Old vs. New Calendar?

[PeterTheAleut]

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?

Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.

In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.

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

[PeterTheAleut]

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

If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both. 

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.

Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.

[Jonathan Gress]

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?

Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.

In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.

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

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

[Jonathan Gress]

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

If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both. 

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.

Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.

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

[PeterTheAleut]

As I've asked before, why does everyone insist on calling it the "revised Julian"? Why not the "revised Gregorian"?

Because that's not what it is.

What's Julian about the revised Julian? The epoch is the same as the Gregorian, as opposed to the Julian, and in every other respect the revised Julian is more similar to the Gregorian than to the Julian. Revised Gregorian is a far more accurate name.

In your opinion it is. In the opinion of those who drafted the Revised Julian Calendar it is not.

It is my opinion, but I also provided reasons and evidence to support it, unlike you.

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

You don't have to change your opinion because you lose an argument, but don't try to pretend that you have offered an airtight case in support of that opinion.

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

It's quite clear that, regardless of any evidence I bring, you are not going to change your belief that the new calendar is just a form of the traditional Julian and has nothing to do with the anathematized Gregorian. That's fine; just admit it.

Considering that you are basing your condemnation of the New Calendarists on your opinion that their calendar is nothing different from the Gregorian Calendar, I think you have the much greater burden to prove your point, since you're ultimately going to have to stand before God and give an account of why you condemned such a large segment of His Church. Are you willing to stand firm on such a judgment based on nothing but your personal opinion?

[PeterTheAleut]

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

If you have to use fine legalistic sophistry to decide whether Milankovitch's calendar comes under an anathema or not, then maybe something is wrong with your reliance on the anathema, your reliance on legalistic arguments, or both.  

I completely agree with you. I am not the one resorting to sophistry, however; it is the ones who try to argue that the new calendar doesn't fall under the anathema who are doing so.

Arguing that the Revised Julian and Gregorian Calendars are essentially the same calendar because they do not differ substantially until 2800 is itself a resort to sophistry.

Er, no. If the new calendar is practically identical to the Gregorian, the common sense interpretation of the anathema is that it also covers the revised calendar.

Common sense is common only if it's truly common.

It is sophistry to argue that the new calendar doesn't technically fall under the anathema because of some tiny differences in calculations that lead to a tiny discrepancy (ultimately reversed) several centuries hence.

Again, if you're going to apply an anathema to a calendar and to those who follow it, you better have an airtight reason for doing so, because you will be held to account for how you judge others. I personally don't find your reasoning all that convincing, and your mere repetition of that reasoning without alteration is not going to change my mind, so I don't think your application of an anathema to the Revised Julian Calendar airtight.

BTW, I never denied any use of sophistry in the New Calendarist position, but neither did I affirm it. All I said is that your position that the Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars are the same is [also?] based on sophistry.

[orthonorm]

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

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

[PeterTheAleut]

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

No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

[orthonorm]

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

No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

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

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

[PeterTheAleut]

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

No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

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

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

That's only the definition you chose to use.

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

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

[orthonorm]

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

No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

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

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

That's only the definition you chose to use.

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

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

It's literally the first definition I found.

Here is another:

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

[PeterTheAleut]

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

No matter how much you might like to be the authority around here on what words mean, sophistry is not what you want to define it to be.

He seems sincere to a fault and probably only exceeds you in his slavish devotion to reasoned discourse. The primary difference your shared devotion is that he does more than just run around calling structural foul play on others. He actually brings something to the table in nearly every post and seems to assume the best in others and again appears to be of general good cheer.

That's not been my experience of him, so I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy what you're selling.

google says:

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

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

That's only the definition you chose to use.

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

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

It's literally the first definition I found.

Here is another:

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

You lug nut! I posted that definition!

[Mockingbird]

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

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

Here is the Latin translation from the parallel column:

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

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

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

[Mockingbird]

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

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

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

[Mockingbird]

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

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

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

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?