Old vs. New Calendar?

[Ebor]

As a side question: Wasn't the church using Astronomical observations to set the date of Easter anyway? Were they used for Julian reckoning?

Ebor

 

[Ebor]

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

Thank you, Anastasios. I appreciate it. Sorry to harp, though.

Ebor

 

[DerekMK]

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.

 

[Keble]

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.

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.)

 

[TomS]

CAT FIGHT!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

(Time in a Bottle) HA!

 

[Keble]

No, the issue is placing astronomy over already established church practice. That is what is ungodly.

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.

It's just a fact that the Julian calendar has a continually increasing error with respect to the seasons. No amount of church authority can make that go away, and it would be hubris on the part of the church to claim some sort of priority there. The Jewish calendar has the ultimate priority here, because the determination of 14 Nisan is the starting point of everything. And the Jewish calendar, as with all ancient Middle Eastern calendars, is astronomical in basis. And if you'll look at the canons of Nicea, they defer the problem to Alexandira because that's where the best astronomers were.

 

[DerekMK]

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!

Thanks as usual, Tom for your insight.

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.)

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.

 

[Ebor]

I don't recall reading anyone calling *you* a fool or comparing you to a dog, Nektarios. "And unto him that smite you on one cheek, offer also the other..."
But this isn't even smiting, but a disagreement.

The book Anastasios cited does not seem to be one that is available on every corner or even in a few. I've been looking for it. None of bookfinder.com's over 60,000 sellers have a copy. Amazon has it listed as "Currently Not Available". So this could take some time before a copy materializes. Have *you* read it?
What other sources might there be besides an obscure hard to find book?

Oh, and I looked up Feast of All Saints in the EO church. From th GOARCH site:

"2. Pentecostarion is the book which includes the services of the other movable feasts from the Sunday of Holy Easter to the feast of Pentecost. A list of the Sundays following Easter Sunday; Ist-Easter Sunday; 2nd Sunday of St. Thomas the Apostle; 3rd-Sunday of the Myrrh-Bearers; 4th-Sunday of the Paralytic; 5th-Sunday of the Samaritan Woman; 6th-Sunday of the Blind Man; Ascension Day (Thursday); 7th-Sunday of the 318 Holy Fathers, 8th-Sunday of the Pentecost; (9th-Sunday of All Saints)."
Footnote at the bottom of this page
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8432.asp

Emphasis added

I don't have time to make a deeper search at the moment. Please correct me if this is not right.

Ebor

 

[Keble]

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.

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.

Likewise, you've jumped from the external sign of my statments into making assertions about what is going on inside. It's not that I can't distinguish; it's that the calendar problem is, really, the issue of local custom writ large.

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.

 

[Aristocles]

Does anyone have a link to this "Sigillon of 1583" in the Original Greek?

Demetri

 

[DerekMK]

Have *you* read it?

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.

 

[Ebor]

Just because others do not support your side does not mean that they do not know what they are talking about. Why do you feel the need to cast slurs at those who do not agree with your view? And have you read works from the "other side" that support the Gregorian Calendar?

I ask again, what other "sources" besides a hard to find book?

Good question, Demetri re: a link. If someone finds it in Greek, you can read it/translate?


Ebor

 

[Aristocles]

Good question, Demetri re: a link. If someone finds it in Greek, you can read it/translate?


Ebor

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.

Demetri

 

[Ebor]

Well, I just googled and only found it in English here:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx

It's not just about the calendar btw.

I'll have to think if there's another way to go.

I certainly don't have it in any of my books. Sorry.

Ebor

 

[Aristocles]

It's not just about the calendar btw.

Yes, I am aware that the calendar is only a tangential issue in this thread.

 

[Ebor]

I'm sorry, Demetri. I meant that the Sigillon isn't just about calendar issues. I think maybe Twentynine only meant this thread to be about the seventh point that was posted.

Still haven't found it in Greek.

Ebor

 

[Pedro]

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.

And the fact that you can't see your error in describing Keble's answer to you...

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.

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.

...like this:

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.

shows you either don't have a very good memory or a good grasp of tone. What was arrogant here?

 

[Etienne]

I wish that perhaps the whole of the 1583 Sigillion had been reproduced, it would have set the context of continual undermining by the Papacy and the rejection of 'false' teaching by Greeks who had forsaken their faith for that of the Latins.

The language used by one contributor, at least, who finds the reference to Pope Gregory's astronomers is as intemperate as that used in the Sigillion. 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.

The objections to the Latins covered much more than a calendar. Nor were those objections confined to the Orthodox. When much later the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England it lead to severe rioting, the Gordon riots. The rioters were not Greek kebab house owners or Russian fur traders but English protestants.

As has already been pointed out the 1924 adoption of the Gregorian calendar was carried out in a truly appalling manner and for a number of reasons, not just to do with early ecumenism but commerce and trade. Orthodoxy was too hard, not pretty enough. The subsequent imprisonment, harassment, forcible stripping of monks and nuns, beatings and deaths as well as defilement of churches leaves one speechless. A supposedly unifying action lead to a great rent and ruptured the liturgical unity of the Orthodox. This unity had been painfully achieved over centuries.

Patriarch Jeremias 11, was called the Illustrius. What among the Faithfull will be title of honour held by any who so readily rubbish what he had to say without first finding out a little more?

Again many of us who adhere to the Church calendar do not regard either it or the Gregorian as being more or less astronomically perfect. Neither is perfect.

Of course, the Gregorian is more convenient but Christianity is a life of ascetic struggle not one of ease. Remember the rich young man who approached Our Lord and asked what else he must do?

 

[Augustine]

Keble,

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.

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.

 

[Ebor]

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.

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?

Perhaps the authors point on view on that was, in fact, incorrect.

Ebor

 

[Etienne]

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

From old Rome have come certain persons who learned there to think like Latins; and the bad thing is that from being Byzantines (that is, Greeks) born and bred in our own parts, they not only have changed their faith, but they also battle the Orthodox and true dogmas of the Eastern Church which Christ Himself and the divine Apostles and the Holy Councils of the Holy Fathers delivered to us........

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.

 

[Ebor]

Yes, I read the whole Sigillon in English when I was looking for it in Greek for Aristocles/Demetri, and saw that part. Ymmv.

Just for information's sake I have dug up the Documents from the First Council of Nicea from the Fordham University site:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

A letter on the dating of Easter discussed there is near the bottom.

Ebor

 

[Etienne]

Ebor,

Thank you, found the letter of the Emperor to those not present at the Council on the keeping of Easter.

Especially interesting from a 'hardhead' point of view is the line, "We could not imitate those openly in error". Patriarch Jeremias 11 and the Emperor seperated in time by some 1100 years appear to be in agreement. Like another contributor it appears to be putting the cart before the horse to try to agree a common date for Easter when there is so much else that seperates us. Indeed when the gap appears to be widening rather than closing?

There was much else that others might like to scrutinise including those interested in the role of deaconesses and who could be a deaconess. A very interesting reference point.

Once again, Sir, my thanks.

 

[Ebor]

You're welcome. I thought it might be useful if someone tried to post the *actual* writings from Nicaea, albeit in English translation. Having primary materials can be helpful.

The passage that you found interesting is refering to the Jews. Here it is in more context:

"... 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?

emphasis added

It is referring to using the Jewish Calculations, it would appear.

I found this line earlier in the letter interesting: "When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day...."

It was not set by a canon. And according to the commentary in the posted link it was not universal even then, due to disagreements between Rome and Alexandria regarding using an 84 year cycle vs. the observations/calculations from Alexandria.

Here is the entry on Dionysius Exiguus from the big on-line RC Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05010b.htm

The last paragraph mentions his looking at the Easter date question about 200 years after Nicaea.

Ebor

 

[Aristocles]

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.

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.
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. Given that ALL that is outside of the Church is meaningless to a Christian, I see no problem with the wording so used.

Demetri

 

[Ebor]

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

 

[Aristocles]

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

I see a little pendantic jousting is in order here. What theologian uses Webster?
Liddel and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford):
+¦+++¦++-é - without god; ungodly
+¦+++¦++-ä++-é - godlessness

Not exactly the same as Webster's English, as I suspected when asking for the Greek text.

Scientific theory or observation does not over-ride the Truth. Changing the Faith to fit the theory du jour taints the Church. Such temporal considerations are meaningless. If one does not understand that, I can't help it.

Demetri

 

[Mor Ephrem]

How is the calendar part of "the Truth", "the Faith"?

 

[Ebor]

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

 

[Anastasios]

How is the calendar part of "the Truth", "the Faith"?

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.

anastasios

 

[Anastasios]

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

Which is one reason why a claim that the Gregorian calculation of the Paschalian is
"More accurate" is absurd, because it fixes the equinox at March 21, which is not when the equinox falls every year.

anastasios

 

[Mor Ephrem]

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.

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?

I think the calendar issue is important, but exactly how important it is in Eastern Orthodoxy* depends on who you're talking to and what view they're trying to push. If you're talking to an "ecumenist", it's a disciplinary matter. If you're talking to a "hard core traditionalist", it's irrevocable dogma. In either case, the calendar does not seem to be the issue, it's just what is being used in order to make a point.



*The calendar is not a major issue in the Oriental Orthodox Churches to my knowledge.

 

[Anastasios]

There are some who would argue that the Church Calendar can't be changed. I don't agree with this. But they seem to be the most consistent, you are right. However, the question is why is it being changed? Is it because there is some spiritual benefit to the Orthodox? Fine. Is it to "unite" the separated churches? That is folishness, because a unified Calendar will do nothing to unite separated Christians: the Anglicans and Catholics have much of the same Calendar and they are as separated as ever.

anastasios

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Right, which is why I said that the calendar is not really the issue here. Push an Old Calendarist, and he may very well admit that altering the calendar itself is not a problem, provided it is done correctly. The real problems lie elsewhere. Unfortunately, it seems that at times people focus too much on the calendar and not enough on the major issues they really ought to be working on, and I think their cause suffers for it in the end.

 

[Anastasios]

But for some the Calendar IS the issue and for others it is a symptom of the issues.

anastasios

 

[Augustine]

Greg,

How do New Calendar Orthodox respond to this encyclical?

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.

While we (who are conditioned by an extremely pluralistic, and egalitarian culture - arguably one which often embodies these two values unto absurdity) may not like the "language" of the Sigillion of 1583 and it's latter confirmations in the following centuries, the fact is it's on the books - and to treat this and the reality it defends with levity, is wrong-headed in the extreme.

As bad as the disunity which the calendar change has introduced into the Orthodox world, I think worse yet was the intention underlying it, as made clear in the EP's 1920 encyclical itself; namely that it was the first "ecumenical gesture" of those proclaiming to speak for the Orthodox Church, an "ecumenism" which in it's very name is misleading (since the Church has always used the word "ecumenical" in a way opposed to how it was used by the "ecumenical movement" started amongst the Protestants in the late 1800's - yet this incorrect definition has now been assumed by Orthodox Christians themselves.) Indeed, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that the only "union" that will ever be effected by these "ecumenical activities" is the kind of the ill fated unia of Florence - nay worse, since the parties besides the Orthodox thrown into this current soup are even more diverse, and unfortunately even further removed from the truth.

Frankly, they're working to build the church of the anti-Christ, whether they realize it or not (?). None of this is going to bring a single soul into the Orthodox Church, or create a Godly peace.

 

[Aristocles]

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.

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.
I agree about the 'tricky' part which is why I rely on the word's use as an adjective not the noun you seem to be using.

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'.

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

 

[Keble]

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.

It's about time you cracvked a dictionary yourself here; you are throwing words around platitudinously and inaccurately.

It's an unremarkable but necessary property of the truth that it be true.

Let's take that word "atheist". If one can see in the Greek text that it was not meant to signify the English meaning of the word, then it's simply a bad translation. (Mind you, Orthodoxy is not a legitimate qualification to be an astronomer, but that's a later point.) But if it was intended to signify the English meaning, then it's not only untrue: it's a malicious lie.

Let's rewind this a bit. Passover is supposed to work from observed phenomena. It says that in the Torah; this is not a negotiable point. The intent of Nicea is to put Easter on the Sunday after Passover; therefore Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

For various practical reasons, we are now working off of mechanical calculations instead of actual observation. If we let the astronomers run things, they would be announcing each year whether or not there would be a leap day so as to fix the equinoxes on the same day. Ancient communications simply didn't permit such a method.

The Gregorian calculation isn't perfect; it does allow the actual equinox to move back and forth by a day, and there is a infinitesimally increasing error which some day in the quite distant future will require a correction.

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.

That's nice, but that's also not the way English works.

Given that ALL that is outside of the Church is meaningless to a Christian, I see no problem with the wording so used.

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.

 

[Ebor]

.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

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.

Real science doesn't hang on to a hypothesis that's proven wrong just because they like it. Dr. Stephen Hawking just last week announced that he'd been wrong for 30 years on an aspect of what Black Holes do. See:
http://www.iop.org/news/783
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/news/35244.html

Einstein's Theory "superseded" Newtonian Mechanics? Not hardly, in ordinary space and time. Here's a quote from Cornell Astrophysics:

"It is important to note that Einstein did not prove that Newton was wrong in his understanding of ordinary space and time. Newtonian mechanics applies in weak gravitational fields (the normal condition) and when velocities are low relative to the speed of light. In normal circumstances, the increased accuracy in predicting, for example, orbits offered by Einstein's theory over Newton's is insignificant. "

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/relativity.htm

Oh I'm sure when there is a Moon Colony and some EO go there that there will be some discussion about time, the calendar and liturgy. (Seems like that's traditional. )
"Monthly equinoxes" on the Moon? Since a Lunar Day (if you're on the Moon) averages 29.53059 Earth Days, could you please explain what you mean?

Here's a data page on the Moon for information's sake:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm

Ebor

 

[Anastasios]

What I fail to see--and I am in no way trying to discourage Keble and Ebor, whom I count as personal friends, from posting on whatever subject they wish--is why they care what calendar Orthodox use? And why do Orthodox need to change their calendar to be involved in intra-church relations? If the Churches unite in one faith, fine, then we can talk calendars. Until then, what's the point?

anastasios