OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 10:01:53 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 205888 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2070 on: May 16, 2013, 11:18:56 PM »

The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era
The Creation Era was not by any means universally used by the Fathers, the Seleucid Era, the Era of Alexander, the Era of Martyrs (from Diocletian's reign) among others were used.

Dionysios came from the Apostolic See of Tomis (present day Constanta, Romania), and is an ancient Orthodox saint of the East.

Talk about contradicting just to be contrary.  The AD system is quite fine. For that matter, the Year of Creation is of European origin and mindset (the reason why St. Dionysios devised his system, based on the fullness of time-if the hymns of the Annunciation and Nativity are to be believed).
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
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2071 on: May 16, 2013, 11:27:15 PM »

The olde Old Calendar

http://oldbelievernews.livejournal.com/?skip=50

"While traditional Old Calendarists pride themselves on keeping the old Julian calendar for liturgical services, what they don't say (or perhaps know) is that the Julian calendar with the Anno Domini dating for years was introduced only in 1700 A.D. in Russia and in 1728 A.D. in Constantinople.

Before this, the Anno Mundi system, also known as the "Etos Kosmou" or Byzantine Creation Era was in use in the east.  It starts with the creation of the world, which it dates to approximately 5500 years before the birth of Christ.  Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Julian Africanus, and Hippolytus of Rome determined the age of the world to have been about 5530 years at the birth of Christ.  They based their calculations in turn on earlier Jewish and Greek historians.  By about 988 A.D.the date was finalized to be 5509 BC.  

The strict old believers continue to use the Anno Mundi system.  The first page of the Stoglav sobor contains the date Feb. 23, 7059.  All of the ancient Slavonic writings use this system of dating.  The year begins on Sept. 1, under this system, so Sept. 13, 2009 corresponds to August 31, 7517 and Sept. 14, 2009 was the first day of the new year with the date Sept. 1, 7518 AM.  Todays date, Nov. 10, 2009, would correspond to Oct. 28, 7518 A.M.  

The Anno Domini system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Venerable Bede and Charlemange and gradually spread over the west where it was adopted by every country in Europe by the 14th century, and as mentioned was formally adopted by Constantinople, Mt. Athos and Russia in the 1700s.

While the method of calculating years is certainly not a doctrinal issue, using the A.M. system puts one in the world of the early church fathers and the ancient orthodox saints of the east, whereas the A.D. system has a European origin and mindset.  I think we should use the old Old Calendar whenever possible."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era

But if I'm following this correctly, then the actual date of the day and month would be identical, and only the number of the year would be different, correct? So there was still no interruption in universally uniform commemorations/feasts for major holidays?

Yeah this was a total red herring. Not to mention the fact that Peter the Great only changed the year of reckoning for the civil calendar; the Russian Church, as with the rest of the Orthodox Church, continues to count years from the Creation.
Ah, no.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate switched (or rather, added) to the AD system in 1628. And the Russian Church used (and uses) it.

I wanted to check what system HOTCA uses and apparently we're content with AD.
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 111



« Reply #2072 on: May 18, 2013, 03:04:05 PM »

But if I'm following this correctly, then the actual date of the day and month would be identical, and only the number of the year would be different, correct? So there was still no interruption in universally uniform commemorations/feasts for major holidays?
This is true of the early modern switch from A.M. to A.D.  The dates, days of the week, and ages of the moon continued uninterrupted.

There was an earlier recalibration of the era which did, in fact, change the paschalion slightly.  Evidence from the 4th and 5th centuries suggests that sometime around A.D. 400 someone (possibly Bishop Cyril of Alexandria) as part of mapping the paschalion to the era of Diocletian, moved the lunar tables for one of the 19 years forward by 1 day, so that the paschal full moon / νομικον φασκα for those years would henceforward fall on April 5th rather than April 6th as previously.  Next year, A.D. 2014, is one of these years, so the old-calendar moon will be full next year on April 5th Julian / April 18th Gregorian.  The Armenian church never accepted this change, so their old-calendar Easter differs from Greek old-calendar Easter in 4 years out of every 532.

The new-calendar moon will be full next year on April 14th.  Since April 14th is a Monday and April 18th a Friday, no Sunday intervenes, so both Julian and Gregorian Easter next year will be on April 20th.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 03:09:04 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
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 111



« Reply #2073 on: June 08, 2013, 10:57:42 AM »

The only piece of Gregoras's 14th-century computisitical proposal that I have been able to locate is a table of Paschal full moons.  It appeared in Denis Petau's/Dionysius Petavius's Uranologion of 1630, in the chapter on Isaac Argyrus.  There must have been more than this one table, for Argyrus, as translated by Petau, states that Gregoras published a book on the subject.  But anyhow this is what I was able to find.

In this table, Gregoras proposes moving the calendar's lunar months forward by two days.  They were about three or four days off at that time, (probably closer to 3) so this would have emended most of the lunar discrepancy at that time, and also would in effect have moved the equinox forward two days from March 21 to March 19.  Here is Gregoras's Paschal full moons as given by Petau, together with the Alexandrian as they stabilized in the 5th century and are still used today.  The numbering system is that of the Alexandrian and Western computi.  The Byzantine numbering system (which Gregoras would have used) differs by three years -- year 4 of this table if year 1 in Byzantine tables -- but the Paschal full moons are the same.  All dates in the table are in the Julian calendar.

Code:
Year Alexandrine paschal Gregoras's proposed
full moon PFM

1 April  5 April  3*
2 March 25 March 25
3 April 13 April 11
4 April  2 March 31
5 March 22 March 20
6 April 10 April  8
7 March 30 March 28
8 April 18 April 16
9 April  7 April  5
10 March 27 March 25
11 April 15 April 13
12 April  4 April  2
13 March 24 March 22
14 April 12 March 10
15 April  1 March 30
16 March 21 March 19
17 April  9 April  7
18 March 29 March 27
19 April 17 April 15

Petavius gives "April 23" here, but this seems to be a mistake, for no lunar calendar could behave in such a way.

Merely by adopting this solution at the present day, your school would correct about half of its 4-to-5 day discrepancy with the moon and make a start on correcting its 13-day discrepancy with the sun.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 10:59:48 AM 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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,223


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #2074 on: June 08, 2013, 11:17:51 AM »

I wanted to check what system HOTCA uses and apparently we're content with AD.

HOTCA are a bunch of ecumenist latinists!!1!
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 11:18:01 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 111



« Reply #2075 on: June 09, 2013, 11:04:59 PM »

A little while back here in the UK the Anglican church actually celebrated its Easter before Passover - now that's a strange calendar.
No, it isn't.  There is nothing "strange" about the Gregorian lunar calendar. The Gregorian lunar calendar complies with the Nicene Council in being independent of the Rabbinic calendar.  "Independent" means we do our computation without regard for the results of the Rabbinic computations.  If they calculate what by our standard is the right date for the 14th or their Nisan, it does not follow that we are required spitefully compute the wrong date for the 14th of our Nisan.  If they calculate the wrong date, we are not required to out-do them by computing an even more incorrect result for ourselves.

In three years out of every 19, the Rabbinic computation identifies as Rabbinic Nisan the lunar month next after the one the Gregorian calendar identifies as Christian-Nisan.  This is because their calendar has an implicit equinox that is a few days too late by Gregorian standards.   Furthermore, their implied solar year is slightly longer than the astronomical average for the northern Spring equinox tropical year, so their Nisan is slowly drifting toward the summer, though nowhere near as fast as yours is.
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: 111



« Reply #2076 on: June 22, 2013, 11:33:50 AM »


Code:
Year Alexandrine paschal Gregoras's proposed
full moon PFM

1 April  5 April  3*
2 March 25 March 23
3 April 13 April 11
4 April  2 March 31
5 March 22 March 20
6 April 10 April  8
7 March 30 March 28
8 April 18 April 16
9 April  7 April  5
10 March 27 March 25
11 April 15 April 13
12 April  4 April  2
13 March 24 March 22
14 April 12 March 10
15 April  1 March 30
16 March 21 March 19
17 April  9 April  7
18 March 29 March 27
19 April 17 April 15

*Petavius gives "April 23" here, but this seems to be a mistake, for no lunar calendar could behave in such a way.
Second line, second column has been corrected from the earlier post's "March 25" to "March 23".
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: 111



« Reply #2077 on: August 03, 2013, 05:42:15 PM »

Go out on the Vernal Equinox Julian style, and see if the day and night are of equal length.
One need not wait until next Spring.  As of this writing, the upcoming Eastern Orthodox full moon is on August 25th, 2013.  Go outside that night and see whether or not the moon looks full.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2078 on: August 03, 2013, 07:15:44 PM »

Go out on the Vernal Equinox Julian style, and see if the day and night are of equal length.
One need not wait until next Spring.  As of this writing, the upcoming Eastern Orthodox full moon is on August 25th, 2013.  Go outside that night and see whether or not the moon looks full.
That's after spring has begun.
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
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #2079 on: August 11, 2013, 05:04:53 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 05:06:18 AM by Nikolaos Greek » Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,491



« Reply #2080 on: August 11, 2013, 02:57:03 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).
I agree strongly with what you have said. Glad to see that you realize the difference between Revised Julian and Gregorian calendars. Too many people around here have trouble with that distinction. Just because the calendars currently overlap doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

Yes - you do know the name of "the little spoon-like thing". We simply call it a "spoon"  Wink.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #2081 on: August 11, 2013, 03:57:47 PM »

Oh, because in greek we call spoons κουτάλια (kutalja) while it we call it λαβίδα (lavitha th from the)  Huh
Anyway as long as the Easter is celebrate by the old calendar because it was decided by an Ecumenical council whichever calendar you follow you are okay.  Wink
Yet it would be better all the church to follow one calendar.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2082 on: August 11, 2013, 06:20:16 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #2083 on: August 11, 2013, 09:13:28 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
I had a similar question, since there won't be any difference between the revised Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar until 2800 and won't they simply realign things at that time so that the two calendars will be in synch?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2084 on: August 11, 2013, 10:21:24 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 10:21:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2085 on: August 11, 2013, 11:00:03 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2086 on: August 12, 2013, 12:49:49 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.
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
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2087 on: August 12, 2013, 04:11:52 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2088 on: August 12, 2013, 08:41:34 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 08:47:39 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,491



« Reply #2089 on: August 12, 2013, 09:26:12 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,196


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2090 on: August 12, 2013, 09:26:54 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
Let's say I draft a resume. Now let's say you copy my resume, but make some changes that personalize it for your use. Now let's say you modify your resume. Finally, let's say I modify my resume independently of your revisions and yet my revision looks strikingly similar to yours. Whose resume did I revise?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2091 on: August 12, 2013, 10:13:59 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed. October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian". The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian; what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian. The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD

You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case? Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"? You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case. The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2092 on: August 12, 2013, 10:16:13 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
Let's say I draft a resume. Now let's say you copy my resume, but make some changes that personalize it for your use. Now let's say you modify your resume. Finally, let's say I modify my resume independently of your revisions and yet my revision looks strikingly similar to yours. Whose resume did I revise?

That's not the point. By that reasoning, we should be calling the Gregorian calendar the "revised Julian" also, and the New Calendar should be "revised Julian 2.0" or "re-revised Julian" or something like that. The point surely is that if the term revised Julian is not to be misleading, the calendar in question should show some evidence of being more similar to the Julian than to the Gregorian, but as far as my research indicates, it has more in common with the Gregorian.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,196


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2093 on: August 12, 2013, 10:18:30 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed. October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian". The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian; what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian. The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.
Are you sure you're not projecting your thoughts into the minds of the creators of the Revised Julian Calendar?

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD

You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case? Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"? You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case.
So maybe you need to change your expectations.

The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
The fact that Pope Gregory did not claim the title "Revised Julian" for his calendar does not make the title any less appropriate for what is truly another revision to the Julian Calendar.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 10:22:28 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2094 on: August 12, 2013, 10:19:37 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3. If the Church does adopt a fully revised calendar eventually, with the equinox properly at March 21, then that problem will go away, but then you'll have the problem of celebrating Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Passover on some years, as the Gregorians do.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #2095 on: August 12, 2013, 10:21:48 AM »

but then you'll have the problem of celebrating Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Passover on some years, as the Gregorians do.

Why is this a problem? Why should we care when the Jews celebrate their Passover?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2096 on: August 12, 2013, 10:22:14 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed. October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian". The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian; what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian. The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD

You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case? Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"? You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case. The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
The fact that Pope Gregory did not claim the title "Revised Julian" for his calendar does not make the title any less appropriate for what is truly another revision to the Julian Calendar.

OK, but you're being nominalist about the whole thing. You seem to think you can make the calendar "Julian", and I suppose traditional, by calling it the right name, with no attention to the actual properties of the calendar. I'm saying that if you look at the properties of the calendar, apart from whatever name you give it, you'll see that it has more in common with the Gregorian, and therefore "revised Gregorian" would be less misleading than "revised Julian". But perhaps an even more accurate name would be "Meletian" after Patriarch Meletios, or "Chrysostoman" after Archbishop Chrysostomos.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2097 on: August 12, 2013, 10:24:40 AM »

but then you'll have the problem of celebrating Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Passover on some years, as the Gregorians do.

Why is this a problem? Why should we care when the Jews celebrate their Passover?

You can try this article for starters:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/firecsyn.pdf
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,196


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2098 on: August 12, 2013, 10:25:44 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2099 on: August 12, 2013, 10:29:43 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #2100 on: August 12, 2013, 10:42:08 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.

I am sorry to say this Mr. Gress, but you truly have a closed mind and are incapable of understanding even simple facts.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #2101 on: August 12, 2013, 11:15:15 AM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.

I am sorry to say this Mr. Gress, but you truly have a closed mind and are incapable of understanding even simple facts.

I was a bit strong here. I apologize. However, I continue to believe that you do have a problem with understanding arguments contrary to your views.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2102 on: August 12, 2013, 12:37:05 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed.
Yes, hence the term "Revised" in "Revised Julian," i.e. the same calendar that was changed, which was your original question.

October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Old Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian".
See! That wasn't so difficult (with a little correction).

The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian;

not the same as the Old Julian, hence the term "revised."

what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian.

No, that's not at issue. You just have issues.

Look out the window. See if you see this during the day:


The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.
It has more in common with the Old Julian calendar (post 4 BC-your Julian calendar is not the same as the one Julius put in place) than the Gregorian because it has nothing to do with the Gregorian calendar.

The earth does not rotate around the sun (you do believe that it is so, and not the other way around, no?) on the Gregorian calendar.  Gregory's astronomers just observed it doing so, as did Milenkovich.

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.
I'm not concerned with the Pontifex Maximus Gregory's revision of the Julian calendar.  That's your obsession.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD
You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch
ah, you are right.  I'm not the only one who committed error on this:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/2000/129pdf/129159.pdf
Quote
In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24 BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. While the Egyptian and lunar synchronisms match the Roman dates on the proleptic Julian calendar, they do not match them on any previously proposed solution for the triennial cycle. One suggested resolution of this problem, which matches the data of the papyrus, is a new triennial sequence, in which the triennial leap years started in 44 BC and ended in 8 BC, with leap years resuming in AD 4 (this is the solution most recently proposed in 2003 by Bennett in the table above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case?
Be my guest. You are the one obsessed by how the Vatican and the Jews date things, not I.

Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"?
Why not call the Julian calendar "revised Roman 2.0"?

You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case. The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
Not in the real world.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 12:43:44 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2103 on: August 12, 2013, 12:46:15 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists

No one disputes that.  That, of course, could and should be changed.

since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3. If the Church does adopt a fully revised calendar eventually, with the equinox properly at March 21, then that problem will go away, but then you'll have the problem of celebrating Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Passover on some years, as the Gregorians do.
And what if the Vatican and Rabbis decided to celebrate Easter and Passover according to Old Calendarist calculations for Pascha?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2104 on: August 12, 2013, 12:57:40 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed. October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian". The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian; what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian. The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD

You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case? Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"? You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case. The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
The fact that Pope Gregory did not claim the title "Revised Julian" for his calendar does not make the title any less appropriate for what is truly another revision to the Julian Calendar.

OK, but you're being nominalist about the whole thing. You seem to think you can make the calendar "Julian", and I suppose traditional, by calling it the right name, with no attention to the actual properties of the calendar. I'm saying that if you look at the properties of the calendar, apart from whatever name you give it, you'll see that it has more in common with the Gregorian, and therefore "revised Gregorian" would be less misleading than "revised Julian". But perhaps an even more accurate name would be "Meletian" after Patriarch Meletios, or "Chrysostoman" after Archbishop Chrysostomos.
you prefer the pagan god Caesar for the name of your calendar?

It's called the Milenkovic calendar, btw, after the Serbian Orthodox astronomer who, like the astronomers of Julius Caesar and Pope St. Athanasius in Alexandria, looked up in the sky at the lights in the firmament of the heavens which separate the day from the night; and at God's command serve as signs for seasons and for days and years-and calculated their calendar accordingly.

The Russian Synodal Bible has more in common with the King James Version than with the Gennady Slavonic Bible.  Was Met. St. Filaret an Anglican?
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: 32,196


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2105 on: August 12, 2013, 02:45:31 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Because it was, much to the evident consternation of some, a revision of the Julian calendar, not the Gregorian.  Any similarity to the Gregorian comes from it being based on the same real earth really revolving around the real sun in the sky, which the Old Julian prefers to remain in ignorance about.

But in what way is it a revision of the Julian, rather than the Gregorian? What's Julian about it?
for one thing, a century ago it was incorrect, while the Gregorian was on time for three centuries by then.  Hence the Gregory wasn't revised, because it had no need of revision.  The Gregorian calendar was not adopted, the days were adjusted on the Julian calendar to revise-the Gregorian didn't need the 13 days adjusted.

That made absolutely no sense. Let me try again: what is distinctively Julian about the New Calendar? Things I'm looking for would include, say, the date of the epoch. In the Julian calendar, the epoch falls on a Saturday; in the Gregorian, and in the "revised Julian", it falls on a Monday, so that Gregorian and revised Julian January 1, 1 AD is January 3, 1 AD in the Julian. With respect to the epoch, then, the New Calendar is closer to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Are there any other features of the New Calendar that are shared with the Julian and not with the Gregorian?
I don't know how much simpler to make it: October 14, 1923 came after October 1, 1923 on the Julian Calendar.  The day before October 14, 1923 on the Gregorian calendar was October 13, 1923.  

You can't say that October 1 was followed by October 14 on the same calendar, since the calendar was changed.
Yes, hence the term "Revised" in "Revised Julian," i.e. the same calendar that was changed, which was your original question.

October 1 was followed by October 2 on the Julian, but October 2 on the Old Julian became October 14 on the "revised Julian".
See! That wasn't so difficult (with a little correction).

The revised Julian is not the same as the Julian;

not the same as the Old Julian, hence the term "revised."

what's at issue is why it's even called the revised Julian, when it has more in common with the Gregorian.

No, that's not at issue. You just have issues.

Look out the window. See if you see this during the day:


The term "revised Julian" is meant to suggest (misleadingly, as far as I can tell) that it has more in common with the traditional Julian than with the Gregorian.
It has more in common with the Old Julian calendar (post 4 BC-your Julian calendar is not the same as the one Julius put in place) than the Gregorian because it has nothing to do with the Gregorian calendar.

The earth does not rotate around the sun (you do believe that it is so, and not the other way around, no?) on the Gregorian calendar.  Gregory's astronomers just observed it doing so, as did Milenkovich.

Quote
Distinctly Julian?  It has 365 days, 31 days in Jan Aug and Dec and 30 days in April June Sept and Nov, and a leap day (instead of an intercalculary month) and is based on the real observation of the sun.

By that measure, the Gregorian is also "distinctly Julian". Try again.
I'm not concerned with the Pontifex Maximus Gregory's revision of the Julian calendar.  That's your obsession.

Quote
It's not called the "Revised Gregorian" because it wasn't the Gregorian calendar that was revised.  The year 2800 will still be a leap year on the Gregorian calendar.  The proleptic (extending dates before the calendar's adoption) do not match: Gregorian 1 January 1 AD = Revised Julian 3 January 1 AD
You are wrong about the epoch, aka proleptic date for January 1 AD. The revised Julian epoch actually matches the Gregorian, not the traditional Julian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar#Epoch
ah, you are right.  I'm not the only one who committed error on this:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/2000/129pdf/129159.pdf
Quote
In 1999, an Egyptian papyrus was published that gives an ephemeris table for 24 BC with both Roman and Egyptian dates. While the Egyptian and lunar synchronisms match the Roman dates on the proleptic Julian calendar, they do not match them on any previously proposed solution for the triennial cycle. One suggested resolution of this problem, which matches the data of the papyrus, is a new triennial sequence, in which the triennial leap years started in 44 BC and ended in 8 BC, with leap years resuming in AD 4 (this is the solution most recently proposed in 2003 by Bennett in the table above).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error

Why not call the Gregorian the "revised Julian", in that case?
Be my guest. You are the one obsessed by how the Vatican and the Jews date things, not I.

Why not call the revised Julian "revised Julian 2.0"?
Why not call the Julian calendar "revised Roman 2.0"?

You don't change the facts by changing the names. If the term revised Julian is at all appropriate, you would expect the revised Julian to share properties with the Julian that it does not share with the Gregorian, but this is not the case. The term "revised Julian" is therefore inappropriate.
Not in the real world.
How did you do this? All the quote boxes here are from the same one post by Jonathan Gress, yet many of them link back to a post from jah777 that was submitted to another, totally unrelated thread.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:45:55 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2106 on: August 12, 2013, 02:59:38 PM »

How did you do this? All the quote boxes here are from the same one post by Jonathan Gress, yet many of them link back to a post from jah777 that was submitted to another, totally unrelated thread.
LOL.  I guess the computer refuses to see a distinction between the two.
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
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2107 on: August 12, 2013, 04:01:07 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.

I am sorry to say this Mr. Gress, but you truly have a closed mind and are incapable of understanding even simple facts.

I was a bit strong here. I apologize. However, I continue to believe that you do have a problem with understanding arguments contrary to your views.

Thanks for your apology. I do find your views hard to understand, which of course is why I'm an Old Calendarist; if I found the New Calendarist arguments to be sound I would be one of them. I do get that you guys follow two calendars, but I believe that this is fundamentally untenable. My reasoning goes like this: the fact that you continue to follow the traditional Julian for the purposes of Pascha demonstrates a tacit recognition of the liturgical and canonical superiority of the traditional calendar. If the traditional calendar is superior for the purposes of the great feast of Pascha, why is it not good enough for the lesser (but still important) feasts of Christmas, Dormition and so forth?

Alternatively, if the New Calendar is so great, why do you not use it for Pascha? If you concede the date of Pascha for the sake of union with the traditionalists, why create a division over the other feasts? Or if you're trying to set an example to the rest of the Orthodox world by adopting the "astronomically correct" calendar, why not go the whole hog? After all, the Finns have done so with no consequences for their canonical status vis-a-vis the New Calendarists who use the mixed calendar.

And the mixed calendar, as we all know, is the worst possible solution from the point of view of the internal coherence of the yearly liturgical cycle. Better either to keep the traditional intact, or reform completely.

But all this is tangential from the current point of discussion, which is the peculiar choice of the term "revised Julian" to describe a calendar that is by all appearances a variation of the Gregorian, or at any rate no more Julian than Gregorian.
Logged
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #2108 on: August 12, 2013, 04:01:34 PM »

The Easter is celebrated by the Old Julian calendar because it was decided at the First Ecumenical council and so...
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,624



« Reply #2109 on: August 12, 2013, 04:44:09 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.

I am sorry to say this Mr. Gress, but you truly have a closed mind and are incapable of understanding even simple facts.

I was a bit strong here. I apologize. However, I continue to believe that you do have a problem with understanding arguments contrary to your views.

Thanks for your apology. I do find your views hard to understand, which of course is why I'm an Old Calendarist; if I found the New Calendarist arguments to be sound I would be one of them. I do get that you guys follow two calendars, but I believe that this is fundamentally untenable. My reasoning goes like this: the fact that you continue to follow the traditional Julian for the purposes of Pascha demonstrates a tacit recognition of the liturgical and canonical superiority of the traditional calendar.
Rather a concern for the weaker brethren.

If the traditional calendar is superior for the purposes of the great feast of Pascha, why is it not good enough for the lesser (but still important) feasts of Christmas, Dormition and so forth?
You're the one imaging a superiority to the Old Calendar.  We acknowledge that the Revised Pascholion is indeed superior, even though not used at present.

Alternatively, if the New Calendar is so great, why do you not use it for Pascha?
We should be working towards that.  Especially in Russia.

If you concede the date of Pascha for the sake of union with the traditionalists, why create a division over the other feasts?

Got to get the ball rolling somewhere sometime.

Or if you're trying to set an example to the rest of the Orthodox world by adopting the "astronomically correct" calendar, why not go the whole hog? After all, the Finns have done so with no consequences for their canonical status vis-a-vis the New Calendarists who use the mixed calendar.
Or the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Georgia or Serbia, which are on the Old Calendar.

And the mixed calendar, as we all know, is the worst possible solution from the point of view of the internal coherence of the yearly liturgical cycle. Better either to keep the traditional intact, or reform completely.
Milenkovic's reforms should be accepted in their entirety.

But all this is tangential from the current point of discussion, which is the peculiar choice of the term "revised Julian" to describe a calendar that is by all appearances a variation of the Gregorian, or at any rate no more Julian than Gregorian.
I would say that appearances are deceiving, but one has to have an aversion to being deceived for it to mean anything.

you insist on seeing mystery where the facts are quite plain.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 04:48:05 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #2110 on: August 12, 2013, 04:48:48 PM »

God has no problem with the New-Julian calendar.
At Greece, at Cephallenia at one church every year during the celebration of the ''sleep'' of Mother Mary snakes with cross on their heads came out.
When the calendar changed they came out according to the new calendar.
This also proved it is not a special species of snakes that came out only this days as scientists said.
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #2111 on: August 12, 2013, 05:30:45 PM »

The Easter is celebrated by the Old Julian calendar because it was decided at the First Ecumenical council and so...


Of course the only thing that the First Ecumenical Council did was to appeal to all of the churches to celebrate on one date. That came out not as a decree of the Council but in a letter from Emperor Saint Constantine, who said that most of the church was celebrating one one date (according to the practice of the Church of Alexandria I believe) and it was time for the few who did not to celebrate on that date. That date at that time was on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. A later Council decreed that the date of the Vernal Equinox, which varies a day or so over time, would be standardized on March 21st--an extremely close if not exact approximation of the actual Vernal Equinox--on the then current secular calendar that was a revision of an older one affected by Julius Caesar.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #2112 on: August 12, 2013, 05:40:54 PM »

There is no problem using different claendars. It's abd to make it dogmatic.
Oh, and a common mistake. You know why they call it the Old and the New calendar?
Because it's the Old and the New JULIAN calendar( Known also as revised julian calendar)!!! The Church use the New Julian calendar not the Gregorian-one. Search it in wikipedia if you want.
There is no reason to get away from a church because of a non dogmatic change. Did you know that for many centuries christian ate the Communion like the priests or else they were excommunicated? But then Saint John Chrysostomus came and introduce the little spoon-like thing( I know not it's name in English).

This has come up before, but I've never received a satisfactory answer: why do you call the New calendar the "revised Julian"? Since the "revised Julian" is more similar to the Gregorian than to the actual Julian calendar, why not call it the "revised Gregorian"?
Others have already given some well informed answers. If I need to be corrected, please do so, but I believe the Gregorian calendar includes a reform of the Paschalion (the formula for calculating Pascha/Easter). As I understand it, the Revised Julian Calendar, if and when fully implemented, would continue to use the Julian Paschalion, as the purpose of the Revised Julian is to reset March 21 to be and remain more astronomically correct .

If the revised Julian is the true calendar, then Pascha is calculated incorrectly by the new calendarists, since Pascha should be calculated with respect to March 21, whereas on the new calendar Pascha is calculated with respect to April 3.
How often must I correct this old canard? It's not the New Calendar that mandates our current practice of calculating Pascha in respect to April 3; rather, it's the fact that we still celebrate Pascha on the Old Calendar while celebrating the menologion on the New.

Thank you for making your self-contradictory position even more explicit.

I am sorry to say this Mr. Gress, but you truly have a closed mind and are incapable of understanding even simple facts.

I was a bit strong here. I apologize. However, I continue to believe that you do have a problem with understanding arguments contrary to your views.

Thanks for your apology. I do find your views hard to understand, which of course is why I'm an Old Calendarist; if I found the New Calendarist arguments to be sound I would be one of them. I do get that you guys follow two calendars, but I believe that this is fundamentally untenable. My reasoning goes like this: the fact that you continue to follow the traditional Julian for the purposes of Pascha demonstrates a tacit recognition of the liturgical and canonical superiority of the traditional calendar. If the traditional calendar is superior for the purposes of the great feast of Pascha, why is it not good enough for the lesser (but still important) feasts of Christmas, Dormition and so forth?

Alternatively, if the New Calendar is so great, why do you not use it for Pascha? If you concede the date of Pascha for the sake of union with the traditionalists, why create a division over the other feasts? Or if you're trying to set an example to the rest of the Orthodox world by adopting the "astronomically correct" calendar, why not go the whole hog? After all, the Finns have done so with no consequences for their canonical status vis-a-vis the New Calendarists who use the mixed calendar.

And the mixed calendar, as we all know, is the worst possible solution from the point of view of the internal coherence of the yearly liturgical cycle. Better either to keep the traditional intact, or reform completely.

But all this is tangential from the current point of discussion, which is the peculiar choice of the term "revised Julian" to describe a calendar that is by all appearances a variation of the Gregorian, or at any rate no more Julian than Gregorian.

Actually, both the Gregorian and Revised Julian have one thing in common with the (old) Julian calendar: they are all revisions of an existing calendar; revisions that were undertaken so that the calendar would better reflect God's creation and laws--in effect, God's time. At the very least, Julius Caesar, Pope Gregory and the creators of the Revised Julian calendar sought to correct an existing anomaly: a template that no longer reflected time as God ordained.

The reason why the churches that use the Revised calendar also use the old, incorrect one is not because of an inherent superiority of the Old Calendar but because of two factors: First, ever since the First Ecumenical Council the churches have tried to celebrate Pascha on the same day. Second, the churches on the New Calendar condescended to the use of two calendars to show brotherly love with those who used the Old Calendar. In other words, we tried to show with our humility that all of us should be on the Revised Julian calendar. Obviously, this strategy has not worked with some folks.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 05:43:30 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,093


« Reply #2113 on: August 13, 2013, 02:10:52 PM »

If you were so humble, you wouldn't have created a division over this issue, so I'm sorry but I don't buy that excuse. The truly humble action would be to repent of the violation of Church order that you committed when you unilaterally altered the calendar.

EDIT: And I think it's become clear that "revised Julian" really is a misnomer, meant to deceive people into thinking that somehow it's the same old calendar with just a few cosmetic changes and there has been no interruption (as it seems to have deceived ialmisry).
« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 02:13:28 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 111



« Reply #2114 on: August 14, 2013, 09:07:05 PM »

A later Council decreed that the date of the Vernal Equinox, which varies a day or so over time, would be standardized on March 21st--an extremely close if not exact approximation of the actual Vernal Equinox--on the then current secular calendar that was a revision of an older one affected by Julius Caesar.
 I am not aware of any such "later council."  The date of March 21st was never "decreed" by an ecumenical council.  It was eventually agreed on everywhere because the Alexandrine computus, in its final form, was agreed on everywhere.  And this happened because the Egyptians had a reputation for being the best astronomers, and because the March 21 date, of the available alternatives, agreed best with observations.  We find both grounds in Ceolfrid's letter to the Pictish king Nechtan (around A.D. 700):  
Quote
Aequinoctium autem, iuxta sententiam omnium orientalium, et maxime Aegyptiorum, qui prae ceteris doctoribus calculandi palmam tenent, duodecimo kalendarum Apriliumdie provenire consuevit, ut etiam ipsi horologica inspectione probamus.
Which being interpreted means
Quote
The equinox, according to the teaching of all the Easterners, and above all the Egyptians who hold the palm as the foremost teachers of computation, tends to fall on XII Kal. April. (March 21st); as also we demonstrate by means of instrumental measurements.
 And finally, the Alexandrine computus won the day because, of the alternatives available to Christians in the period 300-800, it was the most accurate.  (The more-accurate Rabbinic calendar stabilized near the end of this period but does not seem to have been well-known among Christians.)

Of course, these factors no longer apply.  The equinox no longer tends to fall on March 21 Julian; instrumental measurements support using a more accurate approximation of March 21st Gregorian; and the science of mathematical astronomy is well-known around the world; Egypt no longer "holds the palm" in this field.  

And this only refers to the solar discrepancy.  I haven't even gotten to the egregious lunar discrepancy in the Julian paschalion.  But anyone who has clear skies over the next two weeks will be able, in Roger Bacon's words, to "see the error in the sky" by comparing the moon's appearance on 21-22 August, 2013 (the Gregorian full moon) to her appearance on 25-26 August, 2013 (the Julian full moon).

Your folk should follow the lead of Finland and go on the Gregorian calendar; or, in the alternative, (as others have already stated) the Milankovitch calendar.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 09:30:12 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
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 0.287 seconds with 73 queries.