Author Topic: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?  (Read 19603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #135 on: April 14, 2011, 03:09:04 PM »
Quote
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Michal, please take care in quoting me not to edit my words.  You add a question mark after "unity" as if I posed it as a question, whereas it was a statement or assertion.  

I'm sorry.
Quote
Yes, Nicea cut off the heretics from the ranks of the Church to preserve unity of Faith, and the decision regarding the calculation of Pascha was determined to preserve unity of worship in the One Church which was already united in Faith.  The New Calendar was adopted without consensus, without a Council, without concern for the unity of the Church, and consequently it has led to divisions, schisms, and obstacles to full unity between those of the one Church which are already united in the One Faith.    

Nicea started a schism. Valens supported Arians long after 325.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 03:09:23 PM by Michał Kalina »
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline NorthernPines

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 934
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #136 on: April 14, 2011, 04:47:59 PM »

If you want a definitive date, 1204. 

But Liturgical services have continued to evolve since then. The Lamentations service as we now have it  is one of the latest Holy Week innovations we have. I don't believe it coalesced into it's present form until the 1600's, maybe even later. (if I recall correctly) I studied (personally not academically in a college) Byzantine chant for a number of years and what we hear today in most Churches is NOT what was heard at the time of the Byzantine Empire, not even close. It continues to evolve sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It is not static. The rubrics are not static so there is no such thing a date when change ended, this is but a myth. I think what Michael is protesting is the an argument which is argued by many in EOy today that the Church hasn't changed and can't change, when it in fact has. But perhaps I'm wrong on what it is he's getting at. I dunno?




Offline SubdeaconDavid

  • "...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
  • Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
    • Russian Orthodox Tasmania
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #137 on: April 14, 2011, 04:59:29 PM »
The real star-worshipping pagans here are the ones who think that the Church's traditional calendar needs to be corrected in order to conform with natural phenomena.

Those 318 star-worshipping pagans from Nicea and St. Constantine who turned Christianity into paganism...

Except they acted in accordance with the Holy Spirit. Which Ecumenical Council revised the calendar? Or was it just some local churches acting under political pressure?
No, just common sense.  I seem to recall that St. Constantine was a politician, with considerable pressure.

But do you think the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches was a decision guided by the Holy Spirit?  The decision at the Council of Nicea brought unity, whereas the New Calendar has brought strife, division, confusion, and schisms.

What an outstanding success the new calendar in all its versions has been.  The conservative half of the OCA follow the Church's Julian calendar.  The modernist half don't. Those that do reject out of hand such senior Patriarchs as those of Moscow and Jerusalem and of course dismiss out of hand Mt. Athos as if they are virtually renegade Old Calendarists or schismatics.  Meanwhile 170 million Russian Orthodox are presumably condemned as wrong, just as ROCOR is wrong, Georgia and Serbia are wrong....... but 30 million are right?  It is true it is not a numbers game, but why do you New Calendarists think that we haven't changed?  The answer is there was no need to.

Are contemporary bishops idiots?  In those churches with electric organs, truncated liturgies and beardless priests, with the faithful corralled into pews, using a heterodox inspired calendar, all of which is way out of step with traditional Orthodoxy - Byzantine or Slavic, you have to wonder. You also have to wonder where this will end.

If only Constantinople would have the courage to say that Patriarch Meletios was plain wrong, and bring 30 million believers back into 100% common celebration with the traditional calendar of the majority of Orthodoxy, what a victory for the faith that would be, and a testament to the kind of leadership that has been lacking in the Phanar since the 19th century.

Proper title added - MK.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:24:55 AM by Michał Kalina »
Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,981
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #138 on: April 14, 2011, 05:10:31 PM »
I would not say that Constantinople lacked good leadership in the 19th century--the Encyclicals of the Eastern Patriarchs are very good.

And, while I would love to see the condemnation of Patriarchs Meletios and Athenagoras, a reversion to the Old Calendar, and the end of joint prayer ecumenism and pandering to heretics, I think, seriously, that these things are the least of our concerns at the moment. If only they were all we had to deal with, but such is not the case. We have, instead, a massive amount of ignorance to overcome, spiritual abuse and malpractice on the part of some clergy, and a serious problem, in many places, of retaining our people--both those baptized as infants, and those who convert as adults. The issues of the calendar and ecumenism are symptoms of a much larger problem and, I think, identity crisis that afflicts every local Orthodox Church, and it's been going on for centuries longer than many would suppose.

Please use titles per forum policy. Thanks, SC
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 09:36:41 PM by Second Chance »
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline SubdeaconDavid

  • "...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
  • Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
    • Russian Orthodox Tasmania
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #139 on: April 14, 2011, 05:36:47 PM »
I agree with you.  The calendar is on one level not an issue, because it is not about the science of calendars.  That the modernists in Orthodoxy are prepared to write off those who have followed the universal Orthodox calendar and observe feasts on different days is an astounding innovation, that shows the calendar was/is more important than the unity of the Church.  It points to an agenda that is unhealthy.  I do think Constantinople had good leadership until Patriarch Meletios, but every successor EC has been compromised by the calendar and the pandering to relations with heterodox in ecumenism has been a symptom of that.

Even Moscow has basically admitted that its involvement in the WCC and ecumenism was wrong, and is showing leadership and missionary innovation throughout the world.  I don't think new calendarists realise how much the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch has been weakened and compromised by successive EP adhering to the new calendarist innovation.  The new calendar in whatever incarnation one finds it - 'New", 'revised Julian' etc is a symbol of malaise and decay, not growth.

Modernism brought nothing but decay to the Latin Church and the Anglican Church.  Contemporary English, modern music, churches stripped of sacred art, abandonment of fasting and clergy dressed like laity - all these have contributed to the cancer, not cured it.  Slavish copying of heterodox error is not the way to ensure that the Church retains and wins souls for Jesus Christ.

Please use titles per forum policy. Thanks, SC
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 09:49:42 PM by Second Chance »
Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #140 on: April 14, 2011, 07:30:17 PM »
The real star-worshipping pagans here are the ones who think that the Church's traditional calendar needs to be corrected in order to conform with natural phenomena.
Those 318 star-worshipping pagans from Nicea and St. Constantine who turned Christianity into paganism...
Except they acted in accordance with the Holy Spirit. Which Ecumenical Council revised the calendar? Or was it just some local churches acting under political pressure?
No, just common sense.  I seem to recall that St. Constantine was a politician, with considerable pressure.
But do you think the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches was a decision guided by the Holy Spirit?  The decision at the Council of Nicea brought unity, whereas the New Calendar has brought strife, division, confusion, and schisms.
What an outstanding success the new calendar in all its versions has been.  The conservative half of the OCA follow the Church's Julian calendar.  The modernist half don't.
Since you don't define the modernist half, I have to guess at that besides the Revised Julian Calendar.  I went to the OCA Cathedral in Chicago (consecrated by St. Tikhion, having St. John Kuchurov the Neo-Pastor as its pastor). Neither had electric organs, all the accretions and full form of the Divine Liturgy, and bearded priests (as if that mattered.  We can do without the pagan Stoic obsession with facial hair).  The parish did have pews, being founded by those fleeing the Vatican, but everyone stood (and knelt, something I'm not crazy about on Sunday).  They even had Slavonic (just not the entire DL).  And they still had the New Calendar
Those that do reject out of hand

Whod did that? Who rejected anyone out of hand?

such senior Patriarchs as those of Moscow and Jerusalem and of course dismiss out of hand Mt. Athos
They don't outrank Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, and Mt. Athos is under Constantinople.

as if they are virtually renegade Old Calendarists or schismatics.  Meanwhile 170 million Russian Orthodox are presumably condemned as wrong, just as ROCOR is wrong, Georgia and Serbia are wrong....... but 30 million are right?
You sem to be the one interesting in condemning.
It is true it is not a numbers game, but why do you New Calendarists think that we haven't changed?
 
Fossilization. And Rote.
The answer is there was no need to.
The way it was done, no.  But it was (and is) inevitable.
Are contemporary bishops idiots?  In those churches with electric organs, truncated liturgies and beardless priests, with the faithful corralled into pews, using a heterodox inspired calendar, all of which is way out of step with traditional Orthodoxy - Byzantine or Slavic, you have to wonder. You also have to wonder where this will end.
Since St. John "truncated" St. Basil, who "truncated" St. James-at least the tradition (and that is all the Old Calendarists claim to go by), and the New Calendar was inspired by the example of the Fathers of Nicea following the most accurate determination of the Equinox, I wonder how traditionalist Orthodoxy-"Byzantine" or Slavic-justifies being out of step with the Fathers.

If only Constantinople would have the courage to say that Patriarch Meletios was plain wrong,

He was, on many things. But since he neither was the reviser of the calendar, nor wrong in accepting it, what is your point?
and bring 30 million believers back into 100% common celebration with the traditional calendar of the majority of Orthodoxy, what a victory for the faith that would be, and a testament to the kind of leadership that has been lacking in the Phanar since the 19th century.
What would be better would be bringing the rest of the 170 million into common celebration with all of creation the way the Creator made here, not how the error of man has misrepresented her.

Titles edited - MK.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:27:22 AM by Michał Kalina »
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

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #141 on: April 14, 2011, 11:08:17 PM »
What would be better would be bringing the rest of the 170 million into common celebration with all of creation the way the Creator made here, not how the error of man has misrepresented her.

I am sorry, but this is complete BS.  All of creation worships the Lord on the calendar that His Body worships.  Since the vast majority of Orthodox Christians have, and continue to worship on what is currently called the "Old Calendar", but what is really the Church Calendar, I think that the Creator has spoken pretty clearly through His body.  The calendar is where we commemorate the Feasts of the Church and commemorate its Saints.  This has NOTHING to do with astronomy or science (with the exception of Pascha), but with the unity of the Church, which the MINORITY disrupted.  The only error man made was to try to bring what is of God in line with what is of man rather than bringing man in line with God.  You can delude yourself all you want, but it is the so-called New Calendarists that have broke with Nature.  It is sad to see that the Liturgical Calendar has been relegated by some as nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper.  For my part, I could not care less what the number on the paper says, and see no reason that the calendar hanging in Church has to, in any way, match the civil date.  It is far more important to me that I commemorate the Feasts with whole of the Church throughout the ages.  If it were up to me, I would not even use the numerical date in my correspondence regarding the spiritual, but like the monks would just use the Saint or Feast commemorated for the day.  I am pretty sure that if this was done and only the numbers on the calendar were moved, there would be less of a schism today (although some will always find an excuse to go into schism).  The minority have separated themselves from the unity of the Church, not the other way around.  There were many ways this could have been handled that could have satisfied both sides, but there was no desire to do this.  The New Calendar was rammed through, the feasts were moved, and what was intended to be accomplished by the Evil One was done – the unity of Worship within the Church was disrupted.  It is sad some continue to make excuses for it, and a sad lie to say the majority that stood with Tradition were to blame for this disunity. 
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Adelphi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #142 on: April 15, 2011, 07:10:02 AM »
I haven't read all the posts on this thread (yet), but skipped from bottom page two to here. Please forgive me if what I pose is dealt with above.
My jurisdiction vehemently follows the Orthodox Calendar and I just as vehemently agree. Not being a canonist, nor a scientist, nor a theologian, I believe that we are bound by the canons to not celebrate Pascha with or before the Jews celebrate Passover. Yes, I know we are talking about the Revised, and the Orthodox calendars, the latter which I believe, apart from the Paschalion, should be retained by the Orthodox. Let us keep the Apostles Fast as the Fathers have handed it down to us.
The Paschalion is the cycle which is matched to the equinox, no? Also it is matched to the Pesakh (Passover), no? As I understand it, Orthodox Pascha may not be kept with or before Pesakh. If the Jews keep Pesakh without regard to the equinox, then why not the Orthodox, Pascha? I see no need whatsoever to alter the days of the Festal Cycle. Why should our Church calendar be different to the Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Egyptian pagans...
Just my two bob's worth!
Adelphi
Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. Prov. 23:23.

Offline SubdeaconDavid

  • "...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
  • Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
    • Russian Orthodox Tasmania
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #143 on: April 15, 2011, 08:32:50 AM »
What would be better would be bringing the rest of the 170 million into common celebration with all of creation the way the Creator made here, not how the error of man has misrepresented her.

I am sorry, but this is complete BS.  All of creation worships the Lord on the calendar that His Body worships.  Since the vast majority of Orthodox Christians have, and continue to worship on what is currently called the "Old Calendar", but what is really the Church Calendar, I think that the Creator has spoken pretty clearly through His body.  The calendar is where we commemorate the Feasts of the Church and commemorate its Saints.  This has NOTHING to do with astronomy or science (with the exception of Pascha), but with the unity of the Church, which the MINORITY disrupted.  The only error man made was to try to bring what is of God in line with what is of man rather than bringing man in line with God.  You can delude yourself all you want, but it is the so-called New Calendarists that have broke with Nature.  It is sad to see that the Liturgical Calendar has been relegated by some as nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper.  For my part, I could not care less what the number on the paper says, and see no reason that the calendar hanging in Church has to, in any way, match the civil date.  It is far more important to me that I commemorate the Feasts with whole of the Church throughout the ages.  If it were up to me, I would not even use the numerical date in my correspondence regarding the spiritual, but like the monks would just use the Saint or Feast commemorated for the day.  I am pretty sure that if this was done and only the numbers on the calendar were moved, there would be less of a schism today (although some will always find an excuse to go into schism).  The minority have separated themselves from the unity of the Church, not the other way around.  There were many ways this could have been handled that could have satisfied both sides, but there was no desire to do this.  The New Calendar was rammed through, the feasts were moved, and what was intended to be accomplished by the Evil One was done – the unity of Worship within the Church was disrupted.  It is sad some continue to make excuses for it, and a sad lie to say the majority that stood with Tradition were to blame for this disunity. 

Thank you for this sanity.  Archpriest Andrew of ROCOR UK writes in relation to the disunity caused by the new calendar:
Quote
he Orthodox Church is One. Therefore, we must oppose the spirit of divisiveness and every movement of fragmentation which enters Church life. Unfortunately, this spirit came to the fore in the Orthodox world at the beginning of the last century, among intellectuals and their pseudo-intellectual imitators in Russia. Protestantised, and so lacking the collective or ‘catholic’ sense of the Church, they and their descendants later formed egotistical personality cults in the Russian emigration, especially in France and the USA. In turn, in the emigration they recruited converts, mainly from Protestantism, for like attracts like. Their general reflex is even more to divide the Church, whenever there is a disagreement even with a single individual in the Church, they leave and found a ‘new Church’ or ‘jurisdiction’. The level of intolerance may be such that some refuse even to speak to others because they do not agree with them about some tiny detail. Only the renewed consciousness that the Church is One, and so greater than any number of personalities, can overcome such a spirit of division.

Another area of divisiveness in the Orthodox world appeared in the last century through the obligatory introduction by various Westernised States of the new calendar into Church life. The forced introduction of this ‘new calendarism’, with both direct and indirect persecution by State authorities, scandalised the faithful who wished to remain faithful to the Church of Christ and refused apostasy. It also led to the reaction of ‘old calendarism’, with its sectarian and divisive nature. It is clear that the way ahead is for the episcopates of the Local Orthodox Churches concerned, acting together in Local Councils, to defy their anti-Christian States and return to the Church calendar. This is still faithfully adhered to by the vast majority of Orthodox with regard to the whole Church Year and adhered to by virtually all Orthodox with regard to the Paschal cycle. This would be an act of unity and also an act of repentance for the past. Only such an act can resolve the issue of old calendarism once and for all.
The full article written only this month is at: http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/principles.htm
Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Offline SubdeaconDavid

  • "...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
  • Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей
    • Russian Orthodox Tasmania
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #144 on: April 15, 2011, 08:43:06 AM »
The real star-worshipping pagans here are the ones who think that the Church's traditional calendar needs to be corrected in order to conform with natural phenomena.
Those 318 star-worshipping pagans from Nicea and St. Constantine who turned Christianity into paganism...
Except they acted in accordance with the Holy Spirit. Which Ecumenical Council revised the calendar? Or was it just some local churches acting under political pressure?
No, just common sense.  I seem to recall that St. Constantine was a politician, with considerable pressure.
But do you think the adoption of the New Calendar by some local churches was a decision guided by the Holy Spirit?  The decision at the Council of Nicea brought unity, whereas the New Calendar has brought strife, division, confusion, and schisms.
What an outstanding success the new calendar in all its versions has been.  The conservative half of the OCA follow the Church's Julian calendar.  The modernist half don't.
Since you don't define the modernist half, I have to guess at that besides the Revised Julian Calendar.  I went to the OCA Cathedral in Chicago (consecrated by St. Tikhion, having St. John Kuchurov the Neo-Pastor as its pastor). Neither had electric organs, all the accretions and full form of the Divine Liturgy, and bearded priests (as if that mattered.  We can do without the pagan Stoic obsession with facial hair).  The parish did have pews, being founded by those fleeing the Vatican, but everyone stood (and knelt, something I'm not crazy about on Sunday).  They even had Slavonic (just not the entire DL).  And they still had the New Calendar
Those that do reject out of hand

Whod did that? Who rejected anyone out of hand?

such senior Patriarchs as those of Moscow and Jerusalem and of course dismiss out of hand Mt. Athos
They don't outrank Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, and Mt. Athos is under Constantinople.

as if they are virtually renegade Old Calendarists or schismatics.  Meanwhile 170 million Russian Orthodox are presumably condemned as wrong, just as ROCOR is wrong, Georgia and Serbia are wrong....... but 30 million are right?
You sem to be the one interesting in condemning.
It is true it is not a numbers game, but why do you New Calendarists think that we haven't changed?
 
Fossilization. And Rote.
The answer is there was no need to.
The way it was done, no.  But it was (and is) inevitable.
Are contemporary bishops idiots?  In those churches with electric organs, truncated liturgies and beardless priests, with the faithful corralled into pews, using a heterodox inspired calendar, all of which is way out of step with traditional Orthodoxy - Byzantine or Slavic, you have to wonder. You also have to wonder where this will end.
Since St. John "truncated" St. Basil, who "truncated" St. James-at least the tradition (and that is all the Old Calendarists claim to go by), and the New Calendar was inspired by the example of the Fathers of Nicea following the most accurate determination of the Equinox, I wonder how traditionalist Orthodoxy-"Byzantine" or Slavic-justifies being out of step with the Fathers.

If only Constantinople would have the courage to say that Patriarch Meletios was plain wrong,

He was, on many things. But since he neither was the reviser of the calendar, nor wrong in accepting it, what is your point?
and bring 30 million believers back into 100% common celebration with the traditional calendar of the majority of Orthodoxy, what a victory for the faith that would be, and a testament to the kind of leadership that has been lacking in the Phanar since the 19th century.
What would be better would be bringing the rest of the 170 million into common celebration with all of creation the way the Creator made here, not how the error of man has misrepresented her.
What on earth is all of creation - presumably you mean non Orthodox humanity celebrating? Patriarch Meletios was entirely wrong in accepting a secular calendar, breaking Orthodoxy into those who follow the new versus the traditional calendar.  I am amazed that you call tradition and what are the norms for Orthodox Christians as "rote" and "fossilization" Perhaps the hour long communion fast as practiced in the Roman Church by priests who dress as laymen is the next innovation to come from the modernists?

Who gains from the divide between the traditional Julian calendar and your various versions of the new/Gregorian/revised Julian calendar?  The Evil One (unless of course one thinks the notion of a personal and real Satan is an old fashioned anachronism). The reason why the majority of Orthodox Christians don't change the calendar to pander to a small minority is because there is no spiritual reason, no canonical reason and no common sense reason to do so.

Proper titles added - MK.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:28:21 AM by Michał Kalina »
Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #145 on: April 15, 2011, 08:47:44 AM »
I haven't read all the posts on this thread (yet), but skipped from bottom page two to here. Please forgive me if what I pose is dealt with above.
My jurisdiction vehemently follows the Orthodox Calendar and I just as vehemently agree. Not being a canonist, nor a scientist, nor a theologian, I believe that we are bound by the canons to not celebrate Pascha with or before the Jews celebrate Passover. Yes, I know we are talking about the Revised, and the Orthodox calendars, the latter which I believe, apart from the Paschalion, should be retained by the Orthodox. Let us keep the Apostles Fast as the Fathers have handed it down to us.
Keying it to what the Jews are up to is one of things the Fathers formulated the Pasachalion against-the Jews had mocked the Church by saying that was proof that Christianity depended on Judaism (as opposed to on the Old Covenant).
The Paschalion is the cycle which is matched to the equinox, no?

At present, no.  The equinox is not April 3.
Also it is matched to the Pesakh (Passover), no?
Not the Jewish one, which has been formulated after the Resurrection.
As I understand it, Orthodox Pascha may not be kept with or before Pesakh. If the Jews keep Pesakh without regard to the equinox, then why not the Orthodox, Pascha?

Because the Fathers at Nicea said so.
I see no need whatsoever to alter the days of the Festal Cycle.

LOL. So, Joshua, you calculating it at Gibeon.
Why should our Church calendar be different to the Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Egyptian pagans...
Don't know what you are trying to say here.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #146 on: April 15, 2011, 12:48:20 PM »
I agree with you.  The calendar is on one level not an issue, because it is not about the science of calendars.
If you think that, you missed the point.
That the modernists in Orthodoxy are prepared to write off those who have followed the universal Orthodox calendar
You mean the Old Calendar of Constantinople?  Was never used by the Pope of Alexandria until the thirteenth century.  And he was charged by the Fathers of Nicea to determine Pascha.
and observe feasts on different days is an astounding innovation, that shows the calendar was/is more important than the unity of the Church.
The example of the Quartodecimans shows otherwise.
It points to an agenda that is unhealthy.
Yes, fossilization is unhealthy for living things.
I do think Constantinople had good leadership until Patriarch Meletios,
Nestorius?  (Btw, I think he was on the Julian Calendar)
but every successor EC has been compromised by the calendar and the pandering to relations with heterodox in ecumenism has been a symptom of that.

Even Moscow has basically admitted that its involvement in the WCC and ecumenism was wrong, and is showing leadership and missionary innovation throughout the world.  I don't think new calendarists realise how much the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch has been weakened and compromised by successive EP adhering to the new calendarist innovation.  The new calendar in whatever incarnation one finds it - 'New", 'revised Julian' etc is a symbol of malaise and decay, not growth.
You really shouldn't let your rhetoric run so far from the facts.

Constantinople lost most of her territories during the 19th century and her population by January 30, 1923.  The New Calendar wasn't adopted until May 1923.  Since then Constantinople has only grown into an international organization second only to Russia. As for its homelands, its great losses occured when it was on the Old Calendar.

Alexandria had been reduced to merely an absentee patriarch and at most two suffragans, and only a small flock in Egypt.  It had begun to rebound before the switch to the New Calendar, but when it switched, under none other than the former EP turned Pope Meletius, Alexandria expanded across all of Africa, and grew into a Holy Synod of dozens of bishops acrosss the entire contient.  There are now more EO in Egypt alone than there have been at any time since Chalcedon. Rather odd "malaise and decay."

Antioch even more since the adoption of the New Calendar represents the contrast of a growth, life and expansion (even internationally) next to the Tomb worshippers of Jerusalem, who remain on the Old Calendar amidst "malaise, decay," indiffrence, corruption and retreat.

Romania, besides being the largest EO Church after the PoM, remained resilient to communism-even under communism it remained relatively unheard of foregoing a Church wedding, or baptizing the children. And on the New Calendar. Since the Fall of Communism, it has expanded , e.g. the million strong Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, with its primate at Rome. :D

Bulgaria's status as an autcephalous Church was solidified in the diptychs when it adopted the New Calendar.  It does have a schism, but it isn't worse than the situation in Ukraine, where everyone is on the Old Calendar.

Cyprus had to have its hierarchy reconstituted for it several times under the Old Calendar.  Giving credit where credit is due, then Archmand. Meletios Metaxakis solved that problem once and for all.  On the New Calendar, Cyprus has formed as full a synod as it has ever had, and despite the occupation, the Church is as robust as it has ever been: witness the New Calendarist Abp. Makariios III.

The Church of Greece's problems stem from the erastian set up of the Holy Governing Synod-a heterodox innovaton done in imitation of the Protestants that Old Calendarists seem to have no problem with-not the calendar.  Greece was quite the stalwart of Orthodoxy and Christianity until the 80's, after decades on the New Calendar.

The Orthodox Church of Albania was brought out of non-existence into being by secular pressure, which favored the New Calendar.  Still on the New Calendar, the Albanian Church is growing, the very opposite of decay.

Poland was pretty much a mess between the Wars, with the state trying to suppress the Orthodox as a foreign body.  The New Calendar was adopted only when the Church began to be firmly organized as an autocephalous, local Church, when the Polish grew into its own and began to expand not only in Poland, but in the Iberian peninsula and South America as well. Since it seems that Poland has among the highest attendance rates, hardly a sign of "malaise and decay," in contrast to on the Old Calendar in the first and second Polish republics.

The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia was established as autocephalous on the New Calendar: he had a precarious existence under the Old Calendar.  Its biggest threat comes from the encrouchment of the Vatican, not an Old Calendar movement.

The OCA we have dealt with above.  I see no evidence that the more dynamic parishes are on the Old Calendar, and the dying ones are on the New.

The poliferation of Old Calendarist churches not in communion with anyone else is indeed a sign of growth-of schism.  That would seem to be in the decay category.

As for those on the Old Calendar but in the Orthodox communion of the Catholic Church, Jerusalem is too busy looking for the Living among the dead, as shown in a recent letter of accusation against the Patriarch of Antioch, who was addressing the corruption, decay and malaise in Palestine.

Russia had a lot of malaise and decay, and the Bolshevik Revolution was a result.  She was on the Old Calendar during the malaise and decay of the Governing Synod scheme (a Protestant invention which those who cling to the Old Calendar seem not to be bothered by), during the persecusion under the Communists, and her present revival.  Her state has changed, but her calendar has not.  Ergo, the Old Calendar has nothing to do with the present spring in Moscow.  So too Georgia, whose existence was abolished by the Governing Synod, whose revival came under the Communists, and whose growth came with sepeartion from the Soviets, all on the Old Calendar.  Serbia is in a neck in neck race with New Calendarist Greece in aborting their young, so that seems to be a wash on that issue.  (it seems to be improving in Russia). Although I admire the Serbian Church, I cannot ignore that it does have its problems, not the least the schisms in Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.

Modernism brought nothing but decay to the Latin Church and the Anglican Church.  Contemporary English, modern music, churches stripped of sacred art, abandonment of fasting and clergy dressed like laity - all these have contributed to the cancer, not cured it.  Slavish copying of heterodox error is not the way to ensure that the Church retains and wins souls for Jesus Christ.
That was as true under the Protestnat imitation Holy Governing Synod and its westernate icons. Yet no compaint of those?

Proper titles added - MK.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:29:41 AM by Michał Kalina »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #147 on: April 15, 2011, 01:10:14 PM »

If you want a definitive date, 1204. 

But Liturgical services have continued to evolve since then. The Lamentations service as we now have it  is one of the latest Holy Week innovations we have. I don't believe it coalesced into it's present form until the 1600's, maybe even later. (if I recall correctly) I studied (personally not academically in a college) Byzantine chant for a number of years and what we hear today in most Churches is NOT what was heard at the time of the Byzantine Empire, not even close. It continues to evolve sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It is not static. The rubrics are not static so there is no such thing a date when change ended, this is but a myth. I think what Michael is protesting is the an argument which is argued by many in EOy today that the Church hasn't changed and can't change, when it in fact has. But perhaps I'm wrong on what it is he's getting at. I dunno?
The 1204 date was only when the fossil was adopted by some as the model for the Church.  Not that they have had any success at it.
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

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #148 on: April 15, 2011, 01:32:52 PM »
I agree with you.  The calendar is on one level not an issue, because it is not about the science of calendars.
If you think that, you missed the point.
That the modernists in Orthodoxy are prepared to write off those who have followed the universal Orthodox calendar
You mean the Old Calendar of Constantinople?  Was never used by the Pope of Alexandria until the thirteenth century.  And he was charged by the Fathers of Nicea to determine Pascha.
and observe feasts on different days is an astounding innovation, that shows the calendar was/is more important than the unity of the Church.
The example of the Quartodecimans shows otherwise.
It points to an agenda that is unhealthy.
Yes, fossilization is unhealthy for living things.
I do think Constantinople had good leadership until Patriarch Meletios,
Nestorius?  (Btw, I think he was on the Julian Calendar)
but every successor EC has been compromised by the calendar and the pandering to relations with heterodox in ecumenism has been a symptom of that.

Even Moscow has basically admitted that its involvement in the WCC and ecumenism was wrong, and is showing leadership and missionary innovation throughout the world.  I don't think new calendarists realise how much the office of the Ecumenical Patriarch has been weakened and compromised by successive EP adhering to the new calendarist innovation.  The new calendar in whatever incarnation one finds it - 'New", 'revised Julian' etc is a symbol of malaise and decay, not growth.
You really shouldn't let your rhetoric run so far from the facts.

Constantinople lost most of her territories during the 19th century and her population by January 30, 1923.  The New Calendar wasn't adopted until May 1923.  Since then Constantinople has only grown into an international organization second only to Russia. As for its homelands, its great losses occured when it was on the Old Calendar.

Alexandria had been reduced to merely an absentee patriarch and at most two suffragans, and only a small flock in Egypt.  It had begun to rebound before the switch to the New Calendar, but when it switched, under none other than the former EP turned Pope Meletius, Alexandria expanded across all of Africa, and grew into a Holy Synod of dozens of bishops acrosss the entire contient.  There are now more EO in Egypt alone than there have been at any time since Chalcedon. Rather odd "malaise and decay."

Antioch even more since the adoption of the New Calendar represents the contrast of a growth, life and expansion (even internationally) next to the Tomb worshippers of Jerusalem, who remain on the Old Calendar amidst "malaise, decay," indiffrence, corruption and retreat.

Romania, besides being the largest EO Church after the PoM, remained resilient to communism-even under communism it remained relatively unheard of foregoing a Church wedding, or baptizing the children. And on the New Calendar. Since the Fall of Communism, it has expanded , e.g. the million strong Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, with its primate at Rome. :D

Bulgaria's status as an autcephalous Church was solidified in the diptychs when it adopted the New Calendar.  It does have a schism, but it isn't worse than the situation in Ukraine, where everyone is on the Old Calendar.

Cyprus had to have its hierarchy reconstituted for it several times under the Old Calendar.  Giving credit where credit is due, then Archmand. Meletios Metaxakis solved that problem once and for all.  On the New Calendar, Cyprus has formed as full a synod as it has ever had, and despite the occupation, the Church is as robust as it has ever been: witness the New Calendarist Abp. Makariios III.

The Church of Greece's problems stem from the erastian set up of the Holy Governing Synod-a heterodox innovaton done in imitation of the Protestants that Old Calendarists seem to have no problem with-not the calendar.  Greece was quite the stalwart of Orthodoxy and Christianity until the 80's, after decades on the New Calendar.

The Orthodox Church of Albania was brought out of non-existence into being by secular pressure, which favored the New Calendar.  Still on the New Calendar, the Albanian Church is growing, the very opposite of decay.

Poland was pretty much a mess between the Wars, with the state trying to suppress the Orthodox as a foreign body.  The New Calendar was adopted only when the Church began to be firmly organized as an autocephalous, local Church, when the Polish grew into its own and began to expand not only in Poland, but in the Iberian peninsula and South America as well. Since it seems that Poland has among the highest attendance rates, hardly a sign of "malaise and decay," in contrast to on the Old Calendar in the first and second Polish republics.

The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia was established as autocephalous on the New Calendar: he had a precarious existence under the Old Calendar.  Its biggest threat comes from the encrouchment of the Vatican, not an Old Calendar movement.

The OCA we have dealt with above.  I see no evidence that the more dynamic parishes are on the Old Calendar, and the dying ones are on the New.

The poliferation of Old Calendarist churches not in communion with anyone else is indeed a sign of growth-of schism.  That would seem to be in the decay category.

As for those on the Old Calendar but in the Orthodox communion of the Catholic Church, Jerusalem is too busy looking for the Living among the dead, as shown in a recent letter of accusation against the Patriarch of Antioch, who was addressing the corruption, decay and malaise in Palestine.

Russia had a lot of malaise and decay, and the Bolshevik Revolution was a result.  She was on the Old Calendar during the malaise and decay of the Governing Synod scheme (a Protestant invention which those who cling to the Old Calendar seem not to be bothered by), during the persecusion under the Communists, and her present revival.  Her state has changed, but her calendar has not.  Ergo, the Old Calendar has nothing to do with the present spring in Moscow.  So too Georgia, whose existence was abolished by the Governing Synod, whose revival came under the Communists, and whose growth came with sepeartion from the Soviets, all on the Old Calendar.  Serbia is in a neck in neck race with New Calendarist Greece in aborting their young, so that seems to be a wash on that issue.  (it seems to be improving in Russia). Although I admire the Serbian Church, I cannot ignore that it does have its problems, not the least the schisms in Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.

Modernism brought nothing but decay to the Latin Church and the Anglican Church.  Contemporary English, modern music, churches stripped of sacred art, abandonment of fasting and clergy dressed like laity - all these have contributed to the cancer, not cured it.  Slavish copying of heterodox error is not the way to ensure that the Church retains and wins souls for Jesus Christ.
That was as true under the Protestnat imitation Holy Governing Synod and its westernate icons. Yet no compaint of those?

Well said, but truth justs gets in the way of strong opinions so I suspect no minds or hearts will be changed as a result!  :(

Proper titles added - MK.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:30:13 AM by Michał Kalina »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #149 on: April 15, 2011, 01:48:51 PM »
Maybe if you cared to explain what on earth Florence has to do with this discussion, I could explain whatever it is you want me to explain.
You keep on speaking of the sigillion as if it was an Ecumenical Council, and the "Church" spoke in it.  It wasn't even signed by all the atriarchs.  Florence can claim to be more representtive of the Orthodox.
If the Church later rejected the sigillion, that would be evidence that it was a "robber act". But on the contrary, the Church confirmed it by several later decisions.
Oh? by any authority greater than the sigillion?

The decision of Florence was decisively rejected later, showing that it had no authority and cannot be used as an example of a Church decision.
How about the decision that set up the Holy Governing Synod on Protestant models?

And plenty of Orthodox decisively rejected Floreace at the time. Like the secular authority in Moscow, i.e. the Czar, who arrested the Metropolitan and expelled him.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 01:49:54 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,996
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #150 on: April 16, 2011, 01:29:44 AM »
"Sacred heart" devotion isn't Orthodox, and was "discovered" by schismatics. We can't take in things relating to our faith that were created by schismatics.
"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #151 on: April 16, 2011, 02:05:19 AM »
What on earth is all of creation - presumably you mean non Orthodox humanity celebrating? Patriarch Meletios was entirely wrong in accepting a secular calendar, breaking Orthodoxy into those who follow the new versus the traditional calendar.  I am amazed that you call tradition and what are the norms for Orthodox Christians as "rote" and "fossilization" Perhaps the hour long communion fast as practiced in the Roman Church by priests who dress as laymen is the next innovation to come from the modernists?

Who gains from the divide between the traditional Julian calendar and your various versions of the new/Gregorian/revised Julian calendar?  The Evil One (unless of course one thinks the notion of a personal and real Satan is an old fashioned anachronism). The reason why the majority of Orthodox Christians don't change the calendar to pander to a small minority is because there is no spiritual reason, no canonical reason and no common sense reason to do so.

Save your breath (or fingers).  I guess that we worship a "fossil" God since He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore.  One day He will not be new and different enough and people will go after the much more cool Antichrist.

My priest got into it with a Greek priest that was using our temple for a wedding.  The Greeks probably should have chosen a good Protestant Church to have the service in since they wanted a very unorthodox wedding ceremony.  My priest would have none of it and was told by the Greek priest that "you Russians and Serbs are still living 200 years in the past".  I was insulted.  Only 200 years?!?
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #152 on: April 16, 2011, 10:24:48 AM »
^^The tenor and tone of this discussion has really degenerated as it has progressed.

I came across the 'Anti-Beatitudes' on-line the other day and this thread reminded me that they were worth posting as we enter Holy Week. Here are a few of them relevant that all of us who post ought to consider as we prepare for Pascha.

"• 'Blessed' are the “masters-of-the-universe” who assume that the whole world revolves around them.

• 'Blessed' are the arrogant, the self-absorbed, and the “my-way- or-the-highway” gang.

• 'Blessed' are the trash-talkers, the bullies, and those who start false rumors. May they strut around, confident in the fact that they are entitled to whatever they can get, and allowed to push their way to the front of the line."

http://www.kenboa.org/blog/2010/09/08/the-beatitudes-and-the-anti-beatitudes/

I would add this one:

Blessed are those who proclaim that they are 'more Orthodox' than the person sitting next to them as they apparently never heard this teaching: 

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."  Luke 18:9-14

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #153 on: April 16, 2011, 10:28:43 AM »
I agree with you Father about the impact of the new calendar - however one labels it.  An inter-Orthodox conference essentially ratified it and some local Churches over the years followed suit - but one cannot say it was done by a Council.  The Old Calendar has been followed by the majority of Orthodox Christians for the majority of time since Our Lord Jesus Christ was on this earth.  It is the Calendar of the majority of Orthodox Christians in this world and perhaps all of heaven. It is no accident that the atheist Bolsheviks and their allies were very quick to get rid of the Old Calendar for Russia in 1918 because it was a distinctly Orthodox Christian calendar that placed the primacy of Orthodoxy over the convenience of dealing with the rest of the world.
No, just reality. Look at Czarist documents, even personal letters and ecclesiastical documents, and you will see two dates, the real one and the retro one.
Quote
Usually, the mapping of new dates onto old dates with a start of year adjustment works well with little confusion for events which happened before the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar. But for the period between the first introduction of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 and its introduction in Britain on 14 September 1752, there can be considerable confusion between events in continental western Europe and in British domains in English language histories. Events in continental western Europe are usually reported in English language histories as happening under the Gregorian calendar. For example the Battle of Blenheim is always given as 13 August 1704. However confusion occurs when an event affects both. For example William III of England arrived at Brixham in England on 5 November (Julian calendar), after setting sail from the Netherlands on 11 November (Gregorian calendar).

Shakespeare and Cervantes apparently died on exactly the same date (23 April 1616), but in fact Cervantes predeceased Shakespeare by ten days in real time (for dating these events, Spain used the Gregorian calendar, but Britain used the Julian calendar).

In Alaska, the change took place when Friday, 6 October 1867 was followed again by Friday, 18 October after the US purchase of Alaska from Russia, which was still on the Julian calendar. Instead of 12 days, only 11 were skipped, and the day of the week was repeated on successive days, because the International Date Line was shifted from Alaska's eastern to western boundary along with the change to the Gregorian calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar#Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates
Then there is that October Revolution which occured in November.
Constantinople adopted the Revised Julian Calendar in 1923; Ankara didn't adopt the Revised Julian Claedar, and didn't adopt the Gregorian until 1926.
But back to the Bolsheviks: the calender chnage was just like the dropping of the hard sign-the vestige wasn't needed.  It is said that "War and Peace" was 200 pages shorter with the new orthography.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 10:49:24 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #154 on: April 16, 2011, 03:28:19 PM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.
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

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #155 on: April 16, 2011, 04:25:25 PM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,878
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #156 on: April 16, 2011, 04:33:46 PM »
We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.

Except for the Finnish Church.
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #157 on: April 16, 2011, 04:40:10 PM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?

This whole Pascha calculation issue is one to make one really confused. I seem to recall that last year Pascha fell on March 22 OS/April 4 NS (on the Civil Calendar) in that the first full moon after the equinox date of March 21 OS/April 3 NS was in fact April3/4 NS or March21/22/ OS. This actually coincided with the actual celestial equinox of March 21, hence Pascha was celebrated together.That date was the earliest upon which it could fall. However, in years where the first full moon of the actual celestial equinox falls prior to the arbitrary Julian equinox date of April 3 NS, the Paschas of East and West will fall on different dates. This makes my head spin and causes some confusion since we use a date called the spring equinox that is actually NOT the spring equinox - merely a name affixed to a calendar date that is out of sync with the heavens. For an article to really confuse you, try reading this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus  


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #158 on: April 16, 2011, 04:42:53 PM »
We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.

Except for the Finnish Church.
And the Phanar's Estonians. But once we all are on the real equinox, there wouldn't be a problem until 2800.
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

Offline Adelphi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #159 on: April 17, 2011, 08:22:44 AM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?

What about when there is a late Orthodox Pascha? The Abostles' Fast links both cycles: It starts first Monday after All Saints (Paschal Cycle), and ends the day before the Feast of Apostles Peter and Paul 29 June (Festal Cycle).
If Apostles' Fast begins on 1 July (NC) as it does in 2013, and the Apostles' Feast is 29 June, what has happened to the Apostles' Fast? Is this what the Fathers of the Church intended?
In the Orthodox Calendar the Fast begins on the same date (OC 18 June/NC 1 July) and we have a week and four days of fasting. Whenever there is a late Pascha this situation will reccur: 2024, 2040, 2043, 2051! etc
If for no other reason, this is a valid reason to follow the Church Calendar.
Adelphi
Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding. Prov. 23:23.

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #160 on: April 17, 2011, 09:20:09 AM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?

What about when there is a late Orthodox Pascha? The Abostles' Fast links both cycles: It starts first Monday after All Saints (Paschal Cycle), and ends the day before the Feast of Apostles Peter and Paul 29 June (Festal Cycle).
If Apostles' Fast begins on 1 July (NC) as it does in 2013, and the Apostles' Feast is 29 June, what has happened to the Apostles' Fast? Is this what the Fathers of the Church intended?
In the Orthodox Calendar the Fast begins on the same date (OC 18 June/NC 1 July) and we have a week and four days of fasting. Whenever there is a late Pascha this situation will reccur: 2024, 2040, 2043, 2051! etc
If for no other reason, this is a valid reason to follow the Church Calendar.
Adelphi

<Sarcasm Alert> Yes, the fact that the Old Calendar preserves the Apostle's Fast, and also that Easter never falls in May under the Old Calendar is proof enough that the Church Calendar is blessed.  However, you will never convince those who simply want to make excuses for the adoption of the New Calendar.  Keep in mind that the whole astronomical issue is a smoke screen and a red herring.  The real issue is being able to celebrate Christmas with the Pope and have drinks on New Years Eve down at the Lodge.  If we cannot maintain the sanctity of the Nativity Fast, what makes you think that the Apostles Fast even enters the picture?  It's all about "unity", baby. The question is: unity with whom. <End Sarcasm>
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,752
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #161 on: April 17, 2011, 01:36:01 PM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?

What about when there is a late Orthodox Pascha? The Abostles' Fast links both cycles: It starts first Monday after All Saints (Paschal Cycle), and ends the day before the Feast of Apostles Peter and Paul 29 June (Festal Cycle).
If Apostles' Fast begins on 1 July (NC) as it does in 2013, and the Apostles' Feast is 29 June, what has happened to the Apostles' Fast? Is this what the Fathers of the Church intended?
In the Orthodox Calendar the Fast begins on the same date (OC 18 June/NC 1 July) and we have a week and four days of fasting. Whenever there is a late Pascha this situation will reccur: 2024, 2040, 2043, 2051! etc
If for no other reason, this is a valid reason to follow the Church Calendar.
Adelphi

Isa's idea would fix the problem of the Apostle's fast, as it would restore the dating of the Paschal celebration to the Equinox.  No more extra late Pascha.  The only reason we have this problem at the moment is because New Calendar Orthodox date Pascha according to the Old Calendar.

As to Punch's issue with the fixed feasts, my question would be what do the Old Calendar Churches do with the fixed feasts any time a leap year rolls around to begin with (every four years in other words)?  Just celebrate the fixed feast as normal for a Leap Year.

<Sarcasm Alert> Yes, the fact that the Old Calendar preserves the Apostle's Fast, and also that Easter never falls in May under the Old Calendar is proof enough that the Church Calendar is blessed.  However, you will never convince those who simply want to make excuses for the adoption of the New Calendar.  Keep in mind that the whole astronomical issue is a smoke screen and a red herring.  The real issue is being able to celebrate Christmas with the Pope and have drinks on New Years Eve down at the Lodge.  If we cannot maintain the sanctity of the Nativity Fast, what makes you think that the Apostles Fast even enters the picture?  It's all about "unity", baby. The question is: unity with whom. <End Sarcasm>

I thought the smoke screen was you American Old Calendar types insisting that it's all about "celestial time" and "tradition" when in reality y'all get guilt free turkey on Thanksgiving  ;)
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,769
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #162 on: April 17, 2011, 06:42:31 PM »
Btw, if we ever get our act together in a Pan Orthodox Council on the calendar, it might be better that instead of dropping days to get back into sync, that instead leap year be held every year until the Equiinox is restored.

This would work.  This would also slowly bring both the calendars into line which would prevent the problems associated with rapid assimilation.  On the other hand, is the Equinox the real problem?  The Equinox affects Pascha and the feasts associated with it.  We are in unity among the Orthodox concerning Pascha.  It is the fixed feasts that give us the trouble, and they have nothing to do with the Equinox.  What would be an acceptable proposal for addressing that issue?

What about when there is a late Orthodox Pascha? The Abostles' Fast links both cycles: It starts first Monday after All Saints (Paschal Cycle), and ends the day before the Feast of Apostles Peter and Paul 29 June (Festal Cycle).
If Apostles' Fast begins on 1 July (NC) as it does in 2013, and the Apostles' Feast is 29 June, what has happened to the Apostles' Fast? Is this what the Fathers of the Church intended?
In the Orthodox Calendar the Fast begins on the same date (OC 18 June/NC 1 July) and we have a week and four days of fasting. Whenever there is a late Pascha this situation will reccur: 2024, 2040, 2043, 2051! etc
If for no other reason, this is a valid reason to follow the Church Calendar.
Adelphi
We EO (and OO) are all aware of the Apostles Fast. It isn't a surprise.

The revised Julian calendar is the Church calendar.

The Fathers of the Church made clear their intention by having the Church of Alexandria calculating the date, for the express purpose that Alexandria had the best scientists.  Btw, I'm not sure the Apostles Fast dates as far back as Nicea.

As explained above, once we restore the calendar fully to the intention of the Fathers, the other problems will disappear.  I think the latest Pascha can occur then is April 24 (real time). So the latest the Apostles Fast would start would be June 21 (real time), so the shortest the Apostles Fast would be would be 8 days (real time). Which would be the situation in the days when the Apostles Fast was instituted. (the earliest reference I know is the homilies of Pope St. Leo of 461).
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

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #163 on: April 17, 2011, 09:18:21 PM »

I thought the smoke screen was you American Old Calendar types insisting that it's all about "celestial time" and "tradition" when in reality y'all get guilt free turkey on Thanksgiving  ;)

That is only true for those of us living in the United States.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,752
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #164 on: April 17, 2011, 10:18:35 PM »

I thought the smoke screen was you American Old Calendar types insisting that it's all about "celestial time" and "tradition" when in reality y'all get guilt free turkey on Thanksgiving  ;)

That is only true for those of us living in the United States.

I thought the presence of "American" in the sentence indicated that.  But that's okay, we also know your "donations" and money from the turkey (the bird, not the nation) industry buys off the Old Calendarists of the rest of the world. 
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline Punch

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,799
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #165 on: April 18, 2011, 01:30:36 AM »

I thought the smoke screen was you American Old Calendar types insisting that it's all about "celestial time" and "tradition" when in reality y'all get guilt free turkey on Thanksgiving  ;)

That is only true for those of us living in the United States.

I thought the presence of "American" in the sentence indicated that.  But that's okay, we also know your "donations" and money from the turkey (the bird, not the nation) industry buys off the Old Calendarists of the rest of the world. 

Hmmmm.  I may have a hard time coming up with an argument against that one.
I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Offline Michał

  • ['mi:hɑʊ]
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 821
  • "Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."
Re: Are contemporary Bishops idiots?
« Reply #166 on: April 18, 2011, 01:30:37 PM »
Why was St. John allowed to write a new anaphora because the previous one was too long and the Antiochian Western Rite can't practise Sacred Heart devotion?

As I understand things, there are some in the AWRV who like it and they probably do practice it, but I don't think that apart from them there is any demand for it.

I've just found out they do practice it -- for sure:


Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/occidentalis/sets/72157603991844778