www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Lent and Calendars

All who explicitly claim that those who calculate the Pascha on the basis of Julian Mar 21 as the vernal equinox are adhering to the Canons of Nicea. Or who implicitly do so by rejecting the the Western calculation because of its putitive violationof the Nicean Canons. While this group presumably does not include you, it is the group with whom the calendar issues are joined.

DJS,

Greetings and thank you for your links:


From a previous DJS posting-
"I don't make this stuff up. None of the ideas that I presented is from original research. And none is unorthodox. All of them are are drawn from Orthodox sources - bishops and scholars.

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/ossorguine-pascha.html
http://www.otsamerica.org/news.html
http://www.jacwell.org/Archbishop%20Peter/The_Date_of_Pascha_and_the_Council_of_Nicea.htm
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7050.asp
http://www.scoba.us/resources/aleppo.asp

What can be said, then, is that claim that the Western calculation sometimes violates the canons of Nicea by placing Pascha before Passover is at best tendentious. It requires an interpretation of "not with the Jews" that is simply not accepted by a significant, responsible group of Orthodox. "


As I have been able to research more, I see that what appears to be the decisive issues are that:

1. some groups feel strongly that March 21st is the vernal equinox.
2. some groups feel that Pascha must never occur before Passover.

All the links above, from very well respected Orthodox groups (IMHO), state that the mindset or interpretation from the 1st Ecumenical Council for determining Pascha should be:

1. Vernal Equinox
2. First full moon after
3. First Sunday after the full moon

(the remarks regarding Passover appear to me that we should not use the Passover in the formula for the Paschal Feast, which means to me that it is not a factor whatsoever).

The Vernal Equinox is an ongoing Celestial event created by Our Almighty Father. His rhythms and patterns are beyond our comprehensions. An understanding of these patterns enables us to more accurately predict events, but the actual day and time each year can be slightly vary so I do not see how the date of the vernal equinox can be written in stone.


I also seem to remember that during this time of mankind's existance, we thought the sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat. As Our Dear Lord has slowly revealed more of the truths of the Universe to us, should we not be able to adapt these new truths to our system of worship of the One True Trinity without violating any of the Canons set out by the Holy Fathers?

If they had the knowledge then that we now possess of time and space, what would they say?

In Christ (although I am sure some will feel I am being fueled by the Devil himself) and looking for the honest truth. Teach me please!

Michael

Arguably the most important thing to say, was said by St. John Chrysostom in a year in which there was some controversy over the date of Pascha. He counseled that it was better to celebrate together, even on a technoically wrogn date, than to fight and split and celebrate in different factions.

So do you think that Pope Gregory was wrong to change the calendar since it further separated Christians or that the Orthodox are wrong for not changing when Rome changed?

This all gets back to what Alex said. This issue is whether or not the one patriarch has the authority to tell all the other patriarchs what to do, regardless of what the other patriarchs think.

What was said was this:

And that statement is incorrect. Numerous Orthodox bishops and scholars stipulate that Western Paschal celebration does comply with the Nicean agreement. And the objective evidence is better than in most historical disputes. If it is indeed true that Orthodoxy will never agree to the Western Paschal celebration, then one really has to look elsewhere for the reason why.

I don't know. I suspect that in the aftermath of Fall of Constantinople and the subsequent repudiation of the Union of Florence in lands under the Sultan, together with the refusal of the Czar to agree to the Union, it really didn't matter what Gregory did or didn't do.

The idea of making astronical observations to set the date the vernal equinox is completely consistent with Nicea and its immediate historical aftermath (although some contend that the last word on the astronomy was given to Alexandria). Rome was doing what it did at that time.

The problem, of course, was what to do about the accumulated gross shift in the movable feasts relative to the immovable ones - a shift which would in principle wreak havoc with the Typicon. Gregory opted to alter the calendar essentially to conserve the Typicon. He thus put the Pascha celebration back where it was agreed to be placed at Nicea, and maintained the ususal relative patterns of movable and immovable feasts. Were the Orthodox wrong not to accept this? It's not for me to say.

Is this a barrier to unity? How could you possibly assert that? The entire Western scheme has been adopted within canonical Orthodoxy. The strange hybrid of Gregorian immovable and Julian movable feasts has been adopted within canonical Orthodoxy. And the Old calendar has also been maintained within canonical Orthodoxy. These scheme co-exist within Orthodox communion. Manifestly, this issue is not a barrier to communion.

I wouldn't say that the entire scheme has been accepted within canonical Orthodoxy, since Easter is still celebrated at a different time (except in Finland).

The calendar within Orthodoxy is certainly a mess, but that was a mess primarily created by interaction with the West. It is a very recent problem and a canonical solution will eventually be found. If Orthodoxy were to change its calcualtion for Easter it would not be because they agree the pope has the authority to unilaterally change it, regardless of the supporting logic.

The calendar itself is not a barrier to unity. The way the calendar is changed is a barrier.

In other words, the entire scheme has been accepted within canonical Orthodoxy, specifically in Finland.

Of course not. It would be because they have the authority to change it. The Finns, the OCA, whomever.

So what was the common denominator among the manners in which calendar changes of various sorts were carried out within the Orthodox communion? What did the Finns, the OCA, etc. do that was so proper?

You speak as if the calendar issue in Finland and elsewhere has been accepted as a fait accompli. These changes are still much debated within Orthodoxy and are certainly subject to change.

The common denominator seems to be convenience, and not astronomical accuracy. Whether the OCA, the Finns (especially the Finns) and others acted appropriately is still up for debate.

Canonical Orthodoxy has followed the standard of St. John Chrysostom and not allowed the calendar issue to cause schism, but it has not yet reached a consensus on the issue.

It is easy for Catholics, Eastern or otherwise, to forget that reaching consensus is much more difficult than asking a single person. It takes time to discuss the issues and it has been so since the very beginning.

I am personally not in a hurry. I would rather the Church find the right answer than implement a quick fix. The quick fixes have caused more problems and schisms.

Who, over the specific action of the Finns, has initiated and consumated a break of communion with them? Those who haven't have accepted it, perhaps begrudgingly, but they accepted it.

So changes for convenience are not a barrier to comunion, but changes for accurate observance of the Nicean agreement are?

I don't know where this comes from. I've stipulated that the date and dates of Orthodox celebrations are their own affair, as is reaching consensus on these dates. My only objection is the bogus complaint of the uncanonical nature of the Western celebration.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. It has been accepted that it was not something that should cause immediate excommunication. That doesn't mean that the situation of the Finns isn't being reviewed. This is a very special case with a lot of issues. When I say it is not a fait accompli, I mean that it isn't an irreversible and final decision by the Church. It's a decision to maintain communion with some with whom we may disagree until consensus is reached.

We simply don't have a single guy with a big stick saying, "Do it my way or hit the road." These things take time.

The changes for convenience were made to the rest of the liturgical year and not to the calculation of Easter. When the entire Church sees the Council of Nicea to say one thing and then one other bishop decides that, in order to be in line with this decision, he has to alter what all the other bishops do, that would lie outside of Orthodox ecclesiology. It is not for a single bishop to decide what that meant.

That is where my objection on the basis of consensus comes from.

Well, that depends on the argument. I understand that you are saying that the pope made these changes to be more in line with Nicea. Therefore, the change does not violate that council. I won't argue that point.

But the pope did change the date of Easter without consulting any other patriarchs. Obviously Rome and Orthodoxy were already out of communion with each other for many other reasons by this time. Rome believes and teaches that She can (has the authority to) change anything, anywhere at any time in Christendom without consulting anyone else. No matter what objections may be raised by devout Old Calendarists, I suspect that, behind it all, this is their primary fear/objection.

Dear Friends,

Yes, djs has hit the nail on the head here!

The issue is whether Rome may unilaterally override the decisions of an Ecumenical Council, a Council that Rome herself affirms and counts among her list of 21 Ecumenical Councils.

THAT is the real mess when it comes to the calendar issue.

The dates themselves point to a much more important ecclesial issue that marks the real divide between the Churches still.

Alex

Alex,

I think djs is arguing that Rome did *not* unilaterally override the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. I believe he is arguing that the pope *had* to change the calendar in order to comply with the decision of the council.

While I think that argument is interesting and insightful, I think you (Alex) are still right about the real barrier.

The pope changed the calendar to make it "right" without discussing it with anyone else. Of course, at the time, the pope wasn't really on speaking terms with the East.

Dear Cizinec,

O.K., I"m just trying to be nice to djs.

I don't like it when he gets upset with me . . .

I still think that the ultimate (and only real) difference between the Eastern and Western churches comes down to the "Pope/Council" issue.

All other matters of faith and discipline tend to highlight that one.

God bless,

Alex

Rome both before and even in the immediate aftermath of Nicea made astromical observations to date the vernal equinox and calculate the date of Pascha. When was this right relinquished?

Where did Constantinople et al. get the right to flout the agreement of Nicea - a Council that they themselves affirm and counts among their list of Ecumenical Councils"?

Yes the only consensus is meta ton Romans.

And neither do we. :rolleyes:

ps Alex, I am not upset with you. I did, however, take the administrator's advice - albeit in advance of his offereing it - on what to do about "baiting" posts.