• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Old vs. New Calendar?

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
arimethea said:
1200 replies on this topic. If you are even reading a 10th of this thread you are wasting your life.
I don't know about that, but I think you are going to be confused. I mean, if you ask an Orthodox Christian  in the year 2800 what day of the week it is, is it true that  you are going to get three conflicting and different (but orthodox?) answers?
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
61
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments.  However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.
Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file.  In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime.  Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime.  If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves.  I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves.  In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person.  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them. 
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Punch said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments.  However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.
Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file.  In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime.  Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime.  If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves.  I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves.  In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person.  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them. 
True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this. ;)
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
Punch said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments.  However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.
Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file.  In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime.  Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime.  If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves.  I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves.  In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person.  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them. 
It doesn't hurt to supply a reference.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,699
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Age
47
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Punch said:
  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them. 
The problem, of course, is that this is the internet and, often times, the two "intellectual equals" you're referring to aren't the only ones involved in a discussion; internet fora are not in a vacuum.

Sites like Snopes.com exists because it is incredibly to spread disinformation on the internet; one should always be prepared to at least point towards the name of a source one is quoting or using if one asserts something strongly, particularly if it is at the foundation of an argument.
 

nstanosheck

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Dallas, TX, United States of America
Website
nstanosheck.blogspot.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver
PeterTheAleut said:
Punch said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments.  However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.
Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file.  In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime.  Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime.  If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves.  I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves.  In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person.  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.  
True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this. ;)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Punch said:
PeterTheAleut said:
I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments.  However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.
Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file.  In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime.  Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime.  If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves.  I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves.  In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person.  If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know.  If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know.  If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer.  If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.  
True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this. ;)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
From that article:

"The Julian year is not a fundamental unit of measurement, nor is it sanctioned in the International System of Units (SI), nor does it correspond very exactly to the length of a solar year. Nevertheless, astronomers and other scientists use it for convenience to measure lengthy durations, which would be unwieldy to express as a number of seconds (the SI unit of time). Astronomers before the mid-20th century used the so called Besselian year instead, which corresponds much more closely to the real length of a solar year, but which is also not totally exact, and which has the disadvantage of being much harder to determine than the simple 365.25 day Julian year. Simplicity is also the reason why the Julian year is used instead of a "Gregorian Year" of 365.2425 days."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "accuracy" of the Julian Calendar.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.


 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
I notice that LBK brought this to our attention yesterday and coming, as it says, from the horse's (Milankovic's) mouth, it is probably not rhetoric.

LBK said:
orthodoxlurker
It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Irish Hermit said:
I notice that LBK brought this to our attention yesterday and coming, as it says, from the horse's (Milankovic's) mouth, it is probably not rhetoric.

LBK said:
orthodoxlurker
It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.
All I see when I follow this link is a book collection.  No actual quotations of any of Milankovic's works that I can see.

Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion, specifically says that the synod accepted the Milankovic Calendar over the Trpkovic, or rather, accepted the Trpkovic Calendar only with Milankovic's modifications?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
PeterTheAleut said:
All I see when I follow this link is a book collection.  No actual quotations of any of Milankovic's works that I can see.
What orthodoxlurker has referred us to is not quotations from Milankovic but the front-page of a digital collection of his books.  He gives us the two relevant books to click on

Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
and
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)

However they are in Serbian  and most will be unable to read them

Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion, specifically says that the synod accepted the Milankovic Calendar over the Trpkovic, or rather, accepted the Trpkovic Calendar only with Milankovic's modifications?
Sorry no, I cannot help you with that.  You would need to contact the authors and ask them.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
PeterTheAleut said:
Irish Hermit said:
I notice that LBK brought this to our attention yesterday and coming, as it says, from the horse's (Milankovic's) mouth, it is probably not rhetoric.

LBK said:
orthodoxlurker
It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All of it straight from the hourses' mouth:
http://digital.nb.rs/collection/kn-milankovic
(The National Library of Serbia)
Titles:
Реформа Јулијанског календара (Reform of Julian Calendar), by Milutin Milankovic, 1923
Успомене, доживљаји и сазнања из година 1909 до 1944 (Memories...etc between 1923 and 1944) by Milutin Milankovic, 1952 (relevant pages 144-157)
In Serbian.
Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion
I think you are referring to what you cited, the monograph on the harvard.edu site, viz.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D  A search does not show that I have cited it myself.  Mind you, I am not altogether sure that the search engine for the forum is altogether accurate; a search on the same word can bring up different results.    Would you give me the reference for my citation please.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
From Reply #980 of This Thread:
Irish Hermit said:
A monograph from Veselka Trajkovska (Astronomical Observatory, Belgrade) which contributes to our discussion.

"On the Fundamental Contribution of Maxim Trpkovic's
Project to the Pan-Orthodox Solution of
the Calendar Reform in Constantinople in 1923"

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

Abstract: "In this paper Maksim Trpkovic's contribution to the calendar reform from the
late XIX century and the first decades of the XX one is discussed. The importance and
the contribution of his project in the solving of the calendar reform at the Pan-
Orthodox Congress in Constantinople in 1923 is specially presented. In this context
one also considers the controverse question whether the modification of Trpkovic's
project [the leap year modification] done at the Congress by Milutin
Milankovic is Trpkovic-Milankovic's calendar or Milankovic's calendar."

Full monograph :: http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

From Reply #985 of This Thread:
Irish Hermit said:
Veselka Trajkovska:

"At the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople, in May 1923, at which the
question of calendar reform was solved, the official proposal of the Serbian
Orthodox Church was Maksim Trpkovic's project.

"One of the delegates Milutin Milankovic (1879-1958), as the only scientist
present at the Congress, modified Trpkovic's project and proposed this variant
to the Congress which was finally adopted by the Congress after a long debate,
due to Milankovic's authority. Milankovic adopts the basic idea of Trpkovic's
project but changes the intercalation rule only


The intercalation rule refers of course the calculation of leap years.

Trajkovska notes this was the ONLY change Milankovic made to Trpkovic's calendar.  It is a bit of a stretch to claim that the Calendar is Milankovic's.

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

P.S:  This is getting rather weird and far too personal --- we know the Calendar question rouses passions but so far it has been suggested more than once by one member that I am a liar and also guilty of spreading misinformation and orthodoxlurker has been accused of being untrustworthy and also of kissing another man's feet.  Let's get this discussion back onto a more professional and more charitable level.

From Reply #991 of This Thread:
Irish Hermit said:
If one reads Veselka Trajkovska's monograph  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf  one will see that the Revised Julian Calendar is a bit of a bastard Calendar, because the hierarchs who adopted it lacked the fortitude to adopt a truly accurate Calendar and accepted a compromise which enabled them to be in step with the Gregorian Calendar for the next almost 900 years - by which time it will be someone else's problem.

In number 5279 of the Astronomische Nachrichten, issued on March 18, 1924, is an article by Milankovic, dated October, 1923. Its title is "The End of the Julian Calendar and the New Calendar of the Eastern Churches."  Milankovic, as indicated below, was a delegate to the council which decided upon this new calendar; it is an improvement over the Gregorian calendar.

Milankovic: "I had the honor to take part in this congress as delegate of the government of the Serbs, Croatians and Slovenes and as a representative of astronomical science. Therefore I may be permitted to report on the important decisions of this congress in regard to the question of the calendar, and to explain them briefly."

Note one of his comments: "But **in order not to go too far and make a new divergence between the dates of the two Christian calendars in future time**, a leap-year rule proposed by me was accepted, which differs from the Gregorian but nevertheless agrees with it until the year 2800."

As orthodoxlurker said - straight from the horse's mouth

So the contribution of Milankovic was to make an adjustment to Trpkovic's Calendar.  Milankovic states that the purpose of his leap year adjustment was not driven by a desire for scientific accuracy but by the desire of the bishops at the Council to bring the Calendar into close synchronisation with the Roman Catholic Calendar.  Milankovic gave the bishops what they wanted and achieved this synchronisation of the Catholic and Orthodox religious calendars until the year 2800.  

See
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/orthodox-reform.html

And From Reply #1001 of This Thread:
Irish Hermit said:
This is quite interesting in Trajkovska's monograph.  She is saying that Milankovic's change of Trpkovic's calendar over the leap year calculation actually degraded Trpkovic's calendar scientifically, making it less astronomically accurate and also out of touch with the Church requirements for the dating of the vernal equinox.

http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf

"Trpkovic wanted with his intercalation to put the vernal-equinox date
on March 21 (in accordance with the natural equinox and also following one of
the principal requirements of the Church), whereas Milankovic achieved an
accordance with the Gregorian Calendar over a longer period (at the cost of
allowing the vernal equinox to occur on March 20).

"As written by various authors (Zivkovic (1923, 1927, 1929), Vukicevic (1932),
Miskovic (1966), Jankovic (1985), Keckic (2001)) Trpkovic's solution was better
than Milankovic's [1 and references therein]. As a disadvantage of Milankovic's
solution many of them mention Milankovic's effort to be in accordance with the
Gregorian calendar as much as possible because this calendar is also incorrect
and, consequently, in both calendars the vernal equinox occurs more frequently
on March 20 thus being discordant with natural equinox and the Church
requirements concerning the date for Easter."

If you recall correctly, you'll remember that you made this work of Trajkovska central to your arguments on this thread, so much so that you made passing reference to this in Reply #1170 above.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Thank you for those citations.  I thought you were referring to the harvard.edu site, viz.  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50D and so it is no surprise that my search did not bring it up under my screen name.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
To my knowledge, no one uses the original, unaltered Trpković Calendar.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
Yes.  The Milanković variant of the Trpković Calendar, which we commonly call the Milanković Calendar (or sometimes the Trpković-Milanković Calendar) is the calendar the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1923 ultimately accepted and the calendar currently used by all New Calendar Orthodox Churches as the Revised Julian Calendar.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
If you read the information presented by LBK in post 1176, the answer to that has to be no.  The Serbian Church proposed the Trpkovic Calendar to the Pan-Orthodox Synod and the Synod accepted it.  Milankovic's contribution, while at the Synod, was to tweak the leap year calculation of the Trpkovic Calendar in order to achieve the desire of the bishops to obtain a calendar in synch with the Church of Rome's.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_year_(astronomy) for why the Julian year and Julian day is used in astronomy.
I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.  :laugh:

1.  There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2.  There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century.  It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.
Well let’s see.
I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.
1. From the time of Julius Caesar.
2.  Julius Scalinger’s calendar.
3. Milankovic’s calendar.
4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread.  Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar.  Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar.  (Source:  http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )
Does anyone today follow the calendar of Maksim Trpkovic?
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.

In light of that information the answer would be:  the New Calendar Churches of Orthodoxy use the Trpkovic calendar with a tweak from Milankovic.
That is interesting. Now the question is does anyone use the Milankovic calendar.
If you read the information presented by LBK in post 1176, the answer to that has to be no.  The Serbian Church proposed the Trpkovic Calendar to the Pan-Orthodox Synod and the Synod accepted it.  Milankovic's contribution, while at the Synod, was to tweak the leap year calculation of the Trpkovic Calendar in order to achieve the desire of the bishops to obtain a calendar in synch with the Church of Rome's.
1.  LBK didn't offer anything substantive and new in that post except a criticism of me.
2.  The end result of Milankovic's tweaking of the Trpkovic Calendar IS the Milankovic Calendar (which is why I also referred to the Milankovic Calendar as the Trpkovic-Milankovic Calendar to make that connection more apparent).
 

Antonis

Archon
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
2,996
Reaction score
1
Points
0
New, but I would rather the old.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
1
Points
36
I would prefer the old calendar, as the Church for a long time was largely united in the dates of its major commemorations through it, and the new calendar did not come with the general consent of the Church, but rather divided the dates of commemoration. I think this is the primary benefit of following the old calendar: that is represents a history of unity between the churches. However, I don't really have any other issues with the new calendars (Revised Julian and Gregorian) beyond their being divisive.
 

visitor

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
 

nstanosheck

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Dallas, TX, United States of America
Website
nstanosheck.blogspot.com
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Age
76
Location
South Carolina
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of the South (OCA)
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
I did not see a smiley or such after you post. So, it boils down to not having a KyrioPascha???!!!??? :p ::) :-[ :mad: :( :eek:
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
I haven't experienced any and I suppose I won't. It's not an issue for me.
 

visitor

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!

Wow. You lost me, bud.










 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.
 

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
1
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.
You can't really separate the "piecemeal approach to updating the calendar" from the "New Calendar itself". The New Calendar "itself" is piecemeal through and through. And so yes things like the Apostles' Fast and Kyriopascha are legitimate issues. But the way it was implemented was also piecemeal. We should always strive to maintain unity; to me issues of calendrical inaccuracy take second place to "oneness of mind, brotherly love, and piety". So just having a council is not even enough IMO; rather we should really try our best ti bring everybody together so we have as much agreement as possible. ALL calendars are imperfect, whether Julian, revised Julian, or Gregorian. I'm partial to the Old Calendar only because I think its imperfection was not and is not a decent reason to divide the Church. I just have never heard a good reason why we had to revise the calendar, and given all the discord doing so has caused, I think New Calendarists ought to be able to provide a really good reason why the change was so pressing and necessary.

That said, I'd have no problem losing 13 days if the WHOLE church, in a conciliar, consensus-driven way decided to change to a New Calendar. That way, as you said, we could have a slightly more accurate calendar and still have the Apostles' fast and Kyriopascha, and the liturgical seasons would even correspond to the (northern hemisphere) natural seasons!

BTW, there is absolutely no reason we need to be "in synch" with the calendar of Rome, or even the civil calendar. I'm all for revisions based on science. But I think trying to "fit in" with heretics and pagans is rather lame. If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's. Maybe then in a few hundred years it'll be the Latins who will have to revise their calendar to be in synch with us! Lol
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
50
Location
Portland, Oregon
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Orthodox Church in America
JLatimer said:
If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's.
We already did that in 1923.  Have you not been reading this thread? ;)  A primer on the debates I've had here with Irish Hermit should show what I mean.
 

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
1
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
JLatimer said:
If we ever gett around to having another pan-Orthodox council and putting this to rest, why not invite a few top notch astronomers and make an even BETTER calendar than Gregory's.
We already did that in 1923.  Have you not been reading this thread? ;)  A primer on the debates I've had here with Irish Hermit should show what I mean.
No you didn't do that. I said put this to rest. If you had done that, why is it the majority of Orthodox Christians use the Old Calendar but some use a different calendar. This thread is evidence that nothing has happened to put things to rest. What I'm saying is I wouldn't begrudge anyone wanting to make another attempt, but to make sure this time everyone actually agrees.

And yes I'm aware the revised Julian is slightly better than Rome's, but in terms if being "in synch" I was referring to this:
If one reads the information supplied in Peter's post above (post 1216) the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Conference accepted Trpkovic's calendar, with an alteration proposed by Milankovic as to calculating leap years, an alteration which was intended to keep the Trpkovic calendar and the Gregorian calendar in synch for the next 800 years until 2800.
I just couldn't care less about being in synch with Rome.

But science has advanced even since 1923 so we should be able to have an even better one than the revised Julian. Let's just make sure we get less of a mess this time if we try again.



 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
1
Points
36
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves
If you think about it, it's really the New Calendar(s) that is the point of division, rather than the old, because until recently (100 years ago and beyond) all used the old.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
1
Points
36
PeterTheAleut said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
visitor said:
The old calendar has become too much of a point of division among the Orthodox themselves--nevermind what sort of "gesture" is supposedly signified by the New Calendarists to the daily more heretical Rome... Please!

The Julian calendar is incorrect today, and it is in permanent decline. Eventually we'll be celebrating Nativity during Great Lent.

If Nativity was meant to supplant a pagan holiday, then let the Old Calendarists do a Christian work and fix nativity unshakably upon the Gregorian "new year's eve." We can avoid:

1) the absurd rigors of a superstition which we have brought upon ourselves,

2) the yearly western commercialism perpetrated on us by legalized criminals,

3) and the truly damnable situation of joining in prayer with heretics.
The new calendar made the division, so get rid of this new calendar that can never have a KyrioPascha!
You do realize that the problem of never having a KyrioPascha isn't the fault of the New Calendar itself?  If we were to move the Paschalion to the New Calendar, the problem would disappear entirely.  The reason why Pascha and the Annunciation never coincide in the New Calendar churches is that we follow the New Calendar for the fixed feast of Annunciation yet continue to celebrate Pascha according to the Old Calendar.  It's this piecemeal approach to updating the calendar that has caused the problem.
Good point.

Then again, I don't know that it really matters whether a calendar can have KyrioPascha or not.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
JLatimer said:
We should always strive to maintain unity; to me issues of calendrical inaccuracy take second place to "oneness of mind, brotherly love, and piety". So just having a council is not even enough IMO; rather we should really try our best ti bring everybody together so we have as much agreement as possible.
Your approach agrees with Saint John Chrysostom's.

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times
would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism." 

~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha.  He was willing to accept inexactness rather than have division and schism.
 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
51
Points
48
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
I guess I am just a little suspicious of the circumstances under which the new calendar was initiated. I could be wrong and if I am please feel free to correct me. But the so called pan orthodox conference/council that came up with it only had about 12 bishops present from the entire world, representing only 3 or 4 Churches, and was headed by the great innovator Meletios of Constantinople. He was the primate of 4 autocephalous churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Athens. To my knowledge he was deposed from all four positions. He had also been exiled from the Church of Jerusalem. There is also many claims that he was a rampant free mason. If by their fruits you will know them...what can possibly be said of this man and the calendar that he introduced?
 
Top