Old vs. New Calendar?

[вєликаго]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions.  A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

 

[вєликаго]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

 

[Porter ODoran]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions.  A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

Granted, altho I do not think that Old Believer's choices in English is the topic of the thread.

 

[вєликаго]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

True, but why are some trying to dictate church tradition to include the word easter? The church should create its own English traditions out of its own traditions, to continue those said traditions in English, if they are going to use English. There is no reason to be restricted to anther churches local traditions.  A church should hold to its own local traditions.

The Church already did -- as I said before, long before Slavic Christianity was a twinkle in St. Vladimir's eye ...

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

Granted, altho I do not think that Old Believer's choices in English is the topic of the thread.

the example I used, is valid for many other churches, the Greeks, the Nikonian Russians, the Serbs, or I imagine it is.

 

[Porter ODoran]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

My point is that what the word is in Greek is not the question. Simply, there is a very ancient practice in England, Germany, and some other parts with a similar linguistic background to refer to πάσχα the ritual of the Jews as Passover and πάσχα the Resurrection as Easter. And for that matter this is reflected in the traditional translations of the Holy Bible into these tongues.

 

[вєликаго]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha.

No.  Both "Easter" and "Passover" are used in English for "Pascha" considering "Pascha" is used in the LXX in reference to the Passover event.

Yet the LXX is not in English.

Your point? The church does not have a tradition of strict adherence to local language, even if it does have a tradition of using it.

My point is that we know what the word is in Greek already. There is a very ancient practice in England, Germany, and some other parts with a similar linguistic background to refer to 'Paskha' the ritual of the Jews as Passover and 'Paskha' the Resurrection as 'Easter.' This is even reflected in the traditional translations of the Holy Bible into these tongues.

There is no need to adopt the local traditions of long dead local churches.  I think its best to avoid them.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

What if Orthodox used the English word "Passover" instead of both "Easter" and "Pascha"?

Because Charles Martel would freak the hell out.

May I presume you agree with me that this is acceptable? 

Passover is the word we use in English to describe the event indicated by the word "Pascha" in the OT and NT. 

But I do think we're making a mountain out of a molehill.  Let people use Pascha, Easter, or Passover.

Aww, but I wanted to watch Charles flip out!!

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Here is Nicephoras Gregoras's proposed adjustment to the paschalion.  The information is taken from Petavius's Uranologion of 1630.  All dates are in the Julian calendar.  The numbering of the years of the 19-year cycle is according to the western count.

Year		Alexandrian paschal		Gregoras's proposed
		full moon			PFM

1		April  5			April  3*
2		March 25			March 23
3		April 13			April 11
4		April  2			March 31
5		March 22			March 20
6		April 10			April  8
7		March 30			March 28
8		April 18			April 16
9		April  7			April  5
10		March 27			March 25
11		April 15			April 13
12		April  4			April  2
13		March 24			March 22
14		April 12			March 10
15		April  1			March 30
16		March 21			March 19
17		April  9			April  7
18		March 29			March 27
19		April 17			April 15

Petavius gives "April 23" here, but this seems to be a mistake, for no lunar calendar could behave in such a way.

Even today your camp could do worse than to adopt Gregoras's adjustments.  It would repair a little of your solar discrepancy, and about half of your lunar discrepancy.

I love how you carry on your own monolog in the midst of everything else. It's quite charming, really.

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar...

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Insisting on saying "Pascha" rather than "Easter" strikes me as analogous to insisting that we "write" icons rather than paint them. The point is, when I say "Easter", you know perfectly well what I mean, or if I need to clarify I can say "Orthodox Easter" as opposed to "Western Easter". I think you could even make a good case that "Easter" is a spiritually healthy appropriation and sanctification of a pagan name, just as our calendar is an appropriation and sanctification of originally non-Christian (pagan and Jewish) systems of keeping time.

It is interesting, though, how English (and German) ended up using the pagan name for the feast, while even other Germanic cultures (e.g. Scandinavians) used the Hebraic Pascha (e.g. Danish "Paaske").

Etymologically, the name "Easter" is also appropriate because it is derived from an old root meaning "dawn". Christ is our Dawn, after all.

I disagree, there really is no need for all that, Pascha is the correct word, easter is not.

Considering "Easter" has been used by the Germanic-speaking Church since perhaps the late 300s -- which, by the way, is several centuries earlier than the conversion of the Slavs -- I don't think there's basis for criticism.

Are you a member of the german speaking church?

He said "Germanic". Such as the language you're currently using.

I'm not part of a Germanic church. Therefore why would I use or adopt Germanic church traditions?

You are speaking a Germanic language, therefore you should have no problem using Germanic words.

Why would I adopt the Germanic word for Pascha?

Nobody's asking you to. Just don't insist that everyone follow you.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I fail to see your point? That is not reasonable grounds to replace the word Pascha with easter.

You speak English. Easter is the English word for Pascha. This isn't complicated. Why do you replace "theos" with "God"? Or "ekklesia" with "church"?

The examples your trying to make, makes no sense to me.

That's fine. You also think laymen can ordain bishops, so logic isn't really your strong suit.

shame on you for the libelous insults.

How is it libelous?

 

[вєликаго]

Insisting on saying "Pascha" rather than "Easter" strikes me as analogous to insisting that we "write" icons rather than paint them. The point is, when I say "Easter", you know perfectly well what I mean, or if I need to clarify I can say "Orthodox Easter" as opposed to "Western Easter". I think you could even make a good case that "Easter" is a spiritually healthy appropriation and sanctification of a pagan name, just as our calendar is an appropriation and sanctification of originally non-Christian (pagan and Jewish) systems of keeping time.

It is interesting, though, how English (and German) ended up using the pagan name for the feast, while even other Germanic cultures (e.g. Scandinavians) used the Hebraic Pascha (e.g. Danish "Paaske").

Etymologically, the name "Easter" is also appropriate because it is derived from an old root meaning "dawn". Christ is our Dawn, after all.

I disagree, there really is no need for all that, Pascha is the correct word, easter is not.

Considering "Easter" has been used by the Germanic-speaking Church since perhaps the late 300s -- which, by the way, is several centuries earlier than the conversion of the Slavs -- I don't think there's basis for criticism.

Are you a member of the german speaking church?

He said "Germanic". Such as the language you're currently using.

I'm not part of a Germanic church. Therefore why would I use or adopt Germanic church traditions?

You are speaking a Germanic language, therefore you should have no problem using Germanic words.

Why would I adopt the Germanic word for Pascha?

Nobody's asking you to. Just don't insist that everyone follow you.

Nope, I never insist that. I do, however, strongly suggest that people follow Christ, Jesus. The Old Believers are His Church.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Nope, I never insist that. I do, however, strongly suggest that people follow Christ, Jesus. The Old Believers are His Church.

The ones with priests or the ones without priests?

 

[Mockingbird]

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

I don't exist?  That's news to me!

 

[Minnesotan]

Nope, I never insist that. I do, however, strongly suggest that people follow Christ, Jesus. The Old Believers are His Church.

The ones with priests or the ones without priests?

Some kind of competition between вєликаго and HopefulFaithful, perhaps?

 

[вєликаго]

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

I don't exist?  That's news to me!

Episcopalians do not count.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

My church never did, a local church that no longer exists did.

I don't exist?  That's news to me!

How is he saying you don't exist? Are you a church of one?

 

[Mockingbird]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion.   

 

[Mockingbird]

Episcopalians do not count.

One, two, three, four...

I'm an Epsicopalian, and I'm counting.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-PapistRomanCatholic bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

Jonathan, please remember to follow Forum Rules (third button from the left, along the top of the page).  Please use the term "Roman Catholics" when referring to members of the Roman Catholic Church. 

Specifically, "* EO/OO/RC Pejoratives -- Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: Use Eastern Catholic (or their appropriate official title).  Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.  Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum."

Any further Rules violations will result in a warning.  Thank you.  LizaSymonenko - Global Moderator

 

[Mockingbird]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked.  The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century.

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy.  Isn't he part of the church?

What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore?

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

 

[Jonathan Gress]

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked.  The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy.  Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

What would be the point? Astronomical accuracy is all very well, but it's not worth sacrificing unity for it. Plus, in the way it has actually been carried out, it is clear to me at any rate that it was part of a larger move to unite the Orthodox church with heterodox bodies.

 

[Mockingbird]

t is clear to me at any rate that [calendar reform] was part of a larger move to unite the Orthodox church with heterodox bodies.

Relax.  We adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1750's, and we are still far from any reunion with the Papists Roman Catholics.

Mockingbird, please remember to follow Forum Rules (third button from the left, along the top of the page).  Please use the term "Roman Catholics" when referring to members of the Roman Catholic Church. 

Specifically, "* EO/OO/RC Pejoratives -- Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: Use Eastern Catholic (or their appropriate official title).  Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian.  Obviously, if you are discussing these terms in their true and historical sense then there is no problem using the term. What is being rejected is using this as a label to counter other members of the forum. As always, this does not imply that the board takes a position itself on these positions; this is merely a request to use civilized terminology & academic discussion standards in dialog on this forum."

Any further Rules violations will result in a warning.  Thank you.  LizaSymonenko - Global Moderator

 

[Jonathan Gress]

t is clear to me at any rate that [calendar reform] was part of a larger move to unite the Orthodox church with heterodox bodies.

Relax.  We adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 1750's, and we are still far from any reunion with the Papists.

Given that the Anglicans are full-blown Branch Theory ecumenists, that isn't saying much.

 

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

I'll yet to see evidence that the penitential canons were customarily enforced as strictly in those days as imagined in monastic nostalgia.

The Fathers stated that they picked Alexandria's comptus because of the accuracy of its astronomers and observatories.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

Christ is risen!

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism. What other elements of 4th century practice are you willing to restore? Perhaps you want the Church to start enforcing the penitential canons as strictly as was customary in those days? Nobody would be receiving communion now if that were the case.

I'll yet to see evidence that the penitential canons were customarily enforced as strictly in those days as imagined in monastic nostalgia.

The Fathers stated that they picked Alexandria's comptus because of the accuracy of its astronomers and observatories.

Would those Fathers have approved of the way the reform was pushed through at the cost of Church unity? I doubt it. But you may have a point about enforcement of the canons. I don't think you're being fair to monks, though. It's more an issue of hyperdoxy, which afflicts laymen and monks alike.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

 

[PeterTheAleut]

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked.  The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy.  Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

Who is the Church?

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

What would be the point? Astronomical accuracy is all very well, but it's not worth sacrificing unity for it.

Why not? You did.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

But it was not rejected "for its own sake", i.e. on the grounds that calendar reform is inherently wicked.  The Emperor thought that news of the correction could not be easily transmitted to the whole empire.

Fair enough, but it does sound like maintaining church unity was seen as important enough that reform of just part of the church would be worse than no reform at all. I think that's an important lesson for today.

Gregoras, in the 14th century, cared about astronomical accuracy.  Isn't he part of the church?

The Church is not just any individual. Gregoras had a right to propose reform, but the Church was under no obligation to follow his proposal and didn't.

Who is the Church?

If many things have changed since the 4th century, why can't the calendar be changed now?

What would be the point? Astronomical accuracy is all very well, but it's not worth sacrificing unity for it.

Why not? You did.

Excuse me? It was the New Calendarists who anathematized and outlawed the Old Calendarists first.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

The one with the beam in his own eye should not be criticizing the beam in my eye. How often do I actually return to post on this thread? Once in a great while, and then usually only when I see someone being treated unfairly or I see a gross logical fallacy. For the most part, the calendar debate just isn't important to me, not like it is for you.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

The one with the beam in his own eye should not be criticizing the beam in my eye.

I never called you "obsessed". Will you go play and let the grown-ups talk now?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

The one with the beam in his own eye should not be criticizing the beam in my eye.

I never called you "obsessed". Will you go play and let the grown-ups talk now?

Go back and re-read the post you just quoted.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

The one with the beam in his own eye should not be criticizing the beam in my eye.

I never called you "obsessed". Will you go play and let the grown-ups talk now?

Go back and re-read the post you just quoted.

Man, this is juvenile. I was critiquing obsession with "astronomical accuracy", not obsession with the entire discussion of the calendar schism/division. The latter I believe IS an important subject, and I don't criticize anyone who wants to talk about it. I'm criticizing the reformist position that holds that astronomical accuracy is SO important that everything else, even church unity, comes second in importance. I feel that Mockingbird and others (not necessarily you) are of this persuasion.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

And I remember reading that Nicephoras' proposals were reviewed and rejected at the time, even though they had nothing to do with the Pope or Papism. It's almost as if for centuries the Church didn't see astronomical accuracy as the most important aspect of the liturgical calendar.

Gregoras's proposals were not rejected on doctrinal grounds, merely on practical ones:  Gregoras, Byzantine History 8.13.3.

Astronomical accuracy was important to the 3rd-4th century fathers who developed the paschalion. 

The point is that opposition to the Gregorian calendar is often put down to anti-Papist bigotry, but with the rejection of Gregoras' proposals we have an example of reform being rejected for its own sake, and not merely through guilt by association.

The other point is that you can't point to evidence that the Church cared about astronomical accuracy since the 4th century. The obsession with astronomical accuracy strikes me as akin to other forms of renovationism.

There's a difference between caring about something and being obsessed with it.

Indeed. I would say that someone who cares enough about accuracy to come up with decent and well-thought-through reform proposals is "caring". Someone who forces reform on his local church, at the cost of causing a schism, is "obsessed".

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems that you're so obsessed with this subject as to keep coming back to this thread to defend the Old Calendar.

And the fact you keep needing to defend your own side on this thread proves nothing, I suppose? You might want to check out that beam in your eye.

The one with the beam in his own eye should not be criticizing the beam in my eye.

I never called you "obsessed". Will you go play and let the grown-ups talk now?

Go back and re-read the post you just quoted.

Man, this is juvenile. I was critiquing obsession with "astronomical accuracy", not obsession with the entire discussion of the calendar schism/division. The latter I believe IS an important subject, and I don't criticize anyone who wants to talk about it. I'm criticizing the reformist position that holds that astronomical accuracy is SO important that everything else, even church unity, comes second in importance. I feel that Mockingbird and others (not necessarily you) are of this persuasion.

I don't think so, and I think you may be treating them unfairly by insinuating that they are of this persuasion. Personally, I think their concern with astronomical accuracy a defensible position, and I think you may be minimizing it to the point of dismissing it altogether.

If you want to focus on astronomical accuracy, though, I do believe that the cycles of the heavens reflect the mind of God more clearly than our arguments over calendars.

 

[podkarpatska]

I've' stated it before, my parish is Old Calendar, personally I have preference for the New, but no real passion one way or the other as there are strong points in defense of each. If it changes some day, so be it, if not so be it...This past year I celebrated the full cycle of the Nativity week on the New at my son's parish in Georgia. It FELT in my heart like Christmas to the extent when my wife said to me after Liturgy on the 26th of December that we HAD to get to the mall for the sales...I groggily replied...there won't be anything left by now..you always do that on the 26th....

That being said, I don't think either the New or Old calendar Orthodox really use this issue as the basis for 'anathemas' or 'schism', I see it as an excuse used by both sides where there may be deeper issues under the surface. Surely on the face of the earth, given current events in particular, the calendar by itself  - one way or the other - is a rather poor, if not (to use the vernacular) crappy excuse over which to divide the Church....

 

[Jonathan Gress]

I'd say that the celestial movements are a starting point for understanding our church calendar, but there's more to the calendar than that. In MB's own account of why Gregoras' proposals were dismissed, it appears the Emperor was very concerned that not the entire Church would go along with the reform and therefore the proposals were rejected. So the precedent up until 1924 was that unity was too precious to sacrifice even for a more accurate calendar.

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere. If we started to colonize Mars, with its radically different solar cycle, I'm sure we'd expect them to celebrate the liturgical calendar with their brothers on Earth.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I'd say that the celestial movements are a starting point for understanding our church calendar, but there's more to the calendar than that. In MB's own account of why Gregoras' proposals were dismissed, it appears the Emperor was very concerned that not the entire Church would go along with the reform and therefore the proposals were rejected. So the precedent up until 1924 was that unity was too precious to sacrifice even for a more accurate calendar.

No, the precedent is that one man feared the opinion of the churches in his empire so much that he didn't even bother to refer his proposals to them. The Church was given no chance to review the proposals and respond to them. We don't have to project modern theories back into the record of what happened centuries ago.

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

If we started to colonize Mars, with its radically different solar cycle, I'm sure we'd expect them to celebrate the liturgical calendar with their brothers on Earth.

We're still probably decades to centuries away from potentially colonizing Mars, so let's not think so far ahead and use such speculation as support for either side of the arguments we're engaged in now.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Another argument I'm fond of is that the solar cycle is reversed in the southern hemisphere, but afaik no one is proposing that Orthodox living in the south celebrate Pascha in September/October. That's because what's more important is that they celebrate Pascha together with the Orthodox in the northern hemisphere.

Is that really the ONLY conclusion we can draw from the fact that Australia celebrates Pascha in the fall?

What other alternatives would you suggest?