Be the first person to like this.
A rather wise friend of mine once wrote (not in his exact wording but anyhow...): \"The scientific definition of the spring equinox is when the sun is (from the perspective of those on earth) directly overhead at the equator. The Church has decided to count March 21 as the equinox for Pascha calculating purposes. Which calender says March 21 when the sun is directly overhead at the equator? \"
OK, granted sometimes it\'s on March 22, but it\'s NEVER on April 4.
He also said something about the Church sanctifying the world. If we believe that is possible, then there should be no talk of the Greg Calendar being heretical/whateveryouwannacallit. The Church\'s use of it sanctifies it.
i am a new calendarist but i have to accept that calendar\'s change made by freemason patriarch Meletios Metaxakis was against the Holy Canons and without panorthodox agreement.
he changed the calendar ,not to correct it scientifically ,but just for making an aproach to heterodox (papism and protestantism).
this can be easily proved just by reading the patriarchal encyclical of 1920.
orthohawk wrote:
A rather wise friend of mine once wrote (not in his exact wording but anyhow...): "The scientific definition of the spring equinox is when the sun is (from the perspective of those on earth) directly overhead at the equator. The Church has decided to count March 21 as the equinox for Pascha calculating purposes. Which calender says March 21 when the sun is directly overhead at the equator? "
OK, granted sometimes it's on March 22, but it's NEVER on April 4.
He also said something about the Church sanctifying the world. If we believe that is possible, then there should be no talk of the Greg Calendar being heretical/whateveryouwannacallit. The Church's use of it sanctifies it.
I was recently told by the history professor at Holy Cross that the calendar change was accepted by the whole Orthodox Church with exception to those restricted by communism and Jerusalem.
After further discussions with various professors, I am finding that after the \"Curtain\" fell when the other Orthodox churches were free to change to the new calendar their identity was threatened in their new world and so they clung to what made them different from the other Christian faiths that were invading their country and what they had most unique was their calendar. With the old calendar they could claim some authority and authenticity. This is a natural response to being threatened.
Luckily, the Orthodox faith can handle two calendars, because the only sin is when one side claims to be more Orthodox based upon the calendar. This shows signs of idolatry to the calendar and not faith in the life changing mystery of Christ’s resurrection.
In the end- it doesn\'t matter when we celebrate anything, but if we have found God and learned to love.
Hey! Check this out. An online calendar converter!
http://www.funaba.org/en/calendar-conversion.cgi
I personally like the Chronological Julian Day calendar, which merely counts days (and fractions thereof) since midnight GMT at the start of -4712-01-01
For example, for 17:13 GMT on 2007-01-19 CE the corresponding chronological Julian date is 2,454,120.7176.
(so right now, we\'re somewhere between 2,454,503 and 2,454,504)
really cool, eh?
dear Ostonvasi if you can read greek i ll suggest you something written by the ,recently reposed, archbishop of Greece Christodoulos .
there he said that there wasn\'t a panorthodox agreement.
also claims that patriarch\'s Meletios Metaxakis decision had bad effects to the Church.
if you want the original greek text i can send it to you.
also elder Gabriel Dionisiatis of Mt Athos (not a zealot)wrote in 1968:
Even according to contemporary jurisprudence, in order that a part of the Constitution of a Country be revised, a national assembly is necessary. Despite this, in the case of the change of the Calendar neither the particular Orthodox Churches were consulted, nor even the local Hierarchy. The innovation was made as if by police order, and not by a Pan-Orthodox Synod.
dear Artintel i don\'t examine the correctness of this or the other kind of calendar.
i share what i ve learned by studying the circumstances,the facts and the consequences of 1924 calendar\'s change.
the facts prove that this change has been made just to promote a false union( without unity in faith ) with the heterodox.
this change has been made without panorthodox agreement,lead to a major schism in Greece and elsewhere and finally wounded heavily the Church.
maybe you don\'t know it but calendar\'s change has been followed by extended persecutions of the old calendarists,imprisonements,public depreciation and beard\'s shaving etc.
Misha_ wrote:
dear Ostonvasi if you can read greek i ll suggest you something written by the ,recently reposed, archbishop of Greece Christodoulos .
there he said that there wasn't a panorthodox agreement.
also claims that patriarch's Meletios Metaxakis decision had bad effects to the Church.
if you want the original greek text i can send it to you.
also elder Gabriel Dionisiatis of Mt Athos (not a zealot)wrote in 1968:
Even according to contemporary jurisprudence, in order that a part of the Constitution of a Country be revised, a national assembly is necessary. Despite this, in the case of the change of the Calendar neither the particular Orthodox Churches were consulted, nor even the local Hierarchy. The innovation was made as if by police order, and not by a Pan-Orthodox Synod.
\"I was recently told by the history professor at Holy Cross that the calendar change was accepted by the whole Orthodox Church with exception to those restricted by communism and Jerusalem. \"
I am sorry, but you were misinformed. When the New Calendar was introduced in the 1920s, only the Churches of Constantinople, Romania, and Greece adopted it (and, in Greece, this was done through force and violence). (I think Bulgaria was later, I could be wrong.) Alexandria did not adopt the New Calendar until Meletius Metaxakis took over he patriarchate, after being driven out of Constantinople. The calendar change created a schism on Mt. Athos, with none of the monasteries commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch for many years.
The Church of Russia, under Soviet coercion, tried adopting the New Calendar, but this did not work. The Church of Antioch did not adopt the New Calendar until the 1940s. The Metropolia in America did not adopt the New Calendar until the 1970s. The OCA Diocese of Alaska, together with a couple monasteries, still use the Old Calendar.
I grow tired of the continued arguments over the Calendar. It\'s a moot point, since the Orthodox Church has both Calendars. I don\'t see any lack of love between Russian and Greek Orthodox because of a calendar.
I will say, science is a poor reason to change church practice.
ReaderJohn wrote:
"I was recently told by the history professor at Holy Cross that the calendar change was accepted by the whole Orthodox Church with exception to those restricted by communism and Jerusalem. "
I am sorry, but you were misinformed. When the New Calendar was introduced in the 1920s, only the Churches of Constantinople, Romania, and Greece adopted it (and, in Greece, this was done through force and violence). (I think Bulgaria was later, I could be wrong.) Alexandria did not adopt the New Calendar until Meletius Metaxakis took over he patriarchate, after being driven out of Constantinople. The calendar change created a schism on Mt. Athos, with none of the monasteries commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch for many years.
The Church of Russia, under Soviet coercion, tried adopting the New Calendar, but this did not work. The Church of Antioch did not adopt the New Calendar until the 1940s. The Metropolia in America did not adopt the New Calendar until the 1970s. The OCA Diocese of Alaska, together with a couple monasteries, still use the Old Calendar.
I grow tired of the continued arguments over the Calendar. It's a moot point, since the Orthodox Church has both Calendars. I don't see any lack of love between Russian and Greek Orthodox because of a calendar.
I will say, science is a poor reason to change church practice.
ostonvasi wrote:
If you " grow tired of the continued arguments over the Calendar." then why do you paricipate in this forum?
I\'ve seen several posts on this thread pushing the New Calendar over and against the Old. I don\'t think you can call it all the Old Calendrists\' fault. Especially since the flashpoint of calendrical schism was Greece. Faithful who held to the Old Calendar were NOT treated in a Christian manner by either the government nor the Church. Violence and coercion were used against defenseless people. It\'s sick. And the bullying continues.
russian church has used state\'s force against oldbelievers .
greek church has used state\'s force against old calendarists.
patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomeos has used police force against the monks of Prophet Elias Skete in Mt Athos,some years ago.
Now Monastery of Esphigmenou is under siege,and Patriarch forces the Greek government to use police force to exile the monks from Mt Athos.
Special police units have surrounded sometimes the monastery but they didnt invade.
every honest orthodox christian cannot accept the use of violence for resolving spiritual matters as it happens with Church\'s calendar.