OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 05:45:41 PM *
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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: POPE AGAIN PROPOSES ONE EASTER DATE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS  (Read 9241 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« on: April 12, 2004, 11:40:47 AM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=45522
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2004, 11:58:08 AM »

How nice!
But we already have one  Grin

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2004, 12:05:13 PM »

How nice!
But we already have one  Grin

Ne! Then katalaveno?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2004, 12:41:28 PM by Tom+ú » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2004, 12:09:08 PM »

I think it would be perfectly lovely if the western schismatic communions decided to return to the Christian Practice of having Pascha after the old Pascha instead of up to five weeks before.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2004, 12:14:36 PM »

This is one Catholic who would love to see that happen!

What are the differing criteria?  I can never remember the difference between the two.  Are the calendrical (is that a word?) differences a part of the reason for the usual distance between the two dates of Pascha?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2004, 12:30:29 PM »

I am in favor of a common calendar.  I would propose we determine it as suggested by the emperor's letter after Nicea I.  IOW, the first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox as long as that Sunday is after Passover.

One problem with the Orthodox calendar is that it ignores the vernal equinox and uses March 21st on the Julian Calendar.  Eventually, the vernal equinox on the Julian calendar will slide out to coincide with the summer solstice.

The problem with the papal reckoning of Easter is that sometimes it precedes the occurence of Passover.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2004, 12:33:38 PM »

That is exactly my problem with it as well.  The symbolism of having the new Pascha come right after the old is immense.

Joe zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2004, 12:57:43 PM »

ARe there years where the Julian Easter does not occur after Passover?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,706


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2004, 01:11:25 PM »

-Ñ-Ç-+-ü-é-+-ü-è -¦-+-ü-¦-Ç-¦-ü-¦.

Quote
Are there years where the Julian Easter does not occur after Passover?

No. It and the Julian vs. Gregorian calendar difference are why the Orthodox date usually is later. An ancient church law says it can't be before or coincide with Passover.
Logged

Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2004, 01:30:34 PM »

The date of Pascha/Easter should be the most exact date that can be determined, using the "Jewish" celebration as a excuse not to be exact is rubbish.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,706


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2004, 01:36:07 PM »

Insisting that Easter always come after Passover isn't what pushes Orthodox Easter later most years. ISTM it's as Moronikos said - using April 3 as the date for the vernal equinox.
Logged

Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2004, 01:37:16 PM »

I'm Catholic.  Not that I have any say in the matter, but I'll go along with the Orthodox date for Easter.  In exchange, the Eastern Church will go with the Western date for Christmas.  What say?  I guess there would be a problem with different calendars, but that could probably be ironed out.  This should be easy to do in the West.  It would be hard for us to do it the other way, since Christmas is a civil holiday in the West.
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2004, 02:00:08 PM »

well most Orthodox in this country already do use the western date for everything (except Pascha).  There will be several who will not go along with the western date for Christmas come hades or high water.  This can easily be understood as it is such a part of the culture of traditionally Orthodox countries like Russia.  Personally, I would want to follow either all Gregorian reckonings or all Julian reckonings, as the Apstles fast is often severly shortened on the new calander, and I have seen several times, when Radonitsa falls during great lent.  It doesn't make sense to me to use a Gregorian daily reckoning and then a Julian Paschalion.  It should be all one or all the other in my opinion.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2004, 02:19:59 PM »

Well, Joe, you're probably right as to one calendar or the other.  It's all right with me if everyone uses their own calendar (not that anything needs to be all right with me).  But Easter is the big holy day.  It would be nice if we could all do it together.  Now that I think about it further, I wouldn't mind going to the Eastern date for Easter, with nothing in exchange.

I have a deep and abiding conviction that east and west have to unify.  We can't do it if both sides just sit back and demand that the other makes all the movements.  Rather, we should be following the instruction of St. Paul and try to outdo each other in making concessions.
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2004, 02:42:53 PM »

Making concessions?  Hmm, that will not go over well with either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Perhaps finding common ground ... but concessions?

I think that the dating issue is regrettable.  The part of it that relates to the Julian dating of the vernal equinox seems more or less mutable to me ... that is, even though a council fixed this as the dating, I don't think that was any kind of theological pronouncement, but simply based on the best reckoning of the day.  It may be useful to change it, given what we know now about the astronomical innacuracies inherent in the Julian reckoning.  But the Orthodox will always react with distaste to the Gregorian calendar because it was adopted by the Pope and not the entire Church (see, notice how *most* issues between us come doen, sooner or later, to the issue what the scope of the Pope's authority properly is), and that this is not possible given that the initial formulation was made by an Ecumenical Council.  In my own view, I don't share this revulsion, and I would be open to revising the reckoning of the equinox to a more astronomically accurate system ... perhaps one that is more accurate than the Gregorian formulation as well.

As concerns the other condition relating to the Jewish Pesach, I would not toss this so lightly.  The text, IIRC, of the council referred to not celebrating Pascha together with those who celebrate Pesach, because of the tradition that the events of Christian Pascha took place after the jewish feast of Pesach.  This to me seems a sensible correction to the reckoning, and only results in one week being tacked on (ie, Easter/Pascha falls one week later than it would based on the reckoning following the determination of the date of the equinox).  

So I would personally see a solution as workable that would involve an updating (done by the whole church, not just Rome) of the date of the equinox calculation coupled with an agreement that this would be adjusted, if needed, to ensure that the feast falls after the conclusion of Jewish Pesach.  Sadly, I doubt this would be supported by some Orthodox for whom the calendar has become a critically important issue.

Brendan
« Last Edit: April 12, 2004, 02:46:01 PM by Brendan03 » Logged

B
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2004, 02:53:10 PM »

I could be wrong but next year Easter according to the Gregorian calendar is celebrated almost a month after Passover.  How can you have Passover AFTER Easter?  Dosnt make sense to me.  

JoeS

Logged
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2004, 03:09:40 PM »

Joe --

The issue is that sometimes in the West Easter falls before the conclusion of the Jewish feast of Pesach/Passover.  In the East, when the equinox-based calculation produces a date that falls before the conclusion of the Jewish feast, the date is moved forward a week so that Pascha falls after the conclusion of Pesach.

Brendan
Logged

B
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2004, 03:22:12 PM »

Christ is Risen!

Question about Pascha and Passover:  this year, didn't Passover start only about 5 days before Pascha?  So was passover completely over by the time we celebrated Pascha yesterday?
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2004, 03:23:53 PM »

Brendan, I guess I have to stick with the word "concessions," since there is no other course possible when two sides that differ with one another are convinced that they are right and the other is wrong.  In such cases, common ground is not possible, because there is no common ground.

The only way to avoid the concession route is to have another ecumenical council.  That way the Holy Spirit can be the judge.  Obviously, there can be no preconditions for such a council, e.g., 'I won't meet with you unless you agree that...."  That doesn't apply to matters of procedure, of course.  Every bishop will get an equal vote, and they can all go home after everybody agrees on everything.  It's not impossible.  After all, we get unanimous juries all the time, and the Holy Spirit will be running things.
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2004, 03:26:55 PM »

Jack --

I don't disagree in substance, but I think that neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox would like to view what they are discussing as "compromises", because they believe that they are in the right.  There may be a gradual convincing, or a gradual growing together or meeting of the minds over time, and yes, I think that we need an other ecumenical council to resolve things.  I'm not sure that Orthodoxy would agree to one bishop one vote because then we are automatically outnumbered.  Perhaps one bishop one vote for each side and then each side's votes are tallied separately?

Brendan
Logged

B
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2004, 03:28:20 PM »

Christ is Risen!

Question about Pascha and Passover:  this year, didn't Passover start only about 5 days before Pascha?  So was passover completely over by the time we celebrated Pascha yesterday?

THis is a good question.  Does anyone know the answer?

Brendan
Logged

B
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2004, 03:32:48 PM »

Brendan,

With my proposal it wouldn't matter that the Orthodox bishops are outnumbered because every decision would have to be unanimous, just like the Council of Jerusalem.  Every bishop would have an effective veto.
Logged

NULL
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2004, 03:36:48 PM »

However, is not the Pascha must be after Passover rule nothing more than an expression of the anti-Judaism present in the Church at the time of the ruling?  Today we supply theological reasons after the fact, but at the time the rule was adopted it was simply so that Pascha was not celebrated at the same time as the Jewish people, in rejection of them and also the Quartodecimans. Add to this the fact that the Resurrection did itself occur within the Jewish Passover, I don't see what all the trouble about finding a date that everbody can agree upon is.  In fact since Christ probably celebrated the Passover according to the Essene solar calendar and not the Temple lunar calendar making the detemination depend on the lunar calendar looks a bit silly.

What was the objection to the proposed common calculation a few years back which many Orthodox where behind?

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2004, 03:50:45 PM »

"Question about Pascha and Passover:  this year, didn't Passover start only about 5 days before Pascha?  So was passover completely over by the time we celebrated Pascha yesterday?"

No, the last day of Passover was Tues, Apr. 13.  Of course the Jewish people have adjusted and reformed their calendar since Nicea, but to be in exact compliance with the canons the Julian date Churches should have added a week.  Why didn't they is a better question?  ALl this does is point to the silliness of the continued seperate dates.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2004, 05:27:41 PM »

To be more precise, the "first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox" date that the various Easter formulae are supposed to be calculating would guarantee that Easter would always fall with the week of Passover if everyone work from astronomical calculations-- but never on the first day of Passover.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2004, 06:04:43 PM »

Why should we care when the Heterodox celebrate Pascha?
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2004, 07:08:10 PM »

Why should we care when the Heterodox celebrate Pascha?

anastasio... with that statement of yours and we westerness are called arrogant.!

Don't you think that it is petty to fight over a date of when easter will be celebrated. The important thing is that it is celebrated.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2004, 07:09:52 PM »

anastasio... with that statement of yours and we westerness are called arrogant.!

Don't you think that it is petty to fight over a date of when easter will be celebrated. The important thing is that it is celebrated.

Heterodox just means non-Orthodox. It's a neutral term.  And that's my point, why fight over the date. Roman Catholics can celebrate when they want to, and Orthodox can when they want to.  No point trying to fight over it or come to agreements.  We will do it they way we have always done it and you can do it the way you have done it since 1582.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2004, 09:12:55 PM »

I agree with Anastasios completely.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2004, 09:45:29 PM »

I agree with Anastasios completely.

Joe Zollars

agreed! you do it the eastern way and we do it the western way. just lest not forget that when the church was united we were very different then and expressed the faith along these two traditions.

As polycratesm bishop of ephesus told Victor in regards to easter: " ancient traditions of local usages of asia as equally valid with those of rome".
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2004, 12:14:34 PM »

In my judgment, the only thing that is heterodox is the position that the Church can legitimately remain divided.
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2004, 01:33:13 PM »

In my judgment, the only thing that is heterodox is the position that the Church can legitimately remain divided.

Jack --

The thing is that the Orthodox don't really see the Church as divided, they see Rome as outside, at least formally so, the Church.  Orthodox differ about how far outside ... ranging from almost inside to rather far outside, but I don't think any Orthodox really agrees that the Church is "divided".  I don't think that the Catholic Church views it this way either, preferring to characterize things more or less in terms of degrees of communion, and stating that some form of imperfect communion exists between Rome and the Orthodox churches (I think that the Catechism says that there is little that is lacking to make this communion full and complete).

Brendan
Logged

B
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2004, 01:55:11 PM »

Brendan,

My point is, I am unaware of any general excommunications from either side.  The Church consists of all the apostolic churches.  In the book of Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem has twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles in them.  The Church isn't divided into east and west (and oriental).  We just think it is.  Catholics who think that the Orthodox are not part of the Church are wrong, and vice versa.
Logged

NULL
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2004, 03:40:20 PM »

In my judgment, the only thing that is heterodox is the position that the Church can legitimately remain divided.

The Church isn't divided.  Some have separated from the Church, but the Church itself cannot be separated. Even the Catholic Church teaches this (cf. Dominus Iesus).

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2004, 03:42:09 PM »

Brendan,

My point is, I am unaware of any general excommunications from either side.  The Church consists of all the apostolic churches.  In the book of Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem has twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles in them.  The Church isn't divided into east and west (and oriental).  We just think it is.  Catholics who think that the Orthodox are not part of the Church are wrong, and vice versa.

Jack,

I used to think this way, and it is a noble ideal.  But in reality, it goes against everything that both Churches teach and ends up watering down both Churches.

The Catholic Church falls under the condmenation of the Council of St Sophia (879) which was co-signed by Pope John VIII, for teaching the filioque, which was also condemned at the COuncil of Blachernae in 1285 (cf. Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis.

In Christ,

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2004, 04:57:41 PM »

Jack,

I used to think this way, and it is a noble ideal.  But in reality, it goes against everything that both Churches teach and ends up watering down both Churches.

The Catholic Church falls under the condmenation of the Council of St Sophia (879) which was co-signed by Pope John VIII, for teaching the filioque, which was also condemned at the COuncil of Blachernae in 1285 (cf. Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis.

In Christ,

Anastasios
The Council of St. Sophia may have condemned the filioque, but if Pope John VIII co-signed it I can't imagine it condemned the Catholic Church.  Of course, no ecumenical council has ever condemned one side or the other because, by definition, an ecumenical council would require participation by all the bishops.

Now the filioque controversy is a good example of how misunderstandings arise where there are language and cultural barriers (and the irony is that we are discussing in English a misunderstanding that arose between those who spoke Greek and Latin).

As those who are much more knowledgeable than I am about history have been saying on this string, the western churches underwent a sort of filioque creep in their recitation of the creed.  For awhile, the popes resisted it.  

Now someone who would argue that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son (as I would) might point to John 20:22-23, where, after his resurrection, Jesus breathed on the apostles and said to them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."  Now that looks like the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son to me.  

On the other hand, one who would argue the opposite position would point to Jesus' words at the Last Supper, where he says, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me...." (John 15:26)  Here it looks like the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and the Son only sends him.

Both scriptures are there, and it looks like there's proceeding and then there's proceeding.  Technically, proceeding qua proceeding seems to happen only from the Father.  But the Spirit comes from the Son too.  What might be the genesis of the confusion is the fact that the western churches developed for awhile without much knowledge of Greek.  I think the same cause is responsible for the confusion that seems to have existed, for a time, between Gehenna and Hades.  In English, I would say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but this question has to be addressed in Greek where the rubber hits the road so to speak.

The place where it should be addressed is in an ecumenical council, at least insofar as recitation of the creed during the liturgy is concerned.  This will require all the bishops from both sides, and will further require unanimous agreement among them.  But nobody is authorized to simply say, "Unless you agree with me, you're not in the Church."  Christ didn't set it up that way.

In order for the eastern and western churches to comprise two separate Churches, there would have to be an ecumenical council authorizing the split.  That has never happened.
Logged

NULL
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2004, 05:13:53 PM »

Anastasios' point, I believe, was that the Roman Church no longer lived up to the teachings of the Council of Sophia which was cosigned by the Pope of the 1st Rome (thus indicating that to affirm Papal infallibility is to deny the filioque).

Of course the heresies now taught by the roman church are many other than just the filioque (which I understand is possibly on the way back out--thank God).

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2004, 05:31:44 PM »

Anastasios' point, I believe, was that the Roman Church no longer lived up to the teachings of the Council of Sophia which was cosigned by the Pope of the 1st Rome (thus indicating that to affirm Papal infallibility is to deny the filioque).

Of course the heresies now taught by the roman church are many other than just the filioque (which I understand is possibly on the way back out--thank God).

Joe Zollars

On re-reading Anastasio's posting, I think you're right about what he meant.

I must humbly submit, Joe, that your statement regarding Papal infallibility manifests a misunderstanding of that doctrine.  Catholics don't believe everything the Pope says is infallible.  The truth is, we have no clear idea of when he makes an infallible statement, but there have only been two such statements since Vatican I that are generally recognized.

Also, isn't 'heresy' a bit strong for the filioque?  I think the western churches mean something different by it than the eastern churches would mean if they said it.  If we insist on looking at each other in the worst possible light, it is inevitable that we're not going to think very much of each other.

But...I'll bite.  What are the heresies that we Catholics believe in?
Logged

NULL
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2004, 05:32:51 PM »

Heterodox just means non-Orthodox. It's a neutral term.  And that's my point, why fight over the date. Roman Catholics can celebrate when they want to, and Orthodox can when they want to.  No point trying to fight over it or come to agreements.  We will do it they way we have always done it and you can do it the way you have done it since 1582.

Well, you know, within the last five years attempts have been made to put everyone on the same date. But it seems that it is the Orthodox who are the holdouts. And I see people referring to the Council of Nicaea when I can see the canons for myself and see that they don't constrain anyone to use the Julian calendar. It is hard not to conclude that the calendar is and is intended to remain a sign of Orthodox condemnation of the west.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2004, 05:45:29 PM »

According to roman theology and the delclerations of Vatican I, the Pope is infallable when speaking in terms of faith or morals.  I think the creed certainly falls within this area.  Also, from the perspective of Roman theology, Papal infallability was always there, and acted upon--it just wasn't proclaimed until Vatican I.  leaving aside the issue of papal infallability, in and of itself a great heresy, one can see that from a Roman perspective, the pope was acting infallably at the council of sophia when he condemned the Filioque (not to mention that Rome holds the councils to be infallable in and of themselves).  

Also, any alteration of the creed is certainly heresy.  Whether or not the filioque clause is true, the heretical and schismatic act comes in altering the creed against the expressed wishes of hte universal Church.

As for the heresies of Rome in general, there is an infinite amount of material out on this (for instance the Vatican Dogma in the texts section of oc.net), and having just recently left Romanism, I do not feel it proper that I address this issue at this time.   Besides others here are much more wise than I.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2004, 05:46:55 PM »

See Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for a clear definition of the Roman perspective of Papal infallability.  This book is available from tanbooks.com

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2004, 05:49:53 PM »

Well, you know, within the last five years attempts have been made to put everyone on the same date. But it seems that it is the Orthodox who are the holdouts. And I see people referring to the Council of Nicaea when I can see the canons for myself and see that they don't constrain anyone to use the Julian calendar. It is hard not to conclude that the calendar is and is intended to remain a sign of Orthodox condemnation of the west.

I take issue with your conclusion.  It' s more a matter of the Orthodox no-longer holding to a single calendar anymore, with some churches using new calendar, and others using the old calendar.   The one date which we agree on in common is pascha.  I don't see all of the Orthodox jurisdictions easily chucking the old date, especially some of the old calendar churches.  I think a pan-orthodox council would be necessary to resolve this issue.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2004, 05:50:50 PM »

indeed.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2004, 06:20:31 PM »

Why brother Joe,

You have indeed shown growth in wisdom, 6 months ago you would have taken another tone towards your previous Roman association, I am impressed.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2004, 09:08:17 AM »

I don't think that a break in communion requires an ecumenical council.  Even in the time of the councils, breaks in communion happened on a more local or regional level without the "sanction" of an ecumenical council.

But, even so, aren't all Orthodox anathematized by the terms of the declaration of the First Vatican Council?

Brendan
Logged

B
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2004, 10:01:19 AM »

good point Brendan.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #46 on: April 14, 2004, 11:32:44 AM »

I don't think that a break in communion requires an ecumenical council.  Even in the time of the councils, breaks in communion happened on a more local or regional level without the "sanction" of an ecumenical council.

But, even so, aren't all Orthodox anathematized by the terms of the declaration of the First Vatican Council?

Brendan
I don't remember reading that.  Could you reference me to that part?
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2004, 11:38:57 AM »

I don't remember reading that.  Could you reference me to that part?

Surely.

"Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.


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

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. "

Well, we Orthodox reject that definition of theirs, and so we are anathema.  I know that it doesn't specifically refer to the Orthodox, but we are surely covered by the reference to anyone who does not accept the definition.

Brendan

Logged

B
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2004, 12:33:22 PM »

I don't think that a break in communion requires an ecumenical council.  Even in the time of the councils, breaks in communion happened on a more local or regional level without the "sanction" of an ecumenical council.

But, even so, aren't all Orthodox anathematized by the terms of the declaration of the First Vatican Council?

Brendan

On second thought, do you mean that those who didn't agree with the terms of Vatican I were anathematized?  I suspect you're probably right there, though I haven't looked at Vatican I in awhile.

But the eastern churches wouldn't call Vatican I an ecumenical council, would they?  I know we in the western churches do, because we use that term for every council that involves all bishops in communion with the Pope.  Regardless, no one was excommunicated at Vatican I.  Accomplishing that would have required a specific act.

Now, what I am proposing here is that excommunications of bishops must follow the procedure set forth in the Gospel According to Matthew:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.  If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.  Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:15-18)

Jesus is talking to the twelve, here, which is what Matthew means by "disciples."  Hence, this applies to their successors, the bishops.  It appears, then, that the way that Jesus authorized the excommunication of bishops was by a decision of the whole Church, which requires a conference of all the bishops in apostolic succession.  To the extent that individual bishops have tried to excommunicate other bishops by themselves, it doesn't pass muster with the procedure that Jesus, who should have something to say about it, laid down.

Now it is true that the passage I just quoted is followed by this:

"Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  (Matthew 18:19-20)

But it is clear that Jesus is moved on to heavenly ratification of prayer requests of the apostles and their successors, and that this last passage has nothing to do with letting someone be to the Church "as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Brendan, the past is fixed, and we can do nothing to change it.  We can only move forward.  If unification is a desirable goal, we must posture ourselves in this way.  If we fixate on the rancor of the past, we will never get past it.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2004, 12:35:50 PM »

Surely.

"Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.


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

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. "

Well, we Orthodox reject that definition of theirs, and so we are anathema.  I know that it doesn't specifically refer to the Orthodox, but we are surely covered by the reference to anyone who does not accept the definition.

Brendan



Thanks, Brendan.  I apologize for making you go through that.  I figured out what you meant before I looked at your response, and replied, above.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2004, 12:46:34 PM »

According to roman theology and the delclerations of Vatican I, the Pope is infallable when speaking in terms of faith or morals.  I think the creed certainly falls within this area.  Also, from the perspective of Roman theology, Papal infallability was always there, and acted upon--it just wasn't proclaimed until Vatican I.  leaving aside the issue of papal infallability, in and of itself a great heresy, one can see that from a Roman perspective, the pope was acting infallably at the council of sophia when he condemned the Filioque (not to mention that Rome holds the councils to be infallable in and of themselves).  

Also, any alteration of the creed is certainly heresy.  Whether or not the filioque clause is true, the heretical and schismatic act comes in altering the creed against the expressed wishes of hte universal Church.

As for the heresies of Rome in general, there is an infinite amount of material out on this (for instance the Vatican Dogma in the texts section of oc.net), and having just recently left Romanism, I do not feel it proper that I address this issue at this time.   Besides others here are much more wise than I.

Joe Zollars

Then please accept a response from the biggest fool of all.  First of all, the Pope is not deemed to be infallible every time he speaks, even on faith and morals.  He has to do it by definitive act.  We're still working on what that all means, but it seems pretty clear that papal infallibility isn't everything its detractors make it out to be.  I'll try to show why it isn't heresy at a later time, in that I have to get working right now.  Also, neither the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople addressed what creed should be recited in the liturgy; they simply stated what is orthodox belief.
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2004, 01:15:49 PM »

Jack --

I agree that the past is the past.  I think we agree that any reunion would be grounded in an ecumenical council, at least I know I have thought that way for some time.  In the meantime, however, I think we have to be careful how we characterize the current situation because otherwise the theological bigwigs who are involved start wringing their hands and no progress is made.  I do think that if and when progress is made it will have to be characterizable by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism as not being a compromise, but as being consistent with the faith they always confessed.  I suspect that Catholicism has a bit of an easier go at this because in theory at least Catholicism accepts the development of doctrine.  The challenge for Orthodoxy is to try to be more open-minded (hehe, not our specialty) when approaching a non-Byzantine theological system.

Brendan
Logged

B
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2004, 01:52:39 PM »

Jack --

I agree that the past is the past.  I think we agree that any reunion would be grounded in an ecumenical council, at least I know I have thought that way for some time.  In the meantime, however, I think we have to be careful how we characterize the current situation because otherwise the theological bigwigs who are involved start wringing their hands and no progress is made.  I do think that if and when progress is made it will have to be characterizable by both Orthodoxy and Catholicism as not being a compromise, but as being consistent with the faith they always confessed.  I suspect that Catholicism has a bit of an easier go at this because in theory at least Catholicism accepts the development of doctrine.  The challenge for Orthodoxy is to try to be more open-minded (hehe, not our specialty) when approaching a non-Byzantine theological system.

Brendan

And the challenge for the Catholics will be to move our cumbersome bureaucracy.

Your right, I think.  What I'm afraid will be necessary is a lay movement.  That part will be harder for us Catholics, since many of our prelates seem to think that the Holy Spirit doesn't talk to laypeople.

What I want to say to the bishops is this: "We respect your apostolic authority, and will submit to whatever you tell us.  But we Orthodox and Catholic laypeople are bearing the brunt of something that isn't our fault.  We can't make any of the decisions that cause us to be at one another's throats, and yet we find ourselves unable to take communion together because of arguments that you are having with one another.  The argument about who is the greatest is as old as the original Twelve, and apparently still hasn't been resolved, even though Jesus said that he who would be greatest among you must be your servant.  We'll be the servants, and let you be the greatest, if only you will stop this now.  Even though we are without authority, we feel the pain caused by this wound in the Body of Christ.  Please let the wound be healed, so that the Church can present the Gospel to the world in its full splendour.  Indeed, consider how the many without Christ are suffering due to our divisions!"

Wanna start a movement?
Logged

NULL
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2004, 03:36:29 PM »

Heterodox just means non-Orthodox. It's a neutral term
anastasios

To your mind "Heterodox" is a neutral term.  To others it may be a label that says "wrong thinking" or some other negative connotation.  "Non-Orthodox" I would call more "neutral".  

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #54 on: April 14, 2004, 03:57:04 PM »


To your mind "Heterodox" is a neutral term.  To others it may be a label that says "wrong thinking" or some other negative connotation.  "Non-Orthodox" I would call more "neutral".  

Ebor

Christ Is Risen!  Indeed He Has Risen!

Just got back from Dallas, Texas where I celebrated Pascha with a friend along with Archbishop Demitri and the wonderful people a St Seraphims Cathedral.  It is always a wonderful experience for me to go there.

Although I agree with Ebor, Anastasios is not completely wrong either.  From "The Complete Book Of orthodoxy" -

Heterodoxy - different: alien, falso belief or teaching.

I think it is a much better term to use when discussing non-Orthodox than 'heretic' which is a term I dislike immensely no matter what faith is being discussed.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #55 on: April 14, 2004, 04:07:50 PM »

Thanks, Orthodoc.
Your post preceeded mine which was going to point out that "+¦-ä+¦-ü++" merely means 'different' or 'other''.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #56 on: April 14, 2004, 04:31:13 PM »

I'm not offended by being called heterodox, or even a heretic.  I'm only offended if you call me late for dinner.  It's just that I don't agree that I am heterodox or a heretic.  And I feel quite confident about it.
Logged

NULL
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #57 on: April 14, 2004, 05:36:14 PM »

Christ Is Risen!  Indeed He Has Risen!

Although I agree with Ebor, Anastasios is not completely wrong either.  From "The Complete Book Of orthodoxy" -

Heterodoxy - different: alien, falso belief or teaching.

I think it is a much better term to use when discussing non-Orthodox than 'heretic' which is a term I dislike immensely no matter what faith is being discussed.

Orthodoc

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration, Orthodoc.  

Ebor

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #58 on: April 14, 2004, 05:36:59 PM »

I have no problem with being labeled a "heterodox", if fact I thought it was a cookie that resembled a Oreo !

james

addeum : Bingo, the cookie is a HYDROX . Close though Tongue
« Last Edit: April 14, 2004, 09:28:38 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #59 on: April 14, 2004, 05:49:48 PM »

I generally don't like the term because although it means no offence, it causes much offence, so I prefer the term "non-Orthodox",  bit less elegant linguistically but totally inoffensive to those so labelled.
Logged

B
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2004, 08:48:50 AM »

Jack,

Quote
First of all, the Pope is not deemed to be infallible every time he speaks, even on faith and morals.

Mmm...yes and no.  Yes, given the wording of the definition of Vatican I.  In practice however, the Pope may as well be "infallible" in all he says.  According to works like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and other compendiums of RC doctrine I've read, one is not free to dissent from the teachings of a Pope, even if they are not delivered with his full "infallible" authority.  The only exception would be very carefully qualified, respectful disagreement on the part of theological or canonical experts (in other words, very few people), and even this would ultimatly require docile submission on their part if the matter were pressed to no avail.

So either the Pope is (almost?) always correct, or people are bound to obey him no matter what (even if he's wrong.)  Add to this the reality that a Pope cannot be judged according to RC doctrine, you have a situation where one might as well say he's infallible in all he says and does.

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2004, 08:52:39 AM »

Suggestions that we all move towards a common calendar (an idea that has been acted upon by past Orthodox heirarchs, causing much mischief and heartache) strike me as coming from the sentimental "let's hold hands and it'll all work itself out" line of thinking.  I'd think that ironic out liturgical matters like the calendar, would be one of the final steps, after doctrinal issues have been ironed out.  Obviously, that has not happened, so proposing this calendar change is very premature.

Seraphim
Logged

Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,793



« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2004, 04:54:27 PM »

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Without sounding like a triumphalist, the solution should be simple---Have the Pope determine the  date for Easter follows the current Orthodox Calendar---the protestants will follow that and the result is all those who claim to be Christians celebrate the Feast on the Same date---scandal ended.

As the Orthodox will not follow any declaration of the Patriarch of Rome because of past declarations of infallibility, it is only logical that the Orthodox date should be used.  Roman Catholics will follow the Pope in his decision and if the Gregorian Calendar is any indication, the protestants will follow the Roman Catholic lead in the date for Easter. Once this is done there will be one less scandal to the christian witness in the world. It is only logical.

The problem is the Pope wants a world meeting to assign a new formula to determining the date to Easter/Pascha rather than taking the simple and logical approach.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas
« Last Edit: April 15, 2004, 04:55:15 PM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2004, 05:25:58 PM »

This table indicates the respective dates of Easter/Pascha/Passover as determined by the current methods, from 2001 through 2025:

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/faith/easter.html#table

Which is simple (and more accurate) and which is silly, again?


Amado
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2004, 05:47:47 PM »

Well, there's a pattern of "violations" in almost every combination here, possibly because the one formula that isn't shown in the table is "Easter is the first Sunday after the first day of Passover."

BTW, if you want to read about the Aleppo solution, look on the upper part of the referenced page.
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2004, 08:22:03 PM »

Jack,Mmm...yes and no.  Yes, given the wording of the definition of Vatican I.  In practice however, the Pope may as well be "infallible" in all he says.  According to works like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and other compendiums of RC doctrine I've read, one is not free to dissent from the teachings of a Pope, even if they are not delivered with his full "infallible" authority.  The only exception would be very carefully qualified, respectful disagreement on the part of theological or canonical experts (in other words, very few people), and even this would ultimatly require docile submission on their part if the matter were pressed to no avail.

So either the Pope is (almost?) always correct, or people are bound to obey him no matter what (even if he's wrong.)  Add to this the reality that a Pope cannot be judged according to RC doctrine, you have a situation where one might as well say he's infallible in all he says and does.

Seraphim


Seraphim, I had a detailed response for you, then the whole thing deleted itself.  I couldn't start again because I had to get back to work.  So I'll give you the short version.  You can't just look at the literal wording of Vatican I and interpret it in isolation.  You have to also see how it has played out in the life of the Church.  Let's put it this way: there are those who are called conservative Catholics who complain that Rome doesn't lower the boom more than it does.  What I mean to point out is that, in practice, Papal primacy doesn't work out to be as authoritarian as would be justified by your reading of Vatican I.  The bishops are not just district managers for Rome.

Pope John Paul II has invited Christians throughout the world to present suggestions for a new way to look at the primacy.  That should probably be done if the eastern and western churches are going to stop this ridiculous bickering and get back to the business of transforming humanity into Christ's image.

I think what I'll do is start a new string where I promote this thesis, since it's clearly off the topic of whether we should all have the same date for Easter.  Hopefully, on that string, everyone will be more considerate than I have been, and stay on topic.
Logged

NULL
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2004, 08:21:58 AM »

I also noticed that Gregorian Pascha never falls before Passover.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2004, 09:17:48 AM »

look closer.  2005 specifically.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2004, 09:49:38 AM »

There are points for all existing or proposed calculations where Easter precedes Passover. The problem is the current Passover calculation, whose pattern of "double Adars" is out of sync with the actual lunar cycle.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2004, 10:24:35 AM »

I also noticed that Gregorian Pascha never falls before Passover.

Then perhaps you can explain the following dates to us -

How about -
 
1989
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 26
Passover -              April 20
 
1986
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 30
Passover -              April 24
 
1978
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 26
Passover -              April 22
 
1970
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 29
Passover -              April 21
 
1967
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 26
Passover -              April 25
 
1959
 
Gregorian Easter -  March 29
Passover -              April 23
 
And I could go on but I think my point has been made.
 
Orthodoc
 


Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2004, 10:27:48 AM »

not to mention those dates in the coming years when this will occur.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2004, 10:48:46 AM »

not to mention those dates in the coming years when this will occur.

Joe Zollars

========

Well for starters........For the future how about -

2005

Gregorian Easter -  March 27
Passover -              April 24


2008

Gregorian Easter -  March 23
Passover -              April 20

2016

Gregorian Easter -  March 27
Passover -              April  23

2024

Gregorian Easter -  March 31
Passover -              April 23

2027

Gregorian Easter -  March 28
Passover -              April 22


Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2004, 10:51:36 AM »

Joe,

Woops, missed 2005! Thanks.

Orthodoc,

I was only referencing the Chart on the WCC site.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2004, 11:05:38 AM »

Orthodoc,

I was only referencing the Chart on the WCC site.

========

Better place to bring up the comaprison calculations is -

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/easter/easter_text2a.htm

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2004, 11:23:27 AM »

I think the point of this exercise is to have a "more accurate" standard for reckoning a date for the synchronized celebration of Easter and Pascha.

As Keble noted earlier, the Jewish method of reckoning the Passover is out-of-whack because of the erratic swings of the Jewish calendrical calculation necessitating the addition of  Adar II, the 13th month in the Jewish lunar year.

Therefore, basing our own calculation of Easter/Pascha on the Jewish Passover appears to be a "double jeopardy."

If we can agree that science has made critical advances in the ensuing years after Nicea, then the astronomical reckoning of Easter/Pascha should be an acceptable
standard.

On this score, the Gregorian reckoning, which is based on a solar year, fits snugly into the astronomical reckoning, except for the year 2019 in the referenced table.

Amado
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2004, 12:30:51 PM »

the way I see it, Pascha is the one date that all Orthodox can agree on be they Old or New Calander (and by extension those feasts and fasts based upon it).  Thus the unity of the Orthodox Faith is demonstrated in the unity of the Paschal celebration.

The vast majority of Old Calandrists that I have met would sooner be Martyrd than give up the Old Calander and will never consent to the celebration of Pascha on a date other than the traditional Julian reckoning.  

Some New Calandrists may be willing to make the concession to the Papists to follow the Gregorian reckoning or some almagamation thereof, but by doing this, they tear at teh fabric of the Visible unity of hte Orthodox Church.  

Thus, the only possible (or indeed charitable to the Orthodox) thing to do if one truly desires a unified calander, is to follow the traditional julian reckoning.

Rome has the authroity to do this.  All it would take is an encyclical from the Pope.  It would take a pan-orthodox Sobor for the Orthdox to do this and as stated above would douptless never succeed.  However Rome does not do this, even though it is the most logical path.  Why? because Rome really doesn't care about the Orthodox.  It just wants to make itself look good.

And as stated earlier in the thread, there is already a unified date for Pascha.  The west has just not jumped on the bandwagon yet.  Actually this is not entirely true, there is a smal group of Traditionalist RCs who are following both the Julian Paschalion and the Julian Menaion.  Also Greek RC's follow the Julian Pascha reckoning--thus prooving it is possible for all of Rome to do this.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Amadeus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


I'm a llama!


« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2004, 05:02:06 PM »

Joe Z:

Let me put into a "crazy" perspective:

More than a billion Roman Catholics and about 700 million Protestants celebrate Easter based on the Gregorian Calendar!

Approximately 4 billion of the world's population, i.e., almost all nations on earth, based their civilian/secular life on the same calendar.

There must be certain merit to the Gregorian Calendar, better than "real time" calculations based on the Julian or Jewish calendars.

Amado
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 16, 2004, 07:39:57 PM »

the same number of people (4 billion) worship pagan deities and demons in one shape or another.  Thus, by your logic, their must be some merit to their religious beliefs.

It simply does not matter how many follow the Orthodox reckoning of Pascha.  Any attempt at a unified date forcing people to the Gregorian calander will either a: only succeed after a great many Orthodox Christians (possibly all) have been martyred for the faith or b: be on the Orthodox reckoning.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 16, 2004, 07:41:52 PM »

I am not denying the merit of the Gregorian calander.  My daily (secular) life is based upon it.  But my spiritual life is not.  It is not neccessary for spiritual holy days to follow the same calander of the secular life.  Look to the muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc. to see that even the pagans can succeed in seperating the two.  Why can't Christians?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,070


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 16, 2004, 08:57:12 PM »

Thus, the only possible (or indeed charitable to the Orthodox) thing to do if one truly desires a unified calander, is to follow the traditional julian reckoning.

Rome has the authroity to do this.  All it would take is an encyclical from the Pope.  It would take a pan-orthodox Sobor for the Orthdox to do this and as stated above would douptless never succeed.  However Rome does not do this, even though it is the most logical path.  Why? because Rome really doesn't care about the Orthodox.  It just wants to make itself look good.

Paradoxically, the fact that "Rome has the authority to do this..." is something the Orthodox vehemently oppose as a deviation from the "power structures" of the early ("undivided") Church.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2004, 11:23:40 PM »

indeed.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2004, 12:21:01 PM »

Then why don't Catholics adopt the Julian date of Easter as before?

Then it would be the same date no?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2004, 12:57:54 PM »

I'd like to see either all-Julian or all-Gregorian Calendar for both fasts and feasts.  No "Revised Julian Calendar" because all it does is make the typikon go out the window.

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #83 on: April 22, 2004, 12:53:57 PM »

Bah.
You jigger with Date of Easter.
The Patriarch in Jerusalem will never get the Holy Fire from the Sepulcher.

and You'll give God a Headache of when to send the fire down.
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Tags: Pascha 
Pages: 1 2 All   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 0.19 seconds with 111 queries.