Thank you, Anastasios. I appreciate it. Sorry to harp, though.anastasios said:Sorry I didn't catch that, Ebor. I agree, do NOT use that term. First of all it is rude. Second of all all my family and half of Mor Ephrem's family is Protestant and we would be highly embarassed if one of them signed onto this site and saw that term and thought we approved of it.
anastasios
It begins September 1st in the East. And I already knew that, actually. I'm sorry I'm getting a bit cranky about this, but it's about time for the admission that the fixed part of the church calendar has never been uniform. The east and west have diverged on the observance of All Saints Day since, um, pretty much forever. (The current western date was fixed in the 800s.)+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é said:It might just be better to admit you have no idea what you are talking about than to continue making a fool of yourself. The Menaia begin at September 1st in Orthodoxy.
See, "ungodly" is simply not the proper word here. In fact, I think I'm going to have to take a stronger tack: it not only is wrong, but it commits the sin of demanding obesiance to the church as a proxy (if not idol) of the godhead.+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é said:No, the issue is placing astronomy over already established church practice. That is what is ungodly.
Thanks as usual, Tom for your insight.CAT FIGHT!!!!!!
Your example of All Saints Day is off since it is not a fixed feast in Orthodox Church. If memory serves correctly the Western date comes from the date of the consecration of a church in Rome to "All Saints." The development in the East of the same feast was seperate - I think but will look up later to see for sure. But the same feast falling on different days even within the East is not uncommon, and not really a big deal. But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar. I'm done with this thread, if someone wants to seriously look at the calendar the book Anastasios recomended is a good place to start, but there are also many other good sources.It begins September 1st in the East. And I already knew that, actually. I'm sorry I'm getting a bit cranky about this, but it's about time for the admission that the fixed part of the church calendar has never been uniform. The east and west have diverged on the observance of All Saints Day since, um, pretty much forever. (The current western date was fixed in the 800s.)
Hmmmm..... there's a message here. As I was walking back from lunch today it occured to me that the calendar is not a source of schism, but an instrument of schism. The only source of schism, after all, is the sinful attitude of men's minds.+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é said:But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar.
Yes. And others as well - unlike others here if I am going to talk about the calendar and have a strong opinion I actually know what I am talking about.Have *you* read it?
If we get the text in the next 24 or so hours while I am still on vacation among many Greek speakers who possess considerably more command of Greek than I (especially the dialect(s) prevalent in official church documents of 400 years ago), yes.Ebor said:Good question, Demetri re: a link. If someone finds it in Greek, you can read it/translate?
Ebor
Yes, I am aware that the calendar is only a tangential issue in this thread.Ebor said:It's not just about the calendar btw.
And the fact that you can't see your error in describing Keble's answer to you...+¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é said:But the fact that you can't distinguish between a variance in local customs and the changing the ENTIRE calendar shows that you just love to hear yourself argue or share the intelectual qualities of your avatar.
...like this:Well, no-- the first day of the church year is 1 Advent. And the first day of the calendar year has moved around quite a bit.Quote: (From Nektarios)
The first day of the new year in the Church is September 1st - the first day of the secular year is January 1st.
shows you either don't have a very good memory or a good grasp of tone. What was arrogant here?I said something without polemics or rudeness - that the church year starts at Sept. 1st. then Keble responded with a very arrogant tone and was even incorect. So he thus got my response. If he can dish it out (which he readily does here) he better be able to take it.
Fundamentally, arriving at a "single calendar" for use by all Christians, before much more basic agreement on doctrinal matters is a wasted effort - or least it is an attempt at achieving the most superficial "peace" possible, the one founded primarily upon appearances. This is what was fundamentally misguided about the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, and is basically what is wrong with the ecumenical movement in general - the belief that fraternal activities will smooth over real dogmatic differences.The west, as I said before, was worked out the calendar problem within the context of its isolation from the east, an isolation which is now being erased. It took a long time, but we are all on one paschalion and one basic pattern of fixed feasts (modulo "local" observance). The west-- rightly-- is going to opt out of any solution to the greater problem of ecumenical calendar conflict that doesn't involve ecumenical effort. But that effort is, for the nonce, impossible because of Eastern hardheads who demand a unilateral imposition of the Dionysian/Julian paschalion and calendar on everyone. Until they recant-- yes, recant-- the calendar question is always going to be a problem in the East, because the rest of Orthodoxy is going to always be faced with the choice of being held hostage by the hardheads, or causing a paschalion rift across the East.
Atheists as in denying that God exists? How could observations of what the planet and the Sun are actually doing deny that there is God?Etienne said:However, I think that from the authors of the Sigillion point of view the astronomers were denying something very important. They were truly seen as athiests.
emphasis added"... We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error?
Very well stated, Etienne; and much more succinctly than I could have done. Apparently we have a mini-brouhaha over the sensitivities of some here to the use of the word atheist. As an Orthodox I have no problem with the use of this adjective in the context of the Sigillon of 1583. Simply put, adjusting the Church to fit 'observed' phenomena in the physical world is, by definition, outside (or denying), spiritual Truth.Etienne said:Ebor,
I will try to answer your query. In opposing the Church's calendar the papal astronomers were seen as denying something that was part of Sacred Tradition, and therefore were by extension denying something God given.
As it says in the third paragraph of the Sigillion
<---snipped--->
In 2004 we would, perhaps, not use the term 'atheist' in the the way it was used in 1583. Never the less I share unequivically the message given to us by the authors of the Sigillion.
I see a little pendantic jousting is in order here. What theologian uses Webster?Ebor said:An interesting 'analogy' but that's not what the word "atheist" means or denotes.
From Merriam-Webster online:
"Main Entry: athe-+ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity"
Link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist
And 'sensitivities' have nothing to do with it. How is it 'sensitive' to want to know how seeing and reporting astronomical observations denies God?"
"ALL that is outside the Church is meaningless to a Christian"?!? Would you please explain what is meant by "meaningless"?
Ebor
Because it is part of the tradition handed down to us by the Fathers. It can be altered by conciliar authority but not willy-nilly by one or two patriarchates at a time.Mor Ephrem said:How is the calendar part of "the Truth", "the Faith"?
Which is one reason why a claim that the Gregorian calculation of the Paschalian isEbor said:Liddel and Scott's definition is without God making no reference to a Church.
Translating from one language to another, or from an older to a more modern can be tricky, since words change in meaning and connotation.
Since God created all things, including the stars and planets in their courses, I think that the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and observable, calculable equinoxes counts as True and not some 'theory du jour'.
Ebor
While I agree with you that the Orthodox Calendar is something that, ideally, should only be altered by conciliar authority and that it is something which we have received from generations past and should be respected at least for that reason, I have a problem saying the calendar itself is a matter of faith. I don't understand that. If it is a matter of faith, then how could it ever be altered, even by conciliar authority? If it can be altered, then how is it a matter of faith?anastasios said:Because it is part of the tradition handed down to us by the Fathers. It can be altered by conciliar authority but not willy-nilly by one or two patriarchates at a time.
Well, basically, they don't - they don't reply to it, since the whole enterprise of trading the Church Calendar for the Gregorian Calendar (under the sophism of actually adopting a "revised Julian Calendar") was done from a mindset which really did not obsess about fidelity to ecclessiastical tradition, even one obtained only after so much effort and confusion and which manifested the liturgical unity of the Orthodox Church across the world.How do New Calendar Orthodox respond to this encyclical?
L&S's definition is just fine; Attic and Koine are the same in this instance - The Sigillon of 1583 is in ecclesiastical Greek I'll wager, not modern.Ebor said:Liddel and Scott's definition is without God making no reference to a Church.
Translating from one language to another, or from an older to a more modern can be tricky, since words change in meaning and connotation.
And I'm sure that 100 years ago you would fall on your sword to defend Newtonian celestial mechanics as "true", yet that has been superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity which itself is still unfinished. I guess when we colonize the moon we will adjust the liturgical calendar there to reflect its monthly equinoxes? The best your temporal observations can be, Ebor, is valid.Since God created all things, including the stars and planets in their courses, I think that the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and observable, calculable equinoxes counts as True and not some 'theory du jour'.
It's about time you cracvked a dictionary yourself here; you are throwing words around platitudinously and inaccurately.+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é said:Very well stated, Etienne; and much more succinctly than I could have done. Apparently we have a mini-brouhaha over the sensitivities of some here to the use of the word atheist. As an Orthodox I have no problem with the use of this adjective in the context of the Sigillon of 1583. Simply put, adjusting the Church to fit 'observed' phenomena in the physical world is, by definition, outside (or denying), spiritual Truth.
That's nice, but that's also not the way English works.An analogy might be appropriate- the adjective moral is opposed by amoral, not by immoral. Amoral denotes the lack of morals. So to would Atheist denote a lack of Godliness or something outside of the Church.
Speaking of platitudinous-- this statement is so far over the top that I don't for a moment believe that you actually live this way.Given that ALL that is outside of the Church is meaningless to a Christian, I see no problem with the wording so used.
LOL! That's not the way that the Scientific Method works though. If new data or a theory comes along that may prove an earlier one wrong or inaccurate, the new one is tested and studied to see if it's True. Sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is. If it *is* true then it's accepted and the previous idea is shown to be not correct.+æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é said:.And I'm sure that 100 years ago you would fall on your sword to defend Newtonian celestial mechanics as "true", yet that has been superceded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity which itself is still unfinished. I guess when we colonize the moon we will adjust the liturgical calendar there to reflect its monthly equinoxes? The best your temporal observations can be, Ebor, is valid.
Demetri