Old vs. New Calendar?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

The date of our Lord's Pascha has NOTHING, absolutely  NOTHING to do with being astronomically correct!

Since it's defined using astronomical events, I'd say it at least has something to do with being astronomically correct.

I really have to disagree with you here. Pascha is not an astronomical event but a spiritual one, and the date on which it is celebrated occurs as a result of the movement of the Holy Spirit on a spiritual council, not the movements of the spheres.

Well we are and it is because we are correct.

Which is more important -- being correct, or being together?

I say we have no need to be together with heretics. They add nothing to our faith, and we do not help them more clearly see the Truth by becoming more like them.

That said, if we are told by the Church to celebrate Pascha at a different time than we have previously, then I have no qualms about doing so. The decision of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, is the same as a decision of the God Who led us. I'm not afraid to do things differently, as long as the theology remains unaltered. As the great theologian Geddy Lee put it, "Changes aren't permanent, but change is."

[Starlight]

...
For instance: http://www.keston.org.uk/russia/articles/rr15/02mitropolit.html
Article: Per aspera ad astra: Winner of "Person of the Year 2006" Prize, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga Vladimir. Preliminary results of Hierarchial Term / Services in St. Petersburg by Anastasia Koskello.

He seem to be the hair of his predecessor whom has bitten the dust in front of papal shoes.

"Though I speak with tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith,, so that I could remove mountains, but have no love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have no love, it profits me nothing". (1 Corinthians, 13:1-3).

Love goes above theologumens.

His Eminence Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of blessed memory was a great Hierarch. He deserved a lot of respect. He passed away or reposed in Lord, not has bitten the dust. Orthodox Christians have to be respectful talking about deceased ones as well as about Hierarchy. Christianity puts higher standards of behavior on us. This is how we witness Christ.

Among his many merits, Metropolitan Nikodim initiated new ordinations to the Holy Episcopacy. The apostolic succession became endangered in the time when he accepted the position of the Director of the Office of External Relations of Moscow Patriarchate. Many Dioceses were vacant. Most of MP Hierarchs were in 70s, some much older. Instead, he managed to convince Communists to allow ordinations of new young Bishops for the Sees and Offices of Representation outside of the USSR. Then they were quickly transferred to the vacant Dioceses and new ones took over their previous positions abroad. Also, foreign media became informed about persecution of the faithful due to his and his team's efforts. Metropolitan Nikodim strengthened seminaries, especially one in St. Petersburg turning it into a true center of Orthodoxy. Again, he enabled young spiritual guys from Russia, Georgia and Ukraine to enter this seminary. Hence his efforts, it became a good tradition of St. Petersburg Theological Seminary to assist applicants to overcome all barriers with communist authorities in Soviet times. Many people consider him a modern Saint.

May the memory of a great servant of God, Metropolitan Nikodim be eternal!

After this he heard insulting screams from persons present in the Divine Service.

Many years!

BTW, "After this he heard offensive yelling of protests from the persons present in the Divine Service." seems a more accurate translation to me.

This was not their place to yell and scream in the House of the Lord during the Divine Service. Nor it was a Christian behavior. Offenses and insults right during the Liturgy. Shocking and terrible! The Metropolitan did not preach any known heresy. Also, he did not promote any unchristian, unethical ideas, etc., etc. He only suggested to adopt a practice, already active in other Local Orthodox Churches. Indeed, Metropolitan Vladimir (Kotlyarov) really strengthened and developed his diocese. He is deeply loved by the overwhelming majority of his flock.

Many years to His Eminence Metropolitan Vladimir!

[chrevbel]

Since it's defined using astronomical events, I'd say it at least has something to do with being astronomically correct.

I really have to disagree with you here. Pascha is not an astronomical event but a spiritual one, and the date on which it is celebrated occurs as a result of the movement of the Holy Spirit on a spiritual council, not the movements of the spheres.

In what ways do we discern the Holy Spirit's will in this matter, except through astronomical calculation?

[PeterTheAleut]

Then western Easter does not precede Jewish Passover in some years?

I didn't say that.  I said that I don't believe 1 Nicaea specifically prohibits that.  In fact, the results of the Council quite clearly state the intent of calculating Pascha independently of the calculation of Jewish Passover.

Fine. I am not arguing with you. We do still consider the Passover in our determination, do we not? Why?

Why should we even care when the Jews celebrate their Passover?

[PeterTheAleut]

But they don't calculate the date correctly; why are we going to conform to their incorrect ways just for the sake of being together? Then we are elevating THEIR importance unnecessarily.

I have never heard the Julian calendar defended because it's the most correct.  It clearly isn't.  And I'm not really even talking about adapting Orthodoxy to conform with Western Christianity.  I'm mainly talking about the fact that we allow this discussion to be a point of contention within our own midst.  I find that sad.  In other threads, there are comments to the effect of "we could never change the calendar anyway, since it would cause such a great schism."  What!?  Have we reached the point where choosing between two man-made calendars is a reason for schism?  Shame on us.

Technological innovations don't automatically threaten our faith.  I would argue that modern timekeeping systems are but one example of such innovation.  A heterodox named Gutenberg invented the printing press (or introduced it to Europe, depending on how you interpret).  Are we to insist on handwritten scripture?  That's how they did it in the time of Nicea.

And just for the record, I'm not arguing one way or the other.  I personally don't care how we calculate the date, and I'm willing to follow the Church's guidance however it decides.  But I do think that those who vehemently argue the matter either way are completely missing the point.

(Edited once to correct a misspelling.)

If it were just a matter of choosing Julian over Gregorian or vice versa I would agree with you. However, the Western form of calculating the date ignores scripture, and therefore sometimes puts Easter ahead of Passover (which of course is incorrect.)

I might suggest that this "never before the Jews" interpretation may in fact be what is incorrect.

The Date of Pascha

by Archbishop PETER

(Reprinted from: The Orthodox Church Newspaper, April-May 1994 )

There is among the Orthodox a very widespread belief that the Christian celebration of Easter must necessarily come after the Jewish Passover. This chronological order is considered imperative and bears a symbolic meaning, as it is believed to have been decreed by the First Ecumenical Council held at Nicea in 325. This belief is stated and reaffirmed in the 12th century by the Byzantine canonist Zonaras. Another famous canonist of the later Middle Ages, Matthew Blastaris, in summing up the opinions of his time on the Paschal question, included among the rules for determining the date of Easter that it must not coincide with the Jewish Passover. We find this also in the writing of the learned canonist of the present century, Nicodemus Milash.

Yet, not only is such a stipulation totally absent from the decision taken on the Paschal question at Nicea, but it is foreign and, in a sense, contrary to what was then decreed.

<< http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/Holy_Week_and_Pascha/The_Date_of_Pascha.htm >>

[PeterTheAleut]

Since it's defined using astronomical events, I'd say it at least has something to do with being astronomically correct.

I really have to disagree with you here. Pascha is not an astronomical event but a spiritual one, and the date on which it is celebrated occurs as a result of the movement of the Holy Spirit on a spiritual council, not the movements of the spheres.

In what ways do we discern the Holy Spirit's will in this matter, except through astronomical calculation?

Let's not be too simplistic here.  We can certainly discern the will of God on this matter through calculations based on astronomical observances, but let us not imply that God cannot speak through other means, as you have done with your exclusivist logic, lest you totally dismiss the discerning decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Since it's defined using astronomical events, I'd say it at least has something to do with being astronomically correct.

I really have to disagree with you here. Pascha is not an astronomical event but a spiritual one, and the date on which it is celebrated occurs as a result of the movement of the Holy Spirit on a spiritual council, not the movements of the spheres.

In what ways do we discern the Holy Spirit's will in this matter, except through astronomical calculation?

Many, one of which is through the statements of Ecumenical Councils, who were led by the Holy Spirit. Astronomical calculation, like other branches of mathematics, is but one way we discern the will of God.

[orthodoxlurker]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.vi.html

The article in question's claim that Easter and Passover fell on the same date in 1825 appears to be incorrect. All the calculators I've checked say that Easter that year was on 3 April, which was 15 Nisan-- the day after Passover.

I did try to locate a year when that occurred, from various sources I've encountered saying it did, but none pointed to the exact year.

[orthodoxlurker]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.vi.html

The article in question's claim that Easter and Passover fell on the same date in 1825 appears to be incorrect. All the calculators I've checked say that Easter that year was on 3 April, which was 15 Nisan-- the day after Passover.

I did try to locate a year when that occurred, from various sources I've encountered saying it did, but none pointed to the exact year.

Correction.

According to Monastery of Celije it did hapen on: 01/04/1823, 17/04/1927, 18/04/1954, 19/04/1981.

[orthodoxlurker]

His Eminence Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of blessed memory was a great Hierarch. He deserved a lot of respect. He passed away or reposed in Lord, not has bitten the dust.

A nun, whose name I can't recollect right now, prophecized to him that he would die like a dog, bitting the dust in front of papal shoes. It came true.

Many Orthodox consider her a Saint.

After this he heard insulting screams from persons present in the Divine Service.

Many years!

BTW, "After this he heard offensive yelling of protests from the persons present in the Divine Service." seems a more accurate translation to me.

This was not their place to yell and scream in the House of the Lord during the Divine Service. 
...

It wasn't during the Liturgy, since I assume he campaigned after, and not during it.

Nor it was a Christian behavior.

Can we agree to disagree on that issue?

[orthodoxlurker]

http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/Holy_Week_and_Pascha/The_Date_of_Pascha.htm

The Date of Pascha

by Archbishop PETER

(Reprinted from: The Orthodox Church Newspaper, April-May 1994 )

There is among the Orthodox a very widespread belief that the Christian celebration of Easter must necessarily come after the Jewish Passover. This chronological order is considered imperative and bears a symbolic meaning, as it is believed to have been decreed by the First Ecumenical Council held at Nicea in 325. This belief is stated and reaffirmed in the 12th century by the Byzantine canonist Zonaras. Another famous canonist of the later Middle Ages, Matthew Blastaris, in summing up the opinions of his time on the Paschal question, included among the rules for determining the date of Easter that it must not coincide with the Jewish Passover. We find this also in the writing of the learned canonist of the present century, Nicodemus Milash.

Yet, not only is such a stipulation totally absent from the decision taken on the Paschal question at Nicea, but it is foreign and, in a sense, contrary to what was then decreed.

The article itself didn't bother to quote the canon that mislead Zonara, Blastaris, Milas as well as all in the Church for about 1600 years, until we lived to read the discovery of the author. Pity the reasoning about "the discovery" isn't convincing.

[orthodoxlurker]

...
We care about when everyone else celebrates easter because we strive for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is united. If we can't unite we can never create the Church as God envisioned and Christ founded.

-Nick

Thank you for being honest.

Me, I can't imagine I should create (along with some others, constituting "you") the Church that Christ founded.

All I can do is to do my best to remain in Church He created and promised the gates of hell should not prevail against.

I wish you all the best in your enormous venture...probably the greatest one since...the Tower of Babylon?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.vi.html

The article in question's claim that Easter and Passover fell on the same date in 1825 appears to be incorrect. All the calculators I've checked say that Easter that year was on 3 April, which was 15 Nisan-- the day after Passover.

I did try to locate a year when that occurred, from various sources I've encountered saying it did, but none pointed to the exact year.

Correction.

According to Monastery of Celije it did hapen on: 01/04/1823, 17/04/1927, 18/04/1954, 19/04/1981.

According to A Perpetual Easter and Passover Calculator, "Since AD 358/359 (AM 4119), the traditional year of the promulgation of the Jewish rabbinic calendar by Hillel II, there have been 24 coincidences between the first day of the Jewish Passover feast (15 Nisan) and the Alexandrian (later the Dionysian) Easter Sunday.


                   
Year              Calendar date           Year            Calendar date
                       (Julian)                                           (Julian)
AD    AM                                    AD    AM
367    4127      1 April         499    4259    11 April
370    4130    28 March         519    4279    31 March
374    4134    13 April         523    4283    16 April
394    4154      2 April         536    4296    23 March
401    4161    14 April         543    4303      5 April
414    4174    22 March         563    4323    25 March
418    4178      7 April         570    4330      6 April
421    4181      3 April         590    4350    26 March
441    4201    23 March         594    4354    11 April
445    4205      8 April         614    4374    31 March
465    4225    28 March         743    4503    14 April
496    4256    14 April         783    4543    23 March

Only twice, on 8 April 475 (AM 4235) and on 28 March 495 (AM 4255), did the first day of the Jewish Passover feast follow Easter Sunday (in both cases by two days). In all other years the first day of the Jewish Passover feast occurred before Easter Sunday.

Note that the coincidence rate remained fairly constant until the 6th century, after which it dropped sharply and after AD 783 no further coincidences have occurred. This is due to the slowly increasing offset between the Jewish and the Julian spring equinox dates."

This source also points out similar convergences between the Gregorian and Passover dates: "Since the promulgation of the Gregorian calendar in AD 1582, only eight coincidences of the first day of the Jewish Passover feast (15 Nisan) with Gregorian Easter Sunday have occurred.

Because of this rarity, especially before the 19th century, some early calendar scholars have claimed that the Gregorian Easter reckoning was devised in such a way to make such a coincidence impossible. However, there is no evidence for this and several coincidences have occurred since the begin of the 19th century, the last in 1981 after which the next one will not occur again until 2123.
From 1583 to 2000

Year                        Calendar date       Year                    Calendar date
                               Gregorian)                                 (Gregorian)
AD            AM                                    AD            AM
1609    5369    19 April       1923    5683      1 April
1805    5565    14 April       1927    5687    17 April
1825    5585      3 April       1954    5714    18 April
1903    5663    12 April       1981    5741    19 April

URL: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/eastercalculator.htm

My take on this? It points out that it is very important to make sure that we have our sources right and that our interpretations are not unduly influenced by either sectarian zeal or scientific detachment.

For example, I myself erred in attributing the rule on Pascha following the vernal equinox to a canon of the Nicene Ecumenical Council . It turns out that there was no such canon but that the Emperor proclaimed it in a decree in the name of the Holy fathers of the Council.

Nonetheless, it is clear from the tables above that for the Christians of the 4th-9th Centuries, it did not make much difference to them if Pascha and passover coincided, thus boosting the argument that the injunction regarding the Jewish passover was not to follow the Jewish computations.

The bottom line for me has always been honoring God above men, no matter how holy they may be. The actual date of Pascha is not known because we do not truly know the year of our Lord's Resurrection, nor of the date and year of His birth. It really does not matter to me that the Church fathers split His birth from Epiphany and moved it to coincide with the Winter solstice. It does not matter to me that the Church fathers decreed that Pascha be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (later standardized as March 21st from the narrow range of March 20-22), as long as we do not use the Jewish computations.

It does matter that we honor BOTH the decisions of the Church and God's time. Unless somebody out there can advance an argument other than we don't want to lose the Holy Fire or that we must proceed with caution lest schism ensues, the continuation of the Julian calendar is contrary to God's time and to the letter and the spirit of the Nicene Fathers.

[PeterTheAleut]

http://www.antiochian.org/midwest/Articles/Holy_Week_and_Pascha/The_Date_of_Pascha.htm

The Date of Pascha

by Archbishop PETER

(Reprinted from: The Orthodox Church Newspaper, April-May 1994 )

There is among the Orthodox a very widespread belief that the Christian celebration of Easter must necessarily come after the Jewish Passover. This chronological order is considered imperative and bears a symbolic meaning, as it is believed to have been decreed by the First Ecumenical Council held at Nicea in 325. This belief is stated and reaffirmed in the 12th century by the Byzantine canonist Zonaras. Another famous canonist of the later Middle Ages, Matthew Blastaris, in summing up the opinions of his time on the Paschal question, included among the rules for determining the date of Easter that it must not coincide with the Jewish Passover. We find this also in the writing of the learned canonist of the present century, Nicodemus Milash.

Yet, not only is such a stipulation totally absent from the decision taken on the Paschal question at Nicea, but it is foreign and, in a sense, contrary to what was then decreed.

The article itself didn't bother to quote the canon that mislead Zonara, Blastaris, Milas as well as all in the Church for about 1600 years, until we lived to read the discovery of the author. Pity the reasoning about "the discovery" isn't convincing.

Are you aware that the only one of the twenty Nicene canons that even addresses the subject of Pascha is Canon 20, which states that prayers said on Sundays and during the season of Pentecost (from Pascha to Pentecost) are to be said standing?  So, what other "canon" may you be talking about, lurker?

[orthodoxlurker]

... the continuation of the Julian calendar is contrary to God's time and to the letter and the spirit of the Nicene Fathers.

This is so wrong. That's because we, "World" Orthodox who follow Church calendar remain silent in front of "arguments" like "these and those churches already changed calendars...therefore it's not that wrong".

Shifting to New Calendar was contrary to "the letter and spirit" of Nicene Fathers.

Church Calendar is superior to the New One, is in line with God's time, and is scientifically more accurate that Gregorian One. That deserves completely new thread, titled "Some common misconceptions about calendar" that I will post one of these days.

[PeterTheAleut]

Shifting to New Calendar was contrary to "the letter and spirit" of Nicene Fathers.

Can you prove this?  Do you really know the "letter and spirit" of the Nicene Fathers well enough to be able to assert this with authority?

Church Calendar is superior to the New One, is in line with God's time, and is scientifically more accurate that Gregorian One. That deserves completely new thread, titled "Some common misconceptions about calendar" that I will post one of these days.

Maybe Chapter 7 of Hieromonk Cassian's A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar might be a good place to start.  It helps to know more fully the plaintiff's case so we can craft a more cogent rebuttal.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

... the continuation of the Julian calendar is contrary to God's time and to the letter and the spirit of the Nicene Fathers.

This is so wrong. That's because we, "World" Orthodox who follow Church calendar remain silent in front of "arguments" like "these and those churches already changed calendars...therefore it's not that wrong".

Shifting to New Calendar was contrary to "the letter and spirit" of Nicene Fathers.

Church Calendar is superior to the New One, is in line with God's time, and is scientifically more accurate that Gregorian One. That deserves completely new thread, titled "Some common misconceptions about calendar" that I will post one of these days.

Many posters have provided argumentation and evidence to back up their conclusions yet, sadly you keep on asserting the same conclusions over and over. Of course, that is your right but it would really be nice if you could back up your conclusions, which do not rise above mere opinions because of the lack of logical argumentation and evidence.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

1) Why do you care of astronomy? The Church is not built on astronomy, but on the Canons of the Orthodox Church. We can't just "fix" them whenever we want... The canon of Nicaea I clearly states the clause "not with the Jews". Unfortunately the date of Pascha set by RC's can coincide with Jewish Pesach, so we would be in direct violation of canon law. The case of the Church of Finland can be thought of as an exception by economia due to specific local reasons and granted by the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Actually we've got no power to change them since at the moment no panorthodox synod would be "ecumenical".

This brings up to me what I think is a much deeper question that underlies both sides of this and many other similar debates.  Which view of the Church is to prevail?  The "ascetic" (for lack of a better term) view that sees the Church as being totally not of this world, so that we shouldn't even care about astronomy or history when it comes to determining our practices and canons?  Or the incarnational view that sees the Church as making Christ incarnate in the world (not in the same way that He made Himself incarnate as the God-man, but in the way that we are the Body of Christ that St. Paul envisioned), an incarnational view that considers harmony with natural cycles (e.g., cyclical astronomical phenomena such as the vernal equinox) and with history as being at least equal in importance to our call to not be of this world?

A very interesting and generous take on this dispute. The advocates for the Julian Calendar seem to be composed of many types, and certainly ascetics (in your sense of the word) may be part of this universe. I also think that for some people any kind of change is wrong; yet others are motivated by a fanatical, almost blind adherence to custom, tradition and/or old prejudices; finally, there are some who are genuinely afraid that this issue is a prelude to more serious divergence, even to heresy. In any case, your taxonomy is a refreshingly new and brilliant way at looking at this division.

[theoforos]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.vi.html

The article in question's claim that Easter and Passover fell on the same date in 1825 appears to be incorrect. All the calculators I've checked say that Easter that year was on 3 April, which was 15 Nisan-- the day after Passover.

The first day of the Jewish Passover is 15 Nisan. Sometimes you hear people talk about 14 Nisan as the first day of Passover because the Passover seder falls on the eve of 15 Nisan, but you have to take into account that in the Jewish calendar the day begins at sunset, just like in the Orthodox Christian liturgical calendar, which means that although you woke up on 14 Nisan, the Passover seder you eat in the evening of the same solar day really takes place on 15 Nisan and not 14 Nisan. This is just like the Sabbath, the Sabbath begins on Friday evening after sunset and ends on Saturday evening after sunset.

[SbdcnDavid]

As I understand it the Gregorian paschalion differs from the Orthodox in two ways:

1.  It uses the Gregorian calendar as the basis for the calculation of the vernal equinox.

2.  It fixes the Feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday following the Latin church's calculation of the start of the Old Covenant Passover, while the First Ecumenical Council fixed Pascha on the first Sunday following the Church's calculation of the Old Covenant Passover, the whole of it, not just the first day.

It is the latter change that on the one hand, accounts for the most common circumstance of the Latins celebrating the Resurrection a week early, and is in violation of the decree of the First Ecumenical Council, which did not fix the Julian calendar, but referred the matter to the Church of Alexandria, which decided (despite being aware of its astronomical inaccuracy) that the Julian (civil) calendar was 'good enough'.

Quite frankly, I personally would be happier either with all of the Orthodox returning to the Old Calendar, or with all Christians following the decree of the Council of Nicea and using, as was the case in Imperial times, the civil calendar (coincidentally with its 'leap seconds' as well as leap years, the most astonomically accurate calendar) to calculate the vernal equinox and fixed feasts.
Until then, I will follow my own bishop and use the incoherent New Calendar with its truncated Apostle's Fast, impossibility of celebrating Kyriepascha, and other problems.

[witega]

but referred the matter to the Church of Alexandria, which decided (despite being aware of its astronomical inaccuracy) that the Julian (civil) calendar was 'good enough'.

If the Church of Alexandria (which was not even using the Julian Calendar for internal records in the 4th century) thought the Julian Calendar was 'good enough' then we would be using Julian March 25 to calculate Pascha since that was the official date for the equinox on that calendar. The fact that they used (and we still use) Julian March 21, the day the equinox actually occurred at the time of Nicea is an uncontestable fact.

[orthodoxlurker]

... the continuation of the Julian calendar is contrary to God's time and to the letter and the spirit of the Nicene Fathers.

This is so wrong. T...

Many posters have provided argumentation and evidence to back up their conclusions yet, sadly you keep on asserting the same conclusions over and over. Of course, that is your right but it would really be nice if you could back up your conclusions, which do not rise above mere opinions because of the lack of logical argumentation and evidence.

Believe me, I don't know where to start when facing the reasoning and conclusions like you presented. It is enygmatic to me how could one draw such a conclusions based on such a flawed reasoning. I would love if I would be able to help you seing the flaws, but, alas, I usually feel being helpless.

One issue is that you managed to place majority of Orthodox being contrary to God based on misreading of one article of Archbishop Peter and discarded three well-reputed cannonists he quoted in his article as well as the practice of the Church for 1600 years. For your info, his article is reasoning the lack of canon of Nicea regarding non celebration with the Jews, since it was promulgated only as a state law by the Emperor. (BTW, you do know that the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils were legaly binding in the Empire, i.e. they had the status of the law, don't you?)

But Archbishop Peter didn't say a word about the Apostole's Canon which did lay down the said rule not to celebrate Pascha with Jewish Pesach. And you know that this ancient canon was elevated as an Ecumenical One by the 1st canon of the 6th Council?

I still owe you, and other posters, the rebuttal of "scientific superiority" of Gregorian Calendar over the Church One. Since it takes time, and effort, to do that, you'll have to wait a bit for it.

Meanwhile, it would be good if you could question your habit of making hasty conclusion about well-established and long-lasting practice of the Church based on hearsay you heard from ignoramus and misreading of one single article.

[orthodoxlurker]

...
Quite frankly, I personally would be happier either with all of the Orthodox returning to the Old Calendar, or with all Christians following the decree of the Council of Nicea and using, as was the case in Imperial times, the civil calendar (coincidentally with its 'leap seconds' as well as leap years, the most astonomically accurate calendar) to calculate the vernal equinox and fixed feasts.
Until then, I will follow my own bishop and use the incoherent New Calendar with its truncated Apostle's Fast, impossibility of celebrating Kyriepascha, and other problems.

Thus spoken Orthodoxy.

[Father H]

...
Quite frankly, I personally would be happier either with all of the Orthodox returning to the Old Calendar, or with all Christians following the decree of the Council of Nicea and using, as was the case in Imperial times, the civil calendar (coincidentally with its 'leap seconds' as well as leap years, the most astonomically accurate calendar) to calculate the vernal equinox and fixed feasts.
Until then, I will follow my own bishop and use the incoherent New Calendar with its truncated Apostle's Fast, impossibility of celebrating Kyriepascha, and other problems.

Thus spoken Orthodoxy.

This may be a possibility in the upcoming great council, in that I believe it is on the agenda. 

[Pravoslavbob]

Quite frankly, I personally would be happier either with all of the Orthodox returning to the Old Calendar, or with all Christians following the decree of the Council of Nicea and using, as was the case in Imperial times, the civil calendar (coincidentally with its 'leap seconds' as well as leap years, the most astonomically accurate calendar) to calculate the vernal equinox and fixed feasts.
Until then, I will follow my own bishop and use the incoherent New Calendar with its truncated Apostle's Fast, impossibility of celebrating Kyriepascha, and other problems.

"The impossibility of celebrating Kyriopascha"?   I'm not disputing how well arranged the liturgical texts might well be for this feast, but maybe you could explain to the rest of us wherein the advantage lies in celebrating Pascha and the Annunciation at the same time?  It seems to me that Kyriopascha itself might well be styled as a "problem" of the old calendar, if you get down to it.  Believe me, the issue of Kyriopascha is not something that keeps me up at night, but how is avoiding the coincidence of these two feasts a "problem"?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

... the continuation of the Julian calendar is contrary to God's time and to the letter and the spirit of the Nicene Fathers.

This is so wrong. T...

Many posters have provided argumentation and evidence to back up their conclusions yet, sadly you keep on asserting the same conclusions over and over.

Believe me, I don't know where to start when facing the reasoning and conclusions like you presented. It is enygmatic to me how could one draw such a conclusions based on such a flawed reasoning. I would love if I would be able to help you seing the flaws, but, alas, I usually feel being helpless.

This is superb! We have started to agree (at least in our mutual frustration). I think though that with a bit more effort we can make further progress.  

One issue is that you managed to place majority of Orthodox being contrary to God based on misreading of one article of Archbishop Peter and discarded three well-reputed cannonists he quoted in his article as well as the practice of the Church for 1600 years. For your info, his article is reasoning the lack of canon of Nicea regarding non celebration with the Jews, since it was promulgated only as a state law by the Emperor. (BTW, you do know that the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils were legaly binding in the Empire, i.e. they had the status of the law, don't you?)

First, I admit that I have not put much weight on the practice of the Church for the past 1600 years and that my opinion does indeed accuse the majority of the Orthodox in not putting sufficient weight on God's time. I must also admit that I have read four or five different sources and that one of them was Archbishop Peter's fine work. I also read the relevant portions of the Pedalion after I downloaded it from the Lawyers' site. However, my opinion is based on the facts as we have them and not on secondary sources, unless we have no other choice. I realize that it is, at least, somewhat arrogant of me, but I do think that it is important to consider the primary sources first.

At this point, it may be opportune to point out that you are arguing not your point but your counterpoint. However, you do give enough indicators of your possible primary sources so that may be we can look at them in concert. Let's start with Nicaea.

- We both apparently agree that not one of the published canons of the Ecumenical Council is germane to the issue. I mean I could reproduce each and every one of the official canons of the First Ecumenical Council, but there is no need: There is no mention of the date of Pascha (Please look it up; it is your turn).

As Archbishop Peter explained: "As early as the third century, then, the Christians began to devise their own calculations of the Easter date. A learned Alexandrian, Anatolius (later bishop of Laodicea in Syria), used for his Easter computation the nineteen-year cycle invented in 432 BC by the Athenian astronomer Meton. However, most Churches in the region of Antioch continued to follow the computation of the Synagogue in spite of the fact that the latter no longer took the equinox into account. This on occasion caused considerable differences in the date of Easter between the Antiochian churches and others; in contrast, variations among the latter were neither frequent nor notable.

These differences promoted the question of the date of Easter before the First General Council at Nicea. This venerable assembly did take a decision on this issue. But though there have been references to a decree (in Greek honos), there does not seem to have been issued a written text of it. Thus, the document to which reference is often made is in fact a compilation of a number of authentic data. According to this kind evidence, we are able to reconstruct the decision of the first General Council on the question of Easter follows:

    * Easter must necessarily be celebrated on the same Sunday by all churches
    * this Sunday must be the first after the full moon following the vernal equinox
    * the Churches that follow the Jewish calculation must abandon it and conform with the general usage

However, there was some resistance to that decision which necessitated new injunctions: the First Canon of the Council of Antioch (around 330 AD), and the Seventh Apostolic Canon (second half of the fourth century). These canons condemned those who celebrated Easter "with the Jews." This did not mean, however, that the dissidents were celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jews; rather, that they were celebrating on a date calculated according to the synagogal computations."

Archbishop Peter's conclusion here is backed up by the apparent non-problem of celebrating Passover and Pascha on the same day as I pointed out in my earlier posting (the one with the tables of coincidence).

But Archbishop Peter didn't say a word about the Apostole's Canon which did lay down the said rule not to celebrate Pascha with Jewish Pesach. And you know that this ancient canon was elevated as an Ecumenical One by the 1st canon of the 6th Council?

Here is the text of the canon 1 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Also called the

"In beginning either a discourse or an action of any kind the thoughtful find it best to begin with God, and to rely upon God, in accordance with the utterance of the Theologian. Hence, inasmuch as we have already preached piety in a clarion voice, and the Church in which Christ[127] has been laid as the foundation is continually growing apace and waxing more and more capable, insomuch that it may be said to have outgrown the cedars of Lebanon, and now in commencing a recital of sacred words, by divine grace we decree that the faith which has been handed down to us shall be and remain exempt from any and every innovation and mutilation just as it has been delivered to us by those who have been both eye-witness and servants of the word of the God-approved Apostles, and further by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blissful Fathers who convened in Nicaea in the reign of Constantine, who became our Emperor, against ungodly Arius and the heathenish deity of a diverse god, or one might more aptly say of a multitude of diverse gods, which was dogmatized by him; and who in their unanimous consensus of opinion regarding the faith revealed and stated to us with convincing clearness the fact that the three hypostases of the thearchic nature are of the same essence, without allowing this important point to remain hidden under a bushel of ignorance, but, on the contrary, openly taught the faithful outright to adore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit with one adoration, and deposed and denounced the opinion that divinity if of unequal grades (or ranks), and efficiently overthrew and demolished the puerile toys which the heretics had built up and erected upon sand in opposition to Orthodoxy. Likewise it is to be noted that we are determined to strengthen as much as we can the faith which was proclaimed by the one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers who convened in the Imperial City itself in the reign of Theodosius the Great, who also became our Emperor, embracing the utterance of the Theologian and driving out profane Macedonius along with previous enemies of the truth, on the ground that he impudently and arrogantly opined the head of lordship to be a servant and slave, and as having preferred as a matter of choice to split the indivisible unit in robber fashion, as though the mystery of the hope were not sufficient to sustain us. Along with this abominable fellow who waxed rabid against the truth they courageously condemned also Apolinarius the monstrous initiate of wickedness and vice, who vomited forth an ungodly view proclaiming the Lord to have been taken up in body without a mind and without a soul, so that it is hence evident that he too was addicted to the unwelcome conclusion that we have been left with an imperfect hope of salvation. But as a matter of fact we also gladly ratify the teachings set forth by the God-bearing Fathers who earlier assembled themselves in the city of Euphesus in the reign of Theodosius, who was the son of Arcadius and who also became our Emperor, and we hold them to be an unbreakable and mighty power of piety, preaching one Christ the Son of God who became incarnate, and the intemerate Ever-Virgin who seedlessly gave birth to Him, holding her to have been properly speaking (Note of Translator. — Lest the exact meaning of this exceedingly important phrase be lost upon the unwary reader, it may not be amiss here to state that it would be more usually expressed in ordinary English by the word literally) and “in truth a Theotocos” (i.e., when interpreted into plain English, “a woman who gives birth to God or to a god”), and driving away into banishment the driveling dissension of Nestorius on the ground that it has lost all contact with the Divine Oracle, while at the same time it seeks to renew the prevalence of Jewish ungodliness and aversion to piety, and we dogmatize the one Christ to be human being in due form and a God in due form. But we do not stop here. We Orthodoxly confirm the faith which was engrossed upon a pillar in the Metropolis of the Chalcedonians in the reign of Marcianus, who also became our Emperor, by the six hundred and thirty God-approved Fathers, which conveyed to the ends of the earth in a loud voice the one Christ the Son of God composed of two natures and in these two same natures glorified; and we have driven out of the sacred precincts of the Church Eutyches the vain-minded, who declared it to be his opinion that great mystery of the Economy was only seemingly consummated, as something sinister and miasmatic, and along with him also Dioscorus and Nestorius, the former being a defender and champion of dissension, the latter of confusion, and both of them being diametrically opposite outlets of impiety, fallen out in the same direction towards one and the same yawning chasm of perdition and godlessness. But neither do we stop here. We take the pious utterances of the one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing Fathers who assembled upon the ground of this Imperial City in the reign of Justinian, who became our Emperor and who passed away at the termination of his pious career, and, recognizing them to have been inspired and uttered by the (Holy) Spirit, we teach them outright to our posterity; which Fathers indeed as a Council anathematized and consigned to abomination Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, and in addition Origen and Didymus and Evagrius, who joined hands in refashioning the Greek myths and recounting to us periods and mutations of certain bodies and souls, prompted by raptures and hallucinations of the mind, and in drunken revelry impiously exulting over the resurrection of the dead; as well as what had been written by Theodoret against the right faith and correct belief and against the twelves heads (or chapters) of blissful Cyril; and also the so-called letter of Ibas. And again we faithfully join together in the promise and vow to preserve and safeguard and keep inviolable the faith declared by the Sixth holy Council recently assembled on the grounds of this Imperial City in the reign of Constantine, who became our Emperor and passed away at the termination of his divine career, and which received still greater validity by virtue of the fact that the pious Emperor himself sealed up the volumes containing it by impressing them with his own seals with a view to ensuring their safety in every succeeding age; and which has with the love of God clearly enabled us to entertain an Orthodox conception of the straightforward dogma which they outlined of the truth that there were and are two natural wills, or, that is to say, wishes, and two natural energies inherent in the incarnate economy of our one Lord Jesus, the true God; and which Council by a vote of piety condemned those who teach their laities outright the doctrine of a single will and of a single energy inherent in our one Lord and God Jesus Christ, among whom we cite by name Theodore the Bishop of Faran, Cyrus (the Patriarch) of Alexandria, Honorius (the Pope) of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, all four of whom have acted as presiding chairmen in this God-guarded city, Macarius who became the Bishop of the Antiochians, Stephanus his disciple, and foolish (or witless) Polychronius. Hence we solemnly decree that this Council, while preserving intact the common body of Christ our God, and, succinctly speaking, of all the men who have distinguished themselves in the Church of God and have become luminaries in the world, “holding forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:16), is committed to holding the faith firm and sure, even till the consummation of the age, and that it shall remain immutable and unaltered, as well as their God-imparted writings and dogmas; and rejecting and anathematized, on the ground that its authors were enemies of the truth, and snortingly and ravingly uttered vain things against God and made injustice and unrighteousness the highest objects of their study and meditation. If, however, there be anyone in the world who does not care to hold and embrace the aforesaid dogmas of piety, and believe and preach thus, but, on the contrary, attempts to by-pass them, let him be anathema, in accordance with the definition (or rule) already previously promulgated by the aforesaid holy and blissful Fathers, and let him be erased and expunged from the Christian Roll like an alien, and as one not belonging to our faith. For we are fully resolved and have been determined not to add anything to or to remove anything from what has previously been decreed, or any words whatsoever that we have been able to understand."

I highlighted the only possible references I could find but, as you can see, it is inconclusive for there is no mention of an ancient canon (of the First Council) regarding the date of Pascha. (As we saw, there was not such a canon in the first place).

At this point I still think that you have not proved your point. Now, I realize that later interpretations (the Pedalion comes to mind) agree with you. Nonetheless, you have yet to provide sources that back you up. I am sorry to say this but no matter how nice, learned and pious man you may be, you still must advance a passable argument.

I still owe you, and other posters, the rebuttal of "scientific superiority" of Gregorian Calendar over the Church One. Since it takes time, and effort, to do that, you'll have to wait a bit for it.

Meanwhile, it would be good if you could question your habit of making hasty conclusion about well-established and long-lasting practice of the Church based on hearsay you heard from ignoramus and misreading of one single article.

First, my views are not based on one article. Second, if you read through this thread, you will see that I have consistently used deductive logic and valid premises for my conclusions. It is futile to disagree with my conclusions for they are valid, logical ones. Should you wish to prove me wrong, you must impeach my premises. You simply have not done so yet, although you seem to be slowly warming up to the task.

[orthodoxlurker]

...
Here is the text of the canon 1 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Also called the

...

Sorry, I made a lapsus calami. I meant 2nd canon of 6th council
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P23.HTM

This too has appeared best to the this holy Council, as well as most important, that the 85 Canons handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, and as a matter of fact accepted and validated by the holy and blissful Fathers preceding us, be henceforth retained and left firm and secure for the care of souls and the cure of diseases. But inasmuch as we are ordered in these Canons to accept the Injunctions of the same holy Apostles (as transmitted) through Clemens, into some of which certain spurious passages destitute of piety have been interpolated long ago by the heterodox to the detriment of the Church, arid have tarnished the becoming and natural beauty of the divine dogmas for us, we have suitably weeded out such ordinances in furtherance of the edification and security of the most Christian flock, not in the least way being minded to approve the fantastic inventions of heretical mendacity that have been inserted in the genuine and uncorrupted didache (or teaching) of the Apostles. On the other hand, we ratify all the rest of the sacred Canons promulgated by our holy and blissful Fathers, to wit: the three hundred and eighteen foregathered in Nicaea, those convened in Ancyra, and furthermore also those who met in Neocaesarea, likewise those who attended the meeting in Gangra, but in addition to these also those who convened in Antioch, Syria, and furthermore also those who held a Council in Laodicea; further, again, the one hundred and fifty who convened in this God-guarded and imperial capital city, .and the two hundred who assembled at an earlier time in the metropolis of Ephesus, and the six hundred and thirty holy and blissful Fathers who met in Chalcedon. Likewise those who convened in Sardica; furthermore those in Carthage. Further and in addition to all these those now again convened in this God-guarded and imperial capital city in the time of Nectarius the president of this imperial capital city, and of Theophilus who became Archbishop of Alexandria. Furthermore also of Dionysius who became Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of Peter who became Archbishop of Alexandria and a Martyr withal, and of Gregory the Thaumaturgus (or Miracle-worker) who became Bishop of Neocaesarea, of Athanasius the Archbishop of Alexandria, of Basil the Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of Gregory of Nyssa, of Gregory the Theologian, of Amphilochius the Archbishop of Iconium, Timothy a former Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, of Theophilus an Archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, of Cyril an Archbishop of Alexandria, and of Gennadius who became a Patriarch of this God-guarded imperial capital city. Furthermore, the Canon promulgated by Cyprian who became an Archbishop of the country of Africa and a martyr, and by the Council supporting him, who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them; and no one shall be permitted to countermand or set aside the Canons previously laid down, or to recognize and accept any Canons, other than the ones herein specified, that have been composed under a false inscription by certain persons who have taken in hand to barter the truth. If, nevertheless, anyone be caught innovating with regard to any of the said Canons, or attempting to subvert it, he shall be responsible in respect of that Canon and shall receive the penance which it prescribes and be chastised by that Canon which he has offended.

The canons are listed here to avoid any further dispute of their general validity and applicability. They are "elevated" to ecumenical status, and the Canons of Holy Apostoles as the first among them. As a side note, I am not clever enought to correct Fathers of the Sixth Council that Apostolic Canons are dated somewhere in 4th century on the grounds of some "scientific" discovery. Perhaps indeed a manuscript with the canons is dated in that century, but that doesn't preclude that they were handed down orally, from generation to generation. Hastiness to follow "scientific" conclusions, that are susceptible to further "scientific" correction, to "correct" the conclusions of the Councils and Fathers is something I find essentially wrong.

This detail was to prove applicability of the Apostolic Canon. I'll be back on other issues from your post.

[Keble]

As I understand it the Gregorian paschalion differs from the Orthodox in two ways:

1.  It uses the Gregorian calendar as the basis for the calculation of the vernal equinox.

2.  It fixes the Feast of the Resurrection on the first Sunday following the Latin church's calculation of the start of the Old Covenant Passover, while the First Ecumenical Council fixed Pascha on the first Sunday following the Church's calculation of the Old Covenant Passover, the whole of it, not just the first day.

The latter is not true, as best I can determine. There is a tendency for Julian Easter to fall a lot later, of course, but when it coincides with Gregorian Easter, it falls during Passover as a rule. When they are a week apart, then Julian Easter falls outside Passover, but when they are a month apart, Julian Easter falls during Passover, and Gregorian Easter falls before it.

If 15 Nisan were always the first full moon after the vernal equinox, then the formula the Easter algorithms are trying to execute- "the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox"- would make Easter always fall during Passover. But one problem is that this isn't how Passover is computed, even before one considers any other error. Passover has a slight jitter so as to prevent Rosh Hoshanah from falling on certain days, so that in some years 15 Nisan is the first day after the calculated full moon.

The more serious issues are (a) the variations in the metonic cycle used by the three calendars, and (b) the drift against astronomic motion. The Hebrew calendar drifts at a different rate than the Julian, and not according to the same pattern. But most importantly, the Easter calendars both are working from a supposition as what the Jewish calendar would have calculated had it existed. But a calculated calendar didn't yet exist.

The other obvious solution besides the Aleppo (which would occasionally put Easter long before Passover) would be to simply adopt the actual Jewish calculation and then put Easter on the first Sunday after the first day of Passover. This still presents a problem with the fixed feasts. And then ther's another problem: there's nothing preventing the rabbies of Jerusalem from making a change to their calendar, especially since the fall holidays are now starting to drift far too late.

[serb1389]

I also read the relevant portions of the Pedalion after I downloaded it from the Lawyers' site.

Which site is that?  I'm looking through the thread now...

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

...
Here is the text of the canon 1 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Also called the

...

Sorry, I made a lapsus calami. I meant 2nd canon of 6th council
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P23.HTM

The canons are listed here to avoid any further dispute of their general validity and applicability. They are "elevated" to ecumenical status, and the Canons of Holy Apostoles as the first among them. As a side note, I am not clever enought to correct Fathers of the Sixth Council that Apostolic Canons are dated somewhere in 4th century on the grounds of some "scientific" discovery. Perhaps indeed a manuscript with the canons is dated in that century, but that doesn't preclude that they were handed down orally, from generation to generation. Hastiness to follow "scientific" conclusions, that are susceptible to further "scientific" correction, to "correct" the conclusions of the Councils and Fathers is something I find essentially wrong.

This detail was to prove applicability of the Apostolic Canon. I'll be back on other issues from your post.

Regarding the Apostolic Canons, were you thinking of this one?:

" Canon VII. (VIII.) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed. "

By the way, as I agree with you on the Apostolic Canons, your fight is not with me. In fact, I will make a deal with you: if you accept the fact that the First Ecumenical Council did not formally produce a canon on this issue, then I will agree that, regardless of formal adoption, there was a rule of the Holy fathers of Nicea on the subject, and that we both agree that the rule was as Archbishop Peter described, that is:

    * Easter must necessarily be celebrated on the same Sunday by all churches
    * this Sunday must be the first after the full moon following the vernal equinox
    * the Churches that follow the Jewish calculation must abandon it and conform with the general usage.

What say you?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I also read the relevant portions of the Pedalion after I downloaded it from the Lawyers' site.

Which site is that?  I'm looking through the thread now...

http://www.orthodoxattorneys.org/resources.html

I have got to tell you that it is a big file.

[orthodoxlurker]

...
I realize that it is, at least, somewhat arrogant of me, but I do think that it is important to consider the primary sources first.

At this point, it may be opportune to point out that you are arguing not your point but your counterpoint. However, you do give enough indicators of your possible primary sources so that may be we can look at them in concert. Let's start with Nicaea.

- We both apparently agree that not one of the published canons of the Ecumenical Council is germane to the issue. I mean I could reproduce each and every one of the official canons of the First Ecumenical Council, but there is no need: There is no mention of the date of Pascha (Please look it up; it is your turn).

...

Three objections to your approach:

- In examining the "primary sources" one should take into account the practice of the Church, which is the primary source per se.

- One cannot limit the conclusions on writen sources only, disregarding everything else.

- The First Ecumenical Council should not be taken separately from other rules/canons of that and subsequent time.

Therefore:

- We (hopefully?) agree about the wording and meaning of the 7th canon of the Canons of the Apostoles. It prohibits celebration both before full moon after vernal equinox and along with the Jews.

My point is that the Canons of the Apostoles were known to Nicene Fathers as Tradition handed down to them orally.

- We (hopefully?) agree that there is prohibition of celebration "along with the Jews" proclaimed by Emperor Constantine on behalf of Nicene Fathers (Isa Almisry posted a link to it somewhere in this thread).

My point is that the Canons of Ecumenical Councils were legally binding within the Empire. Therefore, although the Council hasn't set the wording explicitly, the existence of canon 7 of the Canons of the Apostoles, as well as the decree of the Emperor, are the primary sources to determine what was believed "always, everywhere and by all" (according to St. Vincent of Lerins - the ultimate criterion of Orthodoxy).

- In determining whether the Nicene Fathers meant "along with the Jews", or "according to the calculation made by synagogue", we should not neglect the fact that at that time making of present day Judaism hasn't been accomplished and that there were those who mixed both Christianity and what developed to Judaism over centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect[1] that insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[1] which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law.[2]
...
After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Jewish Christianity became dispersed throughout the Jewish diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by gentile Christianity, which then spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from "judaizing" Christian groups.[31] Once the Jerusalem church, still headed by Jesus' relatives, was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers. According to one writer their decline was due to marginalization and "persecution" by both Jews and Christians.[16] Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the Gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the Jewish Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the mainstream Christian church. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics.[32]
...

Therefore, Nicene Fathers either:

a) agreed with the decree of Emperor Constantine and Apostolic Canon, with regard to specific heresy of Christians - Ebionites known to be in existence of that period, and stood for separation of that heresy in celebrating Pascha;

or

b) didn't know / disagree with the decree made by Emperor on their behalf as well as Apostolic Canon with regard to the specific heresy of Christians - Ebionites and stood just for astronomical "scientific" accuracy to that extent that they laid down the rules to celebrate Pascha:

b.1) after the first full moon (astronomical, scientific fact)

b.2) after the vernal equinox (astronomical, scientific fact)

b.3) confirmed separation only from scientific calculation of Passover made by Judaists, and not theologically and spiritually.

The practice of the Church, Balsamon, Blastaris, Milas, as well as a number of other canonist and theologians stand for a). I stand with them.

You stand to b) with your understanding of Archb. Peter's article. However, he treated the text of the canons of Nicea, and not what's believed by Nicene Fathers. Such a stance is fundamentally flawed.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Can I butt in for a moment? Does each respective side of this debate consider the other as graceless heretics destined for hell?

[orthodoxlurker]

...
    * Easter must necessarily be celebrated on the same Sunday by all churches
    * this Sunday must be the first after the full moon following the vernal equinox
    * the Churches that follow the Jewish calculation must abandon it and conform with the general usage.

What say you?

Not quite.

Pascha (not Easter) to be celebrated on the same (Sun)day. Agreed.

The (Sun)day is:
-the first one after the full moon (scientific, astronomical condition) after the vernal equinox (yet another scientific, astronomical condition).

-not on the same day with the Jews - theological condition, related to the very specific heresy of that time that denied divinity of Jesus and was practicing Old Testament customs (that developed into present day Judaism).

[orthodoxlurker]

Can I butt in for a moment? Does each respective side of this debate consider the other as graceless heretics destined for hell?

I don't know if he is a republican or a democrat (It's a good joke I read; I am not serious here)

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Can I butt in for a moment? Does each respective side of this debate consider the other as graceless heretics destined for hell?

I don't know if he is a republican or a democrat (It's a good joke I read; I am not serious here)

Since I do not believe that this issue rises to the level of dogma, I do not believe for a moment that Old Calendarists are "graceless heretics destined for hell." They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong, but who is perfect all of the time?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong...

Wrong about what? This is what is confusing about these type of threads. Page, after page, of arguing. Can you in a FEW sentences explain what is wrong with the Old Calendarists? Could the Old Calendarists do the same?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Orthodox Lurker,

First please accept my sincere thanks and admiration for having posted as extensively as you have. If you don't mind, this old man can do justice to only one issue at the time. So,

You said "- We (hopefully?) agree about the wording and meaning of the 7th canon of the Canons of the Apostles. It prohibits celebration both before full moon after vernal equinox and along with the Jews."

I am glad that we have agreed to the actual wording of this canon, which I will repeat for convenience: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed. "

It seems to me that this canon is best read to have only one rule and that the phrase "with the Jews" merely modifies the main rule that is the prohibition of celebrating Pascha before the vernal equinox.

Since we know from historical evidence that up to the sixth century Pascha preceded Passover on two occasions and was celebrated on the same day as Passover on 24 other occasions, I do not think that this canon prohibits Pascha before the vernal equinox AND celebrating with the Jews.

It means exactly what it says, Christians cannot celebrate Pascha before the vernal equinox just because the Jews of that time were prone to celebrating Passover before the vernal. This canon actually decouples the celebration of Pascha from that of Passover. It certainly does not mean that Pascha must always follow Passover.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong...

Wrong about what? This is what is confusing about these type of threads. Page, after page, of arguing. Can you in a FEW sentences explain what is wrong with the Old Calendarists? Could the Old Calendarists do the same?

Beside the merit of the issue itself (which calendar should be observed), the main problem that I have with some advocates of the Julian calendar is their tendency to consider the other side as heretics. I will try to give you two more summary sentences.

I think that the Revised Julian calendar should be observed because it is in sync with our Holy Tradition as documented by the early Church--the Seven Ecumenical Councils and God's Divine Laws of Nature. The opponents of the Revised Julian calendar perpetuate misunderstandings of our early tradition in holding the opposite.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Beside the merit of the issue itself (which calendar should be observed),

To me this is a non-issue that isn't worth fighting over at all.

...the main problem that I have with some advocates of the Julian calendar is their tendency to consider the other side as heretics.

You are right. This, to me, is just foolish. Does God care about Calendars? Will He damn me for the sake of a Calendar?

I think that the Revised Julian calendar should be observed because it is in sync with our Holy Tradition as documented by the early Church--the Seven Ecumenical Councils and God's Divine Laws of Nature. The opponents of the Revised Julian calendar perpetuate misunderstandings of our early tradition in holding the opposite.

Why can't another Calendar be devised? How about another Ecumenical Council to deal with the creation of a "perfect, or as close to perfect as one can get", Calendar for the whole Church worldwide? Am I missing something?

[Father H]

They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong...

Wrong about what? This is what is confusing about these type of threads. Page, after page, of arguing. Can you in a FEW sentences explain what is wrong with the Old Calendarists? Could the Old Calendarists do the same?

Beside the merit of the issue itself (which calendar should be observed), the main problem that I have with some advocates of the Julian calendar is their tendency to consider the other side as heretics. I will try to give you two more summary sentences.

I think that the Revised Julian calendar should be observed because it is in sync with our Holy Tradition as documented by the early Church--the Seven Ecumenical Councils and God's Divine Laws of Nature. The opponents of the Revised Julian calendar perpetuate misunderstandings of our early tradition in holding the opposite.

Within the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself you have several old calendar (ACROD and UOCUSA) and new calendar (GOARCH and Albanian) jurisdictions living in harmony.  In the OCA, you have the old calendar diocese of Alaska living in harmony with the other new calendar jurisdictions.   You have ROCOR and Moscow Patriarchate (old calendar) and OCA (pred. new calendar) living in harmony.  I agree with PoorFoolNicholas, I do not see the calendar as a problem. 

[Father H]

They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong...

Wrong about what? This is what is confusing about these type of threads. Page, after page, of arguing. Can you in a FEW sentences explain what is wrong with the Old Calendarists? Could the Old Calendarists do the same?

Beside the merit of the issue itself (which calendar should be observed), the main problem that I have with some advocates of the Julian calendar is their tendency to consider the other side as heretics. I will try to give you two more summary sentences.

I think that the Revised Julian calendar should be observed because it is in sync with our Holy Tradition as documented by the early Church--the Seven Ecumenical Councils and God's Divine Laws of Nature. The opponents of the Revised Julian calendar perpetuate misunderstandings of our early tradition in holding the opposite.

In other words, the majority of people who follow the old calendar are in full communion with the new calendar and do not consider them heretics (Jerusalem, Serbia, Russia, etc.).  But even some of the others are of a moderate position, such as Chrysostomites.   So I think it better not focus on the "Matthewite" and related minority that considers it a heresy and focus on the majority which hold no such position. 

[orthodoxlurker]

It seems to me that this canon is best read to have only one rule and that the phrase "with the Jews" merely modifies the main rule that is the prohibition of celebrating Pascha before the vernal equinox.

That would mean Nicene Fathers were not able to express themselves. They explicitly placed Pascha after vernal equinox. Addition would be superflous.

Since we know from historical evidence that up to the sixth century Pascha preceded Passover on two occasions and was celebrated on the same day as Passover on 24 other occasions, I do not think that this canon prohibits Pascha before the vernal equinox AND celebrating with the Jews.

Sorry, all historical evidence I've seen was javascript enabled calculator. That's not a historical evidence IMHO.

It means exactly what it says, Christians cannot celebrate Pascha before the vernal equinox just because the Jews of that time were prone to celebrating Passover before the vernal. This canon actually decouples the celebration of Pascha from that of Passover. It certainly does not mean that Pascha must always follow Passover.

That is your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of Archbishp Peter. It lacks backing up by "anyone, somewhere, at any time but present".

My belief is that Pascha certainly must always follow Passover, as explicitly said by Balsamon, Balsaris, Milas, Serbian Patriarch Pavle and a number of contemporary authors of MP and Serbian Patriarchate I've read. They all stand firm that this was a belief of the Church "everywhere, always, by all".

Let us note our differences and remain at peace.

I have still not managed to address the myth about scientific superiority of Gregorian calendar, which I'll do hopefully son. Please don't take it as my wish to advance the dispute further.

[admiralnick]

...
We care about when everyone else celebrates easter because we strive for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is united. If we can't unite we can never create the Church as God envisioned and Christ founded.

-Nick

Thank you for being honest.

Me, I can't imagine I should create (along with some others, constituting "you") the Church that Christ founded.

All I can do is to do my best to remain in Church He created and promised the gates of hell should not prevail against.

I wish you all the best in your enormous venture...probably the greatest one since...the Tower of Babylon?

Point taken, I guess a better word would've been "patched together". The point was that the church right now is not at the point it was when it was founded. Christ didn't found the different jurisdictions of Orthodoxy, he founded the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The idea of "recreating" that was to bring together the Ukrainians, Antiochians, Russians, Greeks, etc. back to the fold and have one united church.

-Nick

[admiralnick]

They are all brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit dead wrong...

Wrong about what? This is what is confusing about these type of threads. Page, after page, of arguing. Can you in a FEW sentences explain what is wrong with the Old Calendarists? Could the Old Calendarists do the same?

Beside the merit of the issue itself (which calendar should be observed), the main problem that I have with some advocates of the Julian calendar is their tendency to consider the other side as heretics. I will try to give you two more summary sentences.

I think that the Revised Julian calendar should be observed because it is in sync with our Holy Tradition as documented by the early Church--the Seven Ecumenical Councils and God's Divine Laws of Nature. The opponents of the Revised Julian calendar perpetuate misunderstandings of our early tradition in holding the opposite.

Within the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself you have several old calendar (ACROD and UOCUSA) and new calendar (GOARCH and Albanian) jurisdictions living in harmony.  In the OCA, you have the old calendar diocese of Alaska living in harmony with the other new calendar jurisdictions.   You have ROCOR and Moscow Patriarchate (old calendar) and OCA (pred. new calendar) living in harmony.  I agree with PoorFoolNicholas, I do not see the calendar as a problem. 

ACROD is now more than 1/2 New Calendar. Metropolitan Nicholas gave the ability for each church to choose its calendar with the stipulation that once you moved to the New Calendar, you can never return to the Old one.

-Nick

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?