The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
MagdalenaRuth, gepaul, Thomas Taylor, samson, Joseph Stitzel
5,667 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 151 guests, and 199 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,892
Posts412,952
Members5,667
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 15 16
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
... change should only be introduced very carely, after due consideration, and always by mutual, conciliar agreement rather than the top-down papal pronouncement that accompanied, for example, the calendar change.
There was extensive consultation over the course of an extensive time, 12 centuries of deliberation. There is evidence that even the (miaphysite) patriarch Na'amat Allah of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch was a consultant for the Gregorian reform; see the post Common Easter date? (thread running 02/14/09-04/28/09) and the post that follows it.

dochawk #414529 01/16/16 09:54 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by dochawk
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by dochawk
As for me, I'd dump the tables entirely, and go back the pure astronomical calculations.
There are no "pure astronomical calculations" to "go back" to.


To be clear, am referring to the edicts of Nicea, not the bases the Council Fathers used to reach them.

hawk


I don't understand what you're saying here but would like to; please explain in more detail if possible.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by Orthodox
From Rome's standpoint whether Pascha is in the second week of April each year or in accordance with Orthodox Pascha - it doesn't appear to matter to it.
I know such a solution has been floated by several sources but what is the source(s) for labeling it Rome's "standpoint."

I believe anyone favoring a fixed Sunday (in April usually) is either poorly informed or is willingly and knowingly abandoning the prescription of Nicaea I. They're just being practical we're told. This would make the rejection of I Nicaea's prescription complete in fact since the Julian calendar/paschalion, though purporting to follow the prescription, does not.

Practical people, some in high places, can do some dumb things like proposing a solution that does not eliminate -- actually encapsulates -- the point of contention: Let's all agree on the second Sunday of April.

OK, on what calendar?

ajk #414532 01/16/16 11:14 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
I think we are all talking past each other. Yes, I know the formula Nicea used for its calculations. We could all agree to celebrate based on that formula but we don't. However, the Vernal Equinox does not occur on March 21 for all time as the council believed. In 2016 it will be March 20, but will be March 19 in Wichita, KS. It varies and the calendar reforms have made the range of difference greater in some years, less in others.

Nicea certainly could calculate a date, and I believe did so at the request of the emperor who wanted a common date for all in the empire to celebrate Easter. Well and good, in theory.

A couple of problems with that. The birth, death, and resurrection of Christ were not noteworthy events in the empire of the day and were likely not even noticed except by those close to Him. The empire at large would not have been aware of those events. Even Nicea had no clue as to when, for example, the resurrection actually occurred. In their defense, it is fact that the calculation of Easter is a matter of church discipline, not astronomical science. If we had evidence of when those events actually happened, perhaps we could all celebrate them on the next nearest Sunday. But we don't know and neither did Nicea. The council's formula was contrived and made up, as is every other theory of when Christ rose from the dead. The dispute rages and will continue, I suspect.

Now for something of significance. The National Confectioners Association has determined that October 28th is National Chocolate Day. However, and heresy is ever thus, Days of the Year, LTD. has decreed it occurs on July 7th. Heresy! New calendarist heretics who should be flogged and burned at the stake. Is outrage!!!


Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
I wanted to thank you for providing the calendar. It's a keeper and I have forwarded it to interested others.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 23
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 23
Days of the Year LTD actually are not heretical. They have simply made an important advance in the Theology of Chocolate! Both dates work well as National Chocolate Days, as do most other days of the year.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
Days of the Year are new calendarist, sergianist, heretics. However, I would accept their date as preparation for the great feast in October. Consider it like an early Vespers. Perhaps sample all the chocolate to determine what brands to use in October. Works for me.

byzanTN #414544 01/17/16 05:01 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by byzanTN
I think we are all talking past each other. Yes, I know the formula Nicea used for its calculations. We could all agree to celebrate based on that formula but we don't. However, the Vernal Equinox does not occur on March 21 for all time as the council believed. In 2016 it will be March 20, but will be March 19 in Wichita, KS. It varies and the calendar reforms have made the range of difference greater in some years, less in others.
...
Now for something of significance. The National Confectioners Association has determined that October 28th is National Chocolate Day. However, and heresy is ever thus, Days of the Year, LTD. has decreed it occurs on July 7th. Heresy! New calendarist heretics who should be flogged and burned at the stake. Is outrage!!!
Yes, that is significant; it signifies you're not getting the point.

Nicaea-I knew the equinox was occurring on March 21 insofar that it had shifted from the original March 25. You give too little credit to those who followed the stars of the time. As I've said, the equinox itself is a definition and it shifts depending on one's meridian. Also it is not possible to follow the prescription of I-Nicaea, determined everywhere, and simultaneously have the same date (some 1 day = ~24 hour interval). I'm sure this was realized at the time of I-Nicaea. The prescription is giving a rule to be determined somewhere (as Aleppo does for Jerusalem), or in some consistent though even approximate manner, such that a Sunday is selected enabling all to observe Pascha at the same time, that is, on the same nominal day. The exact application of Nicaea-I's prescription everywhere is, was and always will be an over-determined requirement if the intent is to celebrate the feast everywhere within a 1-day time span. That is why a very good approximation, like the Gregorian calendar and its Paschalion is working as well as it does, and probably for some time still as well as any also arbitrary though more exact -- given the additional required specification(s) -- yearly astronomical determination.

Originally Posted by byzanTN
Nicea certainly could calculate a date, and I believe did so at the request of the emperor who wanted a common date for all in the empire to celebrate Easter. Well and good, in theory.

A couple of problems with that. The birth, death, and resurrection of Christ were not noteworthy events in the empire of the day and were likely not even noticed except by those close to Him. The empire at large would not have been aware of those events. Even Nicea had no clue as to when, for example, the resurrection actually occurred.
Even if they did it would not have mattered in what they were trying to achieve. Quartodecimanism was rejected because it was deemed proper that Pascha be on a Sunday, but the Quartodeciman link to the Passover cerebration was certainly valid and to be retained as far as possible in some way.


Originally Posted by byzanTN
In their defense, it is fact that the calculation of Easter is a matter of church discipline, not astronomical science.
The "church discipline," i.e the prescription of Nicaea_I, makes it a consideration of astronomical science to a considerable extent. And the "church discipline," in this matter was taken very seriously. How important, intrinsic or arbitrary is Sunday as the weekly Pascha?

Originally Posted by byzanTN
If we had evidence of when those events actually happened, perhaps we could all celebrate them on the next nearest Sunday. But we don't know and neither did Nicea.
Suppose we do know and so did Nicaea? So what? This is interesting information, but it is not the point. You make it seem like it's the end-all great solution. It is not. What you suggest is just another variation on the conceptually impoverished fixed Sunday in April "solution." It is necessary to get over, beyond, a simplistic, Hallmark card mentality of what a proper commemoration of a yearly, for instance, event entails, especially in this case where several important factors must be considered. Here it is necessary to not only think solar, the equinox that fixes us to a season and probably a calendar, but also lunar -- not just the sun but the moon. The Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar, Passover a lunar event conditioned by a seasonal event, the equinox, a solar event.


Originally Posted by byzanTN
The council's formula was contrived and made up, as is every other theory of when Christ rose from the dead. The dispute rages and will continue, I suspect.
"Contrived"? Is there a better solution that does justice to the yearly-solar, monthly-lunar and weekly-Sunday requirement? What is it? If you trust the Gospels then we know " when Christ rose from the dead" as fact not theory. He was raised on the first day of the week, Sunday -- the day Genesis tells us God began to create -- after the the first full moon after the vernal equinox. And that is what Nicaea_I prescribed we do every year by observing Easter/Pascha as they desired.



ajk #414545 01/17/16 05:48 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
Easter will be celebrated in my church on March 27, 2016. Nicea, its formulations, the moon over someone's shoulder, and theories to the contrary change nothing. None of us get to decide when Easter occurs.

byzanTN #414546 01/17/16 07:41 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
Although I don't care when anyone celebrates Easter, it does raise a question. I just read something by the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for a common date so all Christians can celebrate Easter together.

I don't mind, as I mentioned. However, I could see a common date for Catholics and Orthodox. But what would either body gain from celebrating with denominations that hold beliefs neither Catholics nor Orthodox would even consider Christian? I am not asking for the sake of argument, but would like to hear what others have to say.

byzanTN #414548 01/18/16 03:06 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
It's a "man made" rule and not made by God but for God! What men have made can be changed. The church calendar included! But we all know that any common date will result in mass schisms in the East and not a few in the West with hard liners refusing to change and condemning those who change as heritics.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
Originally Posted by bergschlawiner
It's a "man made" rule and not made by God but for God! What men have made can be changed. The church calendar included! But we all know that any common date will result in mass schisms in the East and not a few in the West with hard liners refusing to change and condemning those who change as heritics.


Amen!

byzanTN #414552 01/18/16 09:06 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,025
Originally Posted by byzanTN
Originally Posted by bergschlawiner
It's a "man made" rule and not made by God but for God! What men have made can be changed. The church calendar included! But we all know that any common date will result in mass schisms in the East and not a few in the West with hard liners refusing to change and condemning those who change as heritics.


Amen!
True but a bit too dismissive for me in that simply saying "man made" can give the impression of arbitrary, concocted, contrived, etc., and all the other biases that men are prone to exhibit.

So in this context I ask again, how important, for instance, is Sunday as the Lord's day, the day that the Church gathers uniquely as the body of Christ in the eucharistic assembly? Acts tells us this was done as were other practices retained from Judaism. The God-made rule is, after all, to keep holy the Sabbath, the seventh day not the first (eight).

So we know the Church has reinterpreted in he light of Christ many elements and practices of the God-given directives of the law of Moses. Also, what is the authority, specifically as agreed upon by "all" concerning the prescription for determining the yearly Pascha, of an Ecumenical Council, here Nicaea_I? Certainly the directive on dating Pascha can be changed by the Church but should it be? As I've asked, what is the better solution, in particular a solution doing justice to the inclusiveness of the timing of Passover intertwined with the Resurrection?

In terms of depth and beauty the difference between the one's-as-good-as-another and the prescription of Nicaea_I is like the difference between prose and poetry.

So I can sing "most honored Pasch now dawned on us" any day of the week and year. But it seems especially worthy to sing it on a Sunday, the very day of the week when Christ was raised, and the Sunday, in particular, following the same essential -- God-given, Ex. 12:1-14 -- timing for the Passover, and that Passover, in particular, when Christ died and was raised.


ajk #414554 01/18/16 10:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,693
Maybe it is a case of ECO, a disease for which there is no real treatment - Ecclesiastical Calendar Obsession. Victims are prone to mouth-foaming over calendar quirks and oddities. Someone should form a support group. LOL.

ajk #414596 01/20/16 11:12 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,013
Member
Online Content
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by dochawk


To be clear, am referring to the edicts of Nicea, not the bases the Council Fathers used to reach them.

hawk


I don't understand what you're saying here but would like to; please explain in more detail if possible.


Everything that I have read is that Nicea prescribed the calculation from the equinox.

The calendar and tables came centuries later.

As such, neither the Gregorian or Julian calendars, nor any variants on them, are from Nicea or any other council.

The Julian calendar misses the Nicean prescription more often than not, the Gregorian misses periodically.

As such, my suggestion is to ignore them, and in this era of instantaneous communication, simply observe the dictates of the calendar, whether or not it coincides with either calendar.

No-one gives in, no-one gains or loses face; we just follow the dictates of the council.


hawk

Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 15 16

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5