OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 10:03:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 205998 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #2475 on: September 03, 2014, 04:43:12 PM »

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?
May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,210


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2476 on: September 03, 2014, 04:54:21 PM »

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  Cheesy). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Thanks again, you anticipated my question while I was writing it.  

I'm less interested in mathematical precision than I am with liturgical integrity.  While you argue that there is no "Revised Julian Menologion", but rather only one Menologion and Paschalion for the whole Church, Peter seems to argue that problems with the Revised Julian as currently used among "New Calendarists" arise from the use of two different calendars for two different cycles:

And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Basically, what I would like to know is if use of the Revised Julian calendar for both the fixed feasts and the Paschal cycle would alleviate the liturgical problems which come with use of the Revised Julian calendar as it is currently implemented?  For example, will there always be an Apostles' Fast?  Does St George's feast always come after Pascha?  And so on.  Full use of the Gregorian calendar or the old Julian calendar achieve/preserve this integrity.  Would full use of the Revised Julian do the same?  If so, how?  
Yes, it would. On the basis of day-to-day use, one won't see an actual difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian calendars for a few more centuries.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« Reply #2477 on: September 03, 2014, 05:04:03 PM »

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?
May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

This is exactly the kind of arrogant contempt for Tradition that I'm talking about. So basically, according to your infallible opinion, the Church was simply following mumbo-jumbo for over a thousand years of Her existence? I guess the Holy Spirit had better things to do than guide the Church in Truth? Or maybe, just maybe, it is your opinions about what the Church calendar should do that are mistaken.

Again, I can envision the Church in Her wisdom deciding to reform the calendar, but not as long as the attitude displayed by Carl prevails.
Logged
Santagranddad
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #2478 on: September 03, 2014, 05:10:35 PM »

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?
May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

I think you might counter equally the other way, you see one calendar has kept rolling uninterrupted and another comes along - a sort of Jonny come lately, and seeks to usurp it's place. And when the latter was introduced here in England folks rioted, the Gordon Riots, demanding back their 11 days. 11 days, which to use your formula, some politicians stole using a spell - 'Abracadabra'. Even my lifetime there were pockets here that celebrated 'Old Christmas'. Some even said their Christmas flowering plants bloomed on Old Christmas day. Not recalcitrant Orthodox but solid Protestants not inclined to bend their knees to some Popish skulduggery. So the point of change, where days suddenly were lost, that was when the fairy dust was sprinkled or, in a more adult idiom, a sleight of hand was effected.

No, I'm not buying your thesis, it doesn't stand examination for one moment. One group simply follows continuously a calendar that their forebears did uninterrupted and others an innovation. The second if they were good fellows might have stayed their hand and waited until a conciliar change - better thought through and with greater unanimity, but they didn't. And blaming the Russian Church which in the 1920s had far more serious problems to contend with does not cut much ice, I am sorry to add.

Now I must go and hang out my tea bags to dry, saving the planet and all that. Goodnight!

Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #2479 on: September 03, 2014, 05:11:50 PM »

There is no Revised Julian Menalogion; there is one Menologion for all (Sorry about echoing Lord of the Rings  Cheesy). There is one Menologion and one Paschalion that is used by all of the Orthodox Churches. The problem is, as you well know that folks are conflating (just as you are doing here) the church liturgical calendars with the civic calendars. Believe it or not, there was a time when the Julian calendar did a good job in overlaying its December 25th on the Liturgical Calendar's December 25th. Today only the Gregorian and the Revised Julian function as intended by the Early Church. The Old Julian calendar is a failed calendar because it has to pretend, it is not real. It is make believe, mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

Thanks again, you anticipated my question while I was writing it.  

I'm less interested in mathematical precision than I am with liturgical integrity.  While you argue that there is no "Revised Julian Menologion", but rather only one Menologion and Paschalion for the whole Church, Peter seems to argue that problems with the Revised Julian as currently used among "New Calendarists" arise from the use of two different calendars for two different cycles:

And, as I'm telling Mor, that's where you're mistaken. What you call the Revised Julian hodgepodge is really a mishmash of two different calendars. We New Calendarists follow the Revised Julian Calendar for the Menologion but continue to follow the Old Julian Calendar for the Paschalion. One solution to this problem is to actually follow the Revised Julian Calendar completely--i.e., for BOTH the Menologion AND the Paschalion.

Basically, what I would like to know is if use of the Revised Julian calendar for both the fixed feasts and the Paschal cycle would alleviate the liturgical problems which come with use of the Revised Julian calendar as it is currently implemented?  For example, will there always be an Apostles' Fast?  Does St George's feast always come after Pascha?  And so on.  Full use of the Gregorian calendar or the old Julian calendar achieve/preserve this integrity.  Would full use of the Revised Julian do the same?  If so, how?  

The answer to all of your questions is Yes!!! You and Peter are in fact in agreement!!!

As you may know, the problem with the Paschalion is that it is based on an ecumenical council's decision (Second?) to fix the Vernal Equinox on March 21st. That date corresponded nicely with the actual Vernal Equinox at that time, which is important because of the formula: Pascha to be celebrated on the fist Sunday after the first fool moon on or after the Vernal Equinox." Now, if the civic calendar starts to deviate from reality, one has to choose between (a) bringing the calendar up to date (as the Gregorian and Revised Julian have done) or (b) pretend that the old calendar still reflects reality. It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

To reiterate, if every Church used either the Revised Julian or the Gregorian calendars for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, we would all celebrate all of the appointed days of the liturgical calendar at the same time. At least in our and our great-great-great-great childrens' time for these two are bound to diverge sometime in the far future. Whereas, the real possibility exists that at that point in time, Nativity will be celebrated by the Old Calendar folks even further than the date on the Church liturgical calendar, for the Julian gets worse three days every four centuries.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #2480 on: September 03, 2014, 05:20:39 PM »

The Julian calendar = mumbo jumbo. An assertion not explained?
May be I should have used a more apt word? How about abracadabra! That is exactly how December 25th becomes January 7th. Orthodox pixie dust!

This is exactly the kind of arrogant contempt for Tradition that I'm talking about. So basically, according to your infallible opinion, the Church was simply following mumbo-jumbo for over a thousand years of Her existence? I guess the Holy Spirit had better things to do than guide the Church in Truth? Or maybe, just maybe, it is your opinions about what the Church calendar should do that are mistaken.

Again, I can envision the Church in Her wisdom deciding to reform the calendar, but not as long as the attitude displayed by Carl prevails.

This is the kind of circular reasoning that pervades some of us: The received tradition is right because the Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit has always guides the Church in Truth. I have no problem in any Old Calendarist say that they accept the decisions of their bishops; believe it or not the New calendarists are in the same boat. You say that I display arrogant contempt for Tradition. On the contrary, I am displaying great reverence and fidelity to Tradition, as well as belief that the Lord is a greater authority than any of His people. The last part is a reference to His setting up the heavens and the laws governing our universe. It is my fidelity to the latter that causes me to criticize deviations from them. I also believe that we are an Apostolic Church and that it is important not to deviate from the decisions of the Early Church. When the Old calendarists celebrate Nativity in January and Pascha way past the first moon on or after March 21st, I find them deviating from Holy Tradition. I do apologize for using satire; I got frustrated with y'all as I usually do. I guess the best thing to do would be to emulate Santagrandad and retire.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 05:22:02 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,135


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2481 on: September 03, 2014, 05:21:46 PM »

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #2482 on: September 03, 2014, 05:29:13 PM »

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?

Very little. When Revised Julian started, it was synchronized with the Gregorian for the beginning but the leap year calculations are slightly different, leading to plus or minus 0 or 1 day difference through the year 6300, after which the differences will be plus or minus 1 or 2 days. The Revised Julian and Gregorian are to agree with each other evey year until year 2800.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,210


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2483 on: September 03, 2014, 05:30:30 PM »

My parish is old calendar, my jurisdiction is mixed, about 60% old, 40% new. I concede that the manner in which the calendar issue has been addressed since the beginning of the 20th century is problematic. But...there is no argument that is persuasive in my view that this issue is one worthy of creating schism or dividing Christ's garments.

Would that the entire Church be on one or the other? Yes, that would be ideal - but I don't see it happening as too many decades have passed by since the beginning of the adoption of the revised calendar. In my mind, I respectfully disagree with the comment about rigid legalism as I would turn that charge around and apply it to those both within the historical Church and those outside of it who have made the calendar a defining mantra.

I don't think it's legalistic to love a thing of beauty, and the traditional Church calendar, in its marvelous unity and coherence, where the fixed and movable calendars interlock in manifold ways but always in harmony, is a beautiful thing. When I talk about "legalism", I mean a kind of cold-hearted, rationalistic mindset that thinks nothing of destroying something as beautiful as this in order to satisfy the letter of some law or other.

And, as others point out, no Old Calendarist ever created a schism over the calendar. What happened was that some Orthodox faithful could not in good conscience follow the liturgical disaster that was the new calendar, and then it was the innovators that cut them off and declared them to be in schism, thereby cutting themselves off. When the traditionalists then later declared the innovators to be in schism, in was only in response to and in acknowledgment of what the innovators had already declared themselves.
Jonathan, from which Old Calendarist sect did the "World" Orthodox churches schism themselves?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,135


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #2484 on: September 03, 2014, 05:39:54 PM »

It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

What exactly distinguishes one calendar from the other, then?

Very little. When Revised Julian started, it was synchronized with the Gregorian for the beginning but the leap year calculations are slightly different, leading to plus or minus 0 or 1 day difference through the year 6300, after which the differences will be plus or minus 1 or 2 days. The Revised Julian and Gregorian are to agree with each other evey year until year 2800.

If the difference is that negligible, why create the Revised Julian anyway?  Why not just adopt what the rest of the world was using? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

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


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2485 on: September 03, 2014, 09:18:07 PM »

As you may know, the problem with the Paschalion is that it is based on an ecumenical council's decision (Second?) to fix the Vernal Equinox on March 21st. That date corresponded nicely with the actual Vernal Equinox at that time, which is important because of the formula: Pascha to be celebrated on the fist Sunday after the first fool moon on or after the Vernal Equinox." Now, if the civic calendar starts to deviate from reality, one has to choose between (a) bringing the calendar up to date (as the Gregorian and Revised Julian have done) or (b) pretend that the old calendar still reflects reality. It so happens that March 21st falls on that date on both Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars, but it "happens" 13 days later on the Julian Calendar. So, there are times when we can all celebrate Pascha at the same date (that is when the first moon is on or after March 21 +13 days), but not often.

To reiterate, if every Church used either the Revised Julian or the Gregorian calendars for both the Menologion and the Paschalion, we would all celebrate all of the appointed days of the liturgical calendar at the same time. At least in our and our great-great-great-great childrens' time for these two are bound to diverge sometime in the far future. Whereas, the real possibility exists that at that point in time, Nativity will be celebrated by the Old Calendar folks even further than the date on the Church liturgical calendar, for the Julian gets worse three days every four centuries.

Everything Carl wrote is true, but it is only part of the story.  The whole story is even worse.

The Solar drift in the Julian calendar is about three days in 400 years, as Carl noted.  But in addition, the lunar part of the Julian calendar (the paschalion) also has a drift.  The paschalion's formal lunar phase falls behind the average lunar phase at a rate of about 1 day in 300 years.  The error has accumulated to where, according to the Julian paschalion, a full moon now looks like this:



So that now, Julian Easter is not the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, it is (approximately) the first Sunday after the 4-day waning gibbous moon after the first full moon on or after March 30th.  When Eastern and Western Easter are only a week apart, it is due to this lunar discrepancy, not to the discrepancy in the equinox.

The Milankovitch paschalion, if implemented, would compute the moon's motion more accurately than the Gregorian, which uses the average lunar motion.  The price would be more complex arithmetic for a resulting date of Easter that differs from the Gregorian only occasionally, as it will in 2019 and on a handful of other occasions in the 21st century.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 09:28:33 PM by Mockingbird » Logged

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

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



« Reply #2486 on: September 03, 2014, 09:59:19 PM »

And when the latter was introduced here in England folks rioted, the Gordon Riots, demanding back their 11 days.
The calendar change was in the 1750s.  The Gordon riots were in the 1780s and had nothing to do with the change to the New Style. 
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.076 seconds with 40 queries.