha does not take into account the date of the Jewish Passover, which is a lunar feast. Nothing to to with a fixed calendar, Gregorian or otherwise.

That's a very common misconception.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus

Thank you Father.
And yes, it is a common misconception, which I also held some years ago until it was clarified.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #592 on: January 27, 2009, 04:28:54 AM »

How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.

It is and it will continue to be until 2800.  At that time the the Revised Julian will fall one day behind the Gregorian because 2800 is a leap year for the Gregorian Calendar but not for the Revised Julian.

Until 1st March 2800 the Calendars are identical.

So in 800 years time you will be able to come back and tell me that the Calendars are different.   Grin
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #593 on: January 27, 2009, 05:42:32 AM »

How many times does it have to be said? The Revised Julian is not the Gregorian Calerndar.

It is and it will continue to be until 2800.  At that time the the Revised Julian will fall one day behind the Gregorian because 2800 is a leap year for the Gregorian Calendar but not for the Revised Julian.

Until 1st March 2800 the Calendars are identical.

So in 800 years time you will be able to come back and tell me that the Calendars are different.   Grin
Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 05:43:56 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #594 on: January 27, 2009, 06:28:24 AM »

Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?

The Revised Julian is identical to the Gregorian, at least for the next 800 years.

The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha.  Apprehensive about being visibly out of  step with the majority of the Church for Pascha, they abandon the Revised Julian and revert to the Julian Calendar for the calculation of Pascha.   Shocked
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #595 on: January 27, 2009, 07:16:46 AM »

Father, How can you keep insisting that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical when their Paschalions are calculated completely differently? If, as you insist, the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are identical, why don't those on the the Revised Julian Calendar always celebrate Pascha with those on the Gregorian? Aren't their Calendars identical? Oh wait, they're calculating Pascha by the Julian Date on the Revised Julian Calendar. Hey, may be that's why they're called "Revised Julian" and not "Gregorian"?
Will this particular penny ever drop?

The Revised Julian is identical to the Gregorian, at least for the next 800 years.
In other words:
"La, la, la la, la, la...."


The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha. 
Yeah..... That's what it is......
It's not the fact that they follow the Julian Paschalion, they're following the Gregorian Paschalion but celebrate Pascha with the Julian Calendar.... Roll Eyes
The Revised Julian is the Julian Calendar with it's stupid mistake of too many Leap Years removed. I've just pmed the explanation to someone, here's a copy of what I sent them. Happy reading.

In the 16th Century, it was noted that certain regular astronomical phenomena such as the Equinoxes and the Solstices were occurring earlier and earlier each year. For example, the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere is the day when the Sun rises in it's most Northern point on the Horizon before beginning to appear to move South again. Since this is an annual event based on a Solar Calendar, it should occur on the same day each year, and on the Julian Calendar it was supposed to occur on Christmas Day (December 25th). However, what happened on the Julian Calendar was that the date of the Winter Solstice was occurring 3 days later than the actual Solstice every 400 years, so that, by the 16th Century, the actual astronomical Winter Solstice was occurring 10 days earlier than December 25th.
The reason was discovered to be because the Julian Calendar had too many Leap Years. The Julian Calendar counts every 4 years including every century year as a Leap Year. However, the solar year is about 365.2424 days long (a little less than 365 and one quarter days), so, if you add a day every 4 years, that means you will misalign the Year the the Earth's actual orbit 3 days every 400 years.  When this error was discovered in the West in 1582, ten days had to be removed from the Calendar to correct it, and so, a Papal Decree of Pope Gregory was issued stating that the day after Thursday, 4 October 1582 was to be Friday, 15 October 1582 and to prevent the error from recurring, it was decreed that a century year would be a Leap Year only if the whole year is divisible by 400. This came to be known as the "Gregorian Calendar". Initially, only Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Poland adopted the reform. Other Catholic countries stated that the Pope had no authority to change the civil calendar. However, gradually, other western counties adopted this Gregorian Calendar, and one of the last to adopt it was England in 1752. Orthodox Countries, however, refused to adopt the reforms and maintained the Julian Calendar.
Because of the different ways Leap Years are calculated in the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, the years 1700, 1800, 1900, were Leap Years for the Julian Calendar, but not for the Gregorian Calendar. As a result, the Julian Calendar has added a further 3 days which the Gregorian Calendar hasn't, so the Julian Calendar is now 13 (10 + 3 ) days behind the Gregorian Calendar.
In the early 20th Century (1923), the Ecumenical Patriarchate called a Pan-Orthodox Synod to discuss the problem of the Julian Calendar. On the one hand, it contained an error which meant that as the centuries rolled on, we would eventually be celebrating Christmas in Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church was bound by the Holy Councils, and the First Ecumenical Council had decreed that Easter was to be celebrated on the first Sunday which followed the first full moon which followed the Northern Spring Equinox (which, at the time of the Council occurred on March 21st on the Julian Calendar), so this could not be changed. As a result, it was decided that the Orthodox Church could not adopt the Gregorian Calendar as it was, however, it could adopt some of it's reforms to try to fix the Julian Calendar, and they came up with the Revised Julian Calendar. Basically, they corrected the fixed days (the "Meniaon") by removing 13 days. Thus, in the Orthodox Churches which adopted the Revised Julian Calendar in 1924 (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Poland), the first day after Monday, September 1st 1924 was decreed to be Tuesday, September 14th 1924. Bulgaria adopted this calendar reform in 1963.
However, because the First Ecumenical Council had decreed that the Church must celebrate Easter (Pascha) on the same day, it was decided that the date of the Spring Equinox used to calculate the date of Easter was to remain March 21st according to the Julian Calendar, and since all the moveable feasts are calculated according to the date of Easter (eg, Pentecost, Lent, All Saints, Trinity Sunday etc), the Moveable Feasts of the Revised Julian Calendar coincide with those of the Julian Calendar. For example, someone on the Revised Julian Calendar will celebrate the Fixed Feast of Christmas on the same day as those on the Gregorian Calendar, but will celebrate the Moveable Feasts of Easter, Trinity Sunday, the Sundays of Lent etc on the same day as those on the Julian Calendar, they just call it a different day. Thus, this year, Pascha (Easter Sunday) is Sunday, 19 April, 2009 on the Revised Julian Calendar and is Sunday 6th April 2009 on the Julian Calendar, but this is actually the same day on the Gregorian Calendar (April 19th). The Western Easter this year according to the Gregorian Calendar is Sunday, April 12th (a week earlier because they use the Gregorian date of March 21st as the Northern Spring Equinox to calculate the date of Easter rather than the Julian date of March 21st).
In answer to your other question, yes, there are Greek Churches outside of the Holy Mountain in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate which use the Julian Calendar. I assume you are in the United States, if so, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is in Communion with the Patriarchal Stavropegial Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovolantu which follows the Julian Calendar: http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/otherpatriarchal/sta
The Oecumenical Patriarchate has jurisdiction over the Islands and Central and Northern Greece, and there are quite a few Churches and monasteries among them which also follow the Julian Calendar.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 11:15:25 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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: 37,458



« Reply #596 on: January 27, 2009, 08:29:28 AM »

So do you all think that an 8th Ecumenical Council dealing with the calendar will ever be convened?  I don't think so, because as I understand it a council that is truly Ecumenical could not be held until full communion was restored with the "Catholic" Church.  Is this wrong?  Could a pan-Orthodox council be called that would require the submission of all Orthodox churches to the results if it was not an Ecumenical council?

You mean communion with the Vatican?  No, not necessary, otherwise we would be defective as they claim.

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) were not in communion with Rome when they wrote the universal Creed, something the Vatican admits:

Quote
Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Quote
Also, many have said that all that is necessary for the Orthodox faith has been settled and that no more Ecumenical councils are needed.  I suppose then under that reasoning there really is no way to handle this issue.  I just have a feeling that at some point the Eastern Orthodox communion might be split between the Greeks and the Russians over this issue.  Even though my opinion on the issue doesn't matter too much as this point since I am not a full member of the Church (we're only engaged!), my vote would go to all of the churches returning to the Julian Calendar as it has always been done in the Orthodox Church.
A Pan Orthodox Council would suffice, an Ecumenical one is not needed.  No aspect of the Faith is endangered.
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: 37,458



« Reply #597 on: January 27, 2009, 08:43:28 AM »

Given the Sigillion of 1583, I would say it's not up to a parish or a hierarch; this is something that should be put forth to an ecumenical council.  We have all these hymns on feasts that say "Today x happened." So in parish X it is today, and in parish Y it is in 13 days.  This is a disgrace and should be corrected. One universal calendar.

based on the calculations of Alexandria, as the Fathers decreed.

We are using the calculations for Pascha that Alexandria uses, which are have always been made according to the Julian Calendar.  Say for some theoretical reason the Church decided in council ecumenically to alter the calculation. It would not be bound to use Alexandria's calculation tables anymore, but it could. Either way, I fail to see the point though, because Alexandria's calculation tables assume the vernal equinox is on March 21. The question is simply, when is March 21.[
No, the Alexandrian calculations are based on their observation of the spring equinox.  The question is simply when is the day and night equal, and spring begin?

Quote
How does the sigillion of 1583 trump the council of 1923?

Quote
The former was considered to be authoritative and accepted by the Catholic mind of the Church, and was the result of a council that presented a united Orthodox witness to the West (Calendars were not the only things discussed at that series of councils) whereas 1923 was a local council with divisive results which has seen a massive schism since its aims were begun to be implemented.

I've read Vested in Grace by Allen which goes in to some of the aspects of the 1923 Council dealing with priestly remarriage but I've not had a chance to read Fr Patrick V's book on the Council since it is so new and I have so many other books to read first....but reading the Encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ Wherever They May Be" sets the whole tone of the 1923 Council that followed.


I see only two patriarchs signatures on the sigillion.  There are more on the Council of 1923, and more have accepted it since (at least on the calendar aspect).  This is yet another legacy of EP Meletios, the jurisdiction mess in America is another.
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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #598 on: January 27, 2009, 11:25:59 AM »

The Revised Julian people do not have the courage to cease celebrating Pascha and Ascension and Pentecost with the rest of the Orthodox world.  For this reason they do not use the Revised Julian to calculate Pascha.  Apprehensive about being visibly out of  step with the majority of the Church for Pascha, they abandon the Revised Julian and revert to the Julian Calendar for the calculation of Pascha.   Shocked

Old Calendar supporters criticize the New Calendar because it was implemented piecemeal rather than waiting until all the local Churches could come to an agreement. Then they turn around and criticize the New Calendar ('lack courage') because New Calendrists are unwilling to implement the new Paschalion piecemeal.

In the 4th century, there were at least 4 different calendars (and 4 different Menaion based on those calendars) in use throughout the Christian world (and that's not counting the lunar calendars like that of the Jews) and Rome and the East were celebrating the birth of Christ on different days (when the East celebrated it at all). The Fathers never thought this was worth discussing much less arguing about. The *only* day they showed any concern that there be unanimity on was Pascha. Following them, the New Calendar churches continue to use the Old Calendar Paschalion to keep one day across the communion--thus keeping the spirit of Nicea even though the Old Calendar Paschalion itself violates that same spirit (by ignoring the actual equinox in its calculations).

(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
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: 37,458



« Reply #599 on: January 27, 2009, 01:24:38 PM »

I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #600 on: January 27, 2009, 01:57:49 PM »

I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
For some, it is a Faith issue.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #601 on: January 27, 2009, 03:19:58 PM »

I just noticed this is in Faith issues, not Liturgy.  Why?
For some, it is a Faith issue.
That, and this thread started here in Faith Issues a long time ago and, since this is an issue that transcends mere questions of liturgics, I saw no reason to move it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #602 on: January 28, 2009, 01:31:55 AM »

(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).

Not sure about the good faith on both sides, alas.  Sad  The incoming Roman missionaries refused to recognise the consecration of the existing Irish and Welsh bishops and reconsecrated them.  They also did large scale rebaptisms.  From their side the Celts refused to recognise the Roman Sacraments and refused to eat off plates which had been used by the Roman missionaries.    There was not much "ability to disagree" on either side.

Neuman, Carol, The NorthUmbrian Renaissance, Associated University
Presses, N.J., 1987, ISBN: 0-941664-11-2, p. 58 -

"Elsewhere, however, matters were not so benignly worked out. Theodore
of Tarsus, on his arrival (as archbishop of Britain) in 669, found it necessary
to use forceful measures to quell the remnants of the Celtic heresy. Despite
the direct and immediate effects of Whitby on the central Celtic house at
Lindisfarne, it may be remembered that the Picts and Scots, including at
this point the Columban motherhouse at Iona, remained unwilling to
accept Roman orthodoxy. Theodore's 'Penitential' clearly announced his
views on the issues.  He recognised neither episcopal consecration
nor baptism as performed by the Celtic Church. Eddius tells us that he
insisted on reconsecrating Chad, "through every episcopal grade," and
demanded the rebaptism of converts of the Celtic Church. He also
ordered a year's penance for anyone receiving communion from Celtic
clerics. The hostility along the Welsh and Cornish borders was
apparently mutual. Aldhelm of Malmsbury wrote that the Welsh bishops
considered the clergy of Rome to be excommunicated until they should
individually perform forty days penance, and refused to pray with them
or join them at meals. The leftovers of food touched by Roman clerics
were ordered thrown to swine so that Celtic Christians would not suffer
spiritual contagion. Their vessels were to be purified with fire or san,
and they were to receive neither salutation nor the kiss of peace.
Apparently the British had not forgot the lessons of St. Augustine's
Oak."

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 01:36:44 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #603 on: January 28, 2009, 05:29:51 AM »

(BTW, I'd think anyone with such a clear tie to the ancient Christianity of Ireland would have a better understanding of the ability for people to disagree on calendrical issues with total good faith on *both* sides).

Not sure about the good faith on both sides, alas.  Sad 

I was referring only to the calendar portion of the dispute. The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are; the Irish were defending the Paschalion handed down to them from the original days of St. Patrick (and which came from Rome in the first place). Both sides had every reason to believe their calculation was legitimate--that neither side could accept that is one of the many tragic aspects of that encounter.

My point being that with knowledge of that regretable episode in Church history, it's unfortunate that you are apparently repeating it.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #604 on: January 28, 2009, 09:07:01 AM »

I was referring only to the calendar portion of the dispute. The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are;

 They had of course decided to adopt the calculation of 325 AD Nicea so that Pascha-Easter could be held on one and the same date throughout the Church.  BUT they did not adopt the Alexandrian lunar cycle which Nicea had stipulated as the norm and which the rest of the Church did adopt. 

Rome adopted the Nicene calculation but it continued to base the calculation on its own lunar cycle (Alexandria and the rest of the Church had a more accurate 18 year cycle.)  So this meant that from Nicea in 325 AD until aboutt 550 AD when they came into line with the rest of the Church, Rome actually celebrated Easter on a different date to the rest of the Church.


The reason that the Christians of Britain were out of step is that they adhered to an even earlier cycle which they had inherited from Rome, established formally by the Council of Arles in 314 but in use from earlier times.  The Irish celebrated Easter on the Sunday between the 14th and 20th day after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, which for them was on 25th March and not the 21st.  Rome had dropped this method.

"It was to the divergent cycles which Rome had successively adopted and rejected in its attempt to determine Easter more accurately that the third stage in the paschal controversy was mainly due. The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter-computation which Rome itself had laid aside."

 
And addressing our point of dispute....."The story of this controversy [the paschal calculation], which together with the difference in the shape of tonsure, seems to have prevented all fraternization between the British Christians and the Roman missionaries, is told at length in the pages of Bede. The British appealed to the tradition of St. John, the Romans to that of St. Peter, both sides with little reason, and neither without the suspicion of forgery. It was not until the Synod of Whitby in 664 that the Christians of Northern Britain, who had derived their instruction in the Faith from the Scottish (i.e. Irish) missionaries, at last at the instance of Bishop Wilfrid and through the example of King Oswy accepted the Roman system and came into friendly relations with the bishops of the South. Even then in Ireland and in parts of the North some years passed before the adoption of the Roman Easter became general (Moran, Essays on the Origin, Doctrines and Discipline of the Early Irish Church, Dublin, 1864)."

Extracts from the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The matter is almost as difficult to get a handle on as the filioque dispute.   Smiley



Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #605 on: January 28, 2009, 09:17:32 AM »

[The Romans were defending the exact same Paschalion calculation that you are; the Irish were defending the Paschalion handed down to them from the original days of St. Patrick (and which came from Rome in the first place). Both sides had every reason to believe their calculation was legitimate--that neither side could accept that is one of the many tragic aspects of that encounter.

I think that it was really not so important who was right and who was wrong with their various calculations.  The point is that the Council of Nicea demanded that the Church throughout the world commemorate Pascha in uniformity on the same date.   It was uniformlty which the Council required so that all Christians would keep this most sacred of feastdays together.
Logged
Apostolos
Protopentekaidekarchos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Greece
Posts: 347



« Reply #606 on: January 28, 2009, 02:08:17 PM »

Quote
The movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar
and the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou


by the Blessed Monk Theocletus Dionysiates*

The resurrection of Christ was considered to be and still is a myth, due to a deception among the Jews. After the soldiers of the escort, told the archpriests the shocking events of the Resurrection, they gave them a lot of money and told them to say that when we slept, His disciples came and stole Him. And the Evangelist Matthew complements: «Και διεφημίσθη ο λόγος ούτος παρά τοις Ιουδαίοις μέχρι της σήμερον» (“And this very word of the Jews was promoted until today”). A great lie passed in history. Such lies were many in the world.
Another deception was the generative cause of the movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar, which even today weakens the work of Orthodoxy, with the effects of those schismatics to the innocent Christians. And what is this deception? Those two Local Synods during the time of the Patriarch Ieremias II, in the years 1583 and 1593, who met to condemn the daring subversion of the condition of the Ecumenical Synod, on the celebration of Saint Easter, under the Papacy, that together they also condemned the alteration of the calendar. And how was this deception created? Through forgery, made by a precocious zealot, Jacob the Neaskitiotis, in the handwritten code of the Holy Monastery of St. Panteleimon, No. 772!
The alleged damnations were brandished, by way of a scarecrow, by the wicket zealots of Mount Athos in order to intimidate the innocent Christians. And the schism depended on that deception, like all the schisms which are generated by absurdities, counterfeiting and fraud and deceive the gullible and ignorant.
Briefly, the history of the schism of the Julian Calendar is simple. After the end of World War I, during 1919, the Orthodox states of the East, for commercial reasons, wanted to adapt the Julian Calendar to the so-called Gregorian one, which anteceded for 13 days. And in Greece, relevant fermentations started between the Governments of that time and the Church, which denied the detachment from the Julian Calendar. But the revolutionary government of Plastiras, despite the objections of the Church, by a Royal Decree, proceeded to the institution of the Julian Calendar, which was reformed by 13 days. Therefore, some problems were created by using two calendars. So the Church, in consultation with the Patriarchate and the Orthodox Churches, accepted the reformed Julian Calendar. And they denominated the 10th of March 1924 the 23rd, while Easter remained intact.
This is the whole story. So it was only logical that something like that was disruptive to the conscience of the people. But those who had sense, in order to understand, they settle down with the explanation that was offered to them, as Orthodoxy wasn?t degraded, neither the doctrine nor the traditions. On the other hand those who were dominated by suspicions and by their secret conceit and suffered from the «ου με πείσης καν με πείσης» (“do not persuade me even if you do so”) were the ones who rioted that the Church subsided to a cult. And that is how the movement of the followers of the Julian Calendar was created. Moreover, various schisms preexisted from scratch, such as the schism of Palaiopaschits.
Mount Athos, the 5-6.000 monasterials that is, after great consideration of the problem, concluded that the Orthodox Faith is not offended, but for various reasons it will maintain the old calendar, but at the same time it will not cut off the ecclesiastical relations with the Local Churches, who would have made the leap of those 13 days, as equally Orthodox. Several monks became zealots outside the Monasteries and a few Priest-Monks came to the cities and preached that the addition of the 13 days, that the Church accepted, is actually a cult, without taking into consideration that the Church would not accept to innovate, if the State hadn?t anticipated to innovate first and thus create this confusion with the two calendars.
I write these things, in relation to the issue of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, for those who ask me. I have already answered in a previous article. Here once again I repeat that the Holy Community respects the freedom of conscience of the zealots and tolerates them even though they are schismatic and according to the Constitutive Chart it should banish them from Mount Athos. The case of the Monastery of Esphigmenou is different. The zealots of Esphigmenou could stay in Mount Athos, but not within the Institutions of the Holy Community. Either they agree with all the Holy Monasteries or they disagree, so as they are schismatic, they must leave by themselves.
Yesterday I received a letter from a friend of mine, who wrote to me that in an interview the “Superior Father” of the Monastery of Esphigmenou, at a state channel, he said: “During the time of the Patriarch Athenagoras there were the fiery articles of the Venerable Father Theoklitos Dionysiatis. Now that these events happen, he remains silent”.
I do not know him, I knew however, his “predecessor” Efthymios, as I wrote in a previous article of mine in the newspaper “Orthodox Press”. But in this case I am bound to answer to the question of the Superior Father. Indeed, I used to write fiery articles, which constituted of a whole book for the papal statements of Athenagoras. Now what can I write? Now that many ignorants perceive the social type relationships and encounters with the papals as cooperation and co-prayers of the present Patriarch? Much has been said for Ravenna. If, despite the notice that only Orthodox should appear for the Holy Communion, some tines papals escaped attention and communed, this means that the Patriarch did that intentionally? We must be careful not to blame the leaders of the Church that they are Ecumenists because the modern conditions lead to meetings and to some amenities and affability with the heterodox.
I would like them to see the very Orthodox Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos II, who raised a true “war” against Athenagoras, to address in the Metropolitan Church the Anglican Archbishop or to receive at the Church of the Armenians an honorable address from the Armenian clergyman. What would those people, who complain and blame the Patriarch Bartholomaios as an ecumenist, say? I read in the “Orthodox Press” and I also received the protest for the Monastery of Esphigmenou from five Christian unions, which are not followers of the Julian Calendar. Well, are they touched by the eventuality of being prosecuted by the Sacred Constitution (the zealots) and aren?t they worried and sorry for the deception, that they are schismatic and that they expose the splendor of Orthodoxy? They want to believe that they are guardians of Orthodoxy, but then why don?t they attend to the preservation of the truth from counterfeits either deficiencies or excesses? Either the “esfigmenites” are seduced and they must be helped, so as to repent or they are Orthodox, so those of the five unions should follow them in their morale. Would the St. Mark the Evgenikos (the Gracious) and Palamas really protect them since they lacerate the Church? Do they know that Gregorios Palamas recommended to the Venerable Fathers of the Monastery of Lavra not to have a common cenobitic life with the Akindynos, because it showed some signs of deception? They should read, the ones of the five unions, my book «St. Gregorios the Palamas» and the offprint of the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos I “Control of calendar accusations”. And they should also read the doctorate disquisition of the present Archbishop of Athens, in order to see that above the initial lie there were built a series of false and fraudulent, as Saint Gervasios Paraskevopoulos wrote to me.
I wrote it elsewhere, and I will repeat it. The predecessor of the current “Superior Father” Efthimios, when there was the “Athenagorismus” (people who agrees with Athenagoras?s point of view), which Kontoglou, the Archbishop Chrystostomos and myself fought in 1965, Efthimios came to our Monastery and he was ordained Deacon and Priest renouncing his zealotism. Why? After five years he was once again a zealot. Why? Why did he read that Athenagoras made papal statements? When he was ordained from an “athenagorian” bishop didn?t he know? And for five years he never commemorates him? This is what zealotism is all about!
The Russian Nikita Strouve, in his book “Russia today” writes: “For something that Russia has nothing to feel jealous of America is the approximately fifty sects, which exist in Russian as O.O.C.”! Well, is this our sensitivity towards Orthodoxy? Instead of protesting in favor of the delusional ones, who as schismatics lose their soul, since neither the blood of martyrdom does not rinse the schism, it is wise to enlighten them to return to the Church of Christ abandoning their conventicles. And all this I adduced, because they ask me as being one of the elders of Mount Athos, who has seen many things.

With the love of Christ
Monk Theoklitos the Dionysiatis
Mount Athos

Journal Orthodox Press, 28 February 2003

*For us Greeks, fr Theocletus, together with fr Porphyrios, elder Paisios, fr Iakovos Tsalikis (who appeared miraculously at Athos recently, 18 years after his death), fr Theophilus Zervakos, fr Gervasius Paraskevopoulos, are already saints.   
Logged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG5JWZlpfBA
St. John Papadopoulos "The Koukouzelis"
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #607 on: January 28, 2009, 02:33:58 PM »

Quote
Wicked zealots?

Quote
were dominated by suspicions and by their secret conceit and suffered from the «ου με πείσης καν με πείσης» (“do not persuade me even if you do so”) were the ones who rioted that the Church subsided to a cult.

You should be more careful with the articles you post on this site. As an administrator, I have been very careful to not allow some zealots to post overly inflammatory posts here about your Church, so you should refrain from posting inflammatory posts against mine.

This site consists of New Calendar Eastern Orthodox, Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodox, and Non-Chalcedonian/Oriental Orthodox, who all participate. No one is required to think the other sides are Orthodox/canonical/acceptable, but respect is expected in order that discussion and dialogue might continue. Articles which are well-reasoned and non-inflammatory are acceptable, but things that use terms like yours should be avoided.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 02:34:58 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
CCTE
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Patriarchate
Posts: 84


Patriarch Daniel


« Reply #608 on: March 21, 2009, 11:15:11 AM »

If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 
Logged

Sorry if my English is not perfect
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #609 on: March 21, 2009, 12:23:13 PM »

If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.

2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches, joint prayer with heterodox, joint theological commissions that produce agreed statements, etc.

3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

If that were the case, we would have no reason not to be in communion with each other. But from my experience, there are large numbers of people that think the above are not serious issues or that things like the New Calendar and Ecumenism are good ideas, so I doubt there will be any movement on this any time soon.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 12:24:24 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
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: 37,458



« Reply #610 on: March 21, 2009, 04:08:23 PM »

If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh
Quote
2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches, joint prayer with heterodox, joint theological commissions that produce agreed statements, etc.
Can't argue with that (except concerning the OO).
Quote
3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.
Can't argue with that either.

Quote
If that were the case, we would have no reason not to be in communion with each other. But from my experience, there are large numbers of people that think the above are not serious issues or that things like the New Calendar and Ecumenism are good ideas, so I doubt there will be any movement on this any time soon.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #611 on: March 21, 2009, 04:15:39 PM »

3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 04:15:52 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #612 on: March 21, 2009, 06:30:32 PM »

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #613 on: March 21, 2009, 08:36:26 PM »

If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh

Are you actually asking this question sincerely?
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #614 on: March 21, 2009, 08:37:16 PM »

3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...

They have been documented enough. I don't feel the need to rehash all of our objections, unless you sincerely have no idea what practices we see and object to.  Even on orthodoxinfo.com though they list most of them.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 08:37:54 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #615 on: March 21, 2009, 10:17:53 PM »

2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches....
 
Can't argue with that either.

Sure can.  The participation of Saint Mark of Ephesus  -for several years!-   in the ecumenist Council of Florence, would indicate that he could well be participating in the WCC if he were alive on earth today.

It's a fact which some Orthodox prefer to ignore since it deflates their arguments against what they term "world Orthodoxy."
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #616 on: March 21, 2009, 10:27:59 PM »

2) Renounce all participation in the World Council of Churches....
 
Can't argue with that either.

Sure can.  The participation of Saint Mark of Ephesus  -for several years!-   in the ecumenist Council of Florence, would indicate that he could well be participating in the WCC if he were alive on earth today.
It's a fact which some Orthodox prefer to ignore since it deflates their arguments against what they term "world Orthodoxy."

Right. Like we never thought about that one before.

At any rate, a few years does not equal 60-80 years.  St Mark went home eventually.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 10:30:40 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
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: 37,458



« Reply #617 on: March 21, 2009, 10:59:46 PM »

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
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: 37,458



« Reply #618 on: March 21, 2009, 11:00:29 PM »

If the world orthodoxy renounce to the new calendar, could (or would like) the old Calendarists churches to  be reunite with them, or they will remains in separation?

 

Speaking for myself, I understand our position to be:

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh

Are you actually asking this question sincerely?

Yes.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,929


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #619 on: March 22, 2009, 01:07:17 AM »

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
If you think the Old Calendar is broken, can you give much more than your usual simplistic, one-liner statement of how it's broken?  (IOW, your standard one-lined answers to questions often come across as very flippant and dismissive.  The posts where you explain your point of view in more detail I actually find quite informative and much more interesting.)

I gave you a reason that many Old Calendarists see as a very good theological reason to keep the Old Calendar.  Don't you think, then, that the onus is on you to offer them more compelling reasons to embrace the innovation of the New Calendar than merely "It (the Old Calendar) is broke"?  Even if some Old Calendarists were to see their calendar as broken, is it possible that they may see the New Calendar (as we know it) to be even worse and, therefore, not a viable alternative?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 01:11:22 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #620 on: March 22, 2009, 05:01:07 AM »

3) Rein in any modernistic practices that have become common.

Such as...

They have been documented enough. I don't feel the need to rehash all of our objections, unless you sincerely have no idea what practices we see and object to.  Even on orthodoxinfo.com though they list most of them.

Fr Anastasios, I disagree that you can so easily dismiss defining modernism.  For instance is frequent communion modernism?  Even frequent communion with the proper preparation violated centuries of established practice, as was pointed on in a recent thread.  I've met clean shaven and stereotypically modernist SCOBA priests who have insisted that one can't really be Orthodox and accept the scientific evidence regarding biology as accurate.  If modernism is actually an heresy, it ought to be able to define it - yet I have never seen a coherent definition.  While I can see actual disagreement between groups that accept some variant of the branch theory and those that don't, when the focus remains on "modernism" the parallels with the Old Believers remain the strongest (as realistically, their only objection was "modernism").     
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #621 on: March 22, 2009, 06:27:47 AM »

First, we've tried here, both by ozgeorge and myself, to sustain a discussion of 'eccumenism' vs. 'false ecumenism' and seen the topic die out that I wonder sometimes if the issue is real, or an excuse. I say this as one who does question certain events and practices of today, but without a clear definition, is there an argument?

Second, IIRC, at one time Fr. Anastasios while at SVOTS described how the RJC disturbed some cycle in our worship. I would be most appreciative if he could again, here, repeat that insight.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #622 on: March 22, 2009, 08:42:54 AM »

Every year I must discard of my old calender and then in the back of the church I pick up a new calender.  But if one may ask my calender is the Julian Calender, not the old calender.  The term old calender sounds like a smear campaign in promoting the revised Julian Calender.
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: 37,458



« Reply #623 on: March 22, 2009, 09:17:44 AM »

Every year I must discard of my old calender and then in the back of the church I pick up a new calender.  But if one may ask my calender is the Julian Calender, not the old calender.  The term old calender sounds like a smear campaign in promoting the revised Julian Calender.
LOL, only in America and the Modern Age.  Otherwise, Old was always good, nay, better.
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: 37,458



« Reply #624 on: March 22, 2009, 09:28:50 AM »

1) Return to the "Old" Calendar, or in council decide on one calendar for the entire Church, and if this is not the "Old" Calendar, it should have a theological reason for the switch instead of the reasons specified in the Encyclical of 1920.
What theological reason is there to keep the Old Calendar? Huh
With the lack of compelling theological reasons to change by adopting the New Calendar (seeing this from Fr. A's pov, even if I don't necessarily agree with it), would not the Traditional Orthodox resistance to innovation be enough theological reason to keep the Old Calendar?  IOW, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

Uh, because it's  broke.  That's why the October Revolution happened in November.
If you think the Old Calendar is broken, can you give much more than your usual simplistic, one-liner statement of how it's broken?  (IOW, your standard one-lined answers to questions often come across as very flippant and dismissive.  The posts where you explain your point of view in more detail I actually find quite informative and much more interesting.)

I gave you a reason that many Old Calendarists see as a very good theological reason to keep the Old Calendar.  Don't you think, then, that the onus is on you to offer them more compelling reasons to embrace the innovation of the New Calendar than merely "It (the Old Calendar) is broke"?  Even if some Old Calendarists were to see their calendar as broken, is it possible that they may see the New Calendar (as we know it) to be even worse and, therefore, not a viable alternative?


The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #625 on: March 22, 2009, 04:15:27 PM »

The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.

If that is the case, then why is the Equinox pre-defined as March 21 (April 3 on the Gregorian Calendar), and thus we have a formula that can be used to perpetually figure out the date of Pascha (the Gaussian formula)?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 04:18:03 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #626 on: March 22, 2009, 04:25:03 PM »

Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,590



WWW
« Reply #627 on: March 22, 2009, 04:26:22 PM »

Interestingly there are no "calander disputes" among Jews. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform...we may disagree about driving on Saturday, but we all know when Passover starts.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #628 on: March 22, 2009, 04:34:53 PM »

I'm having more fun discussing Nektarios's question about defining modernism with him on IM than I would in this thread. So sorry guys, I deleted my post above Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
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: 37,458



« Reply #629 on: March 22, 2009, 04:35:09 PM »

The rule adopted at Nicea was that the Pope of Alexandria (the reason given is because of his superior astronomers) calculates the first Sunday after the First Full Moon (i.e. the Passover) after the Equinox.  Ισημερία means "equal day" (Latin equinox means equal night). That's physics, not theology.

I'll return. Gotta get ready for CHurch.

If that is the case, then why is the Equinox pre-defined as March 21 (April 3 on the Gregorian Calendar), and thus we have a formula that can be used to perpetually figure out the date of Pascha (the Gaussian formula).

Because the Equinox was/is March 21: leap year is calculated to keep it that way.

It is interesting that the Iranians and those in Iran's cultural sphere (Kurds, Assyrians, etc.) date the new year from the equinox.  They, however depend on a natural phenomenon which I've yet to understand: they watch a fish in a glass bowl.  The fish swims (supposedly) a different way once the sun passes the equator.  The sun is also observed every year by astronmers to confirm the date: it is not mid-night, but when the sun passes the equinox (or the fish swims the right way) that makes it official.

Alexandria, as the rest of Egypt, wasn't on the Roman calendar but the Egyptian/Coptic calendar: the Egyptians noticed early that the star Sirius rose when the Nile rose.  The calendar was dated from that date.  But they didn't pick up on the need of a leap year, although they noticed the discrepancy.  So in hieroglyphics you have dates with two dates Old Style (365 year cycle) and New Style (astronomical observation).  Julius Caesar reformed the Old Roman semi-lunar (which also began with March) on the basis of the Egyptian.  We have references to the Egyptian calendar for dates across the Greco-Roman world, because of its accuracy.  

It is because the Gregorian/Revised Julian calendar intercalates so that the calendar accords with the tropical year, i.e. the equinox stays on March 20/21 and doesn't move.  Btw, the date is different in the hemispheres so a designation of, say, according to Jerusalem, would be necessary for calendar reform.


The whole equinox requirement is from the OT and the Hebrew calendar: the Hebrews in Christ's time would check to see if the barley had ripened.  If it hadn't, a leap month (hence the new moon requirement) would be inserted.  It is formulated now that way because it eliminates any dependence on the Jews for our calculations, and keeps the Resurrection after the Passover.  The Sunday requirement is for obvious reasons.

Everyone knows that it's not the first Sunday after the equinox but first Sunday after 21st March by Julian. My question is: why the non-fixed feasts cannot be followed by revised-Julian? They've got absolutely nothing in common with Pascha.

On the basis of both OT and NT they are calculated from Pashca "the first of months."

Interestingly there are no "calander disputes" among Jews. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform...we may disagree about driving on Saturday, but we all know when Passover starts.

Actually no, the Karaites differ.  And this uninamity has not always been the case, e.g. the Essenes differed in their dating.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 04:39:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.201 seconds with 72 queries.