OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 08:36:28 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 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 204533 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #990 on: August 12, 2009, 07:30:52 AM »

The monograph of Veselka Trajkovska says that I have not been proven wrong.
How does this "say" you have not been proven wrong?
Your own posts show that you have been proven wrong.

You claimed on this thread that:
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.
When you were asked to provide evidence for this claim that the Revised Julian is late one day every 14000 years and the Milankovic calendar is late one day every 48000 years, you provided none.
I said to you that this is incorrect because the Revised Julian uses the Milankovic caqlculation of Leap Years.
You now claim that:
Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
 project but changes the intercalation rule only
If Milankovic's intercalculation rule was adopted, how then can the Revised Julian and Milankovic Calendars differ in average length of year so that one is late by one day every 14000 years while the other one is late one day every 48000?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 07:31:46 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 #991 on: August 12, 2009, 08:25:47 AM »

If one reads Veselka Trajkovska's monograph  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf  one will see that the Revised Julian Calendar is a bit of a bastard Calendar, because the hierarchs who adopted it lacked the fortitude to adopt a truly accurate Calendar and accepted a compromise which enabled them to be in step with the Gregorian Calendar for the next almost 900 years - by which time it will be someone else's problem.

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

Milankovic: "I had the honor to take part in this congress as delegate of the government of the Serbs, Croatians and Slovenes and as a representative of astronomical science. Therefore I may be permitted to report on the important decisions of this congress in regard to the question of the calendar, and to explain them briefly."

Note one of his comments: "But **in order not to go too far and make a new divergence between the dates of the two Christian calendars in future time**, a leap-year rule proposed by me was accepted, which differs from the Gregorian but nevertheless agrees with it until the year 2800."

As orthodoxlurker said - straight from the horse's mouth

So the contribution of Milankovic was to make an adjustment to Trpkovic's Calendar.  Milankovic states that the purpose of his leap year adjustment was not driven by a desire for scientific accuracy but by the desire of the bishops at the Council to bring the Calendar into close synchronisation with the Roman Catholic Calendar.  Milankovic gave the bishops what they wanted and achieved this synchronisation of the Catholic and Orthodox religious calendars until the year 2800.   

See
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/orthodox-reform.html

« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 08:29:16 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 #992 on: August 12, 2009, 08:30:09 AM »

a leap-year rule proposed by me was accepted, which differs from the Gregorian but nevertheless agrees with it until the year 2800."
Yep. Thats what I've been telling you.
And now you hear it straight from the horses mouth.
And you still don't get it.
Or is something blinding you to the blatantly obvious?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 08:31:01 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #993 on: August 12, 2009, 08:43:18 AM »

^don't let that stop you though.
You're amusing me.
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 #994 on: August 12, 2009, 08:43:51 AM »

a leap-year rule proposed by me was accepted, which differs from the Gregorian but nevertheless agrees with it until the year 2800."
Yep. Thats what I've been telling you.
And now you hear it straight from the horses mouth.
And you still don't get it.
Or is something blinding you to the blatantly obvious?

Nobody has ever disputed that Milankovic created the leap year rule.  I have known that from way back.  Read my posts on another major Orthodox list in 2003.  That should be blantantly obvious.

The question is: does the modfication of the leap years in a calender devised by another man (Trpkovic) give Milankovic ownership of Trpkovic's calendar?   If George builds a car and Ambrose installs a different gearbox does that make the car Ambrose's creation?  laugh And of course, to approach the question in another way as you and Peter have:  How does that make the Revised Julian Calendar the "Milankovic calendar" when he simply made one contribution to Trpkovic's calendar which had been proposed to the Council by the Serbian Orthoodx Church?  

For all those who have asserted, somewhat erroneously but no doubt with good intentions, that the intention of the bishops was NOT to align the Catholic and Orthodox calendars please refer to what I have quoted from Milankovic in my previous post.  
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 #995 on: August 12, 2009, 08:45:38 AM »

The question is: does the modfication of the leap years in a calender devised by another man (Trpkovic) give Milankovic ownership of Trpkovic's calendar?  
No. The question is: where is your evidence for your claim that:
1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

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

Still waiting.......
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 08:46:24 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 #996 on: August 12, 2009, 08:49:03 AM »

^don't let that stop you though.
You're amusing me.

I do wish you could see things in an unblinkered light.  It sometimes seems that you are driven by a personal dislike for me and that is why there are so many instances in this thread of accusing me of misrepresentation and suggesting several times that I am a liar.   I am glad that you are amused by what I write but I am really not amused by your attacks on me personally.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #997 on: August 12, 2009, 08:53:02 AM »

The question is: does the modfication of the leap years in a calender devised by another man (Trpkovic) give Milankovic ownership of Trpkovic's calendar?  
No. The question is: where is your evidence for your claim that:
1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

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

Still waiting.......

That is not the central issue.   The central issue which the Moderator wants resolved is:  Is the Revised Julian Calendar the creation of Milutin Milankovic?    I prefer to get that resolved rather than be sidetracked into the 14,400 vs. 48,000 year issue which may provide you with an excess of amusement.
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 #998 on: August 12, 2009, 09:07:47 AM »

Empty drums make the most sound.

 George,

I must say that I'm very disappointed with the personal smear tactics I've seen you employ against Irish Hermit on this thread.  You've questioned his intelligence, which required a post modification from me.  Now you're comparing him to an "empty drum".  I know I've been rather persistent in pressuring Irish Hermit to back up the spurious claims he has made on this thread, and I know I've questioned the honesty, or lack thereof, of his interaction with the other participants in this discussion, but I have also taken great care to refrain from the generic personal attacks and insults you've launched against him.  I had hoped that you would follow my lead on this.

Seeing that you haven't, I think it necessary for the peace of this thread that you be sanctioned for the baseness of your personal attacks against Irish Hermit.  Therefore, you will be on Warned status for the next three weeks.  If you think this warning unfair, please feel free to appeal my decision to cleveland.

- PeterTheAleut
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #999 on: August 12, 2009, 11:36:35 AM »

The question is: does the modfication of the leap years in a calender devised by another man (Trpkovic) give Milankovic ownership of Trpkovic's calendar?  
No. The question is: where is your evidence for your claim that:
1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

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

Still waiting.......

That is not the central issue.   The central issue which the Moderator wants resolved is:  Is the Revised Julian Calendar the creation of Milutin Milankovic?
No, the central issue I want resolved is this:  Is the Revised Julian Calendar the same calendar the Calendar Reform Synod attributed to Milankovic, the calendar that bears Milankovic's name?  For the sake of this discussion, it matters not who should really get credit for that calendar.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1000 on: August 12, 2009, 11:46:00 AM »

The question is: does the modfication of the leap years in a calender devised by another man (Trpkovic) give Milankovic ownership of Trpkovic's calendar? 
No. The question is: where is your evidence for your claim that:
1.   The Revised Julian is late one day every 14,400 years

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

Still waiting.......

That is not the central issue.   The central issue which the Moderator wants resolved is:  Is the Revised Julian Calendar the creation of Milutin Milankovic?
No, the central issue I want resolved is this:  Is the Revised Julian Calendar the same calendar the Calendar Reform Synod attributed to Milankovic, the calendar that bears Milankovic's name?  For the sake of this discussion, it matters not who should really get credit for that calendar.

I have not seen evidence that the 1923 Council attributed the Calendar to Milankovic.  Indeed, as presented above in Milankovic's own words (and Trajkovska's paper says the same), Milankovic takes credit only for changing the leap year calculation of Trpkovic's calendar in order to achieve the bishops' desire to have the new calendar cleave as closely as possible to the Gregorian.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 11:49:48 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1001 on: August 12, 2009, 12:11:06 PM »

This is quite interesting in Trajkovska's monograph.  She is saying that Milankovic's change of Trpkovic's calendar over the leap year calculation actually degraded Trpkovic's calendar scientifically, making it less astronomically accurate and also out of touch with the Church requirements for the dating of the vernal equinox.

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

"Trpkovic wanted with his intercalation to put the vernal-equinox date
on March 21 (in accordance with the natural equinox and also following one of
the principal requirements of the Church), whereas Milankovic achieved an
accordance with the Gregorian Calendar over a longer period (at the cost of
allowing the vernal equinox to occur on March 20).

"As written by various authors (Zivkovic (1923, 1927, 1929), Vukicevic (1932),
Miskovic (1966), Jankovic (1985), Keckic (2001)) Trpkovic's solution was better
than Milankovic's [1 and references therein]. As a disadvantage of Milankovic's
solution many of them mention Milankovic's effort to be in accordance with the
Gregorian calendar as much as possible because this calendar is also incorrect
and, consequently, in both calendars the vernal equinox occurs more frequently
on March 20 thus being discordant with natural equinox and the Church
requirements concerning the date for Easter."
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #1002 on: August 12, 2009, 12:48:30 PM »

Here is what I am getting out of this thread:

1. Too much personal stuff.

2. Too much pride of ownership. It does not matter if the Revised Julian Calendar was completely or in part devised by Milankovic. He had certainly a very important part in it, but so what? It was the Synod who voted on this and accepted a new calendar that vastly improved upon the Julian one.

3. Evidence (not opinion) presented so far indicates that:

a. Revised Julian is not the same as the Gregorian, it is much more accurate even at the lower error rate of one day in 14,400 years.

b. However, the Revised Julian will coincide with the Gregorian until the year 2800. One source indicated that the Serbian proposal was partly inspired for reasons of state, that is, the celebration of holidays on the same day by the Kingdom's Orthodox and Catholic subjects. Thus:

b (1) There is some truth to the charge that there was an attempt to synchronize the Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, however

b (2) The reason was not to accede to the Roman Catholic Church but to engender better relations between Orthodox and Catholic subjects in an Orthodox Kingdom.

So, it turns out that everybody was both right and wrong. Congratulations on being human!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #1003 on: August 12, 2009, 03:31:34 PM »

.. It was the Synod who voted on this and accepted a new calendar that vastly improved upon the Julian one.
...

Actually, it didn't.

Milankovic tried to stick with Gregorian calandar as long as his proposal wouldn't lead to "scientific inaccuracy". That was his task (mandated by government). Hi introduced leap year rule that was refused by "pan-orthodox" synod.

The problem is what the "scientific inaccuracy" actually is.

Gregorian calendar presumes the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is basically geo-centric. That's why the debate if vernal equinox is on 20th or on 21st of March.

But we know the galaxy is actually helio-centric, while we still can comprehend the time in space outside our galaxy (at least I can't).

The vernal equinox isn't on specific date - it is on day when day and night on Earth are of exactly the same duration. Scientifically it happens when forces and conditions (still not comprehended by science) meet. Religiously, it happens according to God's arrangement, not according to human measurement of time.

The point is - the space is widening. See http://www.google.com/search?q=astronomy+space+widening&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Therefore, the time is changing. After all, the time is a relative value, not the absolute.

If one wants to determine what time is now exactly on the place on the Earth he occupies, he would use Gregorian Calendar. But if one wants to determine from, say, a space station, or from a Moon, what time is now exactly on a certain place on Earth, he would use Sidereal time ( link ).

Julian Calendar is closest to the Sidereal Calendar.

Closer than Gregorian, closer than Revised Julian, closer than Milankovic's calendar (since the later two tried to cope with the Gregorian).

Once one would to determine how much time passed between Christ's first and second arrival, it is Julian Calendar (the Church Calendar) that would have to be used. Gregorian, RJ and Milankovic's wouldn't be of use.

Therefore, Church Calendar (the Julian one) is scientifically and astronomically the superior to all the other ones, except for Mayan calendar (link).
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #1004 on: August 12, 2009, 11:07:40 PM »

.. It was the Synod who voted on this and accepted a new calendar that vastly improved upon the Julian one.
...

Actually, it didn't.

Milankovic tried to stick with Gregorian calandar as long as his proposal wouldn't lead to "scientific inaccuracy". That was his task (mandated by government). Hi introduced leap year rule that was refused by "pan-orthodox" synod.

The problem is what the "scientific inaccuracy" actually is.

Gregorian calendar presumes the Sun revolves around the Earth. It is basically geo-centric. That's why the debate if vernal equinox is on 20th or on 21st of March.

But we know the galaxy is actually helio-centric, while we still can comprehend the time in space outside our galaxy (at least I can't).

The vernal equinox isn't on specific date - it is on day when day and night on Earth are of exactly the same duration. Scientifically it happens when forces and conditions (still not comprehended by science) meet. Religiously, it happens according to God's arrangement, not according to human measurement of time.

The point is - the space is widening. See http://www.google.com/search?q=astronomy+space+widening&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Therefore, the time is changing. After all, the time is a relative value, not the absolute.

If one wants to determine what time is now exactly on the place on the Earth he occupies, he would use Gregorian Calendar. But if one wants to determine from, say, a space station, or from a Moon, what time is now exactly on a certain place on Earth, he would use Sidereal time ( link ).

Julian Calendar is closest to the Sidereal Calendar.

Closer than Gregorian, closer than Revised Julian, closer than Milankovic's calendar (since the later two tried to cope with the Gregorian).

Once one would to determine how much time passed between Christ's first and second arrival, it is Julian Calendar (the Church Calendar) that would have to be used. Gregorian, RJ and Milankovic's wouldn't be of use.

Therefore, Church Calendar (the Julian one) is scientifically and astronomically the superior to all the other ones, except for Mayan calendar (link).

This is apples to oranges.

Sidereal time is used by astronomers "as a way to keep track of the direction in which their telescopes need to be pointed to view any given star in the night sky..." Also, "a sidereal day is approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds, corresponding to the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation relative to the stars...Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by." (Wiki)

By your own admission, the March Equinox has nothing to do with the Earth's relationship to the stars but to the Sun. This is the first apple to orange: why even consider sidereal time?

The second disconnect is in the error factor. The above information from Wikipedia indicates that sidereal time's drift is one day per year, which is considerably less than any other calendar, including the next worse calendar that I am aware of and is germane to this discussion--the Julian.

I agree with you that "The vernal equinox...is on day when day and night on Earth are of exactly the same duration...Religiously, it happens according to God's arrangement, not according to human measurement of time." That is exactly what I have been arguing. The problem is not when this God ordained phenomenon occurs--it is on God's time. The problem is which calendar is closest to it when this occurs. We can measure and observe the one day in March that the Vernal Equinox occurs. The scientific and indisputable fact is that the Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars are within plus-or-minus one day, while the Julian calendar is off by 13 days.

The the third apple to orange in your argument is the red herring that since no calendar is 100% exact, we should go with the Julian because it is the closest to the sidereal time. This is so, but "close" in this instance is utterly meaningless unless you are trying to say that the measure for choosing a calendar is how close it is to the worse one. I will repeat the error rates:

Sidereal time: One day in one year (Source: Wiki)

Julian: One day in 128 years (Source: Wiki)

Gregorian: One day in 3300-6600 years (Source: Wiki)

Revised Julian: One day in 14,400-48,000 years (Source: Father Ambrose)

In conclusion, I find your argument an unproductive forced attempt to prove an unprovable point. Like trying to force square pegs into round holes.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 11:24:02 PM by Second Chance » 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: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1005 on: August 13, 2009, 12:11:03 AM »

This is quite interesting in Trajkovska's monograph.  She is saying that Milankovic's change of Trpkovic's calendar over the leap year calculation actually degraded Trpkovic's calendar scientifically, making it less astronomically accurate and also out of touch with the Church requirements for the dating of the vernal equinox.

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

...

Yes, I read that conclusion from the abstract.  However, this does not negate the fact that the calendar approved for use in the Church as the Revised Julian Calendar IS the calendar credited to Milutin Milankovic.  One may legitimately argue that Milankovic deserves only some credit for producing this calendar, that Trpkovic deserves the lion's share for composing the calendar's actual foundation, but this is irrelevant to our discussion.  What is pertinent is that, according to the Trajkovska Abstract, the calendar ultimately submitted to the Calendar Reform Synod of 1923 as the Milankovic Calendar IS the calendar the Synod approved for Church use as the Revised Julian Calendar.  Thus I find that the abstract you submitted as evidence to support the claim you introduced in Reply #920 and repeated in Replies #922, 930, 932, and 945 actually refutes your claim.  The only other conclusion I can draw is that you really had no intent of using the abstract to prove your claim and sought instead to lead us into debating a red herring that has no bearing on the assertion I formally asked you to prove.

Now, if you want to argue that the Revised Julian Calendar is something less than the most accurate calendar submitted to the Calendar Reform Synod, I'll accept the Trajkovska Abstract you've provided as authoritative evidence of THAT claim.  Even then, I read in the Abstract statements to suggest that the Milankovic "bastardization" of the Trpkovic Calendar was still much more accurate than both its Gregorian and Julian predecessors.  About the only thing you can safely argue, then, is that the Calendar Reform Synod approved a calendar that is a marked improvement over the Gregorian and Julian calendars already in use in the Christian world but ultimately failed by not approving Trpkovic's calendar WITHOUT Milankovic's intercalations.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 12:17:30 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #1006 on: August 13, 2009, 01:21:33 AM »

The problem is which calendar is closest to it when this occurs.

This is essentialy geo-centric.

Quote

...I will repeat the error rates:
Like trying to force square pegs into round holes.

The "errors" relate to an essentialy geo-centri phenomenon.

As I said, and you agree, Julian calendar measure time in absolute values, the time that is the same on Earth, on Moon, and in the Galaxy outside the orbit of the Earth.

Gregorian/RJ/Milankovic's measure the time on Earth.

I don't think there is nothing further for me to debate, particularly having in mind the moderation.
 For repeated violations of posting behavior, with the latest incident being your signature, you are muted.

FrChris
Admin
 
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1007 on: August 13, 2009, 08:02:32 AM »

This is apples to oranges.

Sidereal time is used by astronomers "as a way to keep track of the direction in which their telescopes need to be pointed to view any given star in the night sky..." Also, "a sidereal day is approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds, corresponding to the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation relative to the stars...Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by." (Wiki)

By your own admission, the March Equinox has nothing to do with the Earth's relationship to the stars but to the Sun. This is the first apple to orange: why even consider sidereal time?

The second disconnect is in the error factor. The above information from Wikipedia indicates that sidereal time's drift is one day per year, which is considerably less than any other calendar, including the next worse calendar that I am aware of and is germane to this discussion--the Julian.

I agree with you that "The vernal equinox...is on day when day and night on Earth are of exactly the same duration...Religiously, it happens according to God's arrangement, not according to human measurement of time." That is exactly what I have been arguing. The problem is not when this God ordained phenomenon occurs--it is on God's time. The problem is which calendar is closest to it when this occurs. We can measure and observe the one day in March that the Vernal Equinox occurs. The scientific and indisputable fact is that the Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars are within plus-or-minus one day, while the Julian calendar is off by 13 days.

The the third apple to orange in your argument is the red herring that since no calendar is 100% exact, we should go with the Julian because it is the closest to the sidereal time. This is so, but "close" in this instance is utterly meaningless unless you are trying to say that the measure for choosing a calendar is how close it is to the worse one. I will repeat the error rates:

Sidereal time: One day in one year (Source: Wiki)

Julian: One day in 128 years (Source: Wiki)

Gregorian: One day in 3300-6600 years (Source: Wiki)

Revised Julian: One day in 14,400-48,000 years (Source: Father Ambrose)

In conclusion, I find your argument an unproductive forced attempt to prove an unprovable point. Like trying to force square pegs into round holes.

I think you commit a logical fallacy here; the Sidereal calendar does not have a "1 day per year" error rate - it is an entirely different calendar which has very little if no error rate. It is a 366 day calendar, with each day being slightly shorter than the solar day, but it accounts for 1 full revolution around the sun and, thus, accurately accounts for the passage of 1 year.  When used within its own system and parameters, it accurately tells time and season anywhere in the world - regardless of exact position, altitude, or gravitational state (e.g. high Earth orbit).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #1008 on: August 13, 2009, 06:11:59 PM »

This is apples to oranges.

Sidereal time is used by astronomers "as a way to keep track of the direction in which their telescopes need to be pointed to view any given star in the night sky..." Also, "a sidereal day is approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds, corresponding to the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation relative to the stars...Because the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any one place at midnight will be about four minutes later each night, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by." (Wiki)

By your own admission, the March Equinox has nothing to do with the Earth's relationship to the stars but to the Sun. This is the first apple to orange: why even consider sidereal time?

The second disconnect is in the error factor. The above information from Wikipedia indicates that sidereal time's drift is one day per year, which is considerably less than any other calendar, including the next worse calendar that I am aware of and is germane to this discussion--the Julian.

I agree with you that "The vernal equinox...is on day when day and night on Earth are of exactly the same duration...Religiously, it happens according to God's arrangement, not according to human measurement of time." That is exactly what I have been arguing. The problem is not when this God ordained phenomenon occurs--it is on God's time. The problem is which calendar is closest to it when this occurs. We can measure and observe the one day in March that the Vernal Equinox occurs. The scientific and indisputable fact is that the Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars are within plus-or-minus one day, while the Julian calendar is off by 13 days.

The the third apple to orange in your argument is the red herring that since no calendar is 100% exact, we should go with the Julian because it is the closest to the sidereal time. This is so, but "close" in this instance is utterly meaningless unless you are trying to say that the measure for choosing a calendar is how close it is to the worse one. I will repeat the error rates:

Sidereal time: One day in one year (Source: Wiki)

Julian: One day in 128 years (Source: Wiki)

Gregorian: One day in 3300-6600 years (Source: Wiki)

Revised Julian: One day in 14,400-48,000 years (Source: Father Ambrose)

In conclusion, I find your argument an unproductive forced attempt to prove an unprovable point. Like trying to force square pegs into round holes.

I think you commit a logical fallacy here; the Sidereal calendar does not have a "1 day per year" error rate - it is an entirely different calendar which has very little if no error rate. It is a 366 day calendar, with each day being slightly shorter than the solar day, but it accounts for 1 full revolution around the sun and, thus, accurately accounts for the passage of 1 year.  When used within its own system and parameters, it accurately tells time and season anywhere in the world - regardless of exact position, altitude, or gravitational state (e.g. high Earth orbit).

Thanks for pointing out another definition of sidereal time. The definition that I used, that from Wikipedia, is far different. In any case, I would have committed a logical fallacy had I known and used the competing (your) definition. However, the Wiki definition clearly states that "after a year has passed, one additional sidereal day has transpired compared to the number of solar days that have gone by."

In the context of Old vs. New Calendar debate, I would think that the Sidereal Calendar is inapplicable because the basic criterion is for calculations to be based on solar days, since the cornerstone of any ecclesiastical approach  in this matter is the Vernal Equinox as the reference point for determining Pascha and the Church's determination of March 21st as the definitive date for the Vernal Equinox. Wiki says this about solar tropical calendars: "If the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun is reckoned with respect to the equinox, the point at which the orbit crosses the celestial equator, then its dates accurately indicate the seasons, that is, they are synchronized with the declination of the sun. Such a calendar is called a tropical solar calendar. The duration of the mean calendar year of such a calendar approximates some form of the tropical year, usually either the mean tropical year or the vernal equinox year...Every one of these calendars has a year of 365 days, which is occasionally extended by adding an extra day to form a leap year, a method called "intercalation", the inserted day being "intercalary"."

In contrast, Wiki says this about the sidereal time: "If the position of the earth (see above) is reckoned with respect to the fixed stars, then the dates indicate the zodiacal constellation near which the sun can be found. Such a calendar is called a sidereal solar calendar. The mean calendar year of such a calendar approximates the sidereal year. The Hindu calendar and Bengali calendar are sidereal solar calendars. They are usually 365 days long, but now and then take an extra day to make a leap year."

Conclusion: Sidereal Calendar is irrelevant to our discussion.
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: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1009 on: August 15, 2009, 12:29:21 AM »

Peter the Aleut, I see that this rests on the question of whether the so-called Revised Julian Calendar is not the same as the Gregorian. We believe that it essentially is the same; the differences are negligible,
Differences negligible...  Isn't that a judgment call?  What of those who believe the differences are enough to make the Revised Julian and the Gregorian Calendars two different calendars?  Are they wrong?  Or do they merely disagree with you?  Is there any absolute, objective standard by which we can resolve debate of this particular point?  Or are we going to have to just agree that we disagree?

and the practical effect of the revised calendar is that half of the Orthodox are celebrating most major feasts with the Western heterodox, not their Orthodox brothers.
Couldn't it also be said that half of the Orthodox are not celebrating with NC'ers because our celebrations of these major feasts happen to coincide with the celebrations of the Western heterodox?

Also, the 1920 encyclical of the EP, and the various items on the agenda of the 1923 council where the calendar was changed, show that the calendar change was very much part of a much larger program of uniting the Eastern and Western churches with disregard for the doctrinal differences that remain between them.
Can you prove this to us by referring us to documents produced by this council?

It is equally clear the calendar was not changed out of some neutral desire for 'accuracy', which had never been a concern of the Church to begin with.
Can you prove this?

Regarding the idea that scientific accuracy has never been a concern of the Church, I think you're just following the party line I hear from so many traditionalists.  I have seen in what I've read of the proceedings of the first Council of Nicea evidence to suggest that, at least in that council, the bishops of the Church DID consider astronomical accuracy at least equal in importance to uniformity of practice when the issue of when to celebrate Pascha came up for their decision.  I honestly think many of us are guilty of projecting our own presuppositions and biases onto the Holy Fathers and insisting that they thought as we do.

To be quite honest, I think that those who argue the new calendar is not the one condemned by the Church are being quite shamelessly legalistic and pharisaical in their reasoning.
How is this not a judgment call by those who seek to minimize real differences and marginalize their opponents?

I assert that the differences between the Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars are sufficient to make them different calendars.  I see that the Sigillion of 1583 and other condemnations of the Papal calendar, therefore, do not apply to the Revised Julian Calendar.  Therefore, I see no reason to condemn the New Calendar and those who use it.

You overlook the differences between the Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars and say that the two are the same--essentially as much a judgment call as my position.  You say that the Sigillion of 1583 and other conciliar condemnations of the Papal calendar therefore do apply to the Revised Julian Calendar.  Therefore, you judge those who use the New Calendar as already condemned by the Sigillion and thus outside the Church.

The Pharisees were not known merely for quibbling over fine points of law; they were known also for using their nitpicking interpretations of the law to condemn others.  I refuse to condemn others based on what calendar they use, because I don't deem myself qualified to judge my opponents in this dispute.  I recognize my judgments for what they are:  my own perceptions.  You condemn those who approve and use the New Calendar as outside the Church.  Who's really showing the Pharisaical practice of using nitpicking interpretations of the law as cause to condemn others?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 12:59:50 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #1010 on: August 15, 2009, 08:51:26 AM »

http://www.plasticsusa.com/ortho/enc1920.htm

Note the following:

For if the different churches are inspired by love and place it before everything else in their judgments of others and their relationships with them, instead of increasing and widening the existing dissensions, they should be enabled to reduce and diminish them. By stirring up a right brotherly interest in the condition, the well-being and stability of the other churches; by readiness to take an interest in what is happening in those churches and to obtain a better knowledge of them,and by willingness to offer mutual aid and help, many good things will be achieved for the glory and the benefit both of themselves and of the Christian body. In our opinion, such a friendship and kindly disposition towards each other can be shown and demonstrated particularly in the following ways:



By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.

By the exchange of brotherly letters on the occasion of the great feasts of the churches' year as is customary, and on other exceptional occasions.

By close relationships between the representatives of all churches wherever they may be.

By relationships between the theological schools and the professors of theology; by the exchange of theological and ecclesiastical reviews, and of other works published in each church.

By exchanging students for further training between the seminaries of the different churches.

By convoking pan-Christian conferences in order to examine questions of common interest to all the churches.

By impartial and deeper historical study of doctrinal differences both by the seminaries and in books.

By mutual respect for the customs and practices in different churches.

By allowing each other the use of chapels and cemeteries for the funerals and burials of believers of other confessions dying in foreign lands.

By the settlement of the question of mixed marriages between the confessions.

Lastly, by wholehearted mutual assistance for the churches in their endeavors for religious advancement, charity and so on.


Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #1011 on: August 15, 2009, 08:59:38 AM »

If for argument's sake we say the new calendar is substantially different from the western Gregorian calendar, then there is still the problem of the un-Orthodox way it was implemented. Only a small minority of local churches adopted the new calendar, showing that the 1923 council did not have pan-Orthodox authority, despite claims to the contrary. And only a true pan-Orthodox council has the authority to change the calendar, since a unified calendar expresses the common worship and unity of the Church.

This being said, I still don't believe for a moment the new calendar is anything but the imposition of a western heterodox calendar on the Orthodox faithful. You can persuade yourself of this if you want, but I won't be.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1012 on: August 15, 2009, 09:07:46 AM »

http://www.plasticsusa.com/ortho/enc1920.htm

Note the following:

For if the different churches are inspired by love and place it before everything else in their judgments of others and their relationships with them, instead of increasing and widening the existing dissensions, they should be enabled to reduce and diminish them. By stirring up a right brotherly interest in the condition, the well-being and stability of the other churches; by readiness to take an interest in what is happening in those churches and to obtain a better knowledge of them,and by willingness to offer mutual aid and help, many good things will be achieved for the glory and the benefit both of themselves and of the Christian body. In our opinion, such a friendship and kindly disposition towards each other can be shown and demonstrated particularly in the following ways:


Let us look at the circumstances of this letter before we judge the Patriarch too harshly.

It comes only a few months after the ending of the First World War.   15 million people were dead.  Europe was still bleeding. Many of its cities were rubble.  Hatred consumed the entire European continent.

Against this backdrop we should consider the letter of the Patriarch begging the Churches of Europe to unite as agents of peace and unity on a continent which was mortally wounded.  It was one of the efforts to ensure that the horror of WWI would never happen again.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #1013 on: August 15, 2009, 09:14:14 AM »

IH, I understand the political circumstances. However, this goes beyond appeals for material assistance and has become compromises over the faith. This is not acceptable. Christ expects us not to deny Him even in the worst circumstances. The fact that Christians have denied Him under duress does not make it all right; does the Church not venerate her martyrs and confessors? Does she rather venerate the compromisers and deniers of Christ? Of course not. I'm not judging the patriarch as a man. I, we, are judging his public declarations, which represent his faith. These are unacceptable.

In any case, we did not break with him even over this, but only when the EP followed up with the calendar change.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 09:21:46 AM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1014 on: August 15, 2009, 11:43:29 AM »

If for argument's sake we say the new calendar is substantially different from the western Gregorian calendar, then there is still the problem of the un-Orthodox way it was implemented. Only a small minority of local churches adopted the new calendar, showing that the 1923 council did not have pan-Orthodox authority, despite claims to the contrary. And only a true pan-Orthodox council has the authority to change the calendar, since a unified calendar expresses the common worship and unity of the Church.

This being said, I still don't believe for a moment the new calendar is anything but the imposition of a western heterodox calendar on the Orthodox faithful. You can persuade yourself of this if you want, but I won't be.
Yes, you can believe that the New Calendar is nothing more than the Western heterodox calendar if you like, but when those who use the NC recognize that they use a different calendar, how is your judgment nothing more than your opinion?  Is personal opinion really the proper basis for anathema?  You see, the danger in condemning NC'ers as heretics based on your personal judgment of what the NC is is that, should the NC'ers be vindicated by the Church or even at the Last Judgment, YOU will be the one judged as having put YOURSELF outside the Church.  Make that stand if you want, but I fear going that far.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 11:47:21 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #1015 on: August 15, 2009, 05:32:25 PM »

PtA you assume that we are the ones who will ultimately be condemned by the Church. How do you know it's not you who will be condemned for destroying the unity of the Church?

Reading Fr Basil's book, he makes no mention of the argument that the new calendar is not essentially the same as the western calendar, even though he generally deals with just about every argument the new calendarists put forward back in 1970. This seems to be a very recent ploy on the part of new calendarists. Certainly the 1920 encyclical envisions calendar change only as part of the unification process, not as part of astronomical correctness.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1016 on: August 15, 2009, 06:29:17 PM »

PtA you assume that we are the ones who will ultimately be condemned by the Church. How do you know it's not you who will be condemned for destroying the unity of the Church?
I'm not assuming you are the ones who will ultimately lose this debate and find yourselves condemned.  Read my post again and note the big implied "IF".  "Should"--that is to say, 'IF'--"the NC'ers be vindicated by the Church or even at the Last Judgment..."  I'm just posing the hypothetical situation that MAYBE you'll be proven wrong (MAYBE you won't), in which case it will be you who destroyed the unity of the Church by wrongly condemning bishops and whole Orthodox jurisdictions as heretics and cutting yourself off from her.  Are you willing and qualified to push your judgments of others that far in a game where nothing is as clear and simplistic as you think it is?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1017 on: August 15, 2009, 06:34:28 PM »

I also notice that you have thus far focused your attention solely on the introduction of the New Calendar into the Church by Endomousa Synod in 1923.  I'm sure many other jurisdictions, such as the OCA, didn't follow suit merely because they felt some need to submit to the EP's authority on this.  I would have to surmise that they had other motivations for embracing the New Calendar.  Why don't you address those, as well, rather than continue your mantra that ALL NC'ers adopted the New Calendar for the same ecumenist reasons?
Logged
MariaP
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Konstantibnoble
Posts: 2


« Reply #1018 on: August 27, 2009, 01:14:37 PM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

How do you consider us Finns, who are following the Gregorian Calendar?
I have heard that some monastic practises in e.g. Russian and Greek monastic
traditions shun us Finns because we are following the modern calendar
practise. Is this an abomination or is this practice of ours in any way redeemable?
Or should we change our practice to the Julian Practice?

Logged
coptickev
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 51



« Reply #1019 on: August 27, 2009, 01:42:58 PM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

How do you consider us Finns, who are following the Gregorian Calendar?
I have heard that some monastic practises in e.g. Russian and Greek monastic
traditions shun us Finns because we are following the modern calendar
practise. Is this an abomination or is this practice of ours in any way redeemable?
Or should we change our practice to the Julian Practice?



I lack the patience to read all twenty-three pages of this thread, so please forgive me if I'm repeating what has been said before.
The Coptic Church follows the ancient Egyptian calendar, from which Julius Caesar's astronomers derived the Julian Calendar. hence, our feastdays tend to (but don't always) coincide with the Old Calendar days. However the months and days are named differently, for example today is the 21st day of the month of Mesra.

This is not a source of conflict, because the "official" calendar in Egypt is completely different, and all Christians celebrate Christian feasts on the same days. However, if you live in a country like Finland (or even the USA) it would have to be quite confusing to be
constantly living 13 days in the past, and fasting when the other Christians are feasting.

I think the Syriac Orthodox have a very sensible approach. At home in the Middle East they use the Old Calendar. In the Diaspora they use the new. "When in Rome" and all that.

In any case Maria, I wouldn't worry a lot about what the Russians (or anybody else) for that matter thinks. Pray with your Church, and be obedient to your Father of Confession, and be at peace.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1020 on: August 27, 2009, 02:20:19 PM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
How do you consider us Finns, who are following the Gregorian Calendar?
I have heard that some monastic practises in e.g. Russian and Greek monastic
traditions shun us Finns because we are following the modern calendar
practise. Is this an abomination or is this practice of ours in any way redeemable?
Or should we change our practice to the Julian Practice?

Welcome to the forum!

I personally see it strange. Not bad, but strange, as I see many things among the Orthodox worldwide. I would like to know how did it start. You don;t have to switch to Julian calendar, revised-Julian is good enough.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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 #1021 on: August 27, 2009, 10:40:30 PM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

How do you consider us Finns, who are following the Gregorian Calendar?
I have heard that some monastic practises in e.g. Russian and Greek monastic
traditions shun us Finns because we are following the modern calendar
practise. Is this an abomination or is this practice of ours in any way redeemable?
Or should we change our practice to the Julian Practice?

Welcome to the forum!
My Church follows the Revised Julian (an "abomination" to some Old Calendarists), but I think I've explained on this thread some of the misconceptions around the Revised Julian. What the Finnish Church follows though is indeed the Gregorian (since it calculates the date of Pascha according to the Gregorian Paschalion). Even so, I wouldn't call it an "abomination". What I am interested in though is the reason for the Finnish Orthodox Church adopting the Gregorian Paschal calculation. As I understand it, the Finnish Orthodox Church adopted the Gregorian date of Easter for legal reasons, (i.e., to give it equal legal status as a National Church along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland). Is this correct?

George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 199


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #1022 on: September 03, 2009, 05:34:23 AM »

Good health to everyone!

For all those who believe they use the Old Calendar please consider the reference work quoted below. Speaking of Peter I (considered by many to be “the not so great”) we have this explaining how the Old Calendar was actually changed by him several centuries ago.

------------------

Russia on the eve of modernity, p.71

The Sredniki (Wednesdayers) illustrate the disorientation evoked by Peter’s calendar reforms. The Old Belief as a whole thought that Peter had “stolen eight years from God” when he subtracted 5508, and not 5500, from the year since the creation to derive the Anno Domini. Numbering was connected with several grave issues, including the Easter cycle, and, more important, predictions of the end of the world. If Peter were the Antichrist and could obscure the real date, he could delude the faithful and lower their guard. The Sredniki took this suspicion even further, and concluded that Peter (or, in another variant, Nikon) had shifted the days of the week, and that which the majority considered to be Wednesday was in fact Sunday. Therefore everyone’s cycle of fasts, holidays, and above all Sunday services was hopelessly and fatally off.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZhwyG9_appMC&dq=Russia+on+the+eve+of+modernity:+popular+religion+and+traditional+culture&printsec=frontcover#

------------------

Didn’t the Holy Prophet Daniel condemn the changing of signs and seasons (7:25)?

Maybe it is convenient to just sweep all this under the carpet and pretend it is not there?

Due to many things like this it would appear that the changing of the calendar in the Orthodoxy Church goes back further than a lot of us might have previously heard. There is a devilish saying that says time heals all wounds and that some things are best forgotten. But the reference is still there. So it can be said that many who pridefully claim they are on the Old Calendar are actually New Calendar after all.

One wonders what really happened and what to believe?

As for me, I long for real Old Orthodoxy Christianity and see no hope without it.

It is encouraging to learn that there was an outcry so long ago when things began going downhill so much and so quickly. I see no good reason to change the calendar.

Forgive, brother John





« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 05:37:05 AM by Hopeful Faithful » Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1023 on: September 03, 2009, 05:50:08 AM »

You forgot to mention that he was an ecumenist, Jew, freemason, homosexual and wore shoelaces.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #1024 on: September 03, 2009, 09:09:05 AM »

You forgot to mention that he was an ecumenist, Jew, freemason, homosexual and wore shoelaces.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.  laugh

So why not just jump directly to the excommunications?

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
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: 37,473



« Reply #1025 on: September 03, 2009, 09:20:07 AM »

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

How do you consider us Finns, who are following the Gregorian Calendar?
I have heard that some monastic practises in e.g. Russian and Greek monastic
traditions shun us Finns because we are following the modern calendar
practise. Is this an abomination or is this practice of ours in any way redeemable?
Or should we change our practice to the Julian Practice?



If it were not for the canonical questions surrounding Finland being detached from the Church of Russia, I would say that the Russian Church getting itself involved in Finland over the calendar
picture: http://www.cerkiew.pl/index.php?id=56&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=11568&tx_ttnews[backPid]=40&tx_ttnews[nphoto]=1&cHash=35221cc3c3
Quote
On 1 September 2009 Archbishop Hilarion of Volokalamsk, the Chairman of the External Relations Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, met Archbishop Leo, head of the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church.

Various topics were discussed, above all the problem for Russians who have emigrated to Finland. Given that Russian Orthodox naturally refuse to attend services on the Roman Catholic (so-called ‘Neo-Julian’) calendar, as used by Finnish parishes, which also use the anathematised papal paschalia to date Easter, the spiritual needs of Russian Orthodox in Finland are not being met. It is this pastoral problem which concerns the Russian Orthodox Church both inside and outside Russia.

Archbishop Hilarion suggested that Finnish seminarians could be sent to Russia in order to be trained in normal Orthodox practice. They would then be able to cater for the spiritual needs of Russian Orthodox in Finland.

source
is a canonical infraction.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1026 on: September 03, 2009, 02:13:11 PM »

Good health to everyone!

For all those who believe they use the Old Calendar please consider the reference work quoted below. Speaking of Peter I (considered by many to be “the not so great”) we have this explaining how the Old Calendar was actually changed by him several centuries ago.

------------------

Actually, if you continue to read the whole paragraph--you conveniently left out the second half of it--you see that it wasn't devoted at all to anything Tsar Peter actually did but to what the Sredniki suspected Tsar Peter of doing.  You're voicing a suspicion that has never been proven.


This might seem to be an example of comical obscurantism.  However, it offers graphic illustration of two points:  the degree of mistrust of Peter and also evil power attributed to him, so extreme that he was deemed capable of something so far-reaching and nefarious as moving the days around, and, equally important, the extent to which everything had been turned upside down by his reforms, so much so that people felt unsure about something so basic as the days of the week.  In addition, the confusion among the twentieth-century Sredniki as to whether Peter or NIkon was responsible for the problem shows that in the folk perception both men had become prototypes of evil change.

Heretz, Leonid. Russia on the Eve of Modernity: Popular Religion and Traditional Culture under the Last Tsars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008
<< http://books.google.com/books?id=ZhwyG9_appMC&dq=Russia+on+the+eve+of+modernity:+popular+religion+and+traditional+culture&printsec=frontcover# >>
Logged
Hopeful Faithful
How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: In transition to the Russian old Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Strong Russian Old Pomorsky (Stranniki)
Posts: 199


An Old Faith Flag


WWW
« Reply #1027 on: September 04, 2009, 03:02:53 PM »

You forgot to mention that he was an ecumenist, Jew, freemason, homosexual and wore shoelaces.

Good health to you Mike.

An ecumenist who unites with a contrary faith is in error. Most Jews have rejected Christ. Homosexuality is an abomination. There are proper ways to tie sandles, some people just have learned how to yet. It is against the sacred canons to allow animals into worship. It is also good to be of a serious mind, there is not much time left to wise up.

Forgive, brother John
Logged

HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1028 on: September 04, 2009, 03:10:27 PM »

Explain me a few things:
- How using knots can be sinful as Jesus did it and He has never sinned?
- How could Peter the Great change the days of week as Russia has the same week as rest of the world? Was he so powerful to change the days of week on the whole world?
- Do Old believers consider Wednesday Sunday?
- What predictions about the end of the world you mean? Why do we have to care about them? Jesus clearly said that noone will know when will the end of the world take place?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 03:11:19 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1029 on: September 04, 2009, 04:16:23 PM »

There are proper ways to tie sandles,
There are also proper ways to spell "sandals." Bad grammar is an abomination.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
MariaP
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Konstantibnoble
Posts: 2


« Reply #1030 on: September 28, 2009, 10:21:55 AM »


 As I understand it, the Finnish Orthodox Church adopted the Gregorian date of Easter for legal reasons, (i.e., to give it equal legal status as a National Church along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland). Is this correct?

George
Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I'm sorry that I haven't responded to your informed comments. But to ozgeorge I'd like to say that he is probably right. The history of the Finnish Orthodox Church is very complicated and especially this applies to our relationship to the Lutheran Church of Finland.


« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 10:23:34 AM by MariaP » Logged
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #1031 on: December 02, 2009, 07:11:53 AM »

To the Protestant who believes the OC/NC debate is a frivolous thing that Orthodox Christian debate about, well that is kind of true. But as I understand it, the rejection of the New Calendar by OCists is similar to the recent rejection of Christmas and Easter by hardcore Protestants. The only reason for rejection of either either is because they are asscociated with the Roman church, and we all know that the RCC can't do any good right? Roll Eyes (big sarcasm)
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1032 on: December 02, 2009, 07:30:44 AM »

To the Protestant who believes the OC/NC debate is a frivolous thing that Orthodox Christian debate about, well that is kind of true. But as I understand it, the rejection of the New Calendar by OCists is similar to the recent rejection of Christmas and Easter by hardcore Protestants. The only reason for rejection of either either is because they are asscociated with the Roman church, and we all know that the RCC can't do any good right? Roll Eyes (big sarcasm)
Huh No, that's not it at all. The Roman Catholic Church uses the Gregorian calendar, which no Orthodox church but the Church of Finland uses (and they're a special case, but that's another topic). All Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar: some follow the revised version, and some disagree with the revisions. I could go more into detail, but this is a twenty-three-page topic. Read through this thread, and you should understand the Old Calendarists' objections.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,072


« Reply #1033 on: December 02, 2009, 01:15:11 PM »

Right. It's not about the Catholics or Protestants at all; this is a division within Orthodoxy. And to compare our rejection of the innovative calendar with the rejection of traditional Christian holidays by extreme Protestants is ludicrous: we are fighting to preserve tradition, they are fighting to destroy it!

What I have said below I have said in other forms earlier, but for the sake of sprtslvr and other inquirers I am repeating myself so they don't have to read through a zillion posts to find out what exactly the Old Calendarist objections are. I am also providing links to documents that explain our position in greater depth and breadth.

It's only about the Catholics and Protestants to the extent we Old Calendarists believe the calendar change to be motivated by ecumenism, i.e. the teaching that Catholics and Protestants are still somehow part of the Church, the Body of Christ, despite the fact that Catholics and Protestants have different doctrines and practices from us. The teaching that the heterodox are still part of the Church entails that our doctrinal differences are not significant, meaning that our Orthodox teachings and practices that differ from the West are not necessary for salvation and are up for discussion. The ecumenist teaching, or heresy as we traditionalists view it, is most clearly seen in the teaching that heterodox Baptism is 'valid' (see end of this post).

Note that I am not making a clear distinction between doctrine and practice. The reason is that there is no clear distinction in Orthodoxy: we profess our faith not only in word, but in deed. The festal calendar reflects our unity of mind as Orthodox; calendar divisions reflect our loss of unity. When we celebrate the Great Feasts together with the Western heterodox, and not with our Orthodox brothers who celebrate on the traditional calendar, we express our unity of mind with the heterodox, while we express our lack of unity with our fellow Orthodox (not to mention the saints and angels in heaven). This is an important point, because a typical argument from some new calendarists goes as follows: 'well, even conceding that the calendar innovation brought disunity to the Church, the innovation has no dogmatic significance'. Yet any kind of disunity very much has dogmatic significance, because it violates our belief in 'one holy, catholic and apostolic Church'. This is the position of the Greek Old Calendar Church as shown in our confession of faith of 1935.

The idea behind the ecumenist push for the calendar change is that by changing our festal calendar to conform to that of the Western Christians, we will help to heal the divisions. In other words, since our divisions are not in fact significant for salvation, as we are still part of the Body of Christ together, we should reflect that by unifying our practices. Traditionalists like myself, on the other hand, believe that the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ all by itself, and we don't need to make any concessions, and in fact any concessions would be a betrayal of the faith.

The Dogmatic Significance of the Festal Calendar

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/THE_CALENDAR_QUESTION.pdf

Fr Basil Sakkas explains the problem from the traditionalist perspective better than I ever could. The clinching evidence that the calendar change was motivated by ecumenism is seen on pp. 11ff., where Fr Basil proves this from the text of the Ecumenical Patriarch's encyclical of 1920 "To the Churches of Christ Everywhere". He also explains the dogmatic significance of the traditional calendar in general.

Note on ecumenist ecclesiology:

For anyone who wants proof that recognition of heterodox baptism is now the official teaching of the 'mainstream', i.e. 'World', Orthodox churches, here is a statement from SCOBA in 1999:

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

A critique of the errors of this document by the conservative New Calendarist Met Hierotheos Vlachos is seen here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/methierotheos_baptism.aspx

For anyone who wants to offer up the earlier practice of the Russian Church in receiving Catholics and Protestants without baptism as evidence that the Church has always recognized Western baptism, here is an explanation of that practice by Met Anthony Khrapovitsky:

http://www.roacusa.org/MetAnthonyEconomiaintheReceptionofConverts.PDF

Met Anthony explains that the practice must be understood as an exercise of economy, not as a recognition of the validity of Western baptism.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 01:18:04 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #1034 on: December 02, 2009, 01:57:05 PM »

It's only about the Catholics and Protestants to the extent we Old Calendarists believe the calendar change to be motivated by ecumenism,

So if it's not motivated by ecumenism, you have no objection? I ask because while some form of ecumism may be a factor for some supporters of the New Calendar, ecumenism (not even the kind which is about reaching out to non-Orthodox to draw them to the True Church, much less the heretical kind you talk about) is not a factor in support of the New Calendar for myself or anyone I personally know.

Quote
Note that I am not making a clear distinction between doctrine and practice. The reason is that there is no clear distinction in Orthodoxy: we profess our faith not only in word, but in deed.

So when Patriarch Nikon changed literally dozens of traditional practices, the Old Believers were right that he was changing the faith? When the council of Trullo countermanded the Apostolic (and Scriptural) practice of ordaining married bishops they were changing doctrine? St. Athanasius, when speaking of the two major decisions of Nicea (the decision against Arianism and the dating of Pascha), explicitly states that the two items are of different orders. He points out that when condemning Arianism, the Fathers said, "thus believes the Catholic Church." but for the decision on Pascha, it merely 'seemed good'. It's true that doctrine and practice are deeply interwoven, but to deny that the Church has alway recognized a difference is show a shocking dismissal of the historical witness of the Church and the Fathers.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.206 seconds with 73 queries.