GOC

[priestmark]

Sir, I ask you to take a deep breath for a moment and listen to what I say.
March 21 is no longer the date of the Vernal Equinox on the Julian Calendar.

Good grief. The ecclesiastical usage is not an astronomical event. It is defined by the Paschalion. You simply don't get it. Let me try one last time. It is fixed / set / defined (with full knowledge of the astronmical inaccuracy) as being the day called Mar 21 by the Julian Calendar. It is not the Vernal Equinox, but the Alexandrian paschalion's "vernal equinox" used to determine when Pascha is observed. It is now and forever March 21 by the Julian Calendar - by definition! It is not an empirical observation of the ecliptic crossing the equator. Your elementary astronomy lesson is nihil ad rem.

Due to the phenomenon known as the "Progression of the Equinoxes" (which, by the way, is an objective, natural phenomenon not caused by the introduction of the New Calendar ), the date of the Vernal Equinox on the Julian Calendar is currently March 8.

Nope, not this year. Your (irrelevant-to-the-Paschalion) astronomical event is actually Mar 7/20.

I have just pulled the Rudder off my bookshelf and opened to page 9.
I see four canonical criteria for the date of Pascha.

As a layman, you do not have the authority to be interpreting Canons. This is why your spiritual father should have told you to avoid that book by Apostolos Makrakis and especially his "interpretations."

The Canon on page 9 in its entirety:
Canon VII: If any Bishiop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

"Sir" and "Right back at you."

We are talking past each other and I see propriety has also been left behind. I will pray, but not persist in trying to convince you.

Even though you haven't asked: God Bless! http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364

priest Mark
ROCA

[George Australia]

As a layman, you do not have the authority to be interpreting Canons.

Neither do you simply because you wear a rasso. Only the Church can interpret the Canons.

This is why your spiritual father should have told you to avoid that book by Apostolos Makrakis and especially his "interpretations."

Another mind reader. I have no idea who "Apostolos Makrakis" is or what his "interpretations are. And who are you to say what other's spiritual fathers should and shouldn't do? I suggest you mind your own "spiritual children".
The Canon on page 9 in its entirety:

Canon VII: If any Bishiop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

I don't know about you, but I would say that this makes it a Canonical requirement that the date of Pascha should fall after the Jewish Passover.

"Sir" and "Right back at you."

We are talking past each other and I see propriety has also been left behind. I will pray, but not persist in trying to convince you.

Strange isn't it, that when I address you exactly the way you address me ("right back at you"), you become 'offended' and go off in a huff, and call it "impropiety".

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Hey everyone, lets not get side tracked and forget about essentials:

It is written from the "moderate Resistor's" Etna publication: A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar
Page 43, Once again the Sigillion of the Pan Orthodox Council:

"Whosoever does not folow the TRADITION of the Church and all that the 7 Ecumenical Synods have ordained concerning Holy Pascha and the Menaion, wishing instead to folow the new Paschalion and Menaion of the Papal astronomers, opposes all of the ordainances of the Holy Synods. Let such a one be ANATHEMA, excommunicated from the Church..." (emphasis mine)

The Revised Julian in this same book is commented as follows:

p. 54, "Patriarch Meletios...(wrote):

Code: Select all

     'The Church of Jerusalem does not desire to adopt the Gregorian Calendar and celebrate Pascha with the Latins.  It must be taken into account, however, that WE ARE NOT ADOPTING THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR,  and that in a certain number of years a difference will appear between the Latins and the Orthodox in the celebration of Pascha...'
     
     What the Ecumenical Patriarch deliberately ommitted in this explanation is that the "New Julian" Calendar fully coincides with the Gregorian Calendar until 2800, when a difference of one day will occur in leap years; however, this difference will disappear in 2900, when once again, the two calendars will fully coincide.  No matter how Mexaxakis cuts it, the "Congress" had essentially approved the Gregorian Calendar for use in the Orthodox Church.  Thus the ..Orthodox loyalty to the Patristic Calendar of 325...had finally been breached by the Constantinopolitan Church's acceptance of the Papal Calendar of 1582...
    But the mere adoption of the Gregorian Calendar -- now cunningly Easternized as the "New Julian" Calendar..."

    George, has effectively shown that Patriarch Meletios is correct.  By today's Post Vatican 2 roman Catholic Menaion, there are big differences, except for the major feast of Christmas.   Nonetheless, the "Revised Julian", even if it is maintains the order of the Menaion as George stated earlier, still destroys the liturgical process of the Chruch for the obvious reasons that it is shifted 13 days ahead.  Nothing is celebrated together with those of us on the Patristic Calendar -- thus, liturgical unity is destroyed and in violation of the Holy Tradition.

   The "Congress" created by Meletios which enacted the Revised Julian was uncanonical.  The RJ is in violation of Holy Tradition and canons because it was unilateraly enacted.  Why people want to defend this innovation is beyond me.  This is not about "strict Old Calendarists" condeming people as George in much earlier posts alludes to, it is simply about local Churches enforcing what has already been condemned and implementing the canons.   

 It seems to me that everyone generally recognized the RJ as a "thinly disguised" version of the Gregorian Calendar (p. 54 of same book).  On the other hand, so much has occured since 1924 that openly practice Ecumenism is the greater illness.

 Maybe, it all comes down to this:  a "Matthewite" version versus a "Chrysostomite/Cyprianite" view of things.  Bp. Matthew adhered to the principle that the New Calendar was in essence the same as the Gregorian Menaion, as the author of Etna's book says, "a thinly veiled disguise", and felt is appropriate to enforce the Anathema of the Sigillion.  Bp. Chrysostom of Florina changed his mind and after 1937 published an epistle that the New Calendar was different enough from the Gregorian, so as to warrant a new Pan Orthodox Synod to fully condem the calendar innovation as "actually" in Schism instead of "potentiall" in schism.   This position on 'actual" vs "potential" is the crux of the current Cyprianite Synod in regards to Ecumenism, the ideologial heir to Bp. Chrysostom.

I don't see either side changing on this.

in Christ,
Nectarios

[priestmark]

This is why your spiritual father should have told you to avoid that book by Apostolos Makrakis and especially his "interpretations."

Another mind reader. I have no idea who "Apostolos Makrakis" is or what his "interpretations are. And who are you to say what other's spiritual fathers should and shouldn't do? I suggest you mind your own "spiritual children".

You should know who this is! It is he you are quoting, not the canons. See introductory text beginning on pg viii. I know of no Orthodox clergyman who thinks laymen should be reading the Rudder. Ask your own - the next time you see him.

priestmark wrote:
As a layman, you do not have the authority to be interpreting Canons.

Neither do you simply because you wear a rasso. Only the Church can interpret the Canons.

Forgive me if I left any such impression that ordination alone is sufficient. I don't believe I did. Neither did I interpret. I merely quoted the canon (albeit in its odd translation as published by Makrakis) - no personal interpretations. Certainly I did not quote the questionable footnotes of Apostolos Makrakis - who is not the voice of the Church. You did the latter, but you are unaware of having done so.

The Canon on page 9 in its entirety:
Canon VII: If any Bishiop, or Presbyter, or Deacon celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

I don't know about you, but I would say that this makes it a Canonical requirement that the date of Pascha should fall after the Jewish Passover.

That is your interpretation.

It could just as easily, in fact more likely, mean simply what it says - "before the vernal equinox" that is, with the "less refined Jews...who celebrate Passover [before Mar 21, and therefore sometimes] twice in the same year" not once per year at the time of the equinox as did "the wisest and most learned ones... just as Moses had enjoined it"
(these quotations are from the "interpretation" on page 11 (not that this is definitive) These are not the footnoted words of Makrakis.)

This year the Jewish Passover is celebrated in April as defined by the lunar calendar which is in harmony with the Law of Moses, and this is well after the astronomical vernal equinox - just like us Orthodox. Our Orthodox Calendar is in harmony with the lunar cycles which are the basis for the Jewish calendar and also in harmony with the ancient Egyptian sothic year that begins with the annual flooding of the Nile, and which Julius Caesar decided to introduce into Rome according to the usage suggested by the Alexandrian astronomer Sosithenes.

"Our calendar contains within itself vestiges of all the developments in chronology from the very dawn of civilization" V Rev Boris Molchanov

The concordance between the beginning of the lunar year (1 Nisan) and the beginning of the Julian solar year (March 1) was accomplished by Meton in Caesar's calendar. The beginning of the Julian year and the lunar year coincide only every 76 years.

This is why Kyrio Pascha (1991, next time will be 2067) is usually only a once-in-a-lifetime event. KyrioPascha (literally the Lord's Pascha) is that Pascha which falls on March 25, the literal Julian date for the Resurrection of Christ - which is also the Feast of Annunciation. The Feast of Kyrio-Pascha does not exist on the Revised Julian Calendar since Pascha is never in March by that reckoning.

It is interesting to note that the Jews begin the lunar month of Nisan in Gregorian April this year, a full lunar cycle after the astronomical Vernal Equinox. Nisan is the first month of the Jewish year. Nisan 15 = April 24(G) = Passover.

This year we don't celebrate the very next Sunday after Passover because of Passover - we are not guided by that. Our calendar contains within itself all that is necessary and since it is in full concordnace with the lunar calendar, we celebrate on April 18/1 May because it meets the Alexandrian requirement:

First Sunday after the vernal [Mar 21 Julian] full moon

Wait that's only 1 rule!

"Sir" and "Right back at you."

We are talking past each other and I see propriety has also been left behind. I will pray, but not persist in trying to convince you.

Strange isn't it, that when I address you exactly the way you address me ("right back at you"), you become 'offended' and go off in a huff, and call it "impropiety".

George, God Bless!, I have never adressed you as "Sir" or said "right back at you" (not said that ever in my life that I can recall). Yes, it is strange that you should say that I did.

priest Mark

[George Australia]

George, God Bless!, I have never adressed you as "Sir" or said "right back at you" (not said that ever in my life that I can recall). Yes, it is strange that you should say that I did.

I am a father of teenagers, and "right back at you" means "I return to you what you have said to me"
I don't want to argue. It is always a mistake to bring up the calendar on Orthodox forums. It is especially wrong today, on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee (which is observed by both ourselves and the New Calendarists).
The whole point is that I value the unity of the Church over the Calendar- and I'm not prepared any more to allow it to become a cause of offense. And I know that many will say "If the New Calendar had not been introduced, there would be no offense". Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are not, but at any rate, I do not see that it needs to be a cause of schism, nor will I join those who basically tell the New Calendarists to "go to hell" because they believe they are "Graceless". This said, I can respect your right to hold your opinion, even if I disagree with it. I ask forgiveness if I have offended you in any way on this thread or anywhere else.
I disagree with you, but I can still pray for you- not that you should come round to my way of thinking, but that God's Will be done in you.
I'm off to Church now- and I will light a candle for you. And if, in your eyes I am a heretic and you find my prayers for you offensive, again I ask forgiveness.

[George Australia]

I don't see either side changing on this.

Perhaps not, but who knows what the Grace of God has in store for us. My experience is that He is always full of surprises. Forgive me if I have offended you on this thread.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

George did not answer my question, which by the way, has never been answer by a supporter of the ecumenists.

George,

First I think we need to lighten the tone a bit. This is not simply a fight or an argument, as I think you pointed out, but hopefully an opportunity where peoples opinions are discussed and hopefully someone takes something away from it. Maybe that me, or you, or whoever. I think the following quote applies to everyone on this forum…

“Freedom from anger is an insatiable appetite for dishonor, just as in the vainglorious there is no unbounded desire for praise. Freedom from anger is victory over nature and insensibility to insults, acquired by struggles and sweat. ---St. John Climacus, “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,”

In the spirit of this, I would just like to make a few comments.

The target strategic target of the enemy is ultimately the Church of Christ – the Orthodox.because she is the “salt” of the world. The enemy well knows that “if the salt should lose its savour” all mankind will become a spiritual corpse.

In the year 1919 the Anglican “Church,” which had organized the “Ecumenical Movement,” sent a delegation to the Orthodox Churches, inviting them to send representatives to the “Faith and Order” assembly of the Ecumenical Movement, which was to convene in Geneva in August of the following year. At that time, Dorotheus of Prusa was the locum tenens of the Ecumenical Throne. At a meeting of the Patriarchal Synod on January 10, 1919, he stated, “I think it is more than time that the Orthodox Church also think seriously about the subject of the union of the individual Christian churches.” The Synod was pleased to accept the suggestion of the locum tenens and proceeded to form committees, whose task it was to study the various ways this union might take place. In one year, by January, 1920, the historic Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate “To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be” was ready, and dispatched to all corners of the world. According to this encyclical, the union of the churches would become a reality with the gradual erasure of differences between the “individual churches.” As a first step, the encyclical suggested:

1. The adoption by all the Churches of one single calendar for the common celebration of the great Christian feasts (holy days)
2. The exchange of fraternal letters
3. Fraternal contact between the representatives of the Churches
4. Establishment of relations among the divinity schools and exchange of documents and periodicals “of each church.”
5. Student exchange
6. The convocation of pan-Christian assemblies,
7. An objective, historic examination of doctrinal differences,
8. Mutual respect of practices and customs of the various “churches.”
9. Mutual sharing of houses of prayer and cemeteries, for the burial “of adherents of other confessions.”
10. Implementation of common rules regarding mixed marriages, and
11. Mutual support in the realm of religious edification, philanthropy, etc.

Meletius Metaxakis began diligently and enthusiastically to pursue union. Among other things, he recognized Anglican Orders and sacraments, tried to eliminate fasting and have married bishops. And in accordance with the ecumenical roadmap, instituted the new-calendar in order to pursue a festal union with the heretics.

The heresy of Ecumenism, therefore, in the form that it has taken today, did not appear Bartholomew, Demetrios, or Athenagoras, as some would believe. It made its way into Orthodox circles during the time of Dorotheus, Meletius Metaxakis, and Chrysostom Papadopoulos. The first official announcement of this heresy in Orthodox lands took place in 1920 with the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate “To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be.” The heresy did not take form however until 1924. It was the application and implementation of the first suggestion of the 1920 Encyclical, that is, “the adoption by all the churches of one single calendar for the common celebration of the great Christian feasts,” by which the liturgical or festal union of the “churches” was accomplished.

It is because of this that it doesn’t matter if the new-calendar in its current for was previously condemned or not – because if it was not, it would be now. Or are we legalists and are going to sit here and say that this is just an issue of the calendar? It is certainly not and while people understand this, they purposefully ignore it in the hopes the matter of heresy can be reduced to a leagalism.

New Calendarism equals Ecumenism, equals a rejection of the Truth, a rejection of the One, Holy Church, a rejection of Holy Tradition, a rejection of the continual presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The new-calendarists declared the festal order of the Church Fathers to be in error; they overturned the festal relation between the Paschal cycle and immovable feasts; they abolished fasts; they changed immovable feasts to movable ones (for example, the feast of Saint George); they destroyed the festal harmony and unity of the Church with the other Orthodox Churches which did not change the festal calendar. They did all this in order to concelebrate with the heretical denominations of the West. We labor, therefore, to remain Orthodox in the face of the contemporary heresy of Ecumenism, which has corroded everything by now. Do not ever believe those who would wish to deceive you with the usual lie proffered the naive. They will tell you: “Of what concern is it to you if the Patriarch is a heretic (and you do know he is a heretic don’t you?), and if the Archbishops and Metropolitans commemorate him? The Patriarch is not our leader, but Christ. We know our hearts and our faith. We are Orthodox. Let the Patriarch declare whatever heresy he wishes.” Jesus, our Saviour, the Christ, has said that no one can come unto the Father except through the Son. Similarly, no one can approach the Son except through the Church. A Christian cannot exist as an individual, but only as a member of the Body of Christ, the Church. And the Church is there only where the Truth is confessed. Where Ecumenism, that is, error, is confessed, there is neither Church nor Christ.