The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 18 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
The First Ecumenical Synod and the Feast of Pascha

Archimandrite Sergius

...In two of his epistles, St. Athanasios touches on the matter of the celebration of Pascha. In a letter to the Bishops of Africa (Chapter 2), he writes:

“The Synod of Nicaea was convened on account of the heresy of Arius and because of the issue of Pascha. Because the Christians in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were not in concord, at the same time (t“ kair“) that the Jews celebrated their Passover, they celebrated...[the Christian Pascha]...,
too” (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXVI, col. 1029). In his letter “On the Synods in Ariminum and Seleucia” (Chapter 5), the Saint comments: “The Synod in Nicaea was held not without manifest reason, but out of good reason and urgent need; for the Christians of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia were erring with regard to the holy days and celebrated the Pascha with the Jews (metå t«n ÉIouda¤vn §po¤oun tÚ Pãsxa)” (ibid., col. 688). It is evident from the context, here, that “metå t«n ÉIouda¤vn,” with the Jews, means precisely what the Church has always taught; the expression refers to
nothing other than a common celebration with the Jews at one and the same moment in time (t“ kair“).

Moreover, it is this very temporal concelebration which invited reproach and which was one of the reasons for the convocation of a synod in Nicaea. ...

***

St. Ambrose of Milan (circa 339-97), in an epistle written to the Bishops of the district of Emilia in 386, observes, in response to a question from
them regarding the lateness of Pascha in the coming year (387): “The determination of the Feast of Pascha according to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Fathers who assembled at the Synod in Nicaea requires not a little wisdom. Aside from other marvelous rules of Faith, the Holy Fathers, with the aid of eminently experienced men appointed to determine the aforementioned Feast Day, produced a calculation for its date of nineteen years’ duration and established a cycle of sorts that became a mod-
el for ensuing years. This cycle they called the “nonus decennial,” its goal being...the sacrifice of the Resurrection of Christ at all places on the same
night” (Epistle XXIII, Chap. 1, Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. XVI, col. 1070). The basic rule for the calculation of Pascha is set forth by St. Ambrose in the eleventh chapter of the same epistle: “We must observe a rule, such that the fourteenth moon [i.e., the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan, the Jewish Passover] be not set on the day of the Resurrection, but on the day of
the passion of Christ, or on another preceding day, since the celebration of the Resurrection is celebrated on Sunday.” Further on, he justifies the rule in question by reference to the Feast of Pascha in 373 and 377, which fell on late dates: “Thus, in 373, when the fourteenth moon [that is, the Jewish
Passover—author’s note] fell on March 24, we celebrated Pascha on March 31. Likewise in 377, when the fourteenth moon fell on April 9 (Sunday), the
Pascha of the Lord was celebrated on the following Sunday, April 16.”

In essence, St. Ambrose confirms the correctness of the basic condition set by the “Alexandrian Paschalion” and universally accepted by the Synod in Nicaea: that the Pascha of Christ must never coincide with the Jewish Passover and that it must not only follow the Jewish Passover, but be celebrated on Sunday, at that.

In view of this clear statement by St. Ambrose in support of the nineteen-year Paschal cycle devised by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea, it is difficult to understand why Archbishop Peter, who also cites the foregoing passage from St. Ambrose’s twenty-third epistle, who acknowledges that the Saint "thought in this way,” and who even admits that “the Alexandrian cycle was
used in Milan and in the Churches administered by that city,” nonetheless later writes, wholly inconsistently, that “the idea that the nineteen-year long
Alexandrian cycle was confessed by the Fathers in Nicaea was only bit by bit
introduced” (ibid., p. 75).

* * *

Another important source that confirms the basic rules for the calculation of Pascha is the collection of the Paschal Epistles of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, which were promulgated at the beginning of each year and in
which the date for the next Pascha was announced. A great number of such Paschal Epistles have been preserved in the works of St. Athanasios the
Great (in the period from 329 to 335) and in those of St. Cyril of Alexandria (during the years 414-442). Practically all of these epistles uphold the canon-
ical proscription against celebrating Pascha “simultaneously with the Jews” and their Passover, since not a single of the Paschal dates listed coincides with the date of the Jewish Passover.

Archbishop Peter (OCA) is absolutely unjustified in his claim that in “the fourth century, after Nicaea, the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Passover coincided several times” (ibid., p. 79). In support of this false assertion, he cites the French scientist V. Grumel, who, in his essay “The Problem of the Date of Pascha in the Third and Fourth Centuries” (Journal of Byzantine Research, Vol. VIII, pp. 165-166), uses a table of Paschal and Passover dates, published by Swartz, for the nineteen consecutive years between 328 and 346. Only two of the dates in Swartz’s list are, in fact, Sundays, namely, 329 and 333. With regard to the first of these dates, 329, St. Athanasios designates April 6 as the date of Pascha, not March 30, as does Swartz. With respect to the year 333, St. Athanasios writes that the date of Pascha was moved back, in order to avoid its coinciding with the anniversary celebration of Rome. Again, aside from the two years mentioned, none of the dates in the table used by Archbishop Peter falls on a Sunday.

Therefore, the “Paschal” dates on which he bases his arguments are fictitious!

* * *

The late date of Pascha in 387 prompted St. John Chrysostomos, while he was still a Presbyter in Antioch, to deliver three sermons “Against the
Jews” in the autumn of 386. Out of ignorance, many Christians in that city celebrated Pascha simultaneously with the Jewish Passover. On this account, they began Great Lent earlier than the correctly appointed time. In order to correct them, St. John Chrysostomos invokes the decree issued by the Synod in Nicaea in this regard: “More than three hundred Fathers, assembled in the land of Bythinia (at Nicaea), decreed this [that is, that Pascha must not be
celebrated simultaneously with the Jewish Passover—author’s note], and you dishonor them in this way. You convict them either of ignorance, as if they were unaware of what they were appointing, or of cowardice, as if they knew the truth, but only by pretense, and betrayed it. This is the implication, if you do not respect their decree. Great wisdom and manliness are evidenced in all of the Acts of the Synod.... Beware, then, of what you do, for you are bringing accusation against a great many wise and manly Fathers. If Christ
is found among the two or three [St. Matthew 18:20], all the more was He found among the more than three hundred, when they determined and established all of these things. Furthermore, you accuse not only them, but the whole ecumene, for it approved their decree. Do you consider the Jews more intelligent than the Fathers who were assembled from every part of the inhabited world?” (Third Sermon Against the Jews, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XLVIII, col. 865).

How forceful, indeed, are the words that St. John Chrysostomos uses to chastise the Christian “Judaizers,” and this not only for celebrating Pascha si- multaneously with the Jewish Passover, but for “fasting with the Jews”—an infraction, incidentally, also explicitly forbidden by the seventieth Apostolic
Canon: “Whosoever fasts with the Jews or celebrates with them...should be excommunicated!” Yet Archbishop Peter, when quoting St. John Chrysosto-
mos’ homily on this specific issue (“To Those Who Fast Before it is Time”), maintains his silence with regard to the Christian “Judaizers,” and, indeed, at the very beginning of his article even notes that “...in these discussions, provoked by the peculiar Paschal practice of the Orientals, no one accused them
of being ‘Judaizers’” [emphasis mine]!

* * *

St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, a contemporary of St. John Chrysostomos, though a Jew by origin, denounces the Audiani, a heretical sect which flourished in his day, because they “wish to celebrate Pascha together with the Jews; that is, they essay to prove that Pascha should supposedly be celebrated at the same time that the Jews prepare their unleavened bread” (Adversus LXXX Haereses, Chap. 70, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XLII, col. 360).

He argues that God revealed the truth of this matter to us “through two great acts, wrought by the pious and Ever-Blessed Emperor Constantine, who: 1) convened the Œcumenical Synod that established the Symbol of the Faith, composed in Nicaea and confirmed by the signatures of the Bishops gathered there; and 2) clarified, with their aid and for the sake of Christian unity, the issue of the dating of Pascha..., which was accomplished when the Bishops, gathered from everywhere, examined the issue in detail and unanimously decreed that Pascha should be celebrated in accordance with their ordinances.”

St. Epiphanios places particular emphasis on the ordinance concerning the prohibition of the concelebration of Pascha with the Jewish Passover:

“The Holy Church of God...takes into consideration, not only the fourteenth day [of the month of Nisan], but the week—the cyclical repetition of a series of seven days—, as well.... The Church considers not only the fourteenth lunar day, but also the movement of the sun, so as to prevent the celebrations of two Paschas in the same year.... For, though we give attention to the fourteenth day, we pass beyond the equinox and then, further, assign the celebration of Pascha to God’s holy day, that is, to Sunday” (ibid., Chap. 50, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XLI, col. 888).

St. Epiphanios continues: “Much could be said about how perfectly well the Fathers, or, more precisely, God Himself, through them, fixed for the Church the correct and true celebration of this loftiest and most holy Feast, such that it might be celebrated after the equinox and that we not celebrate Pascha on the fourteenth day [that is, not celebrate Pascha together with the jews on their Passover—author’s note]”!

* * *

Among the many Fathers who deal with the Paschalion, we should also mention St. Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote the following in an epistle to St. Leo, the Orthodox Pope of Rome: “Let us carefully examine what the Synod in Nicaea decreed with regard to the calculation of the fourteen moons of each month of the nineteen-year [Paschal] cycle; for at every [ensuing] synod, it has been decreed that no Church may do anything at odds with the resolution agreed upon at the Synod of Nicaea about Pascha” (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. LIV, cols. 604-605).

The immediate successor of St. Cyril, the Holy Martyr St. Proterios (who was cruelly killed by the Non-Chalcedonians in 457), addresses the issue of the late date for Pascha in the year 455. He points out that, since in that year the Jewish Passover happened to fall on Sunday, April 17, Christ’s Pascha should be moved to the following Sunday, April 24, “in keeping with what our Fathers did” (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. XLIV, col. 1089).

St. Proterios means by “our Fathers,” here, the Holy Fathers of the Synod at Nicaea, about whom he later says: “When our most blessed Holy Fathers fixed the inviolable nineteen-year cycle [of the Paschalion], they established this very calculation not in accordance with the present-day ignorant and inane devices of the Jews or according to the spurious wisdom of the Gentiles; the Holy Fathers were, rather, guided by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and carefully took into account the fourteen Paschal moons in the course of the aforementioned cycle of nineteen years” (ibid., col. 1091).

* * *

Some centuries later, St. Maximos the Confessor (†662) perfected the nineteen-year Paschal cycle by multiplying nineteen by twenty-eight (the period after which a specific calendar date returns to the same day of the week, that is, to a Sunday). His amplification of the Paschal cycle is known as the Great Indiction, a repetitive cycle of five hundred thirty-two years (that is, 19×28, which=532) comprising the dates for Pascha for each individual year.

In Chapter 14 of his noteworthy work, A Short Clarification of the Redeeming Pascha of Christ our Lord (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XIX, col. 1232),1 St. Maximos likewise notes: “We who are, by Grace, vouchsafed to keep the Pascha of Christ, our Lord, with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth [I Corinthians 5:8], allow one day to elapse [in order to celebrate Pascha] when March 21 falls on a Saturday and that Saturday is the fourteenth day of the moon. If April 18 happens to fall on a Sunday, and that Sunday is, according to the Jewish calendar, the fourteenth day of the lunar month, then we allow seven days to elapse before celebrating Pascha. This is because, within the thirty-five days between March 22 and April 25, the redeeming day of Pascha is appointed to be celebrated, according to the canons, not before the former date or after the latter, by virtue of Church
rules and the tradition concerning these dates.”

The Alexandrian Paschalion abides by these same dates to this day, as well as the absolutely clear pro-
scription, in St. Maximos’ comments, against the celebration of Pascha on the same day as the Jewish Passover.

* * *

firecsyn.pdf

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
1) If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrates the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

(Canon 7, Council of Nicea, 325 A.D.)

2) Whosoever shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nicea in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity. But if anyone of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, but observing Easter at the same time with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church...

(Canon 1, Council of Antioch, 341 A.D.)

3) If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed.

(Seventh Apostolic Canon)
OK, you can quote. What's your point?

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 99
Likes: 3
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 99
Likes: 3
Quibbling belies the point - the love of Christ and the unity of the Holy Churches of God is infinitely more important than the constant counting of the proverbial angels residing on the pinhead of our prejudices. There are arguments for and against everyone of the calendars, but NONE of them are so important that they should be the source and cause of disunity and lack of charty so often evidenced. We pray for the unity of the Holy Churches of God in the Divine Liturgy.
As Eastern Catholics, as those Orthodox Christian Churches of the East in communion with the Orthodox Churches of the West, let's not forget that our very raison d'etre is the struggle for unity. Let's not destroy and blow away that vision with the "petty squabbles of ancient perceived injuries" that have so often burdened the earnest and loving dialogue that should be our first concern. "Father, that they may be one..." is neither an argument for papal ultramontanism nor for a failure to understand the important role of Peter in the Church.

It is the kind of imperious argumenation so often evinced here that that has plagued our relationship with our sister and even "mother", Churches. The devil makes use of us in dividing His Body. God help us and keep us from standing on old hurts and old divisive arguments that were based based on conditions far different than our own. As illustrious a person as HH Benedict XVI clearly stated that our understanding of these issues must indeed evolve if we are to proclaim Christ to the nations (and he even included the Petrine office). Look around, while we quibble about calendars, the gleefull divisiveness of the evil one runs rampant. Pride destroys, humility builds.

1 member likes this: Epiphanius
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Astronomy's Relevance to the worship and calendar of the Orthodox Catholic Church is at best secondary (viz. Calendar Reform Zeal Not According To Knowledge)

+++

The Holy Prophet Isaiah, for example, says (47:13-14), “Let now the ... the star-gazers ... stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame…”

The Holy Prophet Jeremiah writes: “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain…”

In Book of Daniel (2:27-28), we read: “Daniel said, the Secret which the kind hath demanded cannot the wise men ... the soothsayers, show unto the king; but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets.”

In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul, finding that even some who had become Christians were holding to their former practices and ideas, pagan teachings they were taught: “But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (the Greek word means ‘rudiments of religion’, such as astrology or even pagan science, astronomy) whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” (4: 9-11)

St. Gregory the Theologian (Oration XXXIX, v) speaks of “…the Chaldean astronomy ... comparing our lives with the movements of the heavenly bodies, which cannot even know what they are themselves, or what they shall be.”

St. John of Damascus (The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chap. vii) writes: “Now the Greeks (the pagans) declare that all our affairs are controlled by the rising and setting and collision of the stars, the sun and moon (and the signs of the zodiac) ... But we hold that we get from them signs of rain and drought, cold and heat, moisture and dryness, and of various winds, and so forth, but no sign whatsoever as to our actions. For we have been created with free will by our Creator and we are masters over our own actions. ... Reason, indeed, is granted to us solely that we might take counsel, and therefore all reason implies freedom of will.”

St. Gregory the Great, POPE OF ROME, writes, "Man was not made for the stars, but rather the stars for man; and if a star can be called the ruler of man, then man must be considered the slave of his own servants".

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
Quibbling belies the point - the love of Christ and the unity of the Holy Churches of God is infinitely more important than the constant counting of the proverbial angels residing on the pinhead of our prejudices. There are arguments for and against everyone of the calendars, but NONE of them are so important that they should be the source and cause of disunity and lack of charty so often evidenced.
Again, unity and unity. So accept the Gregorian reform for the sake of unity then. As for calendar issues being not "so important," consider this sentiment of the early church:

Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
1) Whosoever shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nicea in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity. But if anyone of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, but observing Easter at the same time with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church...
(Canon 1, Council of Antioch, 341 A.D.)
They took calendar/pashchalion issue seriously enough.

Originally Posted by Protopappas76
It is the kind of imperious argumenation so often evinced here that that has plagued our relationship with our sister and even "mother", Churches.

Yes, I've already noted it in another concurrent thread:

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Protopappas76
... the imposition of a Latin crusader hierarchy... Latin bigotry and intolerance ...
Flamboyant rhetoric = 0 constructive content.



ajk #417442 09/12/17 02:53 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Blind zealotry.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
The First Ecumenical Synod and the Feast of Pascha

Archimandrite Sergius
.
.
.
Some centuries later, St. Maximos the Confessor (†662) perfected the nineteen-year Paschal cycle by multiplying nineteen by twenty-eight (the period after which a specific calendar date returns to the same day of the week, that is, to a Sunday). His amplification of the Paschal cycle is known as the Great Indiction, a repetitive cycle of five hundred thirty-two years (that is, 19×28, which=532) comprising the dates for Pascha for each individual year.

In Chapter 14 of his noteworthy work, A Short Clarification of the Redeeming Pascha of Christ our Lord (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XIX, col. 1232),1 St. Maximos likewise notes: “We who are, by Grace, vouchsafed to keep the Pascha of Christ, our Lord, with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth [I Corinthians 5:8], allow one day to elapse [in order to celebrate Pascha] when March 21 falls on a Saturday and that Saturday is the fourteenth day of the moon. If April 18 happens to fall on a Sunday, and that Sunday is, according to the Jewish calendar, the fourteenth day of the lunar month, then we allow seven days to elapse before celebrating Pascha. This is because, within the thirty-five days between March 22 and April 25, the redeeming day of Pascha is appointed to be celebrated, according to the canons, not before the former date or after the latter, by virtue of Church
rules and the tradition concerning these dates.”

The Alexandrian Paschalion abides by these same dates to this day, as well as the absolutely clear pro-
scription, in St. Maximos’ comments, against the celebration of Pascha on the same day as the Jewish Passover.
Archimandrite Sergius returns. I seem to recall his writings from an old forum thread on the calendar. While he has some valid material, his method of weaving together disparate concepts and then reading into them his bias amounts to a sophisticated slight-of-hand. His as the Church has always held assurances are unsubstantiated platitude. His essay is best characterized as well-intentioned fraud

Here is the LINK [orthodoxinfo.com] to his essay.

As to the 532 year cycle attributed to St. Maximos, please provide some reference. He is not mentioned in this assessment:
Quote
So the Easter dates repeated in the same order after 4 × 7 × 19 = 532 years. This paschal cycle is also called the Victorian cycle, after Victorius of Aquitaine, who introduced it in Rome in 457. It is first known to have been used by Annianus of Alexandria at the beginning of the 5th century. It has also sometimes erroneously been called the Dionysian cycle, after Dionysius Exiguus, who prepared Easter tables that started in 532;
LINK [en.wikipedia.org]


The repeated " against the celebration of Pascha on the same day as the Jewish Passover" misconception is like being served baloney during the Great Fast. It has been debunked by several legitimate sources. A good Orthodox journal article written this year by an Orthodox deacon who is also a scientist (a perspective I share) is Historical, Canonical, Mathematical and Astronomical Aspects of the Paschalion Question [orthodox-theology.com] . As he notes [emphasis added], the Julian paschalion itself did not satisfy this invented criterion.

Quote
...the decisions of the I Ecumenical Council in Nicea ... stated full independence of the Easter date determination from the Jewish calculations. . On the other hand, the intention was not to move the Easter celebration to the next Sunday in cases when the Easter Sunday coincided with the Jewish Passover. These coincidences happened many times in early Church until VIII century, but the Easter celebration was never moved to the next Sunday. Accidental coincidences did not matter at all, but what mattered was full independence from the Jewish calculations. Concerning the remark of “moving of the Easter celebration to the next Sunday”, which can be found nowadays in some explanatory notes concerning the Easter date coinciding the Jewish Passover – it was a late addition to the question of the Easter date determination, which was based on misinterpretation of certain canonical rules of the Church and which were not present in the canonical criteria for the Easter date determination.
.
.
.
The Easter date determination is based on the astronomical phenomena. The purpose of the church calendar and system of the Paschal Tables was to provide the Church with the results being very close to the corresponding astronomical data of that time. These systems were considering the tropical year and the Moon phases. Due to the known fact that it is impossible to connect the tropical year and the Moon phases to each other precisely, any such system will feature certain inaccuracy. In this respect neither Julian calendar, or 19 -years Metonic cycle, or Paschalion/calendar system based on the Gregorian reform are exceptions. The main factor here is which calendar system gives less inaccuracy compared with its corresponding astronomical data based on the canonical criteria. Because the issue is directly and solely connected to the astronomical - mathematical apparatus, to check which system gives less inaccuracy does not represent a difficult task. Just to recall, after the lengthy disputes around the paschal question, the final winner was the Alexandrian school, which was the most advanced and leading scientific school at that time. Findings presented in this article proves that nowadays results given by the Gregorian paschalion are more precise than those provided by the Alexandrian paschalion. One of the main criticisms of the Gregorian paschalion from us, the Orthodox, is the fact that in some years the Easter Sunday calculated by the Gregorian method is previous to the Jewish Passover. However, historical evidence and different credible sources presented here prove that this case is not dealt with at all in the canonical criteria for the Easter date determination. Hence, this criticism is groundless.

ajk #417444 09/12/17 04:42 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Direct quotes from the Fathers and blunt facts won't even satisfy calendar reform zealots. They live in their own world. Their real church is themselves, neither Orthodox nor Catholic. Such attitudes are unworthy of serious consideration: they end up hammering demands to cathedral doors.

ajk #417445 09/12/17 04:49 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
The Orthodox Church’s Reaction to the Gregorian Calendar

The Orthodox Church has placed Herself in firm opposition to the Gregorian calendar. Three local councils, held in Constantinople (1583, 1587, and 1593), condemned the Gregorian calendar as uncanonical, declaring:

Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils have decreed, and the Holy Pascha and calendar which they have enacted well for us to follow, but wants to follow the newly invented Paschalia and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and, opposing the Councils, wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church, which we have inherited from our Fathers – let such have the anathema and let him be outside the Church and the Assembly of the Faithful. (From the Council of Constantinople, 1583)

{The decisions of the Synods of 1583, 1587, 1593 were all declared prior to the Brest Union [Annulled by the Treaty of Hadiach] (1596), the Uzhgorod Union (1642 - 1646), the Galician Unions (1692 - 1700). As such, their canonical decisions were received as binding when the dioceses which proclaimed these unions were received. Rome accepted the decisions of these councils as binding on these diocese as a condition of union.}

ajk #417446 09/12/17 05:41 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
The source of the quotes I provided was primarily Patrologia Graeca, where Archimandrite Sergius and the canonical and Patristic witness provided in other posts dealt with and refuted the contentions of divisive and clearly fraudulent calendar reform rhetoric as opposed to the facts and existing in another realm of dialogue.

This argument is settled, and the side of calendar reform zealotry cast itself in a poor, divisive and unreasonable light with clearly erroneous historical contentions, blatent disregard for the holy canons and the consensus patrum, outright slurs and bigotry, historical inaccuracy, refusal to come to terms with the reality of the situation, scientific redactions so biased as to be propaganda (which are only secondary in appreciating the Catholic concept of liturgy in its anemnesis). Moreover, the positions taken up by the side of calendar reform zealotry have been answered by the Orthodox Catholic Church with anathemas, with penalties of laicization, excommunication. There isn't a legitimate dialogue to be had here with the other side.

As I wrote earlier before being censored: the Church Calendar, the Julian Calendar, has a built in mechanism for self-correction: the leap year. Omitting leap years where the entire Church agrees to do so unanimously 13 times (which could even be declared retroactively done if all Orthodox Catholic local churches agree to it) will both avoid schism and division and astronomically restore the accuracy of the Julian Calendar. Without division. Without denunciations of ecumenism, innovation, modernism, renovationism. Without schism. It will make the Julian Paschalion accurate according to the lunar cycle without any doubts. With no meddling with such things as the Apostles' Fast. With continued liturgical unity and anemnesis with the historical Church through all times, places and amongst all peoples. When the astronomical computations for the Revised Julian Calendar are affirmed after the Julian Calendar is restored to accuracy, it will actually be more accurate than the Gregorian Reform (anathemized by the Orthodox Catholic Church), an inferior computation which will eventually fall behind it.

The difference in my methodology as opposed to that of the calendar reform zealots is that my proposal maintains the Catholic unity of the Church, avoids division and schism and avoids falling under anathemas. Its approach is Catholic. Its approach and implementation is more reasonable, legitimate. It is done in a spirit of love, not coercion.

In regard to the Paschalion, the Nicene Formula would be preserved avoiding Nicea's anathemas, anathemas which prohibit celebration of Pascha coinciding with the Jewish Passover. This Paschalion would be a non-negotiable item in regard to Roman Catholic reunion with the Orthodox Catholic Church and the standard for celebration of Pascha for all of Christendom.

Finally, the red herring here accompanied with accusations of "Old Calendarism" was that I asserted the Church could not correct the calendar. Clearly, that is not the case. My emphasis has been conciliarity to bring it about to avoid anathemas and schisms. To reconcile those divided because of the scandalous and sinful ways some carried out calendar reforms. In the approach I put forward I believe I accomplish calendar correction while maintaining the liturgical unity/anemnesis of the Church for all times, places, amongst all peoples, honoring the intent of the Nicene adoption of the Julian Calendar and its mandated, universal Paschalion. I stand by this type of unifying calendar correction while rejecting the schemes of the calendar reform zealots as incompatible with the Catholic, liturgical witness of the Church, where these schemes act in rebellion from the Church's canonical authority, rupture the Catholic liturgical unity/anemnesis of the Church, and flirt with schism.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
Direct quotes from the Fathers and blunt facts won't even satisfy calendar reform zealots. They live in their own world. Their real church is themselves, neither Orthodox nor Catholic. Such attitudes are unworthy of serious consideration: they end up hammering demands to cathedral doors.
You have described yourself quite well. You quote the Fathers and then misinterpret even misrepresent what they say. Deacon Erekle in his article in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology -- I provided the link -- treats the most pertinent of your Patristic quotes giving the proper meaning. You have perhaps forgotten that you first posted in this thread advocating and acknowledging the need for reform of the Julian calendar and what that implies:
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
Here's something to consider: the Julian Calendar has a built in correction to get it more astronomically accurate called "the leap year". Leap years can be added or subtracted to suit the needs of the time (or astronomical calculation) ...

Your leap year fix is only part of the needed correction (moon phases are also in error in the Julian system) and a complete and elegant correction has already been accomplished over 400 years ago by the Gregorian reform. Deacon Erekle also discusses this. If the Julian computus is so good and sacrosanct then why are you wanting to correct it as your post indicates?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
As I wrote earlier before being censored: the Church Calendar, the Julian Calendar, has a built in mechanism for self-correction: the leap year. Omitting leap years where the entire Church agrees to do so unanimously 13 times (which could even be declared retroactively done if all Orthodox Catholic local churches agree to it) will both avoid schism and division and astronomically restore the accuracy of the Julian Calendar. Without division.
So you do recall. " ...13 times (which could even be declared retroactively." This is no more than the equivalent of the Gregorian reform done today (13 rather than just 10 days omitted, and you still need to correct for the moon error which the Gregorian reform also did). IT IS THE SAME TIME TRAVEL THAT YOU DENOUNCED. What you want is for "all Orthodox Catholic local churches " to reinvent the Gregorian calendar so they can declare the reform to be theirs and not be the one that was anathematized.

ajk #417449 09/12/17 02:09 PM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
I emphasize something called catholicity and fidelity/obedience to the Church without (Protestant) Reformation. The Revised Julian Calendar's computation is more accurate than the anathemized and obsolete Gregorian Calendar. Its computations would be the basis of the Julian Calendar going forward, where the correction would also correct the Paschalion by simply being in fidelity to the Nicean formulation. Without division. Without coercion. Without anathemas. Without schism. Preserving the Catholic identity of liturgical unity and anemnesis, unlike the divisive and condemned prescriptions Calendar Reformed zealots offer. My approach relies on the peaceful Orthodox and Catholic way of doing things. My method doesn't rely on nailing radical demands to cathedral doors. It also reconciles groups abused and alienated by the contrived, ham handed, divisive, violent and repressive means Calendar Reformed zealots used in the past to persecute them.

All in all, I leave reform to Protestants. I advance renewal in the spirit of love and reconciliation in fidelity to the Church, using the existing means the Church ordained over a millennium ago to reinforce catholicity. That's what makes my approach Orthodox and Catholic as opposed to the condemned Protestant and Renovationist (Judaizing) approach of the Calendar Reformed zealots. My approach solves the problems they caused, undoes the condemnations they earned, and accomplishes correction in fidelity and catholicity. Without rebellion. Without condemnation. Without schism.


ajk #417450 09/12/17 02:35 PM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 94
That Deacon's (The Calendar Reformed zealot approach in general) position has been addressed, illustrated as being anti-Patristic, proven to.bear anathemas and condemnations, advocating innovation, being disobedient to the Holy Canons, flirting with schism. That makes it unacceptable, unOrthodox, in defiance of Catholicity. In and of itself, despite its clearly fraudulent and deceptive character, such a rebellious character labels it as Reformed methodology analogous to nailing radical demands to cathedral doors. Thus, it is illegitimate and unworthy of further consideration.

Fidelity to the Church, to the Holy Fathers and to the Holy Canons in their expression of the Mind of the Church, the Mind of CHRIST, is the requisite condition of legitimacy in the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is the only way to be Orthodox and Catholic. Such methodology is authentic, faithful, Orthodox and Catholic. Anyone who floats fraud and Reformation by having to dispute the meaning of the word "is", revising the statements of the Fathers and the Holy Canons to state they meant the opposite of what historical fact and practice clearly illustrates they did, while using contrived, FRAUDULENT, and erroneous revisionist fictions in open rebellion to the Church's discipline and unity advances schism bareheadedly as a deceiver, as one of a different spirit than that which rules the Church. For the SPIRIT of Truth has no place for deception, does not operate by fraud and expression of lies and godless half-truths. Such Reformed propaganda, infidelity, is unworthy of the Church, is alien to her identity, and constitutes rebellion, schism. It rightly receives a loud "Anaxios!" when confronted by the Church's Catholic consciousness.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
..scientific redactions so biased as to be propaganda (which are only secondary in appreciating the Catholic concept of liturgy in its anemnesis). Moreover, the positions taken up by the side of calendar reform zealotry have been answered by the Orthodox Catholic Church with anathemas, with penalties of laicization, excommunication. There isn't a legitimate dialogue to be had here with the other side.
The anathemas demonstrate how wrong a church can be. Deacon Erekle discusses this. It is good that you have brought it up because it is in discussing it that Deacon Erekle gives one of the clearest endorsements of the validity of the Gregorian reform and that reform's fidelity to the practice of "the early Church," and contrary to the assertions of Archimandrite Sergius.

Quote
It is known that one of the local Orthodox councils (in 1583) anathematized those who would follow the Gregorian reform 44. However, this anathema does not prohibit a calendar reformation as such; it prohibits only following the Gregorian reform. On the other hand, this council was just a local council and not an Ecumenical Council. As previously noted, the Gregorian reform restored the criteria for the Easter date determination; it restored the principles used by the early Church in this question.
[emphasis added] Historical, Canonical, Mathematical and Astronomical Aspects of the Paschalion Question [orthodox-theology.com] p 144

Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
... It will make the Julian Paschalion accurate according to the lunar cycle without any doubts.
No it will not. Just removing the 13 days will correct for the equinox. Corrections for the moon's phase are also needed.

Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
With no meddling with such things as the Apostles' Fast. With continued liturgical unity and anemnesis with the historical Church through all times, places and amongst all peoples. When the astronomical computations for the Revised Julian Calendar are affirmed after the Julian Calendar is restored to accuracy, ...
This is yet another problem that the Orthodox have created for themselves and is independent of the Gregorian reform.

Originally Posted by RussoRuthenianOGC
...it will actually be more accurate than the Gregorian Reform (anathemized by the Orthodox Catholic Church), an inferior computation which will eventually fall behind it.
The so-called inferior calculation is the overall international standard. The increase in accuracy is minor, of no tangible significance, and may be yet just another smokescreen given variations in the tropical year over the several thousands of years involved and, as I've pointed out, the revised "Orthodox" calendar not itself being based on the vernal equinox tropical year but the average tropical year. I'll find the post where I gave the numbers if you're interested. This improved calendar is really just a face-saving device for official Orthodoxy.


Page 14 of 18 1 2 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

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 - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5