GOC

[Mor Ephrem]

Actually, what was posted is not strictly "the Gregorian calendar", but is the liturgical calendar of the Roman Church, post-Vatican II. The Gregorian calendar is a way of telling time, while a liturgical calendar is a way of arranging feasts for the year. It just so happens that the Roman Church uses the Gregorian calendar to determine its liturgical calendar, but the two are not synonymous. You may find many differences between a pre-Vatican II Roman calendar and the post-Vatican II calendar posted here (which, btw, is a particular adaptation of the "General Roman Calendar" for the USA...other nations have added different saints to it). Both use the Gregorian calendar, but differ in the way they arrange the feasts of the saints.

[priestmark]

Well, I'm still confused. I thought that there were two calendars, Julian and Gregorian. Period. And that they are 13 days apart.

Essentially that is true. The "Revised Julian" is smoke and mirrors to make the Gregorian reckoning of the Menaion seem Orthodox by placing it in the context of the Julian reckoning of Pascha. This disrupts the Church in many ways. Two are more prominent than others.

The Apostle's Fast did not exist in New Calendar Churches in 1986 and 2002. It will be 2 days in length for them this year

Pascha by the Church Calendar is April 18th this year but by the secular calendar it is May 1st. Pascha may not fall after April 25, the feast day of the Apostle and Evangelist Mark, who met his martyr's death on Pascha.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

To George (if he is still present) and other defenders of the New Calendar:

George stated:

You still refuse to see that even if match of even 80 percent were possible between the New Calendar and Gregorian Menain, it would still not beat a match of 100 percent with the Old Calendar.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how the New Calendar matches up 100% with the Patristic Calendar? They are completely off by 13 days. All that aside, I will agree with George that he has proved a point that the New Calendar/"revised" Julian is not completely the same as the Gregorian menaion. However, what is the most important Western Feast? Christmas. That is the focal point of western celebrations. The New Calendar is similar there for a point of ecumenism, as per the 1920 Epistle of the Phanar: "To the Churches ...where ever they are..".

George wants to paint the Old Calendar Churches, or perhaps me specifically -- as a Matthewite, as someone who sinfully judges others. From my perspective, I'm simply reiterating the position of the 3 OC hierarchs from 1935 where they executed the Sigillion's anathema.
The Anathema is broadly speaking at least this: "Whosoever does not follow the Tradition of the Church and all that the 7 Ecumenical Synods have condemned....Let such a one be anathema. The Revised Julian/New Calendar is a departure from the Holy Tradition. Period -- end of story. Further, the New Calendar was not forumlated and approved by a Pan Orthodox Synod...it was an illegal uncanonical pseudo-synod, actually a "congress", that included the Anglican representatives -- the first fruits of ecumenism. This was already in 1923.

So, if perhaps there were at least 4 Pan Ecumenical Synods and at least 8 more local Churches that condemned the "Gregorian" calendar, the Revised Julian breaks from Holy Tradition and is still under the anathema of the Sigillion. Secondly, the Patriarch, in consultation with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, condemned the Revised Julian in 1924, after its implementation by Greece.

Unfortunately, George confuses enforcement of Church canons and anathemas as "sinful" or hateful judgement. If that is so, then I wonder why he is even Orthodox? He could a Roman Catholic and accept everyone: Monophysites, Nestorians, and so on as part of the Church, since why accept and judgements the Church has decreed.

Nectarios

[romiosini]

To George (if he is still present) and other defenders of the New Calendar:

George stated:

You still refuse to see that even if match of even 80 percent were possible between the New Calendar and Gregorian Menain, it would still not beat a match of 100 percent with the Old Calendar.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how the New Calendar matches up 100% with the Patristic Calendar? They are completely off by 13 days. All that aside, I will agree with George that he has proved a point that the New Calendar/"revised" Julian is not completely the same as the Gregorian menaion. However, what is the most important Western Feast? Christmas. That is the focal point of western celebrations. The New Calendar is similar there for a point of ecumenism, as per the 1920 Epistle of the Phanar: "To the Churches ...where ever they are..".

George wants to paint the Old Calendar Churches, or perhaps me specifically -- as a Matthewite, as someone who sinfully judges others. From my perspective, I'm simply reiterating the position of the 3 OC hierarchs from 1935 where they executed the Sigillion's anathema.
The Anathema is broadly speaking at least this: "Whosoever does not follow the Tradition of the Church and all that the 7 Ecumenical Synods have condemned....Let such a one be anathema. The Revised Julian/New Calendar is a departure from the Holy Tradition. Period -- end of story. Further, the New Calendar was not forumlated and approved by a Pan Orthodox Synod...it was an illegal uncanonical pseudo-synod, actually a "congress", that included the Anglican representatives -- the first fruits of ecumenism. This was already in 1923.

So, if perhaps there were at least 4 Pan Ecumenical Synods and at least 8 more local Churches that condemned the "Gregorian" calendar, the Revised Julian breaks from Holy Tradition and is still under the anathema of the Sigillion. Secondly, the Patriarch, in consultation with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, condemned the Revised Julian in 1924, after its implementation by Greece.

Unfortunately, George confuses enforcement of Church canons and anathemas as "sinful" or hateful judgement. If that is so, then I wonder why he is even Orthodox? He could a Roman Catholic and accept everyone: Monophysites, Nestorians, and so on as part of the Church, since why accept and judgements the Church has decreed.

Nectarios

As honorable traditionalists, it is our duty to pray for the return of the New Calendarists back to the Church.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

A clarification:

Secondly, the Patriarch, in consultation with the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, condemned the Revised Julian in 1924, after its implementation by Greece.

The Patriarch I failed to mention here was the Pat. of Alexandria.
His condemnation was specific to the "Revised Julian" since it occured after the NC implementation.

Nectarios

[George Australia]

Unfortunately, George confuses enforcement of Church canons and anathemas as "sinful" or hateful judgement.

Do I indeed?
I thought that what I was saying is that the arguments "strict traditionalists" use to oppose the new calendar don't hold water.
Do not presume to know what I think Nektarios. Read what I write, don't try to read my mind. Try to understand basic logic and common-sense.
Two people have emailed me asking me to return because, like me, they think Euphrosynos Cafe is becomiming irrational- what's that saying?

[George Australia]

Essentially that is true. The "Revised Julian" is smoke and mirrors to make the Gregorian reckoning of the Menaion seem Orthodox by placing it in the context of the Julian reckoning of Pascha. This disrupts the Church in many ways. Two are more prominent than others.

Codswollop.
Who now is really using "smoke and mirrors" to confuse the simple laity by insisting that the Revised Julian is the "Gregorian Menaion"?