www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Calendar-Easter

The Calendar Reformed zealots simply refuse to deal with reality and fact, arguing for a collision course to anathemas, excommunication, schism, all founded on rebellion and fraudulent sources contending with the meaning of the word "is".

They even commit treason against their feigned adherence to science when it doesn't suit their purposes to coddle an obsolete, anathemized, four hundred year old computation which is not as astronomically accurate as the Revised Julian computation, a computation offered in correction to Church's Calendar in fidelity. Going so far as to malign the canonical pronouncements of the Orthodox Catholic Church, ignoring the necessity for obedience and fidelity, even ignoring the fact that these pronouncements were accepted by their dioceses before they left the Orthodox Catholic Church, these pronouncements Rome bound them in discipline to as a condition of their union with her.

No interest is to be found for unity in Catholic liturgical witness/anemnesis of all times, places, of all peoples, the guiding principle of Nicea's adoption of the Julian Calendar and its universal Paschalion. There is a fever to disobey, to deceive, to tear down, to flaunt being condemned by the Church. All in a desperation to sin against the Church's unity. Even when canonical methods are there and have always been there to effectuate a calendar correction. They even go so far as to say that their Reformation, founded on fraud and deception at war with historical fact, anathemized and under certain threat of excommunication is a fulfillment of the very canonical order it overthrows.. where a deacon trafficking in inaccurate and fraudulently sourced material knows more than the Church, than her Canons, than the Fathers. Yet he knows so much more that he has to base the onus of his Reformed Calendar zealotry on lies?! If one doesn't accept his fraud and clearly and factually illustrates how it is a blatent untruth, one is greeted with slurs and epithets. And to this the Orthodox Catholic Church must submit... No, it is not worthy. Such reasoning and rebellion is alien to the Orthodox and Catholic nature of the Church and an affront to GOD.

To wit, it is best that the Orthodox Catholic Church maintain one, liturgical witness/anemnesis, where all local churches return to the calendar established by Nicea for the Church to reaffirm their unity and uproot the schisms and divisions divisive and Reformed Calendar zealotry caused. Thereafter, in oneness of mind they may choose in the HOLY SPIRIT to correct the Julian Calendar, the Church's Calendar. Or not. The principle consideration and necessity being unity, not adherence to the "canons" of godIess astronomy.

If Rome truly seeks reconciliation with the Orthodox Catholic Church, restoration of the Nicean Paschalion - as the Orthodox Catholic Church has observed it since she adopted it at the Council of Nicea - would do well to show that Rome is serious and capable of pursuing reunion with the Orthodox Catholic Church. Continuance of Reformed Calendar zealotry and bigoted posturing will only set the process back and eventually sabotage it. Sooner rather than later. The canonical order of the Orthodox Catholic Church and Reformed Calendar zealotry are mutually exclusive: the former acting in love and fidelity, the latter acting in fraud and rebellion.

Not really more accurate since there's more to it than just leap year corrections. Basically, "the Gregorian does better for the Vernal Equinox Year, the Milanković for the Mean Tropical Year." I've crunched some numbers and explained the nuances here: LINK.

As for the Gregorian calendar being "obsolete" you have to explain its ubiquitous use:
LINK

So most of the world stands against your assessment of it being "obsolete."

At the time the Gregorian Calendar was introduced, the West and Russia, "most of the world", used the Julian Calendar. Protestant Europe rejected the Gregorian Reform until the eighteenth century. So ubiquity today means nothing other than the better variant hasn't been adopted. And the better variant is simply a corrected and updated Julian Calendar which doesn't bare anathemas and doesn't divide.

As far as amateur and less than unbiased computations of the Revised Julian Calendar vs. the anathemized Gregorian Reform, the mathematician behind the Revised Julian Calendar years before its introduction calculated its accuracy and the date the Gregorian Calendar would fall behind it. His work was peer reviewed and his figures regarding the greater accuracy of his calendar were verified by other credentialed mathematicians. So it is easy to discount agendized and less than honest, uncredentialed, non peer reviewed "computations". It seems Reformed Calendar zealots are even at war with mathematics to advance their divisive agenda. Is cant mean is for them to be right: their whole presentation continually manages to underscore a less than balanced, irrational zeal to stoke division.

The Revised Julian computation is ten times more accurate than the anathemized, obsolete, less precise Gregorian Reform:

...
The Revised Julian Calendar
This Revised Julian calendar uses even more complex rules to determine when to add a leap day. With an error of only about two seconds per year (or one day in 31,250 years), it is roughly 10 times more accurate than today's Gregorian calendar and one of the most accurate calendar systems ever devised. ...

+++


The Issue of calendar correction boils down to omitting leap years...

...Too Many Leap Years
The reason the Julian Calendar had to be replaced was the formula it used to calculate leap years. The Julian formula produced a leap year every four years, which is too many. The Gregorian Calendar uses a much more accurate rule for calculating leap years. ...

[Therefore, the leap year approach I advocate with the Revised Julian computations afterwards factored into the Julian correction will produce a more accurate calendar than the anathemized and obsolete and less precise Gregorian Reform. Without rebellion. Without anathemas. Without division. Without schism.]

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/julian-gregorian-switch.html

You are free to demonstrate that my calculation is wrong. You have not addressed the mean vs, vernal (northern hemisphere) equinox tropical year distinction. My calculation does.

Revised Julian calendar [en.wikipedia.org]

So the new calendar:

1. has aligned itself with the anathemized Gregorian Calendar
2. "time traveled" (as you termed it) for 13 days
3. chose the mean tropical year basis rather than the (Gregorian's, more associated with Pascha's) vernal equinox tropical year
4. doesn't have a tabulated paschalion/computus (like the Julian and Gregorian) but direct astronomical, scientific calculation

Using that direct astronomical, scientific calculation, in 2019 the new calendar that you advocate has Easter/Pascha as 24 March WELL BEFORE Jewish Passover on 20 April.

At this point, Reformed Calendar zealotry grasps at straws trying to flee disgrace. Being discredited, they seek some glimmer of a chance at redeeming their divisive and fraudulent propaganda. But at this juncture, only those choosing to ignore facts, historical and canonical reality are the only ones who are susceptible to this would be movement for Reformation. Everyone else sees it for the fraudulent, divisive and condemned sham it is.

I don't have to prove anything mathematically because the Revised Julian Calendar is peer reviewed as ten times more accurate than the anathemized and schismatic Gregorian Calendar: so it takes peer review of credentialed mathematicians to have any computations to the contrary taken seriously. MIT has some excellent mathematicians - perhaps they have time for new math computations saying they have been wrong for over a century. The jury isn't out on the Revised Julian computation, and amateur zealots at war with mathematics have a steep hill to climb to be taken seriously, especially when the mathematics of the Revised Julian Calendar is established and accepted as ten times more accurate than the anathemized Gregorian Reform. But of course, some do advocate a "new math".

I never advocated the 1923 - 1924 reform: I am opposed to it. It was uncanonical and carried out in a divisive and inappropriate manner. No, it specifically was not the Gregorian Reform because it was designed to avoid the anathemas of that less accurate calendar. If it time traveled, it did so as a hackneyed calendar reform ham handedly implemented.

But its revision of the Julian Calendar is viewed by peers as one of the most accurate of all calendars. Peers, people who are credentialed mathematicians and not new math hobbyists trying to prove 1 + 1 = 3. I accept the decades of credentialed mathematicians assessing the Revised Julian computation as superior, vastly more mathematically accurate. And so does almost everyone else.

My advocacy is for synodal correction of the Julian Calendar using its built in mechanism of leap years to restore the Church Calendar's accuracy. My approach does so without falling under anathemas and actually reconciles separated groups instead of provoking further divisions. After such a correction, I advocate the Revised Julian computation as a corrective to the Church's Julian Calendar for posterity's sake. Moreover, my advocacy is limited to conciliarity, where if unanimous agreement cannot be reached to bring such a correction about, I am patently opposed to it for unity's sake. It really isn't necessary, but what is absolutely necessary is unity in liturgical witness/anemnesis.

The Nicean Paschalion calls for Pascha to be celebrated after Passover, even if it's the following week: that has been the practice over 1600 years now without any absurd and fraudulent Reformed Calendar zealotry, distortion in any way ever being proven to have a miniscule of veracity.

When I advocate retroactive correction of the Church Calendar, I do so responsibly: February 29 is really an optional day. A conciliar decision could indeed state 29, February was erroneously observed 13 times distorting the real date and thus the correction simply would be instating the actual date. No time travel. No schism. No anathemas. No Reformed Calendar zealotry. And the Church remains liturgically united with all peoples of all places throughout all times remaining Orthodox and Catholic in its liturgical witness/anemnesis.

Unfortunately, the Reformed Calendar zealot crowd is in love with its rebellion and anachronistic talking points to the point of demanding schism and irrational thinking in the place of conciliarity and the Mind of the Church. So they clutch at anything for an inch of ground in a debate they lost. In the end, the only thing they have left is indictment for their preaching of rebellion, their frauds, their less than faithful and Reformed mindset attempting to part the Robe of CHRIST and sunder Church unity.

Nope. It's the truth. Antioch Canon 1 and Apostolic Canon 7 require the church to ignore Jewish computations and do their own computations in such a way that the festival is always after the Spring equinox.

You offer words, I have given the math and facts. The Revised Julian Calendar leap year rule gives a closer approximation to the mean tropical year. That should have been included in the "peer reviewed" article so that it would not be applied without understanding as you are doing. If the desire is to stabilize the vernal equinox date, my calculation in the link I provided indicates the Gregorian rule is better and the 8/33 "Persian" value the best.The math for approximating the fractional part of the year is simple rational arithmetic. Show me how the math I provided is wrong. I think you can't because you don't know the concept so can't appreciate the implications of the math. What you know and have demonstrated in your posts are conflicting and incomplete concepts and claims for calendar reform, and delusional rhetoric, viz.:

BTW, if direct astronomical calculation is used to determine the day of the Pascha celebration as in the 1923 Orthodox synod, any calendar or no calendar will do, just need to agree on the current day of the week (and we do). Putting it another way, the Revised Julian Calendar differs from the Gregorian reform in that the Gregorian calendar is linked to its paschalion, a method to determine Pascha using the calendar rather than astronomical calculation or observation. So really, the Gregorian Calendar is more a revised Julian calendar than the Revised Julian Calendar.

So, once you apply your "synodal correction of the Julian Calendar using its built in mechanism of leap years," how do you determine the date of the paschal full moon?


Also, the comparison of the Milanković/Revised Julian Calendar to the Gregorian as to accuracy or precision is misleading since they have different objectives and the time duration involved is so long that the numbers can change.

LINK [en.wikipedia.org]

LINK [en.wikipedia.org]

Reformation has yet again been shown to be at odds with the Catholic Truth of the Church. At this point Reformed Calendar propaganda is in total damage control. Its entire argument has collapsed.

Let's recap one last time how:

1). The Revised Julian Calendar is peer reviewed. While neither it nor the Gregorian Calendar are absolutely precise, the calculations behind the Revised Julian Calendar are far more accurate, ten times more accurate than the anathemized and obsolete Gregorian Calendar. I have a linked source above explaining that and the essence of how calendars become inaccurate: too many leap years.

2). The mathematicians at MIT I am sure are waiting for credentialed papers showing how they have been wrong in validating the math behind the Revised Julian Calendar and assessing it as far more accurate than the obsolete Gregorian Reform. A Nobel Prize might be in order to the paper which can show how internationally credentialed mathematicians have been wrong for over a century. Perhaps they need to be made aware of the revolutionary proofs offered by uncredentialed, "new math" hobbyists.

3). The Lunar Calendar is an ancient calendar whose reckoning goes back centuries before CHRIST. Its inclusion in the Nicene determination was not an absolute straight jacket which dictated the Church's submission to mathematics. The Church has done fine using the Nicene formula and uniting all local churches in the celebration of Pascha after the Jewish Passover: that is the point of the Nicene Canon. The Church will continue to do so, preserving Catholic unity/anemnesis, using the same Nicene formula if it chooses to unanimously adopt correction of the Nicene, Church calendar. Because the Calendar's function is not mathematical or astronomical precision but unity of all local churches in celebrating Pascha and the Feasts. Catholicity in liturgical witness/anemnesis.

4). Only a Reformed Calendar zealot keeps on insisting that the Church's unity should or even can be sacrificed for an anathemized, divisive and inaccurate calendar reform. It isn't about astronomical or mathematical absolute precision. The anathemized calendar the Reformed crowd here advocates is less precise, less accurate. It isn't about lunar cycles. The Church has preserved unity with its implementation of the Nicene formula, where lunar cycles are used as a guidepost, uniting all local churches of all times, of all peoples in all places. So "science" being beat to death by Reformed Calendar zealotry is a heavily redacted smokescreen trying to camouflage rebellion against the Church's unity, an inconsistently voiced excuse for Reformation.

Reformed Calendar zealotry has even resorted to fraud where some sourced material of their camp does things like tries to cast direct Patristic quotes and canons as stating the opposite of what they do, despite the historical record. Anyone who is at war with the meaning of the word "is" is being dishonest. They dispute the historical, Patristic, Canonical record as non-existent. When contradicted, they state it really means the opposite of what it says. When conclusively corrected that it indeed says what it says, they pelt the people presenting the information with slurs and epithets trying to remove the record from the conversation to flee it. This clearly exposes their deceptions and fraud. They even submit sourced material trying to state the Church concurrently celebrated Pascha with the Jewish Passover in the Post Nicene period yet the dates provided in their sourced materials turn out not to be Sundays! While the historical and canonical record from that period clearly and harshly condemns such concelebration and even makes note of instances where renegades from the Nicene Canon where harshly censured.

Can one thus take such untruthful and unhinged propaganda seriously? No, it is unworthy. A pack of lies cannot be the basis for a calendar correction. It most certainly cannot be a basis for unity or reunion. For the HOLY SPIRIT WHO abides in the Orthodox Catholic Church is a SPIRIT of Truth and not falsehood.

5). The principle reason behind the Nicene Paschalion and the Church Calendar is Catholic unity in the bond of love in liturgical witness/anemnesis, where the Church of all times, all peoples, all places celebrates the Feasts and commemorates the Saints on the same day. Any calendar reform which breaches that unity is necessarily divisive and schismatic. Moreover, no calendar correction, no matter what the astronomical circumstances which may arise, can ever stand above that unity. Even if the Church declines to correct the Church Calendar. Sinning against that unity is parting the Robe of CHRIST and engaging in schism.

6). The Reformed Calendar zealotry position flaunts its divisiveness, its defiance of the Holy Canons and of the Holy Fathers, its falling under myriad anathemas, its spawning of divisions and schisms. The path of disobedience and condemnation is never a valid path for faithful Orthodox Catholic Christians. Just as infidelity is betrayal of CHRIST's Church.

7). The correction of the Julian Calendar I put forward reconciles, rather than divides. It obeys and honors the Fathers and the Councils. It reinforces the Nicene Canon and is faithful to the Canons of the Church. It ends up being more scientifically precise.

The side of Reformation has no legitimacy to its presentation. It has not only lost its argument for calendar reform, it has disgraced and stigmatized itself in doing so due to its alloy with schism, its outright fraud and dishonesties, its redacted and inconsistent abuse of science. With its unqualified, hubritic presumptions upon credentialed expertise of over a century. Deception is not a legitimate means of correcting secondary things like the precision of the Church Calendar. Never. Most especially when such flagrant fraud assaults the Catholic unity of the Church.

I'm still here and unfazed.

Excellent, I get the last word.

Your linked source is hardly an in-dept treatment and contains a number of questionable claims. It has some very confidently expressed opinion but just that, opinion, wanting further proof. It just parrots the "ten times more accurate" statement, as do you, without consideration of its applicability, especially to the determination of Pascha. That fixation reminds me of the fast-food establishments advertising over 5 billion sold. You'd think, that good it must be filet mignon, when its just referring to hamburger.

What MIT validation? Who's uncredentialed?

Very wrong about the Canon. And again, Patristic sources are very keen on the moon.

It's meaningless precision if there's no answer for determining the moon's phase. Your leap year fix is a hollow solution if you can't explain how it gets the moon phase right.

Shameless impiety. Reformed zealots are only satisfied when they strip the altars and toss icons into pyres. When they burn the last relics and desecrate the last altars. Neo Iconoclasts in our time.

Past this point engaging their disproven fraud and propaganda only lends their quashed rebellion legitimacy. It is argument for argument's sake granting them an audience for their infidelity. It is not worthy. Since Reformed Calendar zealotry has had the legitimacy of its position here deconstructed, engaging that side further gives it credibility it has forfeited by the rebellious, dishonest and schismatic nature of its presentation. Anyone who has seen the case presented and appreciated the sources put forward can see that Reformed Calendar zealotry is nothing but a shameless parting of the Robe of CHRIST, schism.

There is nothing legitimate left of the agenda of Reformed Calendar propaganda. It is nihilistic hubris at this point. Let us who wish to remain faithful, Catholic and Orthodox reject such impiety. Let us turn away from the deceits and rebellions of those unfaithful to the Church and turn our worship and prayers to a Catholic liturgical unity/anemnesis.

As ajk has noted, Archimandrite Sergius fails to interpret the patristic sources correctly.

St. Athanasius states that the traditional method for setting Easter was practiced in Syria.

We know what this traditional method was from a Syrian source, known to scholars by the Latin Title "Didascalia Apostolorum".

Didascalia Apostolorum chapter 21: "Therefore ye, when the people [i.e. Jewish folk] keep the Passover, fast and study to complete your vigil in the midst of their [i.e. the Jewish calendar's] unleavened bread."

In other words, "celebrating with the Jews" originally meant finding out when the Jewish month of Nisan would fall, and setting Easter to the third Sunday of that lunar month.

The council of Nicea agreed that the month of Nisan would be calculated independently by Christians. Easter, in other words, would be the third Sunday in Christian Nisan, without regard for whether Christian Nisan coincided with Jewish Nisan. The Jewish month of Nisan, in other words, would be completely ignored.

The independent Christian computations defined the month of Nisan as that lunar month whose full moon fell "when the sun is in [the zodiac sign of] Aries" as Josephus described it in the first century. The zodiac sign of Aries, then as now, began with the Spring equinox, and lasted for about 30 days after. The 3rd century Egyptian fathers chose 29 days so that there would be no more than one full moon within the period.

So when the fathers state that Easter should not fall on the 14th day of the lunar month, they mean the Christian lunar month, not the Jewish lunar month.

But our Jewish neighbors' 14th of Nisan, calculated according to the Rabbinic Jewish calendar, never falls on Sunday anyhow. Easter Sunday never coincides with Rabbinic Passover, in the Julian or Gregorian calendars.

The day that our almanacs and pocket calendars call "Passover" is not Passover strictly so-called, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 15th of Nisan. Easter was never forbidden to fall on the 15th of the month by the Alexandrian computus. Indeed, Bede thought that the ideal case would be one in which Easter always fell on the 15th of Christian Nisan. And in accordance with Nicea, whether the Christian 15th of Nisan was also the Jewish 15th of Nisan was to be ignored altogether.

I have provided Patristic quotes and quotes of the Holy Canons addressing in this thread. There is also the historic practice of the Orthodox Catholic Church. So there isn't much more to say here other than this point has been answered.

Moreover, Archimandrite Sergius' material deals with the fraudulent take of Reformed Calendar zealotry and exposes the outright fraud in certain sourced data. His quotes are directly from Patrologia Graeca. So if he is wrong, then the Fathers and Nicea is wrong for Reformed Calendar zealotry to be right.

No, it hasn't.

Fallacious. Not one of the cited works holds that Easter may not coincide with the 15th of Nisan in the modern-day Rabbinic Jewish calendar. They cannot, because the modern-day Rabbinic Jewish calendar did not exist when those works were written.