OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 11:31:45 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 57 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 215590 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #900 on: August 08, 2009, 11:36:23 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?
And on what evidence do you find the calendar such a trivial issue?  The Holy Fathers of Nicea certainly didn't agree with you when they put forth their formula for the annual scheduling of Pascha to make the date of the celebration more astronomically accurate and to make it totally unified throughout the entire Christian world.  In so doing, they squelched all other Paschalia and made the Nicene Paschalion the only acceptable one.  Is it not therefore tragic that we Orthodox no longer celebrate Christmas and all other fixed-date feasts together anymore, when the Nicene Fathers considered a unified date for Pascha so vitally important?  How is this trivial?

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?
Why should we submit to papal authority, even in this instance?  Can you not see how important it was to the Orthodox faithful in the 16th century (as well as to us in the 21st) to resist any and all incursions of papal authority into the life of the Church, to include the Gregorian Calendar?  Submit to the pope on this one issue, and then another, and then another...  Where do we draw the line and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"?

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.
And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 11:44:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #901 on: August 09, 2009, 12:03:12 AM »

And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh

There are hundreds of millions of Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar, in fact we are the majority in the Orthodox Church.  But we do not condemn the New Calendarists as having no Mysteries, no Baptism, no Eucharist, no Priesthood.  As for the Old Calendarists who deny "sanctifying grace" in the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, well, one may ask, Who died and made *them * judge?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 12:04:38 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #902 on: August 09, 2009, 12:04:28 AM »

The current ecumenical guidelines of 1997 appear remarkably close to the rejected norms of 1923. Most of the time, you are getting Gregorian Easter, except in 2019. My guess is if you average it all out, Easter is ahead by about 13 days.  Man, 2019... it would really come early that year.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/towards-a-common-date-for-easter.html
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #903 on: August 09, 2009, 12:06:34 AM »

And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh

There are hundreds of millions of Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar, in fact we are the majority in the Orthodox Church.  But we do not condemn the New Calendarists as having no Mysteries, no Baptism, no Eucharist, no Priesthood.  As for the Old Calendarists who deny "sanctifying grace" in the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, well, one may ask, Who died and made *them * judge?
Of course, you are wrenching something I said to someone else in a totally unrelated context from that context and making it fit your agenda. Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #904 on: August 09, 2009, 12:18:36 AM »

The current ecumenical guidelines of 1997 appear remarkably close to the rejected norms of 1923. Most of the time, you are getting Gregorian Easter, except in 2019. My guess is if you average it all out, Easter is ahead by about 13 days.  Man, 2019... it would really come early that year.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/towards-a-common-date-for-easter.html

yes, even before Annunciation. I'm sure some would complain that that would upset the hymnography of the feast. Tongue
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #905 on: August 09, 2009, 12:20:48 AM »

And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh

There are hundreds of millions of Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar, in fact we are the majority in the Orthodox Church.  But we do not condemn the New Calendarists as having no Mysteries, no Baptism, no Eucharist, no Priesthood.  As for the Old Calendarists who deny "sanctifying grace" in the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, well, one may ask, Who died and made *them * judge?
Of course, you are wrenching something I said to someone else in a totally unrelated context from that context and making it fit your agenda. Wink

Don't be grumpy.  It's a legitimate comparision.

The Greek Old Calendarists condemn New Calendarists as heretics and shun them.

The Old Calendar Churches within Orthodoxy (me and another couple of hundred million) do not.  They embrace them as brothers, give them the Kiss of Peace, serve the Liturgy with them.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #906 on: August 09, 2009, 01:18:35 AM »

And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh

There are hundreds of millions of Orthodox who follow the Old Calendar, in fact we are the majority in the Orthodox Church.  But we do not condemn the New Calendarists as having no Mysteries, no Baptism, no Eucharist, no Priesthood.  As for the Old Calendarists who deny "sanctifying grace" in the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, well, one may ask, Who died and made *them * judge?
Of course, you are wrenching something I said to someone else in a totally unrelated context from that context and making it fit your agenda. Wink

Don't be grumpy.  It's a legitimate comparision.

The Greek Old Calendarists condemn New Calendarists as heretics and shun them.

The Old Calendar Churches within Orthodoxy (me and another couple of hundred million) do not.  They embrace them as brothers, give them the Kiss of Peace, serve the Liturgy with them.
Yes, but I also notice that this thread is about the New Calendar vs. the Old Calendar, not about New Calendarists vs. Old Calendarists.  I believe you have another thread where you're currently discussing that subject.  Why don't you post your comments about relations between NC and OC churches there? Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #907 on: August 09, 2009, 02:15:52 AM »

[Yes, but I also notice that this thread is about the New Calendar vs. the Old Calendar, not about New Calendarists vs. Old Calendarists.  I believe you have another thread where you're currently discussing that subject.  Why don't you post your comments about relations between NC and OC churches there? Wink

I looked at the thread you mentioned but it is called "Old Calendarist Churches ,"World Orthodoxy", and Maximos the Confessor."   To my mind that is not exactly the appropriate thread. 

Anyway, I think that you brought in Old Calendarists when you wrote to Second Chance:  "And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 02:19:26 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #908 on: August 09, 2009, 04:24:51 AM »

[Yes, but I also notice that this thread is about the New Calendar vs. the Old Calendar, not about New Calendarists vs. Old Calendarists.  I believe you have another thread where you're currently discussing that subject.  Why don't you post your comments about relations between NC and OC churches there? Wink

I looked at the thread you mentioned but it is called "Old Calendarist Churches ,"World Orthodoxy", and Maximos the Confessor."   To my mind that is not exactly the appropriate thread.
To my mind--yes, I am speaking as a moderator--that IS the appropriate thread, and that's where I want you to continue talking about relations between the Old Calendarist churches and the New Calendar "World Orthodox" churches.  This thread here is about the calendar itself, and that's what I want it to remain.  I will permit no more argument on the matter.

Anyway, I think that you brought in Old Calendarists when you wrote to Second Chance:  "And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?
What you did with my statement to Second Chance had absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wanted to communicate to him.
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 #909 on: August 09, 2009, 07:50:55 AM »

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

Not that I think anyone is listening to reason here, but I think it's important that truth and reality should continue to be proclaimed.

The Gregorian Calendar is not the Revised Julian Calendar for the following reasons:

1) They have completely different Paschalions.
That is, all of the moveable feasts whose dates are determined by the date of Pascha are calculated differently on both Calendars. The Revised Julian Calendar determines the date of Pascha according to the Julian Calendar. Therefore in the Revised Julian Calendar every feast day between the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee (The start of Triodion) and The Sunday of All Saints (the end of the Pentecostarion) is calculated according to the Julian calculation of Pascha.
How can the Gregorian and Revised Julian be the same Calendar if they calculate Pascha and all the feasts dependant on it differently?

2) The have different Menaia
The Menia (Sing: "Menaion") are the books containing the services for each month. The Liturgical years begings on September 1st and ends August 31st, and each month has it's own Menaion. In the Menaion are the Services for each feast day of the month. The Menaion corresponds to the Roman Catholic  "Proper of the Saints". Now, November 1st is the Feast of Sts. Cosmas and Damien in our Menaion, yet it is the Feast of All Saints in the Roman Catholic Proper of the Saints. We celebrate the Feast of All Saints on the First Sunday after Pentecost as a moveable (fixed) feast. December 8th is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God in the Roman Catholic Proper of Saints, however, we celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos on December 9th in the Julian and Revised Julian.
While it is true that some of the fixed feasts coincide (for example, the Dormition coincided with the Assumption, and our Christmases coincide), by the time the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in the 16th century, there were already over five centuries of Roman Catholic Saints which the Orthodox Church did not recognise, and it hasn't recognised any since, so in fact, most feast days on the Revised Julian and Julian Menaia do not correspond to the Proper of Saints in the Gregorian Calendar.

c) Its about dates.
The only thing which is the same between the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars is the actual date. For example, "today is Monday 10th August 2009" on both Calendars. However, for the next two years (2010 & 2011) Those on the Julian (Old) Calendar and the Roman Catholics on the Gregorian Calendar will all celebrate Pascha (and Lent and Pentecost) on the same day. Does this mean that the Old Calendarists have adopted the Gregorian Calendar Paschalion for the next two years? Of course not! And neither have those on the Revised Julian Calendar, since both the Julian and Revised Julian use the Julian method for calculating Pascha, and have the same Menia. It's just that the actual date is different, and so, while the moveable feasts are calculated the same, the fixed feasts are 13 days apart.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #910 on: August 09, 2009, 08:57:57 AM »

c) Its about dates.
The only thing which is the same between the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars is the actual date. For example, "today is Monday 10th August 2009"

LOL.  Actually, it's Sunday August 9th, 2009 (I know you Australians have a jump on the day).

Quote
on both Calendars. However, for the next two years (2010 & 2011) Those on the Julian (Old) Calendar and the Roman Catholics on the Gregorian Calendar will all celebrate Pascha (and Lent and Pentecost) on the same day. Does this mean that the Old Calendarists have adopted the Gregorian Calendar Paschalion for the next two years? Of course not! And neither have those on the Revised Julian Calendar, since both the Julian and Revised Julian use the Julian method for calculating Pascha, and have the same Menia. It's just that the actual date is different, and so, while the moveable feasts are calculated the same, the fixed feasts are 13 days apart.

Good point I haven't seen expressed before.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #911 on: August 09, 2009, 01:30:18 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?
And on what evidence do you find the calendar such a trivial issue?  The Holy Fathers of Nicea certainly didn't agree with you when they put forth their formula for the annual scheduling of Pascha to make the date of the celebration more astronomically accurate and to make it totally unified throughout the entire Christian world.  In so doing, they squelched all other Paschalia and made the Nicene Paschalion the only acceptable one.  Is it not therefore tragic that we Orthodox no longer celebrate Christmas and all other fixed-date feasts together anymore, when the Nicene Fathers considered a unified date for Pascha so vitally important?  How is this trivial?
Second Chance: The way that the majority of the Orthodox World clings to the Julian calendar actually perverts the decision of the Fathers to (a) tie the date of Pascha to the Vernal Equinox and (b) to standardize the date of the March Equinox as falling on March 21st. The March Equinox actually falls on any one of a narrow range of days (March 20-22) and the Fathers settled on the middle value that was indeed the March Equinox in the year of the decision. Note that the Fathers did not say that the calendar that they used (the Julian calendar) was to be used without any adjustment in perpetuity). The important thing for them was to celebrate Pascha in accordance with God's time--calculated by reference to the March Equinox that is determined by God's natural law and not by any calendar made by man.

Let's put it this way: when the astronomical event of the March Equinox occurs, it falls on one of three days in March (20th, 21st or 22nd). We have two calendars in use (the Julian and the Revised Julian) and only one of them corresponds to God's time. It is not the Julian calendar. Let's face it; we Orthodox have elevated a man-made calendar over God's time. How arrogant and prideful is THAT?

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?
Why should we submit to papal authority, even in this instance?  Can you not see how important it was to the Orthodox faithful in the 16th century (as well as to us in the 21st) to resist any and all incursions of papal authority into the life of the Church, to include the Gregorian Calendar?  Submit to the pope on this one issue, and then another, and then another...  Where do we draw the line and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"?
Second Chance: Ah, but this is exactly where we have gotten it wrong: It is NOT a matter of submitting to Papal authority. It is a matter of making sure that our calendar is an accurate reflection of God's time, of his Divine natural law. The Julian calendar is deficient in this regard, whether or not the Gregorian calendar ever existed. Are we Orthodox so fragile, so unsure of ourselves, so paranoid that we cannot accept the fact the Pope was correct in this matter? Even a broken and stopped clock is correct twice a day, for heaven's sake!

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.
And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh
Second Chance: I hope that it is the same Lord who died for ALL of us to be able to contribute to the Body. As for pride, yes I am guilty also. It has been my bane for all of my life. As for minimizing and invalidating the clamor of so many fellow Orthodox, I am not guilty. It is because this clamor is so large and strong that I am pushing back so hard. Please note that I am appealing not to human opinion but to God's immutable natural law and indeed to the Apostolic Tradition.

By the way, I am the one who brought up the "ists," not Father Ambrose. And, PetertheEleut the Poster went right along by criticizing me for minimizing and invalidating the Old Calendarists. It is therefore odd that PetertheAleut the Section Moderator is jumping all over Father Ambrose. I feel that the esteemed moderator is minimizing and invalidating my own contribution to this mess.



Fixed quote tags to make post more readable...   -PtA
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 03:44:50 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #912 on: August 09, 2009, 04:17:05 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?
And on what evidence do you find the calendar such a trivial issue?  The Holy Fathers of Nicea certainly didn't agree with you when they put forth their formula for the annual scheduling of Pascha to make the date of the celebration more astronomically accurate and to make it totally unified throughout the entire Christian world.  In so doing, they squelched all other Paschalia and made the Nicene Paschalion the only acceptable one.  Is it not therefore tragic that we Orthodox no longer celebrate Christmas and all other fixed-date feasts together anymore, when the Nicene Fathers considered a unified date for Pascha so vitally important?  How is this trivial?
Second Chance: The way that the majority of the Orthodox World clings to the Julian calendar actually perverts the decision of the Fathers to (a) tie the date of Pascha to the Vernal Equinox and (b) to standardize the date of the March Equinox as falling on March 21st. The March Equinox actually falls on any one of a narrow range of days (March 20-22) and the Fathers settled on the middle value that was indeed the March Equinox in the year of the decision. Note that the Fathers did not say that the calendar that they used (the Julian calendar) was to be used without any adjustment in perpetuity). The important thing for them was to celebrate Pascha in accordance with God's time--calculated by reference to the March Equinox that is determined by God's natural law and not by any calendar made by man.

Let's put it this way: when the astronomical event of the March Equinox occurs, it falls on one of three days in March (20th, 21st or 22nd). We have two calendars in use (the Julian and the Revised Julian) and only one of them corresponds to God's time. It is not the Julian calendar. Let's face it; we Orthodox have elevated a man-made calendar over God's time. How arrogant and prideful is THAT?
I actually agree for the most part with the substance of your arguments in favor of the New Calendar, but I still find very troubling the rancor in how you've argued your points.  Proclaiming a particular mode of calculating time to be "God's time", thus implying that those who contest your assessment are fighting against God Himself...  Disparaging the Julian Calendar by calling it man-made, even against those who revere the Julian Calendar as the Church calendar...  Calling arrogant and prideful those who resist the New Calendar and continue to use the Old...  I'm afraid the acrimonious tone in your rhetoric will only serve to alienate the very people you want to convince.

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?
Why should we submit to papal authority, even in this instance?  Can you not see how important it was to the Orthodox faithful in the 16th century (as well as to us in the 21st) to resist any and all incursions of papal authority into the life of the Church, to include the Gregorian Calendar?  Submit to the pope on this one issue, and then another, and then another...  Where do we draw the line and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"?
Second Chance: Ah, but this is exactly where we have gotten it wrong: It is NOT a matter of submitting to Papal authority. It is a matter of making sure that our calendar is an accurate reflection of God's time, of his Divine natural law. The Julian calendar is deficient in this regard, whether or not the Gregorian calendar ever existed. Are we Orthodox so fragile, so unsure of ourselves, so paranoid that we cannot accept the fact the Pope was correct in this matter? Even a broken and stopped clock is correct twice a day, for heaven's sake!
Personally, I agree with you to an extent, but to your opponents, this was and still is very much an issue of submitting to papal authority, and you would do well to respect this when discussing this issue with them.  I'm not asking you to compromise what you think is so vitally important.  All I'm asking you to do is show much more respect toward those who disagree with you.

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.
And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh
Second Chance: I hope that it is the same Lord who died for ALL of us to be able to contribute to the Body. As for pride, yes I am guilty also. It has been my bane for all of my life.
Just a thought...  One who admits so readily to being guilty of pride should probably be the last to call out the pride in someone else.  IMO, you would do much better to combat your own pride and discuss issues with other people in a spirit of meekness and humility.

As for minimizing and invalidating the clamor of so many fellow Orthodox, I am not guilty. It is because this clamor is so large and strong that I am pushing back so hard. Please note that I am appealing not to human opinion but to God's immutable natural law and indeed to the Apostolic Tradition.
God's immutable natural law?  Again, what makes you think you're qualified to proclaim to us what this is, especially when so many of your opponents disagree with you?

Apostolic Tradition?  Can you cite any Fathers, conciliar decrees, or canons that support your point of view?  So far you haven't given us anything specific that you haven't first filtered through your rather dogmatic interpretation.  If you want to say you're appealing to Apostolic Tradition, then you'd better be able to quote authorities outside of yourself.

By the way, I am the one who brought up the "ists," not Father Ambrose. And, PetertheEleut the Poster went right along by criticizing me for minimizing and invalidating the Old Calendarists. It is therefore odd that PetertheAleut the Section Moderator is jumping all over Father Ambrose. I feel that the esteemed moderator is minimizing and invalidating my own contribution to this mess.
Nah!  You give yourself too much credit. Wink  I don't know if you've taken the time to review my recent debates with Irish Hermit on a couple other concurrent threads, but he and I had been engaged in a pretty good go-round about Old Calendarists and New Calendarists for days before your most recent contributions on this thread.  You just unwittingly--and I don't blame you for this Wink--opened the door for Irish Hermit to walk into this discussion with the anti-Old-Calendarist agenda he's been preaching somewhere else.  That's why I was so quick to protect the integrity of this thread by telling him to take his anti-Old-Calendarist agenda back where he started it.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 04:18:02 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #913 on: August 09, 2009, 04:41:34 PM »

I don't know if you've taken the time to review my recent debates with Irish Hermit on a couple other concurrent threads, but he and I had been engaged in a pretty good go-round about Old Calendarists and New Calendarists for days before your most recent contributions on this thread.  You just unwittingly--and I don't blame you for this Wink--opened the door for Irish Hermit to walk into this discussion with the anti-Old-Calendarist agenda he's been preaching somewhere else.  That's why I was so quick to protect the integrity of this thread by telling him to take his anti-Old-Calendarist agenda back where he started it.

Nor sure if I follow your logic, Peter, this thread was set up to be adversarial;.  It's contained in its very title (Old v[ersus]s New Calendar?) and no other participants seem to have objected to the title or the tone of the hundreds of previous posts.

I see that the OP is clear that he wants this thread to be about jurisdictions  (what I call Churches :-)

"...mostly concerned about Orthodox jurisdictions."  Message #4
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 04:46:17 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #914 on: August 09, 2009, 06:14:20 PM »

I don't know if you've taken the time to review my recent debates with Irish Hermit on a couple other concurrent threads, but he and I had been engaged in a pretty good go-round about Old Calendarists and New Calendarists for days before your most recent contributions on this thread.  You just unwittingly--and I don't blame you for this Wink--opened the door for Irish Hermit to walk into this discussion with the anti-Old-Calendarist agenda he's been preaching somewhere else.  That's why I was so quick to protect the integrity of this thread by telling him to take his anti-Old-Calendarist agenda back where he started it.

Nor sure if I follow your logic, Peter, this thread was set up to be adversarial;.  It's contained in its very title (Old v[ersus]s New Calendar?) and no other participants seem to have objected to the title or the tone of the hundreds of previous posts.

I see that the OP is clear that he wants this thread to be about jurisdictions  (what I call Churches :-)

"...mostly concerned about Orthodox jurisdictions."  Message #4
Don't be confused by what  you see posted on this thread years ago.  This thread is now a conglomeration of about five or six previously separate discussions on the Old and New Calendars.  The block of posts starting with Reply #793 I actually grafted onto this thread after about 90 minutes or so of work yesterday pruning it off its parent thread precisely to separate it from discussion of relations between the various "-ists".  That's why I'm so anxious to keep the current discussion of relations between the various Greek Old Calendarists and the World Orthodox from overflowing into this thread about the two calendars themselves.  This thread's purpose is now, therefore, very much what I defined it to be when I melded its constituent parts together yesterday.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 06:19:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #915 on: August 09, 2009, 09:25:34 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?
And on what evidence do you find the calendar such a trivial issue?  The Holy Fathers of Nicea certainly didn't agree with you when they put forth their formula for the annual scheduling of Pascha to make the date of the celebration more astronomically accurate and to make it totally unified throughout the entire Christian world.  In so doing, they squelched all other Paschalia and made the Nicene Paschalion the only acceptable one.  Is it not therefore tragic that we Orthodox no longer celebrate Christmas and all other fixed-date feasts together anymore, when the Nicene Fathers considered a unified date for Pascha so vitally important?  How is this trivial?
Second Chance: The way that the majority of the Orthodox World clings to the Julian calendar actually perverts the decision of the Fathers to (a) tie the date of Pascha to the Vernal Equinox and (b) to standardize the date of the March Equinox as falling on March 21st. The March Equinox actually falls on any one of a narrow range of days (March 20-22) and the Fathers settled on the middle value that was indeed the March Equinox in the year of the decision. Note that the Fathers did not say that the calendar that they used (the Julian calendar) was to be used without any adjustment in perpetuity). The important thing for them was to celebrate Pascha in accordance with God's time--calculated by reference to the March Equinox that is determined by God's natural law and not by any calendar made by man.

Let's put it this way: when the astronomical event of the March Equinox occurs, it falls on one of three days in March (20th, 21st or 22nd). We have two calendars in use (the Julian and the Revised Julian) and only one of them corresponds to God's time. It is not the Julian calendar. Let's face it; we Orthodox have elevated a man-made calendar over God's time. How arrogant and prideful is THAT?
I actually agree for the most part with the substance of your arguments in favor of the New Calendar, but I still find very troubling the rancor in how you've argued your points.  Proclaiming a particular mode of calculating time to be "God's time", thus implying that those who contest your assessment are fighting against God Himself...  Disparaging the Julian Calendar by calling it man-made, even against those who revere the Julian Calendar as the Church calendar...  Calling arrogant and prideful those who resist the New Calendar and continue to use the Old...  I'm afraid the acrimonious tone in your rhetoric will only serve to alienate the very people you want to convince.

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?
Why should we submit to papal authority, even in this instance?  Can you not see how important it was to the Orthodox faithful in the 16th century (as well as to us in the 21st) to resist any and all incursions of papal authority into the life of the Church, to include the Gregorian Calendar?  Submit to the pope on this one issue, and then another, and then another...  Where do we draw the line and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"?
Second Chance: Ah, but this is exactly where we have gotten it wrong: It is NOT a matter of submitting to Papal authority. It is a matter of making sure that our calendar is an accurate reflection of God's time, of his Divine natural law. The Julian calendar is deficient in this regard, whether or not the Gregorian calendar ever existed. Are we Orthodox so fragile, so unsure of ourselves, so paranoid that we cannot accept the fact the Pope was correct in this matter? Even a broken and stopped clock is correct twice a day, for heaven's sake!
Personally, I agree with you to an extent, but to your opponents, this was and still is very much an issue of submitting to papal authority, and you would do well to respect this when discussing this issue with them.  I'm not asking you to compromise what you think is so vitally important.  All I'm asking you to do is show much more respect toward those who disagree with you.

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.
And it's not prideful for you to so thoroughly minimize and invalidate the clamor of a sizable number of Orthodox who decry or even condemn the New Calendar as a deviation from Tradition?  Who died and made you judge? Huh
Second Chance: I hope that it is the same Lord who died for ALL of us to be able to contribute to the Body. As for pride, yes I am guilty also. It has been my bane for all of my life.
Just a thought...  One who admits so readily to being guilty of pride should probably be the last to call out the pride in someone else.  IMO, you would do much better to combat your own pride and discuss issues with other people in a spirit of meekness and humility.

As for minimizing and invalidating the clamor of so many fellow Orthodox, I am not guilty. It is because this clamor is so large and strong that I am pushing back so hard. Please note that I am appealing not to human opinion but to God's immutable natural law and indeed to the Apostolic Tradition.
God's immutable natural law?  Again, what makes you think you're qualified to proclaim to us what this is, especially when so many of your opponents disagree with you?

Apostolic Tradition?  Can you cite any Fathers, conciliar decrees, or canons that support your point of view?  So far you haven't given us anything specific that you haven't first filtered through your rather dogmatic interpretation.  If you want to say you're appealing to Apostolic Tradition, then you'd better be able to quote authorities outside of yourself.

By the way, I am the one who brought up the "ists," not Father Ambrose. And, PetertheEleut the Poster went right along by criticizing me for minimizing and invalidating the Old Calendarists. It is therefore odd that PetertheAleut the Section Moderator is jumping all over Father Ambrose. I feel that the esteemed moderator is minimizing and invalidating my own contribution to this mess.
Nah!  You give yourself too much credit. Wink  I don't know if you've taken the time to review my recent debates with Irish Hermit on a couple other concurrent threads, but he and I had been engaged in a pretty good go-round about Old Calendarists and New Calendarists for days before your most recent contributions on this thread.  You just unwittingly--and I don't blame you for this Wink--opened the door for Irish Hermit to walk into this discussion with the anti-Old-Calendarist agenda he's been preaching somewhere else.  That's why I was so quick to protect the integrity of this thread by telling him to take his anti-Old-Calendarist agenda back where he started it.

I don't think that I will ever get the quotes features to work for me. So, I will be citing Peter's reply and then offer some thoughts.

Peter: I still find very troubling the rancor in how you've argued your points.  Proclaiming a particular mode of calculating time to be "God's time", thus implying that those who contest your assessment are fighting against God Himself...  Disparaging the Julian Calendar by calling it man-made, even against those who revere the Julian Calendar as the Church calendar... 

Me: My intent was to point out that the argument is not merely between competing calendars. I hope to get folks' attention to the fact that there is such a thing as natural law, that is, that part of the His Creation that we are able to understand. An important part of natural law is the way that astronomical objects move and their time frame. We do know from the Scriptures that the movement of these objects can be measured and further described in the dimension of time. The Scriptures have told us that the time dimension includes the measures of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years. Our observations tell us about the longest, shortest, and equinox days. We do not suspect but know when these events occur; we just have slightly different ways of overlaying a man-made calendar over the time dimension of Divinely ordained phenomena or God's time. My point is simply that there is a problem if a man-made calendar no longer reflects the divine order. It becomes an even greater problem when folks conflate God's time with any man-made calendar. It becomes a matter of concern to all faithful when some folks cling to an out-of-sync calendar and/or condemn those who try comply with God's time. Thus, I am sorry that some folks' sensibilities may be offended when I say that the Julian calendar is man-made, but it is exactly that. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary, that is, that it was created by Julius Caesar by Divine inspiration. I think I am somewhat like the little boy who cried out that the Emperor had no cloths: I am pointing out something that should be evident to all.

Peter: Calling arrogant and prideful those who resist the New Calendar and continue to use the Old...  I'm afraid the acrimonious tone in your rhetoric will only serve to alienate the very people you want to convince.

Me: I am indeed sorry for my strong words. The other side of the coin here is obviously my out-of-control arrogance and pride. I apologize to all Old Calendarists who may have been offended.  Furthermore, I do wish to thank Peter for bringing me down to earth.

Peter: God's immutable natural law?  Again, what makes you think you're qualified to proclaim to us what this is, especially when so many of your opponents disagree with you?

Me: I do not believe that any of my "opponents" have ever argued from this perspective; therefore, I do not know if any disagrees with me as my points about natural law are usually ignored. In any case, I think I am qualified by my education and one aspect of natural law--a God-given brain. Are you saying that there is a problem with my points about the March Equinox and how this event happens when the sun is exactly over the equator and not because a man-made calendar declares it to be in that state? Conversely, are you saying that we must give the same consideration to the argument that the March Equinox happens whenever the Julian calendar says it does? It is really baffling to me that folks maintain with a straight face that the Church celebrates the Nativity of our Lord on December 25th; however, the date really falls on January 6th (the date in any Christian nation, including Russia--just open any paper on that date, it will NOT say December 25th). Or, if folks have never seen a Menaion, that Christmas happens on January 6th (the same day as the baptism of our Lord)!!!???. My point is again that December 25th (or any other date) should be when it falls astronomically or in God's time. As it happened in Christ's time.

Peter: Apostolic Tradition?  Can you cite any Fathers, conciliar decrees, or canons that support your point of view?  So far you haven't given us anything specific that you haven't first filtered through your rather dogmatic interpretation.

Me: First, the Council of Nicea, through a letter or proclamation of the Emperor, is said to have decided that the reference point for Paschal calculations is the March Equinox. (This is from a variety of secondary sources but I believe is agreed to by everyone). Second, there was a decision to standardize the date of the March Equinox as  March 21st. You alluded to this yourself and again I do not think that anybody would disagree with this. The problem is that while Julian calendar's March 21st at that point in time corresponded to one of three days that the March Equinox happens, the Julian calendar drifted away from the actual equinox over the centuries as is now 13 days off. In my arguments, I humbly submit that there are no deviations from either Natural Law or Apostolic practice and teachings. I ask for arguments and facts to the contrary and declare myself amenable to persuasion. I do have a hard head but I usually bow down to facts and superior logic--eventually. Wink
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #916 on: August 09, 2009, 09:32:02 PM »

Old (Julian) Calendar versus the New (Revised Julian) Calendar?

In a showdown, the Old Calendar would clean the New's clock.  It has a lot more ring time under its belt, and that counts for a lot.  The New has a lot of spunk, but ultimately it's too inexperienced to win the match.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #917 on: August 09, 2009, 09:52:13 PM »

Old (Julian) Calendar versus the New (Revised Julian) Calendar?

In a showdown, the Old Calendar would clean the New's clock.  It has a lot more ring time under its belt, and that counts for a lot.  The New has a lot of spunk, but ultimately it's too inexperienced to win the match.

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #918 on: August 09, 2009, 09:56:21 PM »

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue

Give the Julian enough time, and it will eventually drift back into place.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #919 on: August 09, 2009, 10:09:05 PM »

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue

Give the Julian enough time, and it will eventually drift back into place.
But who wants to wait 47,000 years for that to happen? Grin
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #920 on: August 09, 2009, 10:31:53 PM »

Old (Julian) Calendar versus the New (Revised Julian) Calendar?

In a showdown, the Old Calendar would clean the New's clock.  It has a lot more ring time under its belt, and that counts for a lot.  The New has a lot of spunk, but ultimately it's too inexperienced to win the match.

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue

If we bone up on the history of the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar into the life of the Church we discover that a scientific fraud has been perpetrated on the Orthodox peoples. 

Why?   Because a more accurate Calendar was proposed to the 1923 Synod by a  Serbian Milutin Milankovic.    This was rejected by the Synod because the Synod's desire was to bring the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sanctoral cycle (the fixed feastdays) into conformity and so they adopted a debased version which achieved this conformity and they called it the Revised Julian Calendar.   Elements of this are derived from Milankovic but his more accurate Calendar was rejected since it would not have brought about West/East conformity.  This is something which the RJC does until 2800.  So pleas of "we did it for scientific accuracy" are simply disingenuous.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #921 on: August 09, 2009, 10:40:43 PM »

Old (Julian) Calendar versus the New (Revised Julian) Calendar?

In a showdown, the Old Calendar would clean the New's clock.  It has a lot more ring time under its belt, and that counts for a lot.  The New has a lot of spunk, but ultimately it's too inexperienced to win the match.

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue

If we bone up on the history of the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar into the life of the Church we discover that a scientific fraud has been perpetrated on the Orthodox peoples. 

Why?   Because a more accurate Calendar was proposed to the 1923 Synod by a  Serbian Milutin Milankovic.    This was rejected by the Synod because the Synod's desire was to bring the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sanctoral cycle (the fixed feastdays) into conformity and so they adopted a debased version which achieved this conformity and they called it the Revised Julian Calendar.   Elements of this are derived from Milankovic but his more accurate Calendar was rejected since it would not have brought about West/East conformity.  This is something which the RJC does until 2800.  So pleas of "we did it for scientific accuracy" are simply disingenuous.
You got any evidence to back this up?  I'm curious to see it.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #922 on: August 09, 2009, 11:03:31 PM »

[
If we bone up on the history of the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar into the life of the Church we discover that a scientific fraud has been perpetrated on the Orthodox peoples. 

Why?   Because a more accurate Calendar was proposed to the 1923 Synod by a  Serbian Milutin Milankovic.   

Why refuse to adopt the much more accurate calendar of Milankovic? This was
proposed and carefully explained to the hierarchs in council in 1923. They rejected
it and instead they fiddled with the leap year adjustment to make it conform as much
as possible to the Gregorian Calendar.

To briefly compare the inaccurate Revised Julian Calendar and the Milankovic---
the Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years compared to real astronomic
time. Milankovic's calendar is most accurate of all and is late one day every
48,000 years in relation to real astronomic time.


The hierarchs assembled in 1923 rejected it and choose an inaccurate Calendar!

The Old Calendar Patriarchs have their reasons for continuing with their inaccurate calendar;
but what, if any, was the justification for the New Calendar Patriarchs adopting another
inaccurate calendar? Aye, there's the rub.....

Fr Ambrose
-----------------
When I grow up I want to be a palaeohimerologhite;
80% of the Orthodox faithful are ...


Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #923 on: August 09, 2009, 11:25:16 PM »

Do you have any proof/citations to the numbers you provided above?  I'd like to see the algorithms and leap year rules for both.  From what I have heard about the Revised Julian, the Spring Equinox would not be late for a period of over 40,000 years.  But then of course, no calendar is accurate since everything is slowing down on us.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #924 on: August 10, 2009, 02:46:40 AM »

Do you have any proof/citations to the numbers you provided above?  I'd like to see the algorithms and leap year rules for both.  From what I have heard about the Revised Julian, the Spring Equinox would not be late for a period of over 40,000 years.  But then of course, no calendar is accurate since everything is slowing down on us.

What I have presented is material I sent to another Orthodox list 6 years ago.  It was translated from a Serbian book which I no longer have.  I'll see if I can find relevant things on the Web (or on the Orthodox list.)
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #925 on: August 10, 2009, 02:50:19 AM »

What I have presented is material I sent to another Orthodox list 6 years ago.  It was translated from a Serbian book which I no longer have.  I'll see if I can find relevant things on the Web (or on the Orthodox list.)


Thanks!  Whenever I do work with dates, it is either the civil calendar or the SI calculation of a year, so I am not overly familiar with other calendars and measurements.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #926 on: August 10, 2009, 02:57:41 AM »

Dear Nebelpfade,

Here is a little something from Milankovic.  Unfortunately fairly short and not very detailed.

In number 5279 of the Astronomische Nachrichten, issued on March 18, 1924, is an article by M. Milankovitch of Belgrade, dated October, 1923. Its title is "The End of the Julian Calendar and the New Calendar of the Eastern Churches." M. Milankovitch, as indicated below, was a delegate to the congress which decided upon this new calendar; it is a slight improvement over the Gregorian calendar.


http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/orthodox-reform.html
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #927 on: August 10, 2009, 03:29:04 AM »

Old (Julian) Calendar versus the New (Revised Julian) Calendar?

In a showdown, the Old Calendar would clean the New's clock.  It has a lot more ring time under its belt, and that counts for a lot.  The New has a lot of spunk, but ultimately it's too inexperienced to win the match.

Nah, Revised Julian has right on its side, being much closer to the mean tropical year.  Tongue

If we bone up on the history of the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar into the life of the Church we discover that a scientific fraud has been perpetrated on the Orthodox peoples. 

Why?   Because a more accurate Calendar was proposed to the 1923 Synod by a  Serbian Milutin Milankovic.    This was rejected by the Synod because the Synod's desire was to bring the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sanctoral cycle (the fixed feastdays) into conformity and so they adopted a debased version which achieved this conformity and they called it the Revised Julian Calendar.   Elements of this are derived from Milankovic but his more accurate Calendar was rejected since it would not have brought about West/East conformity.  This is something which the RJC does until 2800.  So pleas of "we did it for scientific accuracy" are simply disingenuous.

[
If we bone up on the history of the introduction of the Revised Julian Calendar into the life of the Church we discover that a scientific fraud has been perpetrated on the Orthodox peoples. 

Why?   Because a more accurate Calendar was proposed to the 1923 Synod by a  Serbian Milutin Milankovic.   

Why refuse to adopt the much more accurate calendar of Milankovic? This was
proposed and carefully explained to the hierarchs in council in 1923. They rejected
it and instead they fiddled with the leap year adjustment to make it conform as much
as possible to the Gregorian Calendar.

To briefly compare the inaccurate Revised Julian Calendar and the Milankovic---
the Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years compared to real astronomic
time. Milankovic's calendar is most accurate of all and is late one day every
48,000 years in relation to real astronomic time.


The hierarchs assembled in 1923 rejected it and choose an inaccurate Calendar!

The Old Calendar Patriarchs have their reasons for continuing with their inaccurate calendar;
but what, if any, was the justification for the New Calendar Patriarchs adopting another
inaccurate calendar? Aye, there's the rub.....

Fr Ambrose
-----------------
When I grow up I want to be a palaeohimerologhite;
80% of the Orthodox faithful are ...




Nothing in the following to indicate explicitly that Mr. Milankovic actually devised a calendar much more accurate than the one he proposed for the synod of 1923, as you assert above.  Can you give us more?

Dear Nebelpfade,

Here is a little something from Milankovic.  Unfortunately fairly short and not very detailed.

In number 5279 of the Astronomische Nachrichten, issued on March 18, 1924, is an article by M. Milankovitch of Belgrade, dated October, 1923. Its title is "The End of the Julian Calendar and the New Calendar of the Eastern Churches." M. Milankovitch, as indicated below, was a delegate to the congress which decided upon this new calendar; it is a slight improvement over the Gregorian calendar.


http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/orthodox-reform.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #928 on: August 10, 2009, 03:48:15 AM »


Nothing in the following to indicate explicitly that Mr. Milankovic actually devised a calendar much more accurate than the one he proposed for the synod of 1923, as you assert above.  Can you give us more?

[


There seems very little on the Web. I entered "Calendar Milankovic" and obtained only 10 results.  He seems to be as little known as Nikola Tesla, another eminent Serb whose work in the field of electricity made much of our industrial development possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87#cite_note-0

"He created the leap year rule of the Revised Julian calendar, that was officially accepted by many orthodox churches, but was never implemented in practice. His calendar is in fact the most accurate calendar in the world today."

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Milankovitch,_Milutin

But you'll notice that these are speaking about the 1923 Revised Julian adopted by some people in the Orthodox Churches.  It does not mention that he in fact offered a better and more accurate Calendar but the Orthodox Churches accepted only portions of it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #929 on: August 10, 2009, 04:04:25 AM »


Nothing in the following to indicate explicitly that Mr. Milankovic actually devised a calendar much more accurate than the one he proposed for the synod of 1923, as you assert above.  Can you give us more?

[


There seems very little on the Web. I entered "Calendar Milankovic" and obtained only 10 results.  He seems to be as little known as Nikola Tesla, another eminent Serb whose work in the field of electricity made much of our industrial development possible.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87#cite_note-0

"He created the leap year rule of the Revised Julian calendar, that was officially accepted by many orthodox churches, but was never implemented in practice. His calendar is in fact the most accurate calendar in the world today."
Of course!  That's what "was never implemented in practice" means! Grin  The distinctive of Milankovic's Revised Julian Calendar, his leap year rule, will not be implemented in practice until 2800, when this rule separates the Revised Julian Calendar from the Gregorian Calendar.  This doesn't say that the Church did not accept his most accurate calendar, choosing instead a lesser alternative, as you claim.  If anything, I will posit as possible just from the language of the above wiki statement that the synod of 1923 DID accept Milankovic's calendar, the most accurate in the world.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Milankovitch,_Milutin

But you'll notice that these are speaking about the 1923 Revised Julian adopted by some people in the Orthodox Churches.  It does not mention that he in fact offered a better and more accurate Calendar but the Orthodox Churches accepted only portions of it.
Of course, this is still just your assertion until you can prove it.  Repeating the same thesis over and over again doesn't make it true.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 04:06:05 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #930 on: August 10, 2009, 04:35:38 AM »

Of course!  That's what "was never implemented in practice" means! Grin  The distinctive of Milankovic's Revised Julian Calendar, his leap year rule, will not be implemented in practice until 2800, when this rule separates the Revised Julian Calendar from the Gregorian Calendar.  This doesn't say that the Church did not accept his most accurate calendar, choosing instead a lesser alternative, as you claim.  If anything, I will posit as possible just from the language of the above wiki statement that the synod of 1923 DID accept Milankovic's calendar, the most accurate in the world.

I have to deal with this statement which shows that the Revised Julian and the Milankovic are not one and the same.  Milankovic's is more accurate.    I fished it out of another Orthodox forum from 6 years ago and so far have not found an attribution.


"To briefly compare the inaccurate Revised Julian Calendar and the Milankovic---
the Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years compared to real astronomic
time. Milankovic's calendar is most accurate of all and is late one day every
48,000 years in relation to real astronomic time."


Any science buffs on the forum who have an interest in looking into this.  Very little we can do to solve this until we get some input.   There are some very good books in print on Calendars.  Anybody own one?

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 #931 on: August 10, 2009, 05:53:28 AM »

"To briefly compare the inaccurate Revised Julian Calendar and the Milankovic---
the Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years compared to real astronomic
time. Milankovic's calendar is most accurate of all and is late one day every
48,000 years in relation to real astronomic time."

Actually, the 1923 Synod did officially adopt Milankovic's calendar- it is the Revised Julian Calendar. The misinformation that it did not adopt Milankovic's calendar began circulating on the net around the year 2000 due to a misunderstanding on the part of some Old Calendarists.
Basically, Milankovic's calendar (the Revised Julian) has a different (and more accurate) Leap Year rule than the Gregorian Calendar. The difference is as follows:

The Gregorian Calendar Century Leap Year Rule:
On the Gregorian Calendar, the century years (2100, 2200, 2300.... etc.) are not Leap Years unless they are divisible by 400.

The Revised Julian Calendar (Milankovic) Century Leap Year Rule:
On the Revised Julian Calendar (which adopted Milankovic's Leap Year Rule), the century years are not Leap Years unless, when they are divided by 900, the remainder is 200 or 600.

What happened in the year 2000 was that it was a century year which fulfilled both rules. The year 2000 was a Leap Year on the Gregorian Calendar because 2000 is divisible by 400; and it was also a Leap Year on the Revised Julian because according to the Milankovic rule, 2000 divided by 900 leaves a remainder of 200. The coincidence caused some Old Calendarists to believe that the Revised Julian was using the Gregorian method of calculating Leap Years, but basically, they either did not understand the Milankovic rule or their math was wrong.

Calendar buffs know that the Revised Julian and Gregorian dates for Pascha will never again coincide after the year 2800, and this is because of the Milankovic Rule. The Year 2800 will be a Leap Year on the Gregorian Calendar because it is divisible by 400, however, it will not be a Leap Year on the Revised Julian Calendar because 2800 divided by 900 leaves a remainder of 100. From the Year 2800 onwards, the Revised Julian and Gregorian dates will differ by a day, and as the centuries pass, more days will be added to the difference.


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 #932 on: August 10, 2009, 06:52:01 AM »

"To briefly compare the inaccurate Revised Julian Calendar and the Milankovic---
the Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years compared to real astronomic
time. Milankovic's calendar is most accurate of all and is late one day every
48,000 years in relation to real astronomic time."

Actually, the 1923 Synod did officially adopt Milankovic's calendar- it is the Revised Julian Calendar.


George, it baffles me how they can be the identical calendar.

1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

They are therefore not the same calendar.

Can you reference the rest of what you have said.  I realise that I have not yet been able to reference mine, but the more we can actually reference material the better.
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 #933 on: August 10, 2009, 07:00:04 AM »

Can you reference the rest of what you have said.
Sure!

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Revised_Julian_Calendar
"The Revised Julian Calendar is a calendar that was considered for adoption by several Orthodox churches at a synod in Constantinople in May 1923. The synod synchronized the new calendar with the Gregorian Calendar by specifying that October 1, 1923, in the Julian Calendar will be October 14 in the Revised Julian Calendar, thus dropping thirteen days. It then adopted a leap year rule that differs from that of the Gregorian calendar: Years evenly divisible by four are leap years, except that years evenly divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. This means that the two calendars will first differ in 2800, which will be a leap year in the Gregorian Calendar, but a common year in the Revised Julian Calendar. This leap year rule was proposed by Milutin Milankovic, an astronomical delegate to the synod representing the governments of the Serbs, Croatians, and Slovenes. "


« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 07:03:33 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 #934 on: August 10, 2009, 07:06:47 AM »

My apologies, George , for not being clearer.  This is what I was hoping to see references for:

"The misinformation that it did not adopt Milankovic's calendar began circulating on the net around the year 2000 due to a misunderstanding on the part of some Old Calendarists."

The Serbs were complaining that Milankovic's calendar had not been accepted and this was before 2000.  I left Serbia in 1979.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 07:10:40 AM by Irish Hermit » 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 #935 on: August 10, 2009, 07:24:12 AM »

My apologies, George , for not being clearer.  This is what I was hoping to see references for:

"The misinformation that it did not adopt Milankovic's calendar began circulating on the net around the year 2000 due to a misunderstanding on the part of some Old Calendarists."

The Serbs were complaining that Milankovic's calendar had not been accepted and this was before 2000.  I left Serbia in 1979.

You are actually quoting this misinformation yourself!
Behold! You think the Revised Julian and Milankovic Calendars are different calendars:
George, it baffles me how they can be the identical calendar.

1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

This erroneous belief is based on the assumption that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars have the same century Leap year rule (which they do not). Please read again the explanation of the difference here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346274.html#msg346274

The Gregorian Calandar is out one day about every 8000-14400 years because it assumes that the year is exactly 355.2425 days long. The Revised Julian Calendar which adopted the Milankovic Leap Year Rule is a closer approximation to the actual length of the year because it assumes the year is  365.2422222..... days long, and thus only loses a day every 48,000 years.

The Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic Calendar.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 07:30:51 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 #936 on: August 10, 2009, 09:59:35 AM »

My apologies, George , for not being clearer.  This is what I was hoping to see references for:

"The misinformation that it did not adopt Milankovic's calendar began circulating on the net around the year 2000 due to a misunderstanding on the part of some Old Calendarists."

The Serbs were complaining that Milankovic's calendar had not been accepted and this was before 2000.  I left Serbia in 1979.

You are actually quoting this misinformation yourself!
Behold! You think the Revised Julian and Milankovic Calendars are different calendars:
George, it baffles me how they can be the identical calendar.

1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

2.   The Milankovic is late one day every 48,000 years.

This erroneous belief is based on the assumption that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars have the same century Leap year rule (which they do not). Please read again the explanation of the difference here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346274.html#msg346274

The Gregorian Calandar is out one day about every 8000-14400 years because it assumes that the year is exactly 355.2425 days long. The Revised Julian Calendar which adopted the Milankovic Leap Year Rule is a closer approximation to the actual length of the year because it assumes the year is  365.2422222..... days long, and thus only loses a day every 48,000 years.

The Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic Calendar.


Certainly back in the 70s and 80s the Serbs in Serbia (I left Serbia in 1979) were annoyed, affronted, offended, that the very accurate calendar which the Serbian Milankovic had proposed to the bishops in Constantinople in 1923 had not been accepted.  This may have been disinformation wrought out of Serbian chauvinism but one would think that if the 1923 Synod HAD adopted Milankovic's calendar the Serbs would not have been complaining but exulting in their superior astronomical skills!   And not just in 1923 and thereafter but even today!  Serbs, like all nations, are very proud of the achievements of their sons.

However, there is nothing more I can add to this interesting involvement of Milankovic, not until I can recover my small Serbian book on his life. A search of the book shelves has proved fruitless.
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 #937 on: August 10, 2009, 10:12:35 AM »

^ Nationalists of every ilk will look for reasons to be "affronted".
The Revised Julian Calendar is Milankovics Calendar. See:
"Milutin Milanković and the Reform of the Julian Calendar in 1923" Dimitrijević, M. S.; Theodossiou, E. Th.; Mantarakis, P. Z.
Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage (ISSN 1440-2807), Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 50 - 54 (2008).
You will find an abstract here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
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 #938 on: August 10, 2009, 10:22:42 AM »

^ Nationalists of every ilk will look for reasons to be "affronted".

We did not really mix with "nationalists" but with church people.  But I am sure that both nationalists and chuch people would have been only to happy to exalt their native son if the Orthodox Church had accepted his calendar.  That is also a trait of nationalists.

Quote
The Revised Julian Calendar is Milankovics Calendar. See:
"Milutin Milanković and the Reform of the Julian Calendar in 1923" Dimitrijević, M. S.; Theodossiou, E. Th.; Mantarakis, P. Z.
Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage (ISSN 1440-2807), Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 50 - 54 (2008).
You will find an abstract here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 10:23:19 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #939 on: August 10, 2009, 10:32:57 AM »

Me: First, the Council of Nicea, through a letter or proclamation of the Emperor, is said to have decided that the reference point for Paschal calculations is the March Equinox. (This is from a variety of secondary sources but I believe is agreed to by everyone). Second, there was a decision to standardize the date of the March Equinox as  March 21st. You alluded to this yourself and again I do not think that anybody would disagree with this.

I have to disagree.  The Church of Rome continued for another 300 years to be out of step with the Eastern dating of Pascha.  This was not because they were disobedient to the Nicene decision but because they retained their own method of calculating the vernal equinox ansd that led them to a different date.  Sometime of course it coincided and sometimes it didn't.

Likewise the venerable Church in Ireland, so often misunderstood by everybody on this point, was out of step with both the East AND Rome simply because the Irish had retained a way of calcuting from Rome but a way which Rome had once used and then abandoned.  After the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britan in about 410 the British Isles was cut off from the Continent.  Lawlessness reigned and a sea crossing to the Continent was perilous because of pirates and such like.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 10:44:47 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #940 on: August 10, 2009, 10:43:26 AM »

I will have to go with Peter and OzGeorge. I should point out a typo in the postings of Oz where the average length of the Gregorian year should be 365.2425 (not 355.2425). Nonetheless, it seems to me that (a) the Revised Julian calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian (which itself was the first revision of the Julian) and (b) the Milankovic rule on calculating leap years was largely responsible for this.

Recalling earlier exchange between Peter and me regarding many Orthodox folks' sensibilities on anything Papal, is this not wonderful news! The most accurate calendar was created by the Orthodox Church!!! It is we and not the Romans who are more in sync with God's time!!!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #941 on: August 10, 2009, 10:48:42 AM »

Me: First, the Council of Nicea, through a letter or proclamation of the Emperor, is said to have decided that the reference point for Paschal calculations is the March Equinox. (This is from a variety of secondary sources but I believe is agreed to by everyone). Second, there was a decision to standardize the date of the March Equinox as  March 21st. You alluded to this yourself and again I do not think that anybody would disagree with this.

I have to disagree.  The Church of Rome continued for another 300 years to be out of step with the Eastern dating of Pascha.  This was not because they were disobedient to the Nicene decision but because they retained their own method of calculating the vernal equinox ansd that led them to a different date.  Sometime of course it coincided and sometimes it didn't.

Likewise the venerable Church in Ireland, so often misunderstood by everybody on this point, was out of step with both the East AND Rome simply because the Irish had retained a way of calcuting from Rome but a way which Rome had once used and then abandoned.  After the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britan in about 444 or a bit earlier the British Isles was cut off from the Continent.  Lawlessness reigned and a sea crossing to the Continent was perilous because of pirates and such like.

You are correct as usual. I had also noted the historical movement toward the Alexandrian way of calculating. It is also interesting that the Gregorian Calendar was not adopted wholeheartedly from its beginning.  The point I was trying to address was the broader question of what the Nicean Fathers had decided on.

Would you please advise if the Fathers did not (a) make the March Equinox the reference point for calculating Pascha and (b) later decided to settle on March 21st as THE date for the March Equinox?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #942 on: August 10, 2009, 10:51:55 AM »

I will have to go with Peter and OzGeorge. I should point out a typo in the postings of Oz where the average length of the Gregorian year should be 365.2425 (not 355.2425). Nonetheless, it seems to me that (a) the Revised Julian calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian (which itself was the first revision of the Julian) and (b) the Milankovic rule on calculating leap years was largely responsible for this.

Recalling earlier exchange between Peter and me regarding many Orthodox folks' sensibilities on anything Papal, is this not wonderful news! The most accurate calendar was created by the Orthodox Church!!! It is we and not the Romans who are more in sync with God's time!!!

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,428


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #943 on: August 10, 2009, 11:14:27 AM »

Me: First, the Council of Nicea, through a letter or proclamation of the Emperor, is said to have decided that the reference point for Paschal calculations is the March Equinox. (This is from a variety of secondary sources but I believe is agreed to by everyone). Second, there was a decision to standardize the date of the March Equinox as  March 21st. You alluded to this yourself and again I do not think that anybody would disagree with this.

I have to disagree.  The Church of Rome continued for another 300 years to be out of step with the Eastern dating of Pascha.  This was not because they were disobedient to the Nicene decision but because they retained their own method of calculating the vernal equinox ansd that led them to a different date.  Sometime of course it coincided and sometimes it didn't.

Likewise the venerable Church in Ireland, so often misunderstood by everybody on this point, was out of step with both the East AND Rome simply because the Irish had retained a way of calcuting from Rome but a way which Rome had once used and then abandoned.  After the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britan in about 444 or a bit earlier the British Isles was cut off from the Continent.  Lawlessness reigned and a sea crossing to the Continent was perilous because of pirates and such like.

You are correct as usual. I had also noted the historical movement toward the Alexandrian way of calculating. It is also interesting that the Gregorian Calendar was not adopted wholeheartedly from its beginning.  The point I was trying to address was the broader question of what the Nicean Fathers had decided on.

Would you please advise if the Fathers did not (a) make the March Equinox the reference point for calculating Pascha and (b) later decided to settle on March 21st as THE date for the March Equinox?

If I remember correctly its the latter. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
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 #944 on: August 10, 2009, 11:36:59 AM »

And the Serbs, if they adopted Milankovic's calendar which is out one day in every 48,000 years  rather than the Revised Julian which is out 1 day in every 14,400, would have the wonderful grace of being more in synch with God's celestial creation than the rest of the Orthodox.  Indeed, after 48,000 years or so the other Orthodox will be behind the Serbs by 3 days!

The Revised Julian was a compromise to bring the Orthodox into synch with the Catholics.

Please stop spreading misinformation Irish Hermit.
I have provided Orthodox and Scientific citations on this thread which prove that the Revised Julian Calendar is the Milankovic proposed Calendar. You have provided nothing to support your claims.
But I guess truth is not important to you.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort nobody cares 
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 57 »   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 0.215 seconds with 72 queries.