OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 06:01:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 218725 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2520 on: November 16, 2014, 12:32:03 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 12:33:14 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2521 on: November 16, 2014, 04:10:07 PM »

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.
Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Why, indeed?  Why should a carpenter care if his saw is too worn to cut wood?  Why should a hunter care if his gun is too worn to shoot straight?  Why should I care if my physician prescribes medicine for me based on astrological charts?  Why should a computer programmer care if his program is full of bugs? 
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2522 on: November 16, 2014, 05:34:45 PM »

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.
Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Why, indeed?  Why should a carpenter care if his saw is too worn to cut wood?  Why should a hunter care if his gun is too worn to shoot straight?  Why should I care if my physician prescribes medicine for me based on astrological charts?  Why should a computer programmer care if his program is full of bugs? 

But was the calendar reform worth all the scandal and division? Considered in the abstract and divorced from all other considerations, then sure, it would be nice if it were more accurate. But that's really a small consideration when set against all the problems that have arisen out of the reform. I believe that is why over the centuries, although the Church certainly entertained reform proposals, she never saw fit to carry out the reform. If a proper reform were to take place, it could only come about by unanimous agreement.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2523 on: November 16, 2014, 05:41:23 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
But now you're talking about something totally different from my latest point. Maybe I'm missing your point or you're missing mine, but the disconnect is there. Whether the reforms that have been introduced have been introduced in a proper manner or not doesn't negate the obvious need for reform. I think that's what Mockingbird and I are saying.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 05:41:51 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2524 on: November 16, 2014, 05:46:34 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
But now you're talking about something totally different from my latest point. Maybe I'm missing your point or you're missing mine, but the disconnect is there. Whether the reforms that have been introduced have been introduced in a proper manner or not doesn't negate the obvious need for reform. I think that's what Mockingbird and I are saying.

Hm OK I think we can agree that reform, considered on its own, is probably a good idea, though I would hardly call it necessary. It seems that the traditional calendar, for all its inaccuracy, carries out its main function quite adequately.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2525 on: November 16, 2014, 05:49:30 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
But now you're talking about something totally different from my latest point. Maybe I'm missing your point or you're missing mine, but the disconnect is there. Whether the reforms that have been introduced have been introduced in a proper manner or not doesn't negate the obvious need for reform. I think that's what Mockingbird and I are saying.

Hm OK I think we can agree that reform, considered on its own, is probably a good idea, though I would hardly call it necessary. It seems that the traditional calendar, for all its inaccuracy, carries out its main function quite adequately.
Not when it's inaccurate by two weeks. The vernal equinox is not an arbitrary day on the calendar. It is an actual astronomical event that God gave us for marking the seasons and, as the Nicene Fathers understood, the date for Pascha.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2526 on: November 16, 2014, 05:59:34 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
But now you're talking about something totally different from my latest point. Maybe I'm missing your point or you're missing mine, but the disconnect is there. Whether the reforms that have been introduced have been introduced in a proper manner or not doesn't negate the obvious need for reform. I think that's what Mockingbird and I are saying.

Hm OK I think we can agree that reform, considered on its own, is probably a good idea, though I would hardly call it necessary. It seems that the traditional calendar, for all its inaccuracy, carries out its main function quite adequately.
Not when it's inaccurate by two weeks. The vernal equinox is not an arbitrary day on the calendar. It is an actual astronomical event that God gave us for marking the seasons and, as the Nicene Fathers understood, the date for Pascha.

I think originally that is indeed what it was, but the way things developed subsequently, it became an arbitrary date defined only by its liturgical function, and that seemed to work just fine. Why is it so important to restore its astronomical significance? I'd be hard put to it to find any saintly figure who considered this an important problem needing an immediate solution.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2527 on: November 16, 2014, 07:44:24 PM »

...superiority...
Since you insist in introducing the word "superior" to this discussion -- a word I have not used above, so far as I recall -- I will gleefully state that the correct answer to an arithmetic sum is "superior" to all incorrect ones, and a good approximation is "superior" to a bad one.  The approximation of 3.0 for the value of the constant pi is in Holy Scripture itself (1 Kings 7.23) but notwithstanding the scriptural authority for this approximation I would prefer modern engineers and scientists to use a somewhat better approximation.

Your problem is you think you have the authority to tell the Church what calendar it should use. The thing is, only Church has the authority to decide what calendar suits its purpose. If you don't like it because it's inaccurate or whatever, that doesn't count for anything, since it's not about what makes you happy.
The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.

Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Because God gave us the cycles of the sun, the moon, and the stars by which we are to regulate our own festal cycles, which apparently even the Nicene Fathers recognized better than you.

So you say, but there is no authority you can cite that will support your argument that such a profound division in the Church, and the destruction of the coherence of the fixed and movable parts of the calendar, was a price worth paying for making the fixed part of the calendar more accurate.
But now you're talking about something totally different from my latest point. Maybe I'm missing your point or you're missing mine, but the disconnect is there. Whether the reforms that have been introduced have been introduced in a proper manner or not doesn't negate the obvious need for reform. I think that's what Mockingbird and I are saying.

Hm OK I think we can agree that reform, considered on its own, is probably a good idea, though I would hardly call it necessary. It seems that the traditional calendar, for all its inaccuracy, carries out its main function quite adequately.
Not when it's inaccurate by two weeks. The vernal equinox is not an arbitrary day on the calendar. It is an actual astronomical event that God gave us for marking the seasons and, as the Nicene Fathers understood, the date for Pascha.

I think originally that is indeed what it was, but the way things developed subsequently, it became an arbitrary date defined only by its liturgical function, and that seemed to work just fine.
So the fact that our liturgical celebrations have become divorced from the astronomical phenomena that were to serve as the basis for their scheduling does not bother you? God gave us these signs in the heavens. The people of the Old Testament recognized this. The earliest people of the New Testament recognized this. Why is it that some Orthodox Christians have lost all sense of this significance?

Why is it so important to restore its astronomical significance?
Because this significance is something God gave us.

I'd be hard put to it to find any saintly figure who considered this an important problem needing an immediate solution.
What of today's saintly figures who consider this an important problem needing an immediate solution? Or do you automatically disregard as unsaintly those who disagree with what your association of churches considers important?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 07:46:23 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2528 on: November 16, 2014, 08:29:31 PM »


So the fact that our liturgical celebrations have become divorced from the astronomical phenomena that were to serve as the basis for their scheduling does not bother you? God gave us these signs in the heavens. The people of the Old Testament recognized this. The earliest people of the New Testament recognized this. Why is it that some Orthodox Christians have lost all sense of this significance?

It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you. Again, if accuracy were really that important, I'd think the Church would have figured out how to change the calendar before now, and it would have done so in the proper canonical fashion, i.e. unanimously, not with one part going one way and another part the other.


Quote
What of today's saintly figures who consider this an important problem needing an immediate solution? Or do you automatically disregard as unsaintly those who disagree with what your association of churches considers important?

I do not know of these saintly figures you speak of. All the great new calendar elders that the conservative new calendarists constantly promote, like Elder Paisios, Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, etc all agreed the calendar reform was a mistake and only differ on whether the calendar technically resulted in schism. I've never heard of one of these elders actually say the reform was a good thing, and of course there are all the elders that did think it was a schismatic act and joined the Old Calendarists, e.g. Elder St Ieronymos of Aegina.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 08:30:07 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2529 on: November 16, 2014, 08:43:03 PM »


So the fact that our liturgical celebrations have become divorced from the astronomical phenomena that were to serve as the basis for their scheduling does not bother you? God gave us these signs in the heavens. The people of the Old Testament recognized this. The earliest people of the New Testament recognized this. Why is it that some Orthodox Christians have lost all sense of this significance?

It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you. Again, if accuracy were really that important, I'd think the Church would have figured out how to change the calendar before now, and it would have done so in the proper canonical fashion, i.e. unanimously, not with one part going one way and another part the other.
I think the movement that we have seen toward reform, as awkward as it has been, is evidence that the Church, not just your little schismatic sect, now considers and always has considered astronomical accuracy important.

Quote
What of today's saintly figures who consider this an important problem needing an immediate solution? Or do you automatically disregard as unsaintly those who disagree with what your association of churches considers important?

I do not know of these saintly figures you speak of. All the great new calendar elders that the conservative new calendarists constantly promote, like Elder Paisios, Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, etc all agreed the calendar reform was a mistake and only differ on whether the calendar technically resulted in schism.
I'm arguing my own position. I'm not consciously arguing the New Calendarist position, whatever that is. So instead of lumping me together with all this other nebulous New Calendarist camp you wish to rail against, why don't you engage my arguments for what they are, the arguments put forward by an individual supporter of calendar reform?

I've never heard of one of these elders actually say the reform was a good thing, and of course there are all the elders that did think it was a schismatic act and joined the Old Calendarists, e.g. Elder St Ieronymos of Aegina.
Once again, the way the reform has been carried out is not the point I'm arguing. I'm talking about the acknowledged need for reform. Besides, are the elders you laud the only saintly people in the Church?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2014, 08:44:44 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2530 on: November 16, 2014, 11:10:11 PM »

I'm familiar with the kind of conservative new calendarism best represented by jah777 on this forum. Their standard modus operandi is to persuade Old Calendarists to return to the official church, and discontented new calendarists from leaving it, by conceding that the calendar reform was a mistake but using various legalistic arguments to show that it did not place the reforming churches in schism. They also rely heavily on their "holy elders" like Elder Paisios or Elder Joseph the Hesychast who all concede that the traditional calendar is best but that new calendarists should remain in the official church until the Church as a whole sorts out the problem and returns everyone to tradition. The whole force of this argument relies on acknowledging the objections to the new calendar as valid up to a point (no real need for reform, not carried out canonically, resulting in scandal and division) but still insisting that the true Church remains the official one.

So it's news to me that new calendarists who actually support the reform might be making the "holy elders" argument as well. It surprises me that any Orthodox figure steeped in traditional piety would also believe that the reform was an intrinsically good thing, despite all the scandal that resulted. I'd be interested to know who these figures are since it would seem to be a new development. The general tendency has been for ardent supporters of calendar reform to also support other innovations and generally to spurn much of traditional piety and praxis. The kind of person who tries to keep traditional piety sees the new calendar as an error to be endured for the sake of church unity, rather than an intrinsic good.

Showing that you have people known for their strict piety on your "side" is not a clinching argument, of course, but it does provide added force. I was persuaded that the calendar reform was an error since my impression was that every conservative and traditionalist Orthodox believer was against the reform; they simply disagreed on the best way to fight it. The Old Calendarists say to reject it completely and have no communion with the innovators, while the conservative New Calendarists believe in "fighting from within". No one was saying just to accept it and be happy for it.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,801



« Reply #2531 on: November 16, 2014, 11:17:14 PM »


I think the movement that we have seen toward reform, as awkward as it has been, is evidence that the Church, not just your little schismatic sect, now considers and always has considered astronomical accuracy important.


I think the fact that the majority of Orthodox Christians having decided NOT to change the calendar somewhat negates that statement.  "The Church" has, in reality, shown that it does not consider astronomical accuracy to be all that important.  Unless, of course, you also consider the Churches or Russia and Serbia to be little schismatic sects.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
jewish voice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



« Reply #2532 on: November 16, 2014, 11:31:51 PM »

57 pages  Shocked 
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2533 on: November 17, 2014, 12:42:23 AM »

57 pages  Shocked 
Only 57?  Man, we are such slugs.

Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 143



« Reply #2534 on: November 17, 2014, 01:17:58 AM »

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.
Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Why, indeed?  Why should a carpenter care if his saw is too worn to cut wood?  Why should a hunter care if his gun is too worn to shoot straight?  Why should I care if my physician prescribes medicine for me based on astrological charts?  Why should a computer programmer care if his program is full of bugs? 

But was the calendar reform worth all the scandal and division? Considered in the abstract and divorced from all other considerations, then sure, it would be nice if it were more accurate. But that's really a small consideration when set against all the problems that have arisen out of the reform. I believe that is why over the centuries, although the Church certainly entertained reform proposals, she never saw fit to carry out the reform.
Perhaps the "scandal and division" is caused not by the reform, but by the unfortunate tendency of devout believers to fall into the sickness of spiritual pride and legalism, which brings them to puke up anathemas when they are not needed. 

You speak of church as some sort of power external to yourself.  Is this legalistic view the only one, or the best one?  Aren't you part of the church?  If you think that "it would be nice" if the calendar were more accurate, isn't this sentiment part of the whole equation?
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2535 on: November 17, 2014, 01:18:52 AM »


I think the movement that we have seen toward reform, as awkward as it has been, is evidence that the Church, not just your little schismatic sect, now considers and always has considered astronomical accuracy important.


I think the fact that the majority of Orthodox Christians having decided NOT to change the calendar somewhat negates that statement.
I don't think that majority you cite negates anything I said.

"The Church" has, in reality, shown that it does not consider astronomical accuracy to be all that important.  Unless, of course, you also consider the Churches or Russia and Serbia to be little schismatic sects.
The movement toward reform does show that the Church considers astronomical accuracy important, but some national churches had more pressing matters to deal with over the years than calendar reform, such as how to survive an oppressive Communist regime.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 02:13:35 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2536 on: November 17, 2014, 11:55:24 AM »

The moon is long past full when the Julian paschalion says it is full.  This remains true no matter who says it, and no matter how many interested parties try to force folk to deny it.
Sure, but who cares? Obviously you do, but why should the Church care?
Why, indeed?  Why should a carpenter care if his saw is too worn to cut wood?  Why should a hunter care if his gun is too worn to shoot straight?  Why should I care if my physician prescribes medicine for me based on astrological charts?  Why should a computer programmer care if his program is full of bugs? 

But was the calendar reform worth all the scandal and division? Considered in the abstract and divorced from all other considerations, then sure, it would be nice if it were more accurate. But that's really a small consideration when set against all the problems that have arisen out of the reform. I believe that is why over the centuries, although the Church certainly entertained reform proposals, she never saw fit to carry out the reform.
Perhaps the "scandal and division" is caused not by the reform, but by the unfortunate tendency of devout believers to fall into the sickness of spiritual pride and legalism, which brings them to puke up anathemas when they are not needed. 

You speak of church as some sort of power external to yourself.  Is this legalistic view the only one, or the best one?  Aren't you part of the church?  If you think that "it would be nice" if the calendar were more accurate, isn't this sentiment part of the whole equation?


I hope you're speaking from ignorance here. When the reform was enacted in Greece in 1924, serving on the old calendar became a criminal offense, and the official Church excommunicated anyone who did so. It was the new calendarists who started hurling anathemas. It is only in 1986 that the Old Calendarists became legally recognized and their mysteries, i.e. baptisms, marriages etc legally valid in Greece.
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 931



« Reply #2537 on: November 18, 2014, 02:26:16 AM »

That is terrible. It's a wonder that Athonite monks were not persecuted, seeing as they serve on the old calendar, or maybe Greek civil government does not affect them.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek *and* Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,817


Happy Holidays!


« Reply #2538 on: November 18, 2014, 04:13:59 AM »

That is terrible. It's a wonder that Athonite monks were not persecuted, seeing as they serve on the old calendar, or maybe Greek civil government does not affect them.

Mt Athos remained in communion with the churches that adopted the revised calendar. It was the schism that was condemned, not the calendar preference.

Greek family law at least as far back as 1970 explicitly states that marriages performed by Old Calendarist priests are valid. I'm not sure of the status of Old Calendarist baptism, although Old Calendarists are still barred from becoming godparents in canonical church baptisms.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #2539 on: November 18, 2014, 10:04:40 AM »

That is terrible. It's a wonder that Athonite monks were not persecuted, seeing as they serve on the old calendar, or maybe Greek civil government does not affect them.

Mt Athos remained in communion with the churches that adopted the revised calendar. It was the schism that was condemned, not the calendar preference.

Greek family law at least as far back as 1970 explicitly states that marriages performed by Old Calendarist priests are valid. I'm not sure of the status of Old Calendarist baptism, although Old Calendarists are still barred from becoming godparents in canonical church baptisms.

The EP tried to make Athos switch to the new calendar, but since all of them except Vatopedi stopped commemorating the EP at once, the EP decided that it was best not to force the issue and allowed them to keep the old calendar. Vatopedi continued to serve on the new calendar until 1971. But anyway, they are beyond the jurisdiction of the Greek state church so they are a separate issue. Interestingly, the Greek old calendarists were initially served by Athonite hieromonks until some of the state church bishops returned to the old calendar in 1935 and were able to ordain new priests for them.

Didn't know that about recognizing Old Calendar marriages. I know they gained full legal status in 1986, but it could be they had achieved some partial legal victories earlier.
Logged
Khomes
The Orthodox Church is the true Church, it is the faith of the Apostles
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox- True Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles
Posts: 76


Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, pray for us


« Reply #2540 on: November 29, 2014, 02:37:52 AM »

Yeah, let's throw out the fathers when they are inconvient!

Love it! too funny. this is sadly true however. it is sad that some have thrown out the traditions of our Holy Fathers for modernism...  Sad
Logged

O righteous Father Alexis, Our heavenly intercessor and teacher, Divine adornment of the Church of Christ! Entreat the Master of All To strengthen the Orthodox Faith in America, to grant peace to the world And to our souls, great mercy!
Minnesotan
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Raised evangelical, inquiring into Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Not sure where I'll end up yet
Posts: 715


From the Land of 10,000 Lakes


« Reply #2541 on: November 29, 2014, 03:22:09 AM »

All I can say is that the Armenians have always used a fixed 365-day calendar (no leap year), which means it and the Julian calendar "wander" relative to one another and to the actual astronomical year.

Despite this, the Armenians were in communion with the Julian Calendar-using folks in the Greco-Roman world for quite a long time and nobody in either party accused the other of being heretics for using the wrong calendar.

So it's hard to see why the "New" calendar would be completely beyond the pale when, at least in the past, both the Armenian and Julian calendars were considered equally okay by everyone involved.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2542 on: November 29, 2014, 03:52:14 AM »

All I can say is that the Armenians have always used a fixed 365-day calendar (no leap year), which means it and the Julian calendar "wander" relative to one another and to the actual astronomical year.

Despite this, the Armenians were in communion with the Julian Calendar-using folks in the Greco-Roman world for quite a long time and nobody in either party accused the other of being heretics for using the wrong calendar.
I thought the Armenians were out of communion with the folks in the Greco-Roman world for other reasons (i.e., Chalcedon).
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #2543 on: November 29, 2014, 04:25:39 AM »


I think the movement that we have seen toward reform, as awkward as it has been, is evidence that the Church, not just your little schismatic sect, now considers and always has considered astronomical accuracy important.


I think the fact that the majority of Orthodox Christians having decided NOT to change the calendar somewhat negates that statement.  "The Church" has, in reality, shown that it does not consider astronomical accuracy to be all that important.  Unless, of course, you also consider the Churches or Russia and Serbia to be little schismatic sects.

Serbia and Russia are certainly sects of something , what I do not know, but it has almost nothing to do with Christianity.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Minnesotan
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Raised evangelical, inquiring into Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Not sure where I'll end up yet
Posts: 715


From the Land of 10,000 Lakes


« Reply #2544 on: November 29, 2014, 11:29:19 AM »

All I can say is that the Armenians have always used a fixed 365-day calendar (no leap year), which means it and the Julian calendar "wander" relative to one another and to the actual astronomical year.

Despite this, the Armenians were in communion with the Julian Calendar-using folks in the Greco-Roman world for quite a long time and nobody in either party accused the other of being heretics for using the wrong calendar.
I thought the Armenians were out of communion with the folks in the Greco-Roman world for other reasons (i.e., Chalcedon).

That was my point. Before Chalcedon, however, they were in communion with each other despite using different calendars. When they eventually did split, it had nothing to do with the calendar issue.
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort nobody cares 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.133 seconds with 53 queries.