OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 12:08:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 208974 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #855 on: August 06, 2009, 02:29:45 AM »

To date nobody has produced a single statement from any Church condemning the New Calendar and in the case of the Russian Church Abroad ROCORthodox has provided us with synodal statements to the contrary.
First, we need people who will actually agree with your definition of an Orthodox church, which you have deliberately made excessively restrictive in order to filter out those Orthodox churches who do condemn the New Calendar.  As long as your definition of an Orthodox church excludes the Old Calendarist churches (for whatever reason), you'll always be able to assert that no Orthodox church has ever condemned the New Calendar.  I, however, refuse to submit to such an attempt to stack the deck, and I encourage all other posters to follow my lead on this.

Well, my friend, if you want me to adopt an understanding of the Church which is contrary to that of my Metropolitan and my Patriarch - sorry, not interested.

You may "stack the deck" in whatever way you like, creating some sort of an amalgam of an invisible Church composed of the canonical Patriarchates and the new dissident Churches which anathematize one another and deny each other's Mysteries.   I'm not interested in such a concept of  "Church" beyond expressing my prayerful hope that these mutually warring Churches born in the last decades will repent and return.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #856 on: August 06, 2009, 03:14:30 AM »

To date nobody has produced a single statement from any Church condemning the New Calendar and in the case of the Russian Church Abroad ROCORthodox has provided us with synodal statements to the contrary.
First, we need people who will actually agree with your definition of an Orthodox church, which you have deliberately made excessively restrictive in order to filter out those Orthodox churches who do condemn the New Calendar.  As long as your definition of an Orthodox church excludes the Old Calendarist churches (for whatever reason), you'll always be able to assert that no Orthodox church has ever condemned the New Calendar.  I, however, refuse to submit to such an attempt to stack the deck, and I encourage all other posters to follow my lead on this.

Well, my friend, if you want me to adopt an understanding of the Church which is contrary to that of my Metropolitan and my Patriarch - sorry, not interested.

You may "stack the deck" in whatever way you like, creating some sort of an amalgam of an invisible Church composed of the canonical Patriarchates and the new dissident Churches which anathematize one another and deny each other's Mysteries.   I'm not interested in such a concept of  "Church" beyond expressing my prayerful hope that these mutually warring Churches born in the last decades will repent and return.
Neither do I encourage anyone to submit to your attempts to poison the well--another logical fallacy very similar to the ad hominem, wherein you have given us adverse information intended to influence us to not take the other side seriously or provided an unfavorable definition that prevents disagreement.  In this case, you're trying to sway us to not take the Old Calendarists seriously by defining them as schismatics constantly warring with each other.  I don't believe you.


Now, can we return to the topic of this thread as Pravoslavbob laid it out in the OP?  How do the Old Calendarist and World Orthodox approaches to understanding Tradition compare with each other?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 03:19:06 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #857 on: August 06, 2009, 04:01:48 AM »

Well, my friend, if you want me to adopt an understanding of the Church which is contrary to that of my Metropolitan and my Patriarch - sorry, not interested.

You may "stack the deck" in whatever way you like, creating some sort of an amalgam of an invisible Church composed of the canonical Patriarchates and the new dissident Churches which anathematize one another and deny each other's Mysteries.   I'm not interested in such a concept of  "Church" beyond expressing my prayerful hope that these mutually warring Churches born in the last decades will repent and return.
Neither do I encourage anyone to submit to your attempts to poison the well--another logical fallacy very similar to the ad hominem, wherein you have given us adverse information intended to influence us to not take the other side seriously or provided an unfavorable definition that prevents disagreement.  In this case, you're trying to sway us to not take the Old Calendarists seriously by defining them as schismatics constantly warring with each other.  I don't believe you.

And I would very earnestly urge the Orthodox reading this forum to be cautious about adopting what comes across as your understanding of the Orthodox Church as being comprised of the ancient Churches plus a bunch of new and recently birthed Churches which, generally speaking, have no communion with one another.   This is nothing like what I have been taught to see as the Church. 

[Now, can we return to the topic of this thread as Pravoslavbob laid it out in the OP?  How do the Old Calendarist and World Orthodox approaches to understanding Tradition compare with each other?

Well, your messages  are on topic since they concern the mutual relationship between the Old Calendarist Churches and "World Orthodoxy" and that is within the parameters of the OP of this thread.

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 #858 on: August 06, 2009, 04:17:01 AM »

I'm not sure I would agree with the OP that the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar was "unchristian". It was in fact done Synodically, and those Churches which chose to adopt it adopted it, and those which did not did not. There was some unchristian behaviour in Greece towards Old Calendarists because they were seen as schismatic from the Church of Greece, but that wasn't a result of the implementation of the Revised Calendar, it was a result of people behaving like thugs.
The two Calendars are actually a uniting force when they coexist- and there are places where they do co-exist there are Bishops within the "New Calendar Synods" which actually do allow churches to follow the Old Calendar ( eg the Ecumenical Patriarchate has Old Calendar Churches on the Island of Kalymnos and the Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovolantu in Astoria NY as well as the Holy Mountain and others). The OCA also has Old Calendar Churches such as Holy Trinity in New Salem PA. Just because a Synod adopts a particular Calendar does not mean that everyone under that Synod is following it. Different calendars do not seem to be "unconcilliar" or a cause for disunity even within Synods, and are a way of establishing unity in diversity within the Church by the fact that we all follow the same Paschalion even though our Menaions differ.
What is the cause of disunity from my perspective is when one side establishes "rival Bishops" over the calendar, but the different calendars themselves do not cause schisms. Schisms are caused by schismatics, not by two calendars with a common Paschalion.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #859 on: August 06, 2009, 04:59:11 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf
Are you sure you've given us the right link?  I can't find mention of Metropolitan Philaret/Filaret anywhere in this document, nor do I find anything citing specific condemnation of the New Calendar itself.

Sorry it was the wrong link. here is the right one

http://roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20CALENDAR%20QUESTION.pdf

Irish Hermit, you asked if any bishops condemned the old calendar. This link shows that a bishop YOU recognize condemned it. You can't then arbitrarily change your criteria and demand a synodical condemnation. Moderator, am I right in this?

Pravoslavbob, I'm sorry I haven't addressed your questions about our approach to Tradition. Please read our Proclamation on Ecclesiology, which also explains our attitude to Tradition. There is no patristic warrant for an arbitrary distinction between Tradition and traditions. It can sometimes be a useful distinction when trying to explain various aspects of Tradition, but we don't believe you can just take some tradition like the Orthodox Calendar and declare that despite various declarations both synodical and patriarchal, the calendar is somehow a second-class tradition that can be discarded when necessary.

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion; as there were only four patriarchs at the time, the signature of three of them, and the later assent of the fourth is quite enough to show that the Council had Pan-Orthodox authority.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #860 on: August 06, 2009, 05:18:58 AM »

[Irish Hermit, you asked if any bishops condemned the old calendar. This link shows that a bishop YOU recognize condemned it. You can't then arbitrarily change your criteria and demand a synodical condemnation. Moderator, am I right in this?

Dear Jonathan,

The overwhelming majority of messages in this thread have been between Peter and myself batting back and forth, not about bishops, but about CHURCHES and their condemnation or otherwise of the New Calendar.   Fr Anastasios swerved us off course by bringing in Archbishop Theophan and then you did the same by introducing Metropolitan Philaret.

As I mentioned a message or two back,  I was happy to discuss the opinions of these two bishops with you and Fr Anastasios but they should not distract from the focus of the conversation which has been CHURCHES.


So the accusation that I have  "arbitrarily change[d] your criteria and demand a synodical condemnation" is not borne out by the thread itself


You can't then arbitrarily change your criteria and demand a synodical condemnation. Moderator, am I right in this?

The Moderator in invited to review the thread and see what the focus has been in the discussion between Peter and myself.  It has been Churches and not bishops.  Bishops are a recent introduction.
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 #861 on: August 06, 2009, 05:25:44 AM »

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion;

Which version of the Sigillion of 1583?

The original one which says that the only the Paschalion must never change: http://www.orthodox.net/ecumenism/sigillion-council-constantinople-1583.html

Or the doctored version which says that both the Paschalion and Menologion must never change: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sigillion_of_1583

Oh the joys of Netodoxy!
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 #862 on: August 06, 2009, 05:28:52 AM »

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion; as there were only four patriarchs at the time.

Besides the three Greek Patriarchates in the year 1583, I can think of other Patriarchates -  Russia, Serbia, Georgia.  Possibly others but I have not checked.
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 #863 on: August 06, 2009, 05:49:36 AM »

Besides the three Greek Patriarchates in the year 1583, I can think of other Patriarchates -  Russia, Serbia, Georgia.  Possibly others but I have not checked.

The number of Bishops and Patriarchs is actually immaterial. The Sigillion of 1583 was the result of an Endemousa Synod (Resident Synod) in Constantinople, just as the the Synod of 1923 was- they therefore are of equal authority.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #864 on: August 06, 2009, 06:14:29 AM »

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion; as there were only four patriarchs at the time.

Besides the three Greek Patriarchates in the year 1583, I can think of other Patriarchates -  Russia, Serbia, Georgia.  Possibly others but I have not checked.

Russia at any rate didn't get her patriarch till 1589.

Actually, the other bishops of the EP in 1923 did not attend, since they did not recognize Patriarch Meletios. The other bishops did attend in 1583.

I'm not sure there is even a formal definition of a pan-orthodox synod. Like the definition of the ecumenical councils, what really matters is whether the whole church accepts the outcome of the council; that is what gives the council authority. Since the whole church did not accept the calendar change, the 1923 council can't have had pan-orthodox authority.

Irish Hermit, is there a ROCOR Synodal declaration that the New Calendarists have grace and are in the true church? I don't think so. They didn't make any official declarations about the matter, which does not mean you can claim they were on the new calendarists side, when from 1969 till 2006 they were in communion with old calendarists. The lone actions of Abp Anthony of Geneva are outweighed by the combined actions of all the other bishops.

I haven't got the HTM book with me at the moment, so i can't give you the reference so you can find a source for the 1927 condemnation of the old calendarists by the state church. As soon as I get home and can look it up, I'll give you a reference. Anyway, the way the state church persecuted us, notoriously going so far as to trample upon the Holy Mysteries, shows that they did not recognize us as Orthodox and our Mysteries as valid. Have you read the account of the appearance of the Cross over the old calendarists vigil for the Exaltation in 1925?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/cross_sign.aspx

Moderator, do you want us to stop talking about this issue and move on to Pravoslavbob's questions about Tradition? I would like it if he could say again what his questions are, since I don't think I really understood it at first. Clearly my church believes it has the same understanding of Tradition the Church has always had. Pravoslavbob seems to doubt this, but I don't totally understand why. As I said, if he read our Proclamation maybe that would help him understand our position so he can compare it with the position of his own church:

http://hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29:a-proclamation-on-ecclesiology&catid=52:orthodoxy&Itemid=65
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #865 on: August 06, 2009, 06:20:01 AM »

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion;

Which version of the Sigillion of 1583?

The original one which says that the only the Paschalion must never change: http://www.orthodox.net/ecumenism/sigillion-council-constantinople-1583.html

Or the doctored version which says that both the Paschalion and Menologion must never change: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sigillion_of_1583

Oh the joys of Netodoxy!

Er the first version lists both the paschalion and the 'new calendar', which can only have meant the menologion. What else could it refer to? It's not a matter of doctoring, it's a matter of variable translation.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #866 on: August 06, 2009, 06:28:38 AM »


Sorry it was the wrong link. here is the right one

http://roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20CALENDAR%20QUESTION.pdf

Irish Hermit, you asked if any bishops condemned the old calendar. This link shows that a bishop YOU recognize condemned it.


Did Metropolitan Philaret sign these official Statements from the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in 1961?

A Statement by the Russian Church Abroad to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese of America, 27 September 1961:

“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her policy was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them.”

A Statement to the New Calendar Church of Greece, 3 October 1961:

“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless...we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced."
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 #867 on: August 06, 2009, 06:33:17 AM »

Oh and about the 1583 sigillion;

Which version of the Sigillion of 1583?

The original one which says that the only the Paschalion must never change: http://www.orthodox.net/ecumenism/sigillion-council-constantinople-1583.html

Or the doctored version which says that both the Paschalion and Menologion must never change: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sigillion_of_1583

Oh the joys of Netodoxy!

Er the first version lists both the paschalion and the 'new calendar', which can only have meant the menologion. What else could it refer to? It's not a matter of doctoring, it's a matter of variable translation.

Actually "new calendar" can either be "Menologion" or "Hemerologion", the latter refers to the calendar date while the former refers to the cycle of fixed feasts.
If it says "Menologion", then the New Calendarists are perfectly safe, since they have not adopted the Menologion of the Gregorian Calendar (for example, they do not commemorate the feasts of post schism RC Saints), and nor have they adopted the Gregorian Paschalion since they follow the same Paschalion as the Old Calendarists.
If on the other hand, it says "Hemerologion", then the New Calendarists are are in trouble since they have adopted the Calendar dates of the Gregorian Calendar.
So, which one do you think it originally says? Does it say "Menologion" which would mean ther New Calendarists have done nothing against the Sigillion, or does it say "Hemerologion" which would mean they stand condemned by the Sigillion?

I'll help you out. Here's a photo of the orginal Sigillion of 1583 as preserved in the Holy Monastery of Pantocrator:

« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 06:35:07 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 #868 on: August 06, 2009, 06:42:30 AM »


Oh and about the 1583 sigillion; as there were only four patriarchs at the time, the signature of three of them, and the later assent of the fourth...

Russia at any rate didn't get her patriarch till 1589.

Which was the fourth Patriarchate which gave assent?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #869 on: August 06, 2009, 08:29:11 AM »

Well, my friend, if you want me to adopt an understanding of the Church which is contrary to that of my Metropolitan and my Patriarch - sorry, not interested.

You may "stack the deck" in whatever way you like, creating some sort of an amalgam of an invisible Church composed of the canonical Patriarchates and the new dissident Churches which anathematize one another and deny each other's Mysteries.   I'm not interested in such a concept of  "Church" beyond expressing my prayerful hope that these mutually warring Churches born in the last decades will repent and return.
Neither do I encourage anyone to submit to your attempts to poison the well--another logical fallacy very similar to the ad hominem, wherein you have given us adverse information intended to influence us to not take the other side seriously or provided an unfavorable definition that prevents disagreement.  In this case, you're trying to sway us to not take the Old Calendarists seriously by defining them as schismatics constantly warring with each other.  I don't believe you.

And I would very earnestly urge the Orthodox reading this forum to be cautious about adopting what comes across as your understanding of the Orthodox Church as being comprised of the ancient Churches plus a bunch of new and recently birthed Churches which, generally speaking, have no communion with one another.   This is nothing like what I have been taught to see as the Church.
Which I've never really defined, thus making this a projection onto me in order to discredit me.  You see, Irish Hermit, I've never really stated any clear definition of the Church for the sake of this debate.  I've only just tried to be fair to all parties involved. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #870 on: August 06, 2009, 09:06:06 AM »


And I would very earnestly urge the Orthodox reading this forum to be cautious about adopting what comes across as your understanding of the Orthodox Church as being comprised of the ancient Churches plus a bunch of new and recently birthed Churches which, generally speaking, have no communion with one another.   This is nothing like what I have been taught to see as the Church.
Which I've never really defined, thus making this a projection onto me in order to discredit me.  You see, Irish Hermit, I've never really stated any clear definition of the Church for the sake of this debate.  I've only just tried to be fair to all parties involved. Wink

A selection of your statements which indicate, at least to my lame brain, that you wish to give equal status to the patriarchal and autocephalous Churches with the dissident Churches.

What good is that list if it automatically excludes those who disagree with you?  #81

Irrelevant to my point that you're ignoring those who disagree with you. #99

My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.  #138  (This post, btw, is where you first switch the subject to bishops whereas previously we had been discussing only Churches.)

First, we need people who will actually agree with your definition of an Orthodox church, which you have deliberately made excessively restrictive in order to filter out those Orthodox churches who do condemn the New Calendar.  As long as your definition of an Orthodox church excludes the Old Calendarist churches (for whatever reason), you'll always be able to assert that no Orthodox church has ever condemned the New Calendar.  I, however, refuse to submit to such an attempt to stack the deck, and I encourage all other posters to follow my lead on this. #176
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 09:13:31 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #871 on: August 06, 2009, 09:12:06 AM »

[Which I've never really defined, thus making this a projection onto me in order to discredit me. 

Well, I have found that your words about me in this thread seem not to be much of a credit to me; they have moved me to heartfelt prayer because it grieves me that you see me in this negative light.


stack the deck  #43  #45

I, however, refuse to submit to such an attempt to stack the deck,  #176

faulty logic  #47

unfair  #69

I call faulty only that which YOU have artificially constructed    #71

Just admit that you're manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable  #169

and be done with this chicanery.  #169

I'm calling your bluff  #173

your attempts to poison the well  #178

another logical fallacy very similar to the ad hominem   #178

you have given us adverse information intended to influence us   #178
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 09:14:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #872 on: August 06, 2009, 09:53:47 AM »


Sorry it was the wrong link. here is the right one

http://roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20CALENDAR%20QUESTION.pdf

Irish Hermit, you asked if any bishops condemned the old calendar. This link shows that a bishop YOU recognize condemned it.


Did Metropolitan Philaret sign these official Statements from the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad in 1961?

My apologies. I have mixed the dates.  Fr Philaret was not elected bishop until 1963.  It is though interesting that a Greek Orthodox New Calendar bishop participated in his episcopal nomination. He would also have participated in the consecration of Bishop Philaret the followng day if there had not been protests from the Church Council. Bishop Philaret himself did not protest about being consecrated by a New Calendar bishop.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Philaret_(Voznesensky)_of_New_York

A fuller account of the New Calendar bishop's participation
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp87.09042006/02whole.pdf

Quote
A Statement by the Russian Church Abroad to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese of America, 27 September 1961:

“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her policy was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them.”

A Statement to the New Calendar Church of Greece, 3 October 1961:

“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless...we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced."

« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 09:55:00 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #873 on: August 06, 2009, 11:41:17 AM »


Actually "new calendar" can either be "Menologion" or "Hemerologion", the latter refers to the calendar date while the former refers to the cycle of fixed feasts.
If it says "Menologion", then the New Calendarists are perfectly safe, since they have not adopted the Menologion of the Gregorian Calendar (for example, they do not commemorate the feasts of post schism RC Saints), and nor have they adopted the Gregorian Paschalion since they follow the same Paschalion as the Old Calendarists.
If on the other hand, it says "Hemerologion", then the New Calendarists are are in trouble since they have adopted the Calendar dates of the Gregorian Calendar.


That was as skillful attempt at skirting the issue at hand Wink

No one in 1583 was talking about commemorating RC saints, and no one in 1583 foresaw that some people in the 1910's and 1920's would come up with the creative idea of having the Paschalion follow one calendar and the Menaion follow another for the specific purpose of getting around such issues.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 11:45:05 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #874 on: August 06, 2009, 12:06:51 PM »

A selection of your statements which indicate, at least to my lame brain, that you wish to give equal status to the patriarchal and autocephalous Churches with the dissident Churches.

...
Only for the sake of this debate.  It's all part of the role of Devil's Advocate that I've taken to maintain a position of fairness and balance on this thread.

Otherwise, I've not really revealed what I believe personally, so please don't project it onto me.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 12:08:07 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #875 on: August 06, 2009, 12:19:00 PM »

A selection of your statements which indicate, at least to my lame brain, that you wish to give equal status to the patriarchal and autocephalous Churches with the dissident Churches.

...
Only for the sake of this debate.  It's all part of the role of Devil's Advocate that I've taken to maintain a position of fairness and balance on this thread.

Otherwise, I've not really revealed what I believe personally, so please don't project it onto me.

It would be helpful if you could alert us to the times when you are just makebelieving for the sake of fairness, else some idiot such as me is sure to think that you are presenting your actual position.   Smiley

So it is not a question of "projecting" anything onto you but just taking you at face value.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #876 on: August 06, 2009, 04:56:07 PM »

I have been educating myself and only recently became aware of this issue. I was surprised to learn that much of the Orthodox world uses, in essence, a modified Western Calendar with a Julian Calendar Easter. I guess the problem is that I viewed Russia as the norm and "Russian Christmas = Orthodox Christmas." Anyway, I was surprised to read that the Freemasons claimed Meletius IV as one of their own. There's some other material that surprised me as well (validity of Anglican holy orders???). Poring over OrthodoxWiki and elsewhere it seems this was done for ecumenical reasons. Had they chosen the path of least resistance, they could have held with the status quo, post-dated all their chuch feasts 13 days (Dormition Feast is "August 28 New Calendar"), and when the year 2300 hits, they could have not bothered to includde a leap year, thus keeping 13 from becoming 14.

Although not for "old calendarist" reasons, I've chosen to look to the Slavonic side of the equation, not Greek, when investigating Orthodoxy. But it at least gives me me an excuse to "belatedly" attempt to adhere to a Dormition fast against the Julian calendar. But I will also be attending (if I can't help it) a Dormition liturgy in a Greek Orthodox setting next Saturday - I owe it to myself to do that. But I also have a date pencilled in at St. Elias UGCC in Brampton on the 28th.

Anyway, this ROCOR page (an address apparently to Catholics) brought some of this stuff up:
http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/what/e_Clndr-AL2.HTM
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #877 on: August 06, 2009, 07:15:44 PM »

So the MP is only old calendar by habit, not conviction; I am old calendar by conviction. That is why I chose the jurisdiction of the GOC of Greece.

Holy Mother Russia was heading towards a Calendar change BEFORE Communism and BEFORE the creation of the Moscow Patriarchate and during the time when Patriarch Saint Tikhon was in the ascendancy.

The Calendar change was on the agenda for the momentous 1917 Synod but the Revolution prevented the bishops from covering all topics on the agenda.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,869



« Reply #878 on: August 08, 2009, 02:40:14 PM »

...The Menaia of the various local churches only vary here and there in terms of the local practice of which saint is venerated for a given day. Example: On July 11, the Greek church would commemorate Great-martyr Euphemia, whereas the Slavs would give preeminence to commemorating St Olga. However, all the other feasts of high enough rank (to use a western term, "universal"), are always observed on the same day according to the church's respective calendar.

...And yes, as you say, the Menaia of the various Local Churches varies for less important feasts, but not for major feasts. Except, of course, the New Calendarists do vary in their observation of even Great Feasts of our Lord and our Lady, and not by one day, but 13 days! Viz. the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Universal Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, the Nativity of our Lord, the Baptism of our Lord, the Meeting of our Lord, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Transfiguration of our Lord and the Dormition of the Theotokos. If you wish to call these differences in practice minor and of no significance, go ahead.

To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #879 on: August 08, 2009, 04:01:33 PM »

...The Menaia of the various local churches only vary here and there in terms of the local practice of which saint is venerated for a given day. Example: On July 11, the Greek church would commemorate Great-martyr Euphemia, whereas the Slavs would give preeminence to commemorating St Olga. However, all the other feasts of high enough rank (to use a western term, "universal"), are always observed on the same day according to the church's respective calendar.

...And yes, as you say, the Menaia of the various Local Churches varies for less important feasts, but not for major feasts. Except, of course, the New Calendarists do vary in their observation of even Great Feasts of our Lord and our Lady, and not by one day, but 13 days! Viz. the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Universal Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, the Nativity of our Lord, the Baptism of our Lord, the Meeting of our Lord, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Transfiguration of our Lord and the Dormition of the Theotokos. If you wish to call these differences in practice minor and of no significance, go ahead.

To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.

So I suppose that you would consider the shortening, or in some years the virtual elimination of, the Apostle's Fast, the oldest fast in the Church, to be a good thing?
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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



« Reply #880 on: August 08, 2009, 04:04:27 PM »

...The Menaia of the various local churches only vary here and there in terms of the local practice of which saint is venerated for a given day. Example: On July 11, the Greek church would commemorate Great-martyr Euphemia, whereas the Slavs would give preeminence to commemorating St Olga. However, all the other feasts of high enough rank (to use a western term, "universal"), are always observed on the same day according to the church's respective calendar.

...And yes, as you say, the Menaia of the various Local Churches varies for less important feasts, but not for major feasts. Except, of course, the New Calendarists do vary in their observation of even Great Feasts of our Lord and our Lady, and not by one day, but 13 days! Viz. the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Universal Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, the Nativity of our Lord, the Baptism of our Lord, the Meeting of our Lord, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Transfiguration of our Lord and the Dormition of the Theotokos. If you wish to call these differences in practice minor and of no significance, go ahead.

To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.

So I suppose that you would consider the shortening, or in some years the virtual elimination of, the Apostle's Fast, the oldest fast in the Church, to be a good thing?

Where do you get that the Apostles' Fast is the oldest fast?  Is this a new twist  in TOM polemic to "prove" the horrors of the New Calendar?

That only happens because not all the revisions of the Julian calendar were accepted, like placing where the spring equinox really is.
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
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #881 on: August 08, 2009, 04:06:42 PM »

regarding the new calendar i think there are several problems
1. it shortens or eliminates the Apostles' Fast
2. it lengthens the time between the Advent Fast and Lent
3. on the Old Calendar you can have the Annunciation during Holy Week or on Pascha, but this can't happen on the New Calendar
4. on the Old Calendar the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste always fall during Lent and thus their hymns connect their 40 to the 40 days of Lent. on the New Calendar they can come before Lent and thus their hymns make no sense those years.
5. on the Old Calendar St. George is always celebrated after Pascha and thus his hymns connect his victory to Christ's victory but on the New Calendar he can fall during Lent and thus in those years his hymns will make no sense.
6. the change was fueled by ecumenism
7. the Papal calendar was condemned several times by Church councils.
8. there has been no positive consequence of the change for Orthodoxy -- just less asceticism, messing up the previously well-laid out Typikon, and causing schism.
Logged
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #882 on: August 08, 2009, 04:32:39 PM »

...The Menaia of the various local churches only vary here and there in terms of the local practice of which saint is venerated for a given day. Example: On July 11, the Greek church would commemorate Great-martyr Euphemia, whereas the Slavs would give preeminence to commemorating St Olga. However, all the other feasts of high enough rank (to use a western term, "universal"), are always observed on the same day according to the church's respective calendar.

...And yes, as you say, the Menaia of the various Local Churches varies for less important feasts, but not for major feasts. Except, of course, the New Calendarists do vary in their observation of even Great Feasts of our Lord and our Lady, and not by one day, but 13 days! Viz. the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Universal Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, the Nativity of our Lord, the Baptism of our Lord, the Meeting of our Lord, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Transfiguration of our Lord and the Dormition of the Theotokos. If you wish to call these differences in practice minor and of no significance, go ahead.

To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.

So I suppose that you would consider the shortening, or in some years the virtual elimination of, the Apostle's Fast, the oldest fast in the Church, to be a good thing?

Where do you get that the Apostles' Fast is the oldest fast?  Is this a new twist  in TOM polemic to "prove" the horrors of the New Calendar?

That only happens because not all the revisions of the Julian calendar were accepted, like placing where the spring equinox really is.

No, the Apostles made this fast after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Even if it wasn't the oldest fast though, there is still no justification for shortening or eliminating a fast.  That is why none of the revisions of the Julian calendar should have ever been accepted in the first place.  
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 04:37:40 PM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #883 on: August 08, 2009, 05:06:54 PM »

Since the Great Calendar Debate comes up so frequently on this forum, I've made this thread sticky so we have a place ready for us to consolidate recurrences of this debate when they arise.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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



« Reply #884 on: August 08, 2009, 05:11:02 PM »

regarding the new calendar i think there are several problems
1. it shortens or eliminates the Apostles' Fast
2. it lengthens the time between the Advent Fast and Lent
3. on the Old Calendar you can have the Annunciation during Holy Week or on Pascha, but this can't happen on the New Calendar
4. on the Old Calendar the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste always fall during Lent and thus their hymns connect their 40 to the 40 days of Lent. on the New Calendar they can come before Lent and thus their hymns make no sense those years.
5. on the Old Calendar St. George is always celebrated after Pascha and thus his hymns connect his victory to Christ's victory but on the New Calendar he can fall during Lent and thus in those years his hymns will make no sense.
6. the change was fueled by ecumenism
7. the Papal calendar was condemned several times by Church councils.
8. there has been no positive consequence of the change for Orthodoxy -- just less asceticism, messing up the previously well-laid out Typikon, and causing schism.

All the above could be cured by the adoption of ALL the revisions of the Julian calendar, i.e. the real spring equinox on real March 21.

On number one, elimination might be a problem, but since it varies I don't see how "shortening" it would.

On number two, so?  You seem to claim you want more asceticism.

On number three, it happens on the "Papal Calendar."

On number four, how often does it fall out of Lent, and how, since in those years it falls in the Triodion, does the preparation period of Lent fail to bring up the topic of 40 days?

On number five, in 1983, Pascha was on May 8/April 25 O.S.  I would have loved to have been around for the Old Calendarists to explain that one, having made so much about St. George.

On number six, was Milutin Milanković an ecumenist?  His aim was calculating the most accurate calendar in existence, which he did.

On number seven, the revised Julian calendar is not the "Papal calendar," so doesn't apply.

On number eight, the Typikon of the Great Church did that, nearly a century before the calendar revision.
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
*****************
Online Online

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



« Reply #885 on: August 08, 2009, 05:14:17 PM »

...The Menaia of the various local churches only vary here and there in terms of the local practice of which saint is venerated for a given day. Example: On July 11, the Greek church would commemorate Great-martyr Euphemia, whereas the Slavs would give preeminence to commemorating St Olga. However, all the other feasts of high enough rank (to use a western term, "universal"), are always observed on the same day according to the church's respective calendar.

...And yes, as you say, the Menaia of the various Local Churches varies for less important feasts, but not for major feasts. Except, of course, the New Calendarists do vary in their observation of even Great Feasts of our Lord and our Lady, and not by one day, but 13 days! Viz. the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Universal Exaltation of the Cross, the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, the Nativity of our Lord, the Baptism of our Lord, the Meeting of our Lord, the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the Transfiguration of our Lord and the Dormition of the Theotokos. If you wish to call these differences in practice minor and of no significance, go ahead.

To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.

So I suppose that you would consider the shortening, or in some years the virtual elimination of, the Apostle's Fast, the oldest fast in the Church, to be a good thing?

Where do you get that the Apostles' Fast is the oldest fast?  Is this a new twist  in TOM polemic to "prove" the horrors of the New Calendar?

That only happens because not all the revisions of the Julian calendar were accepted, like placing where the spring equinox really is.

No, the Apostles made this fast after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

and they kept it up until SS Peter and Paul were martyred?  No, I don't think so.

Christ made the Lenten fast before that.

Quote
Even if it wasn't the oldest fast though, there is still no justification for shortening or eliminating a fast. 

It is shortened whenever Pascha comes late.

Quote
That is why none of the revisions of the Julian calendar should have ever been accepted in the first place.  
They should have all been accepted, and implemented appropriately (like the OCA did for the most part, though with exceptions).
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
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #886 on: August 08, 2009, 07:02:18 PM »



To use just one example, the Nativity of our Lord falls on December 25th in any Menaion, does it not? The "New Calendarists," in conformance with the Apostolic Church, actually celebrate this feast on December 25th of the secular calendar. The "Old Calendarists" in an unfathomable clinging to an outmoded secular calendar, celebrate it on January 6th. Granting that the calendar should have been upgraded from the pagan Julius Caesar's to God's time in full consultation with all Orthodox churches, I do not think that this is the first instance of one or two local churches leading the way. I do not see any significant dogmatic considerations, just a romantic tilting at the windmills that perhaps stems from animosity to anything Western; desire to differentiate oneself; clinging to the good old ways; or just plain inertia that is coupled with pride. Sorry for being so direct, but I am just exasperated at the "flat earth" mentality of the old calendarists.

So I suppose that you would consider the shortening, or in some years the virtual elimination of, the Apostle's Fast, the oldest fast in the Church, to be a good thing?

Where do you get that the Apostles' Fast is the oldest fast?  Is this a new twist  in TOM polemic to "prove" the horrors of the New Calendar?

That only happens because not all the revisions of the Julian calendar were accepted, like placing where the spring equinox really is.

No, the Apostles made this fast after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

and they kept it up until SS Peter and Paul were martyred?  No, I don't think so.

Christ made the Lenten fast before that.

Quote
Even if it wasn't the oldest fast though, there is still no justification for shortening or eliminating a fast. 

It is shortened whenever Pascha comes late.

It is also because the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul has been moved because of the new calendar.  For example, in 2013, the Apostle's Fast will not even take place on the new calendar, because the Feast will occur before the Fast even has time to begin.  

« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 07:11:17 PM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #887 on: August 08, 2009, 07:19:10 PM »

regarding the new calendar i think there are several problems
1. it shortens or eliminates the Apostles' Fast
2. it lengthens the time between the Advent Fast and Lent
3. on the Old Calendar you can have the Annunciation during Holy Week or on Pascha, but this can't happen on the New Calendar
4. on the Old Calendar the 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste always fall during Lent and thus their hymns connect their 40 to the 40 days of Lent. on the New Calendar they can come before Lent and thus their hymns make no sense those years.
5. on the Old Calendar St. George is always celebrated after Pascha and thus his hymns connect his victory to Christ's victory but on the New Calendar he can fall during Lent and thus in those years his hymns will make no sense.
Several problems all created by the fact we haven't FULLY adopted the Revised Julian "New" Calendar yet...  Reckon the [Northern Hemisphere] vernal equinox to be March 21 on the NEW Calendar as we NC'ers do all the Menologion dates, and these problems become non-existent.

6. the change was fueled by ecumenism
Convenient oversimplification that carries some seeds of truth but glosses over what I think is a more complicated issue then you make it out to be.

7. the Papal calendar was condemned several times by Church councils.
Yes, it was, and I don't doubt the authority of these councils.  I DO, though, doubt the applicability of these conciliar anathemas to what we know today as the New Calendar: the Revised Julian Calendar.  Quibble over the "insignificance" of the one-day difference every half-millennium if you want, but the Revised Julian Calendar is NOT the Papal Calendar condemned by so many councils.

8. there has been no positive consequence of the change for Orthodoxy -- just less asceticism
I'm sure the Coptic Orthodox could judge us EO's for being much less ascetic than they and could think this a bad thing already, so I don't particularly see your point.

, messing up the previously well-laid out Typikon, and causing schism.
Was it the New Calendar per se that caused schism, or was it the seemingly unilateral way the Calendar was introduced (and violently enforced in some quarters) that caused schism?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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



« Reply #888 on: August 08, 2009, 07:20:53 PM »

It is also because the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul has been moved because of the new calendar.  For example, in 2013, the Apostle's Fast will not even take place on the new calendar, because the Feast will occur before the Fast even has time to begin.  

Yes, I am aware of that. But since it varies every year, that the New Calendar shortens it can't be such a theological catastrophy.

If ALL the revisions were implemented, Pascha would fall that year on March 31 rather than May 5.  That would give you a whole 35 more days of fasting.  More asceticism.
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
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #889 on: August 08, 2009, 10:10:33 PM »

true, the bigger problem was probably the way the calendar was implemented, but i tend to just think of that as part of the new calendar when it comes up.

and i dont remember which Constantinople encyclical it was (i think in 1920) but it basically said that they wanted the new calendar in order to celebrate feasts uniformly with all Christians ... i remember reading that in my Orthodoxy class at PSU.

and i dont think the level of asceticism of the Coptics matters here -- the New Calendar with old Paschalion leads to a less ascetical Church year than had been the norm in Eastern Orthodoxy for however long.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #890 on: August 08, 2009, 10:14:09 PM »

true, the bigger problem was probably the way the calendar was implemented, but i tend to just think of that as part of the new calendar when it comes up.

and i dont remember which Constantinople encyclical it was (i think in 1920) but it basically said that they wanted the new calendar in order to celebrate feasts uniformly with all Christians ... i remember reading that in my Orthodoxy class at PSU.
Can you find and then show us this encyclical?

and i dont think the level of asceticism of the Coptics matters here -- the New Calendar with old Paschalion leads to a less ascetical Church year than had been the norm in Eastern Orthodoxy for however long.
Why is more/less asceticism necessarily a good/bad thing?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #891 on: August 08, 2009, 10:21:01 PM »

true, the bigger problem was probably the way the calendar was implemented, but i tend to just think of that as part of the new calendar when it comes up.

and i dont remember which Constantinople encyclical it was (i think in 1920) but it basically said that they wanted the new calendar in order to celebrate feasts uniformly with all Christians ... i remember reading that in my Orthodoxy class at PSU.
Can you find and then show us this encyclical?

i can try to find it. i just moved and all my notes are in boxes for the time being ... if i even still have the handouts from that class, it was like 4 yrs ago. but im pretty sure it was a 1920 encyclical from Patriarch Meletios.

and i dont think the level of asceticism of the Coptics matters here -- the New Calendar with old Paschalion leads to a less ascetical Church year than had been the norm in Eastern Orthodoxy for however long.
Quote
Why is more/less asceticism necessarily a good/bad thing?

more focused time for repentance and spiritual cleansing. of course we should be doing this all the time, but of course its also good to have those times of the whole Church striving together. also i just think its better to preserve the Church year as its been handed to us. i realize has gone through quite a bit of development, but i just dont see how this is at all a positive development.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #892 on: August 08, 2009, 10:22:15 PM »

how is hte Papal calendar really different from the Revised Julian calendar? ive never really heard a good argument for this.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #893 on: August 08, 2009, 10:28:19 PM »

this article is by an Old Calendarist so take it with a grain of salt, but it talks about the Encyclical (apparently by a locum tenens, not Meletios) http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_1.aspx
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #894 on: August 08, 2009, 10:35:26 PM »

true, the bigger problem was probably the way the calendar was implemented, but i tend to just think of that as part of the new calendar when it comes up.

and i dont remember which Constantinople encyclical it was (i think in 1920) but it basically said that they wanted the new calendar in order to celebrate feasts uniformly with all Christians ... i remember reading that in my Orthodoxy class at PSU.
Can you find and then show us this encyclical?

i can try to find it. i just moved and all my notes are in boxes for the time being ... if i even still have the handouts from that class, it was like 4 yrs ago. but im pretty sure it was a 1920 encyclical from Patriarch Meletios.

It used to be available on the website of the Patriatchate but has been removed,  The Wayback machine has been blocked from showing its archived copies.

It can be found by doing a www.google.com search for "The ecumenical movement: an anthology of key texts and voices"

That will give you a Google book which contains the document from page 12 onwards.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #895 on: August 08, 2009, 10:41:57 PM »

how is hte Papal calendar really different from the Revised Julian calendar? ive never really heard a good argument for this.

365.2425 [Gregorian] vs. 365.24(2) [Revised Julian] average year length in days.  Plus, a different way of calculating leap years.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,869



« Reply #896 on: August 08, 2009, 10:44:39 PM »

It really bothers me that we Orthodox have elevated everything to the same level of importance, authority and holiness. For example, we have condemned "the Papal calendar," as well as the doctrines of Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Religious wars and conflicts have erupted over how to make the sign of the Cross as well as the Aryan heresy. We have separated ourselves from each other because of knots on head coverings, as well as because of the sinfulness of our leaders.

It seems to me that far too often we are not discriminating between what is important and what is not. Nothing illustrates this better than the calendar controversy. People who adhere to the Julian Calendar seem unable to see the forest as they are so focused on the trees, leaves, soil, rills, and everything else in the forest. To make things worse they refuse to see the forest! Why is it worth to create a schism over the length of "the time between the Advent Fast and Lent," for example? Mighty big consequence for such a trivial matter, is it not?

As for the papal calendar, it is true that it was proposed by the Calabrian doctor Aloysius Lilius and decreed by Pope Gregory XIII (Wikipedia) in 1582 AD. Instead of examining the intrinsic value or truth of this calendar, we Orthodox have fixated on its provenance. Why is it so hard to admit that the Romans were right in this instance and that not everything that they believe in or do are heretical and evil?

I think we are guilty of the sin of pride. It is this pride that rejects the argument that God's laws of nature trump any of our human attempts to fashion calendars. It is still this pride that perverts the plain meaning of Apostolic Canons and dates in the Menaion. Finally, it is pride in being Super Orthodox that prevents us from discriminating between critical, important, and trivial matters.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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



« Reply #897 on: August 08, 2009, 10:48:26 PM »

how is hte Papal calendar really different from the Revised Julian calendar? ive never really heard a good argument for this.

There is no argument: Milutin Milanković calculated the Earth's orbit and came up with the most accurate calendar in existence today.

That it resembles the "Papal Calendar" is because his astronomers also looked at the same round earth we live on, and calculated how long it takes for it to revolve around the same sun in the sky.

true, the bigger problem was probably the way the calendar was implemented, but i tend to just think of that as part of the new calendar when it comes up.

and i dont remember which Constantinople encyclical it was (i think in 1920) but it basically said that they wanted the new calendar in order to celebrate feasts uniformly with all Christians ... i remember reading that in my Orthodoxy class at PSU.
Can you find and then show us this encyclical?

i can try to find it. i just moved and all my notes are in boxes for the time being ... if i even still have the handouts from that class, it was like 4 yrs ago. but im pretty sure it was a 1920 encyclical from Patriarch Meletios.

Not in 1920 it wasn't: he wasn't a Patriarch yet.

and i dont think the level of asceticism of the Coptics matters here -- the New Calendar with old Paschalion leads to a less ascetical Church year than had been the norm in Eastern Orthodoxy for however long.
Why is more/less asceticism necessarily a good/bad thing?
more focused time for repentance and spiritual cleansing. of course we should be doing this all the time, but of course its also good to have those times of the whole Church striving together. also i just think its better to preserve the Church year as its been handed to us. i realize has gone through quite a bit of development, but i just dont see how this is at all a positive development.

As I showed, adopt the Revised Julian Calendar in toto, and you'll have the asceticism you could ever want, and then some:
It is also because the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul has been moved because of the new calendar.  For example, in 2013, the Apostle's Fast will not even take place on the new calendar, because the Feast will occur before the Fast even has time to begin. 

Yes, I am aware of that. But since it varies every year, that the New Calendar shortens it can't be such a theological catastrophy.

If ALL the revisions were implemented, Pascha would fall that year on March 31 rather than May 5.  That would give you a whole 35 more days of fasting.  More asceticism.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 10:55:03 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
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #898 on: August 08, 2009, 10:54:12 PM »

I was talking to someone today who told me that the two Greek Old Calendarist parishes in Toronto disaffiliated from the bishop they had, purchased the leases on their churches and are now affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate. She was a bit sketchy on the dates, so this could have been indirectly through ROCOR prior to the reunion with Moscow Patriarchy. Then again, it could have been more recently. The Muscovites were even more traditional than the bishop they had. As for the revised Julian calendar being something other than the Gregorian calendar, IMHO it's a bit of sophistry, since these two calendars aren't going to diverge until many, many years (centuries) from now, and it wouldn't surprise me if adjustments aren't made to synchronize them by then.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 10:56:21 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #899 on: August 08, 2009, 11:05:21 PM »


It seems to me that far too often we are not discriminating between what is important and what is not. Nothing illustrates this better than the calendar controversy. People who adhere to the Julian Calendar seem unable to see the forest as they are so focused on the trees, leaves, soil, rills, and everything else in the forest. To make things worse they refuse to see the forest! Why is it worth to create a schism over the length of "the time between the Advent Fast and Lent," for example? Mighty big consequence for such a trivial matter, is it not?


I agree and it is why I have used something from Saint John Chrysostom as my Signature line,

"Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times
would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."   
~St. John Chrysostom


It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha.  He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.199 seconds with 72 queries.