OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 10:28:28 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 209045 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests 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: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2295 on: January 25, 2014, 04:48:25 PM »

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?
Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.
In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.
I never thought I had anything to prove. Your reasons and "evidence", however, do not convince me of the truth of your opinion. You especially do not convince me that you are justified to condemn as outside the Church those who disagree with your opinion.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 05:43:31 PM by PeterTheAleut » 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 #2296 on: January 25, 2014, 04:50:48 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both. 

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.
Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2297 on: January 25, 2014, 06:05:12 PM »

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?
Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.
In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.
I never thought I had anything to prove. Your reasons and "evidence", however, do not convince me of the truth of your opinion. You especially do not convince me that you are justified to condemn as outside the Church those who disagree with your opinion.

You don't have to change your opinion because you lose an argument, but don't try to pretend that you have offered an airtight case in support of that opinion. It's quite clear that, regardless of any evidence I bring, you are not going to change your belief that the new calendar is just a form of the traditional Julian and has nothing to do with the anathematized Gregorian. That's fine; just admit it.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2298 on: January 25, 2014, 06:09:44 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both. 

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.
Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.

Er, no. If the new calendar is practically identical to the Gregorian, the common sense interpretation of the anathema is that it also covers the revised calendar. It is sophistry to argue that the new calendar doesn't technically fall under the anathema because of some tiny differences in calculations that lead to a tiny discrepancy (ultimately reversed) several centuries hence.
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 #2299 on: January 25, 2014, 07:03:43 PM »

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?
Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.
In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.
I never thought I had anything to prove. Your reasons and "evidence", however, do not convince me of the truth of your opinion. You especially do not convince me that you are justified to condemn as outside the Church those who disagree with your opinion.

You don't have to change your opinion because you lose an argument, but don't try to pretend that you have offered an airtight case in support of that opinion.
I'm not making an argument that I can lose, so I don't feel that I've lost anything. You don't like the evidence that I brought up in our discussion of the Milankovic Calendar four years ago. That's fine. I feel no need to defend the use of the Revised Julian Calendar against your misapplied anathema.

It's quite clear that, regardless of any evidence I bring, you are not going to change your belief that the new calendar is just a form of the traditional Julian and has nothing to do with the anathematized Gregorian. That's fine; just admit it.
Considering that you are basing your condemnation of the New Calendarists on your opinion that their calendar is nothing different from the Gregorian Calendar, I think you have the much greater burden to prove your point, since you're ultimately going to have to stand before God and give an account of why you condemned such a large segment of His Church. Are you willing to stand firm on such a judgment based on nothing but your personal opinion?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 01:13:12 AM by PeterTheAleut » 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 #2300 on: January 25, 2014, 07:08:32 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both.  

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.
Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.

Er, no. If the new calendar is practically identical to the Gregorian, the common sense interpretation of the anathema is that it also covers the revised calendar.
Common sense is common only if it's truly common.

It is sophistry to argue that the new calendar doesn't technically fall under the anathema because of some tiny differences in calculations that lead to a tiny discrepancy (ultimately reversed) several centuries hence.
Again, if you're going to apply an anathema to a calendar and to those who follow it, you better have an airtight reason for doing so, because you will be held to account for how you judge others. I personally don't find your reasoning all that convincing, and your mere repetition of that reasoning without alteration is not going to change my mind, so I don't think your application of an anathema to the Revised Julian Calendar airtight.

BTW, I never denied any use of sophistry in the New Calendarist position, but neither did I affirm it. All I said is that your position that the Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars are the same is [also?] based on sophistry.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 07:13:14 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #2301 on: January 26, 2014, 12:16:02 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 12:16:54 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 #2302 on: January 26, 2014, 12:42:41 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.
No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 12:46:44 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #2303 on: January 26, 2014, 12:53:01 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.
No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

Quote
soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
1.
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

Peter, really you need to pick your battles more judiciously. The spirit of my comments about Jonathan fall within this definition. If you believe he chooses fallacious argument in order to deceive, well great. Not my experience.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 #2304 on: January 26, 2014, 12:54:38 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.
No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

Quote
soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
1.
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

Peter, really you need to pick your battles more judiciously. The spirit of my comments about Jonathan fall within this definition. If you believe he chooses fallacious argument in order to deceive, well great. Not my experience.
That's only the definition you chose to use.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t
soph·ist·ry  [sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Even if Jonathan is arguing sincerely, his reasoning can still be based on subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious methods. I also did not say that Jonathan was engaging in sophistry intentionally, which is how you misunderstand my words. I just said that his arguments are based on sophistry. Whether he's devising his own sophistry or he's been sincerely deluded by someone else's sophistry, it's still sophistry.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 01:04:40 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #2305 on: January 26, 2014, 01:48:35 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.
No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

Quote
soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
1.
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

Peter, really you need to pick your battles more judiciously. The spirit of my comments about Jonathan fall within this definition. If you believe he chooses fallacious argument in order to deceive, well great. Not my experience.
That's only the definition you chose to use.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t
soph·ist·ry  [sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Even if Jonathan is arguing sincerely, his reasoning can still be based on subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious methods. I also did not say that Jonathan was engaging in sophistry intentionally, which is how you misunderstand my words. I just said that his arguments are based on sophistry. Whether he's devising his own sophistry or he's been sincerely deluded by someone else's sophistry, it's still sophistry.

It's literally the first definition I found.

Here is another:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg1070545.html#msg1070545
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 #2306 on: January 26, 2014, 01:50:45 AM »

PtA, I don't think you know what sophistry is. Jonathan no matter how much I disagree with him is probably one of the last people I would expect here to engage in it.
No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.
That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

Quote
soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/Submit
noun
1.
the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

Peter, really you need to pick your battles more judiciously. The spirit of my comments about Jonathan fall within this definition. If you believe he chooses fallacious argument in order to deceive, well great. Not my experience.
That's only the definition you chose to use.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry?s=t
soph·ist·ry  [sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural soph·ist·ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Even if Jonathan is arguing sincerely, his reasoning can still be based on subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious methods. I also did not say that Jonathan was engaging in sophistry intentionally, which is how you misunderstand my words. I just said that his arguments are based on sophistry. Whether he's devising his own sophistry or he's been sincerely deluded by someone else's sophistry, it's still sophistry.

It's literally the first definition I found.

Here is another:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg1070545.html#msg1070545
You lug nut! Wink I posted that definition!
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2307 on: January 27, 2014, 01:19:51 AM »

Thought this might be of interest.  Here is Zonaras's comment on Apostolic Canon 7, as best I can transcribe from Migne, Patrologia Graeca 137, 49.  Help with spelling from anyone with access to a better edition, or even the same edition but with clearer typeface, would be appreciated. 

Quote
Ἐαρινὴν ἰσημερίαν τινὲς τὴν κε᾽ φασὶ τοῦ Μαρτίου· τινὲς δἐ τὴν κε᾽ τοῦ Ἀπριλλίου.  Οῖμαι δὲ μήτ᾽ ἐκείνην μήτε ταυτην τὸν κανόνα λέγειν·  ὡς ὲπι τὸ πολὺ γὰρ τὸ Πάσχα πρὸ τῆς κε᾽ τοῦ Ἀπριλλίου ἑορτάζεσθαι είωθεν·  ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ πρὸ τῆσ κε᾽ τοῦ Μαρτίου, ὡς συμβαίνειν (εἰ οὔτως νοοϊτο ἡ ἐαρινὴ ἰσημερία) παρὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦτον τὸ Πάσχα ἑορτάζεσθαι.  Ἔοικεν οὐν ἄλλο τι ἐαρινὴν ἰσεμερίαν τοὺς συνετοὺς ἀποστόλους ὀνομάζειν. Ἡ δὲ πᾶσα τοῦ κανόνα, διαταγὴ τοῦτό ὲστι, τὸ μὴ μετὰ Ἰουδαίων (ἤγουν κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν ἡμέραν) ἑορτάζειν τὀ Πάσχα Χριστιανούς.  Χρὴ γὰρ προηγεϊσθαι τὴν ανέορτον ἐκείνων ἑορτὴν, καὶ οὕτω τὸ καθ᾽  ἡμᾶς τελεϊσθαι Πάσχα.  Ὁ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο ποιῶν ἱερομένο,  καθαιρεθήσεται.  Τοὺτο δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ σύνοδος ἐν πρώτῳ κανόνι διετάξατο, λέγουσα τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ πρώτης συνόδου ὄρον εὶναι περὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ Πάσχα·  εἰ καὶ μὴ εὑρισκεται ὲν τοῖς κανόσι τῆσ ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου τοιοῦτος κανών.

Here is the Latin translation from the parallel column:

Quote
Vernum aequinoctium quidam vigesimum quintum diem Martii dicunt; quidam vero diem vegesimum quintum Aprilis.  Ego vero existimo canonem nec hunc, nec illum dicere.  Frequenter enim Pascha celebrari ante vigesimum quintum Aprilis solet.  Est autem quando celebratur et ante vigesimum quintum Martii; ita ut contingeret (si sic intelligeretur aequinoctium vernum) contra canonem hunc Pascha celebrari.  Unde apparet sapientes apostolos aliud quippiam nominare vernum aequinoctium.  Dispositio autem tota canonis hoc vult, Christianos non cum Judaeis (videlicet eadem die) celebrare Pascha.  Nam ipsorum festum (quod festum non est) prius agi convenit; atque sic nostrum nos peragere Pascha.  Quod minime faciens is qui Deo consecratus est, ordine movebitur.  Hoc etiam synodus in Antiochia canone primo constituit, asserens in prima synodo Nicaeae de festo Paschae factum esse decretum, tametsi non invenitur in Nicaenae synodi canonibus talis canon.

Here is my translation of the Latin (so it is a translation-of-a-translation):

Quote
Some say the Spring equinox is the 25th day of March; others, the 25th day of April.  I deem that the canon refers to neither the one nor the other.  For Pascha is often celebrated before the 25th of April; and there are times when it is celebrated before the 25th of March; so that, (if "Spring equinox" were so understood)  Pascha is being celebrated in violation of this canon.  Whence it appears that the wise apostles call something else the "Spring equinox."  So the whole thrust of the canon is this, that Christians should not celebrate Pascha with the Jews, that is, on the same day.  For it is fitting that their feast (which is no feast) is done first; and thus we do our Pascha.  If one consecrated to God does this even once, he is removed from orders.  The synod in Antioch also ordered this, in their first canon, where they stated that this was decreed concerning the feast of Pascha by the synod of Nicea, although no such canon is found in the canons of the Nicene synod.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2308 on: February 06, 2014, 12:44:15 AM »

At first the East followed the Alexandrian calculations which dated the Spring Equinox as March 21, while Rome followed its own calculations which dated the Spring Equinox as March 18. However, in 457, Rome adopted the Alexandrian tables. Thus from 547 until the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 East and West celebrated Pascha on the same day.

The Roman computation at the time of the Nicene Council was probably the 84-year cycle known to have been in use by the mid-4th century.  A 9th-century manuscript in the Ambrosian library, the so-called Bobbio Computus, is a witness to the structure of this cycle.  Its earliest date for the Paschal full moon (PFM or νομικον φασκα) is March 16th.  Its earliest date for Easter Sunday is March 21st, while its latest date for Easter Sunday is April 21st.  Limits this narrow would be impossible with the 19-year cycle, but the 84-year cycle maintains them at the expense of lunar accuracy.  The earliest date of the PFM, 16 March in the Ambrosian Library table and 18 March according to other witnesses, is the "Spring Equinox" only from the Alexandrian point of view, in which the earliest date for the PFM (not just the festival) is the Spring equinox. 

A 19-year cycle was proposed in 457 by Victorius of Aquitaine.  This was not identical to the Alexandrian cycle, however.  It seems to have been adopted by Rome shortly thereafter and used until the early 6th century.  In 525, Dionysius Exiguus sent a newly-computed Easter table, which would begin in 532, to pope Boniface and to a bishop named Proterius.  This Dionysian cycle was identical to the Alexandrian.  Its adoption was not immediate everywhere.  Gregory of Tours (History of the Franks 10.23) writes as if the Victorian tables are still in use in Gaul in 590.  At around the same time St. Columbanus (Letter #1), supporting the Celtic 84-year cycle, also writes as if the Victorian cycle is still in use.   The Alexandrian cycle was famously adopted in the English kingdom of Northumbria in 664.  So while Rome may have adopted the Alexandrian cycle in the 530's or shortly thereafter, some other parts of the West adopted it only later.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2309 on: February 22, 2014, 11:44:09 AM »

There is  general agreement among Eastern Orthodox that Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover as calculated according to the method used by the ancient Jews, not the method used by modern Jews.

We could not adopt the Gregorian Calendar date for Pascha because it… does not have the requirement that Pascha must follow the Jewish Passover.

As I have noted more than once above, these statements contradict each other.  Fr. John has yet to resolve the contradiction.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2310 on: March 22, 2014, 01:55:47 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
But why is a xenophobic 16th-century anathema your starting point at all? 

For Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the starting point for the Easter computation was Deuteronomy 16.1:  "Observe the month of 'Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of 'Abib the LORD brought you out of Egypt by night."  (Source:  Theophilus's prologue, PG 65.48-52.  Translated in Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 82.) This is where he begins the prologue to the 100-year Easter table that he sent to Emperor Theodosius in around A.D. 390.  Why not start, as Theophilus did, with the correct identification of the month of 'Abib and its 14th day?

Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2311 on: March 22, 2014, 02:11:56 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
But why is a xenophobic 16th-century anathema your starting point at all? 

For Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the starting point for the Easter computation was Deuteronomy 16.1:  "Observe the month of 'Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of 'Abib the LORD brought you out of Egypt by night."  (Source:  Theophilus's prologue, PG 65.48-52.  Translated in Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 82.) This is where he begins the prologue to the 100-year Easter table that he sent to Emperor Theodosius in around A.D. 390.  Why not start, as Theophilus did, with the correct identification of the month of 'Abib and its 14th day?



I don't have the patience to argue the same points over again now. If you want to know what I think, read the position paper "Why the True Orthodox are truly Orthodox" by Fr Maximus Marretta.

http://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236:why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox&catid=50:orthodox-awareness
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2312 on: March 22, 2014, 03:02:24 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
But why is a xenophobic 16th-century anathema your starting point at all? 

For Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the starting point for the Easter computation was Deuteronomy 16.1:  "Observe the month of 'Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of 'Abib the LORD brought you out of Egypt by night."  (Source:  Theophilus's prologue, PG 65.48-52.  Translated in Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 82.) This is where he begins the prologue to the 100-year Easter table that he sent to Emperor Theodosius in around A.D. 390.  Why not start, as Theophilus did, with the correct identification of the month of 'Abib and its 14th day?



I don't have the patience to argue the same points over again now. If you want to know what I think, read the position paper "Why the True Orthodox are truly Orthodox" by Fr Maximus Marretta.

http://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236:why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox&catid=50:orthodox-awareness

I read the article. It defines the heresy of ecumenism "as the belief that sects which the Church had previously considered heretical and cut off from her are in fact in some way still part of her."  No Orthodox Christian theologian, Bishop or representative to an ecumenical meeting believes that. From the very beginning, Orthodox involvement in all ecumenical meetings has been on the basis of the Toronto Principle, which states that Orthodox participation in relations with non-Orthodox is not to be taken as a recognition of the non-Orthodox groups as "Church," in the sense that the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Church." Instead, one statement after another has stated that according to Orthodox doctrine the Church is not divided, but exists as the Eastern Orthodox Church which is "the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Furthermore, Orthodox in ecumenical dialogues and meetings have steadfastly proclaimed that unity with Eastern Orthodox can only take place on the basis of an acceptance without reservation of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers, and the 7 Ecumenical Councils as preserved without corruption by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox have rejected the Protestant concept of "Intercommunion," which is sharing Communion before complete doctrinal agreement has been reached. Thus ecumenism as defined by the article does not exist within any canonical Eastern Orthodox Church. I know what I am writing about because I have represented the Antiochian Archdiocese and SCOBA in ecumenical meetings. I served on the North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue. We refused to compromise one aspect of Orthodox doctrine. The Lutherans finally realized that we will not compromise our Faith and unilaterally suspended the dialogue. I remember that they wanted to make a trade. They would agree that the filioque does not belong in the Creed, if we would accept the filioque doctrine as a legitimate thelogoummena. We refused. Thus, unlike the critics of Orthodox ecumenism, I know the truth because I have been there and know what actually happens in a dialogue between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The definition of ecumenism being used by Fr. Maximus (Marretta) is simply wrong and does not apply to any canonical Eastern Orthodox.
I agree completely with the anathema issued by the Bishops of ROCOR against ecumenism, because it correctly expresses the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the position taken by Eastern Orthodox representatives at every ecumenical meeting or dialogue since the beginning of Orthodox involvement in ecumenism.

Fr.  John W. Morris
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:04:21 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2313 on: March 22, 2014, 03:18:04 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:18:23 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2314 on: March 22, 2014, 03:19:59 PM »

You might be interested in this.

Quote
ZENIT: Holiness Bartholomew, at what point is the ecumenical process and at what point are we to see Pope John Paul II’s desire fulfilled for one united Church that can breathe with two lungs?

Patriarch Bartholomew: Look, your question about how close we are to the unity of the Church and, in particular, of enabling the Christian Church (Western and Eastern, Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to breathe with two lungs, is important. There is no doubt that our two “sister Churches” are closer today in relation to the whole of the last millennium, thanks to the “dialogue of love” and the “dialogue of truth,” that is to say, the steps taken towards reconciliation and the process of the theological dialogue, which has been well underway in the last decades. Despite this, we are still far from the Unity we shared during the first millennium of the life of the Church. The most important thing for us is to have always before our eyes the desire and the commandment of our Lord “that his disciples be united and that the Church be one.” It is a scandal in the Body of Christ and for the whole world that followers of Jesus Christ are divided in a historical moment in which – today more than ever – we are called to a common witness and to one Word in face of the challenges of our time.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,070



« Reply #2315 on: March 22, 2014, 08:15:33 PM »

I just want to thank Fr. John Morris for clear, rational, and FACTUAL analysis and explanation of the matters at issue in this discussion; particular Reply No. 2273. You should sit on a Preconciliar Commission for the Calendar topic for the "Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church," (though, unless the General Secretariat decides to revisit the topic, I think a consensus statement has been finalized).
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2316 on: March 22, 2014, 09:22:32 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.

You can believe what you wish, but I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know that although mistakes have been made that the claims of the anti-ecumenist are false.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2317 on: March 22, 2014, 10:20:29 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.

You can believe what you wish, but I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know that although mistakes have been made that the claims of the anti-ecumenist are false.

Fr. John W. Morris


People can also read the article for themselves and research for themselves what their bishops have actually said, so they don't need to rely on your empty assertions.
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 #2318 on: March 22, 2014, 11:07:31 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.

You can believe what you wish, but I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know that although mistakes have been made that the claims of the anti-ecumenist are false.

Fr. John W. Morris


People can also read the article for themselves and research for themselves what their bishops have actually said, so they don't need to rely on your empty assertions.
If Fr. John has actually been in these meetings, then I don't think his assertions any more empty than the assertions of those who were never involved in them.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2319 on: March 23, 2014, 03:41:15 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.

You can believe what you wish, but I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know that although mistakes have been made that the claims of the anti-ecumenist are false.

Fr. John W. Morris


People can also read the article for themselves and research for themselves what their bishops have actually said, so they don't need to rely on your empty assertions.


Anyone who can read the actual documents presented by Orthodox involved in ecumenical relations with non-Orthodox can see for themselves how certain extremists are distorting the record of Orthodox ecumenism. Go to http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf Download the entire pdf file and then go to the 2nd section and read the documents, themselves.  These document show without a doubt that despite the claims of some, the Orthodox involved in ecumenism have never compromised our Holy Orthodox Faith. From the very beginning, Orthodox representatives at ecumenical gatherings have made it perfectly clear that we are not willing to compromise our Orthodox Faith for the sake of union with any other group that calls itself Christian. These document show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accusations that Orthodox have fallen into heresy by ecumenical activities are totally false.
It is true that Orthodoxy went through a period of unrealistic optimism and made many mistakes in dealing with non-Orthodox that created the false illusion that the possibility of unity existed that did not really exist. This was due to the fact that the leaders of world Orthodoxy have only occasional interaction with Protestants. I do not think that most Orthodox world leaders had any idea of how different the Protestants really are from us. We tended to send Orthodox theologians and partrisric scholars to dialogues, and rarely sent someone who really knew that much about the Protestantism. That is how we got taken advantage of by the Anglicans. The Anglicans misrepresented themselves to the Orthodox and gave the Orthodox the false impression that we had more in common with them than we really had. The example of St. Raphael of Brooklyn is a perfect example of this. St. Raphael at first believed the Anglican claim to be Catholic. Then  he studied Anglicanism and realized that he had been deceived. He then issued his famous letter telling his flock to stay away from Episcopalians.
It was also a time when we were taken advantage of by the Protestant majorities in the National and World Council of Churches which claimed to speak for us on controversial political issues. The National Council of Churches has always been a liberal organization. However, it has become so involved in supporting liberal causes that today it is little more than the left wing of the Democratic Party at prayer. That is why, I was one of the leaders of the movement to get the Antiochian Archdiocese out of the National Council of Churches.
Therefore two things happened that have changed everything. First after sad experience we learned how far from Orthodoxy the Protestants really are.  Secondly most large main line Protestant groups have grown much farther apart from Orthodoxy than they were 30 years ago when the Ecumenical Movement began. At least back then, there was agreement among Christians on basic moral values. No one ordained openly practicing gays, or blessed same sex marriages like most American and European mainline Protestant groups do today. Today Orthodox leaders know the differences between us and Protestantism. Orthodox strongly oppose the ordination of openly practicing homosexuals and blessing same sex union. We also cannot accept women's ordination that has become dogma in liberal Protestant circles. Therefore, the differences are so great that there is absolutely no  possibility of any union with any mainline Protestant groups. The more conservative Protestants are so Romaphoic that they will not even talk with us. Besides there is a growing Calvinistic Movement among Evangelical Protestants. Calvinism and Orthodoxy cannot be reconciled.
I also believe that union with Rome is impossible. Rome painted itself into a corner at Vatican I which declared 19th century papalism as essential to Roman Catholicism. Vatican I cannot be reconciled with the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the Eastern Orthodox Faith. We have also seen how Rome treats the Eastern Catholics, and do not want to be treated as inferiors  under Roman supremacy the way that Rome treats the Eastern Catholics. At the same time, more liberal circles within American Roman Catholicism have fallen victim to the same liberalism that has corrupted their liberal Protestant counterparts.
Thus the fear of ecumenism is greatly exaggerated, because in the end nothing is going to come out of it. There is no chance that the Eastern Orthodox Church is going to enter into Communion with any Protestant group, and no real possibility that Rome will return to the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. However, some people are using a false portrayal of the true nature of Orthodox ecumenism to gain a following for their uncanoncial non-Orthodox sects.

Fr. John W. Morris



Forbidden epithet replaced with acceptable alternative  -PtA

The other epithet has also been replaced -Mina
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 08:55:11 PM by minasoliman » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #2320 on: March 23, 2014, 03:54:42 PM »

Your claim that your leaders don't believe in ecumenism is wrong and your objections are addressed in that same article. I suggest you read it again more thoroughly.

You can believe what you wish, but I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know that although mistakes have been made that the claims of the anti-ecumenist are false.

Fr. John W. Morris


People can also read the article for themselves and research for themselves what their bishops have actually said, so they don't need to rely on your empty assertions.


Anyone who can read the actual documents presented by Orthodox involved in ecumenical relations with non-Orthodox can see for themselves how certain extremists are distorting the record of Orthodox ecumenism. Go to http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf Download the entire pdf file and then go to the 2nd section and read the documents, themselves.  These document show without a doubt that despite the claims of some, the Orthodox involved in ecumenism have never compromised our Holy Orthodox Faith. From the very beginning, Orthodox representatives at ecumenical gatherings have made it perfectly clear that we are not willing to compromise our Orthodox Faith for the sake of union with any other group that calls itself Christian. These document show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accusations that Orthodox have fallen into heresy by ecumenical activities are totally false.
It is true that Orthodoxy went through a period of unrealistic optimism and made many mistakes in dealing with non-Orthodox that created the false illusion that the possibility of unity existed that did not really exist. This was due to the fact that the leaders of world Orthodoxy have only occasional interaction with Protestants. I do not think that most Orthodox world leaders had any idea of how different the Protestants really are from us. We tended to send Orthodox theologians and partrisric scholars to dialogues, and rarely sent someone who really knew that much about the Protestantism. That is how we got taken advantage of by the Anglicans. The Anglicans misrepresented themselves to the Orthodox and gave the Orthodox the false impression that we had more in common with them than we really had. The example of St. Raphael of Brooklyn is a perfect example of this. St. Raphael at first believed the Anglican claim to be Catholic. Then  he studied Anglicanism and realized that he had been deceived. He then issued his famous letter telling his flock to stay away from Episcopalians.
It was also a time when we were taken advantage of by the Protestant majorities in the National and World Council of Churches which claimed to speak for us on controversial political issues. The National Council of Churches has always been a liberal organization. However, it has become so involved in supporting liberal causes that today it is little more than the left wing of the Democratic Party at prayer. That is why, I was one of the leaders of the movement to get the Antiochian Archdiocese out of the National Council of Churches.
Therefore two things happened that have changed everything. First after sad experience we learned how far from Orthodoxy the Protestants really are.  Secondly most large main line Protestant groups have grown much farther apart from Orthodoxy than they were 30 years ago when the Ecumenical Movement began. At least back then, there was agreement among Christians on basic moral values. No one ordained openly practicing gays, or blessed same sex marriages like most American and European mainline Protestant groups do today. Today Orthodox leaders know the differences between us and Protestantism. Orthodox strongly oppose the ordination of openly practicing homosexuals and blessing same sex union. We also cannot accept women's ordination that has become dogma in liberal Protestant circles. Therefore, the differences are so great that there is absolutely no  possibility of any union with any mainline Protestant groups. The more conservative Protestants are so Romaphoic that they will not even talk with us. Besides there is a growing Calvinistic Movement among Evangelical Protestants. Calvinism and Orthodoxy cannot be reconciled.
I also believe that union with Rome is impossible. Rome painted itself into a corner at Vatican I which declared 19th century papalism as essential to Roman Catholicism. Vatican I cannot be reconciled with the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or the Eastern Orthodox Faith. We have also seen how Rome treats the Eastern Catholics, and do not want to be treated as inferiors  under Roman supremacy the way that Rome treats the Eastern Catholics. At the same time, more liberal circles within American Roman Catholicism have fallen victim to the same liberalism that has corrupted their liberal Protestant counterparts.
Thus the fear of ecumenism is greatly exaggerated, because in the end nothing is going to come out of it. There is no chance that the Eastern Orthodox Church is going to enter into Communion with any Protestant group, and no real possibility that Rome will return to the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. However, some people are using a false portrayal of the true nature of Orthodox ecumenism to gain a following for their uncanoncial non-Orthodox sects.

Fr. John W. Morris



Forbidden epithet replaced with acceptable alternative  -PtA

Plus one. For those with a not closed mind on the subject, again read the published documents of the various North American Ecumenical Dialogues published by SCOBA, including the Orthodox Roman Catholic one.  There is much which we can agree upon with the Romans, but as Fr. John notes, that which simply can not be reconciled - primarily the Papacy, the papacy and finally, the papacy -  remains as the ultimate obstacle. These are thoughtful documents not sy all like they are portrayed by some.  The issue of mandatory celibacy as imposed on the western hemisphere Greek Catholics and the lengths to which Rome has gone to either defend it or minimalize its meaning, bears witness to the Orthodox as to what Father noted about the treatment of the Eastern Churches in union with Rome - good words and platitudes pale as actions speak louder than words. Probably a quarter of modern Orthodoxy in North America is witness to that reality, coming from parishes, priests and bishops who could no longer accept the union in the 20th century.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 08:55:32 PM by minasoliman » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2321 on: March 23, 2014, 05:36:59 PM »

Ecumenism is not just about making a full formal union on a basis of compromised doctrine, though that is certainly the worst kind of outcome we expect. It is also even making statements suggesting that non-Orthodox bodies are somehow part of the Church, which is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew did in that interview which took place only a year ago, where he upheld the Balamand doctrine that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches" and both part of some larger Christian church. I posted that in response to Fr John's assertion that none of the bishops on his side hold ecumenist beliefs, but that interview certainly belies that.
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 #2322 on: March 23, 2014, 08:10:21 PM »

Ecumenism is not just about making a full formal union on a basis of compromised doctrine, though that is certainly the worst kind of outcome we expect. It is also even making statements suggesting that non-Orthodox bodies are somehow part of the Church, which is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew did in that interview which took place only a year ago, where he upheld the Balamand doctrine that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches" and both part of some larger Christian church. I posted that in response to Fr John's assertion that none of the bishops on his side hold ecumenist beliefs, but that interview certainly belies that.
The only thing that video belies is the meaning you attach to the phrase "sister churches". The use of that phrase "sister churches" does not necessarily mean that those who use that phrase see those "sister churches" as somehow part of THE [larger] Church.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2323 on: March 23, 2014, 10:45:00 PM »

Ecumenism is not just about making a full formal union on a basis of compromised doctrine, though that is certainly the worst kind of outcome we expect. It is also even making statements suggesting that non-Orthodox bodies are somehow part of the Church, which is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew did in that interview which took place only a year ago, where he upheld the Balamand doctrine that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches" and both part of some larger Christian church. I posted that in response to Fr John's assertion that none of the bishops on his side hold ecumenist beliefs, but that interview certainly belies that.
The only thing that video belies is the meaning you attach to the phrase "sister churches". The use of that phrase "sister churches" does not necessarily mean that those who use that phrase see those "sister churches" as somehow part of THE [larger] Church.

Yes it does. Go back and read the actual quote. There's more than just the phrase "sister churches". Patriarch Bartholomew makes it very clear in his statement that he believes both sister churches to be part of a larger Church.
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 #2324 on: March 23, 2014, 10:58:20 PM »

Ecumenism is not just about making a full formal union on a basis of compromised doctrine, though that is certainly the worst kind of outcome we expect. It is also even making statements suggesting that non-Orthodox bodies are somehow part of the Church, which is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew did in that interview which took place only a year ago, where he upheld the Balamand doctrine that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches" and both part of some larger Christian church. I posted that in response to Fr John's assertion that none of the bishops on his side hold ecumenist beliefs, but that interview certainly belies that.
The only thing that video belies is the meaning you attach to the phrase "sister churches". The use of that phrase "sister churches" does not necessarily mean that those who use that phrase see those "sister churches" as somehow part of THE [larger] Church.

Yes it does. Go back and read the actual quote. There's more than just the phrase "sister churches". Patriarch Bartholomew makes it very clear in his statement that he believes both sister churches to be part of a larger Church.
Look, Jonathan, we have one person here, Fr. John Morris, who claims to have actually been an active party in ecumenical dialogue, and we have you, who have not, interpreting for us an article you picked up somewhere on the Internet. (BTW, I have read the part of the article you quoted and don't see what you "see" so clearly.) Whom do you think I'm going to deem more credible? Just a hint for you: it isn't you.

Now I have to say, despite your attempts to link the New Calendar to ecumenism as if they are merely different sides of the same coin, I don't see what relevance this tangent has to the great calendar debate that is the subject of this thread.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 11:05:22 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2325 on: March 23, 2014, 11:06:59 PM »

If you want to know what I think, read the position paper "Why the True Orthodox are truly Orthodox" by Fr Maximus Marretta.

http://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236:why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox&catid=50:orthodox-awareness
The argument seems to presuppose a doctrine of "spiritual cooties."  

The best way forward, I maintain, is not to hide behind canons and other legalisms, but to understand what the 2nd/3rd century fathers who devised the Easter computations were trying to accomplish.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 11:09:00 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2326 on: March 23, 2014, 11:19:28 PM »

Ecumenism is not just about making a full formal union on a basis of compromised doctrine, though that is certainly the worst kind of outcome we expect. It is also even making statements suggesting that non-Orthodox bodies are somehow part of the Church, which is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew did in that interview which took place only a year ago, where he upheld the Balamand doctrine that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are "sister churches" and both part of some larger Christian church. I posted that in response to Fr John's assertion that none of the bishops on his side hold ecumenist beliefs, but that interview certainly belies that.

First there is no Balamand doctrine. The Balamand Statement is merely a committee report and nothing more. Although it was issued 13 years ago, it changed nothing. It did not establish Communion with Rome or compromise the Orthodox Faith in any way. It is all but forgotten except for a few alarmists who are quick to condemn anything that they suspect may reflect the so called heresy of ecumenism.
You do not understand the use of language or culture of the East. They use flowery language because they are not as straightforward and blunt as we American are. So the Ecumenical Patriarch called Rome a sister Church, so what? The Ecumenical Patriarch can say whatever he wants, as long as he does not proclaim unity with Rome. That he will not do, because the rest of the Orthodox Church will never accept papal domination. We were untied for 1,000 years and do share many common beliefs. Besides of the Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics are the closest Christian group to Eastern Orthodoxy. We are sister churches, but we are estraigned sisters who disagree about very important matters of faith and practice.
We Orthodox need to project a positive image that emphasizes our role as the living representative of the ancient Apostolic Church. We need to define ourselves by what we are, not by what we are not. We also need to trust in God to protect His Church. We do not need a self-proclaimed inquisition to prevent our Church from falling into heresy. God will do that. He always has. We need to witness the truth or Orthodoxy, but we will get nowhere in our efforts to spread the Faith if we alienate people by telling them that they are graceless heretics.
Once again, Orthodox ecumenism merely means talking with other Christians and cooperating with them when we can on things like feeding the poor, disaster relief and other charity projects. That is all that it means. It does not mean denying our Faith or compromising our beliefs.
To show that I know something about Orthodox ecumenism, just go to the web site of the Assembly of Canonical Bishops of North and Central America at http://assemblyofbishops.org/ Look at the Committees and click on the Committee on Ecumenical Relations. You will see that I am listed as a consultant to the committee. Bishops are members of the committee and clergy and laity serve as consultants. I must know something about the proper Orthodox attitude towards ecumenism or the Antiochian Bishops would not have chosen me to represent them on this committee. I also represented SCOBA during two rounds of the North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue and have other ecumenical experience.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: March 23, 2014, 11:22:02 PM by frjohnmorris » 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 #2327 on: March 23, 2014, 11:37:13 PM »

The real point behind my quibbles over the name is related to the argument that the "revised Julian" doesn't fall under the anathema against the Gregorian because it is not the same as the Gregorian. But that depends on how you define "Gregorian". If by "Gregorian" you mean just the version promulgated by Pope Gregory, then yes. But if you mean the Gregorian and any revised forms of the Gregorian to which only minor alterations were made, then the "revised Julian" ought to fall under the anathema, since in fact it is simply a form of the Gregorian with minor alterations made to make it more accurate. Calling the new calendar "revised Julian" allows its followers to pretend that they are just following the traditional calendar with minor alterations, rather than the anathematized Western calendar with alterations.
But why is a xenophobic 16th-century anathema your starting point at all? 

For Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the starting point for the Easter computation was Deuteronomy 16.1:  "Observe the month of 'Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of 'Abib the LORD brought you out of Egypt by night."  (Source:  Theophilus's prologue, PG 65.48-52.  Translated in Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 82.) This is where he begins the prologue to the 100-year Easter table that he sent to Emperor Theodosius in around A.D. 390.  Why not start, as Theophilus did, with the correct identification of the month of 'Abib and its 14th day?


I.e. after the real vernal equinox, as Pope Theophilos specifies (p. 83).
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
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 324



« Reply #2328 on: March 24, 2014, 12:11:31 AM »

Yes it does. Go back and read the actual quote. There's more than just the phrase "sister churches". Patriarch Bartholomew makes it very clear in his statement that he believes both sister churches to be part of a larger Church.
He is kind of right: Balamand does include the statement that "On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches" (13). Later it says again, "First of all, everyone [in each Church] should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life" (30). It is somewhat worrying that a group of Orthodox Church representatives saw fit to recognise Roman Catholic orders, and to promise that the Orthodox Church would explicitly teach this to parishioners, even if the Balamand Statement has been "forgotten".
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 12:11:51 AM by Regnare » Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #2329 on: March 24, 2014, 12:12:31 AM »

For Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the starting point for the Easter computation was Deuteronomy 16.1:  "Observe the month of 'Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of 'Abib the LORD brought you out of Egypt by night."  (Source:  Theophilus's prologue, PG 65.48-52.  Translated in Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, Routledge, London and New York, 2007, p. 82.) This is where he begins the prologue to the 100-year Easter table that he sent to Emperor Theodosius in around A.D. 390.  Why not start, as Theophilus did, with the correct identification of the month of 'Abib and its 14th day?

I.e. after the real vernal equinox, as Pope Theophilos specifies (p. 83).

This is certainly what Theophilus meant (see below) but his words, by themselves, identify the vernal equinox with the 25th of Pharmuthi (March 21st).  He has no need for any distinction, and so he doesn't make any.

Theophilus does, however, clearly state that the festival must fall within the agricultural spring season:
 
Quote
For the month of the new is not to be identified with the twelfth month, it being still winter, as I have already said, when the new fruit has not yet ripened, nor is it possible for the sickle to be put to the standing corn.  For this is the chief sign of the first month designated by the divine law.

And, when Theophilus's words are read in connection with other fathers of the same period, it becomes clear that Theophilus's meaning is exactly as you say.  They had no need for any distinction between astronomical, meteorological, and agricultural spring seasons.  For their practical purposes, they were the same.  By the "25th of Pharmuthi" he intends to make a reasonable approximation to the astronomical equinox, not to bind all future generation to observe that specific date in his specific calendar system.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #2330 on: March 24, 2014, 12:37:23 AM »

Yes it does. Go back and read the actual quote. There's more than just the phrase "sister churches". Patriarch Bartholomew makes it very clear in his statement that he believes both sister churches to be part of a larger Church.
He is kind of right: Balamand does include the statement that "On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches" (13). Later it says again, "First of all, everyone [in each Church] should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life" (30). It is somewhat worrying that a group of Orthodox Church representatives saw fit to recognise Roman Catholic orders, and to promise that the Orthodox Church would explicitly teach this to parishioners, even if the Balamand Statement has been "forgotten".

The Balamand Staement does not particularly bother me because it has been forgotten and ignored. It is just an example of going too far too fast by some Orthodox involved in ecumenical relations with non-Orthodox. I wrote that mistakes had been made by some Orthodox involved in ecumenical relations. I consider the Balamand Statement one of them. It has had no impact on Orthodox Roman Catholic relations. Despite the predictions made by some at the time that it came out, we are not in Communion with Rome. Today the Balamand Statement is only a footnote on history. Someone once asked Metropolitan Philip, of blessed memory, what to do with the Balamand Statement. He said, it is a committee report. Read it and file it away. Someone said, "Do you mean in the round file." His Eminence responded, "that is a good place for it."   
The concept of "validity" is really a Western concept. In Orthodoxy, we only know Orthodox and non Orthodox. Obviously Roman Catholicism is non-Orthodox. I am quite content to leave it to God to decide whether or not Roman Catholic Sacraments are valid. The Russian Church has received Roman Catholic Priests by Vesting alone, not ordination for centuries. It has also received Roman Catholics by Profession of Faith for centuries. That means that the Russian Church recognizes that there is some sort of validity to Roman Catholic Sacraments. Sometimes things are not quite as black and white as some people want to make them. There are frequently shades of grey. I will never denounce as totally invalid the spiritual experiences of the presence of God that I felt as a Methodist and later as an Episcopalian despite at the time I was ignorant of the truth of Orthodoxy. St. Paul wrote, "no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit." I Cor. 12:3.
We have to remember that when  denouncing heretics, the Holy Fathers and Ecumenical Councils were speaking about people who knew the truth of Orthodoxy and rejected it for heresy. Modern Roman Catholics and Protestants have never known the truth of Orthodoxy, so they did not really reject it. In so far as their beliefs agree with Orthodoxy, they are at least partially Orthodox.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 01:10:04 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2331 on: March 24, 2014, 10:30:55 AM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #2332 on: March 24, 2014, 12:13:32 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2333 on: March 24, 2014, 01:06:54 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
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 #2334 on: March 24, 2014, 01:08:54 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
What case? The only thing I see you pushing here is your strange interpretation of "sister churches".
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2335 on: March 24, 2014, 01:13:19 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
What case? The only thing I see you pushing here is your strange interpretation of "sister churches".

Are you learning disabled or are you just being deliberately obtuse? OK I'm going to just quote a relevant sentence from the Patriarch's remarks I posted above:

Quote
Patriarch Bartholomew: Look, your question about how close we are to the unity of the Church and, in particular, of enabling the Christian Church (Western and Eastern, Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to breathe with two lungs, is important.

He talks about the "Christian Church" as a body that encompasses both Orthodox and RC churches.
 14 days warning for engaging in ad hominem, calling a person directly "learning disabled".  If you like to appeal the warning, you may PM me.

Mina
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 #2336 on: March 24, 2014, 01:17:17 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
What case? The only thing I see you pushing here is your strange interpretation of "sister churches".

Are you learning disabled or are you just being deliberately obtuse? OK I'm going to just quote a relevant sentence from the Patriarch's remarks I posted above:
The mere fact that I don't see things the way you do does not mean I'm learning disabled, so please don't insult my intelligence with such stupid insinuations.

Quote
Patriarch Bartholomew: Look, your question about how close we are to the unity of the Church and, in particular, of enabling the Christian Church (Western and Eastern, Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to breathe with two lungs, is important.

He talks about the "Christian Church" as a body that encompasses both Orthodox and RC churches.
You don't see that you're merely spouting your own interpretation of those words and expecting me to believe them?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2337 on: March 24, 2014, 01:19:29 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
What case? The only thing I see you pushing here is your strange interpretation of "sister churches".

Are you learning disabled or are you just being deliberately obtuse? OK I'm going to just quote a relevant sentence from the Patriarch's remarks I posted above:
The mere fact that I don't see things the way you do does not mean I'm learning disabled, so please don't insult my intelligence with such stupid insinuations.

Quote
Patriarch Bartholomew: Look, your question about how close we are to the unity of the Church and, in particular, of enabling the Christian Church (Western and Eastern, Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to breathe with two lungs, is important.

He talks about the "Christian Church" as a body that encompasses both Orthodox and RC churches.
You don't see that you're merely spouting your own interpretation of those words and expecting me to believe them?

Well what other interpretation can there possibly be? He says "the Christian Church", and then clarifies what this means in the parentheses, where he lists both Orthodox and Eastern. If you don't accept that this means he believes both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches to be part of a single Christian Church, then yes, I either doubt your intelligence or your honesty.
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 #2338 on: March 24, 2014, 01:25:43 PM »

You keep saying Balamand is forgotten, and yet Patriarch Bartholomew repeated Balamand-based statements like "sister Churches" just last year. It doesn't seem like Balamand has been forgotten in the EP.
Luckily, not alot of folks put a huge amount of weight on what the EP says outside the Phanar. To me, Balamand is worth about the same as a playboy magazine at a NAMBLA conference.

PP

That is an extremely strange analogy, but no matter. I note you don't try to argue that what the Patriarch said wasn't heretical, but that, for some reason, we shouldn't pay his heretical statements much weight. I rest my case.
What case? The only thing I see you pushing here is your strange interpretation of "sister churches".

Are you learning disabled or are you just being deliberately obtuse? OK I'm going to just quote a relevant sentence from the Patriarch's remarks I posted above:
The mere fact that I don't see things the way you do does not mean I'm learning disabled, so please don't insult my intelligence with such stupid insinuations.

Quote
Patriarch Bartholomew: Look, your question about how close we are to the unity of the Church and, in particular, of enabling the Christian Church (Western and Eastern, Orthodox and Roman Catholic) to breathe with two lungs, is important.

He talks about the "Christian Church" as a body that encompasses both Orthodox and RC churches.
You don't see that you're merely spouting your own interpretation of those words and expecting me to believe them?

Well what other interpretation can there possibly be?
Maybe you should ask yourself that. Personally, I don't know how to interpret the words you keep quoting, and I'm not going to presume to know.

He says "the Christian Church", and then clarifies what this means in the parentheses, where he lists both Orthodox and Eastern. If you don't accept that this means he believes both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches to be part of a single Christian Church, then yes, I either doubt your intelligence or your honesty.
Doubt neither. People disagree with you. That doesn't make them stupid or dishonest. It just means that what you think is obvious really isn't.


I believe that actions speak louder than words. In your attempts to discredit Fr. John Morris's personal testimony of what he has seen first hand in favor of what you read in a news article, you are trying to turn that proverb on its head. You want us to believe that words speak louder than actions. They don't.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 01:30:38 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

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


« Reply #2339 on: March 24, 2014, 01:38:27 PM »

Well I can't think of any other way to interpret Patriarch Bartholomew's words other than that he believes both the Orthodox and Catholic churches to be part of one Christian Church. Perhaps I'm the obtuse one and there really is some other sensible way to understand these words. But it's telling that you, for one, can't think of what that other interpretation could be. Can anyone else help?
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 0.228 seconds with 73 queries.