www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Common Easter date?

AMM,

Can we infer from your answer that the question of whether or not the Julian Calendar is "on the move" is of no concern whatsoever for most OCs?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I can honestly say I have never once ever heard it discussed.

So, no doubt "on the move."
Now, however, there is 'the question of whether or not the Julian Calendar is "on the move"'???

That it may be of no concern is a different issue, a different question. My question:


Ok, but are you aware (now)? That is, what is your (or anyone who can answer) understanding about 'whether or not the Julian Calendar is "on the move"'? To be -- "on the move" - or not to be -- "on the move" -- that is the question!

Re [quote]If we as RCs/ECs are the slightest bit serious about wanting reunion with the EOC, we are going to have to be willing to yield on this point! [/quote]
One problem with this is that the EOC members who are most outspoken against the "New Calendar" tend to believe that the [url=http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sigillion_of_1583]Sigilion of 1583[/url] is a valid document of the Church, but that Gregory XIII was outside the Church. An example in England is Vladimir Moss who teaches that most EOC are not in the Church because they have accepted the "New Calendar" etc.
These people also tend to believe the prejudiced commentaries in the Rudder are valid.
If we renounced Gregory XIII's [url=http://www.bluewaterarts.com/calendar/NewInterGravissimas.htm]Inter Gravissimas[/url] would we also have to accept the prejudices and myths of the Rudder?
Here's a nice "proof" for the Old Calendar from the Rudder's footnote to "Apostolic" canon VII:
[quote]But that the the order of the Paschalion is more acceptable to God, and with
our calendar, than the accuracy of the Latin Paschalion and calendar, is evident
from the wonders which He has shown and continues to show concerning this up
to the present time. For in the region of Heliopolis, Egypt, at the location of the
great pyramids, God performs the following strange paradox every year. That is
on the evening of our Holy Thursday (not the Latins’), the earth spews out old
human relics and bones, which cover the ground of an extensive plain and which
remain standing until the following Thursday of the Ascension and then they
become hidden, no longer showing themselves at all, until the return of Holy
Thursday. This is no myth or fable...[/quote]
Anyone going to the pyramids this April, make sure you take a camcorder.

Also from the commentary to the same canon:
[quote]the Apostles themselves, in their Injunctions (Book. V, Chapter 17),
say the following: “Brethren, you must fix the days of Pascha accurately, with all
diligence, after the turn of the equinox, and not commemorate one suffering twice a
year, but once a year Him who died but once.”[/quote]
Does anyone know where this amazing set of books by the Apostles can be found?

I am somewhat confused by the question. I have never heard anyone ever discuss the need to change the method to calculate Easter, nor do I believe it would have much support (and probably a good deal of resistance) if proposed.

I would assume most people are aware of the drift in the calendar, but again I've never heard it discussed.

I accept that as your valid obsevation. The initial post of this thread does pose such a change.

That may very well be. It is far from my primary concern.

Ok, there is a drift in the calendar. A drift from what? What is the reference point?

Wouldn't it be most prudent for the Catholic Communion to fully switch over to the old calendar for the purposes of celebrating Easter, in the interest of Charity and in pursuit of Reunion? Then we could leave the question of changing the method of calculation for a Reunited Ecumenical Council, so that no one is left out, and everyone has the chance to voice their concerns?

Seems like the most sensible approach to me.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks, Ghosty! Pastoral sensitivity is important when discussing the Calendar and the Orthodox are quite sensitive when it comes to the date of Pascha.

Fr David Straut

Considering that the Catholic Church was the "agency" that revamped the Calendar, this doesn't seem the least bit likely.

Clearly there is a drift toward later and later dates for Pascha, but in many people's minds, this is of secondary importance to the fact that the determination of Pascha is in perfect alignment with 1000+ years of tradition. This means that by celebrating Pascha according to the ancient Paschalion, they are not only holding fast to everything that is good, noble, holy and ancient, they are also rejecting strenuously the spirit of modern, worldly innovation that produced the Gregorian Calendar in the first place, and has never ceased trying to impose it on everyone since that time.

The point I'm trying to make here is that simply proving the Julian Calendar to be astronomically inaccurate is not, repeat not, going to cause any significant number of EOs to change their minds about it.

That might happen about 100-200 years after reunion, but don't count on it happening sooner.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I am convinced it is (drifting away from its astronomical reference) and so is most of the world as best I can tell. Yet I sense that needs to be established in this thread, as in previous threads on this forum on this topic. There are strong indications that this is not understood nor the implications of that inaccuracy.

So, I ask for verification: Is it understood then that the Julian Calendar is astronomically inaccurate as noted?

This is a fine example of what "tradition" should not be.

We're talking about a calendar promulgated by a pagan Roman ruler, coupled with tables constructed by Alexandrian scientists to fix the celebration of Pascha to a sequence of celestial events. It is best not to idolize it more than it already is. The sequence of celestial events, however, is ordained by God.

Most of the world has voluntarily embraced the Gregorian calendar to one degree or another for the very practical reason that it works the way a calendar should. That is just a fact.

Here is Pope St Leo the Great trying to get a common date for Pascha (from Letter 138 - to the bishops of Gaul and Spain - July 28 454):

So the Pope has in the past deferred on this matter to a Catholic emperor who has better astronomical/calendar experts than himself.
But I doubt that Leo the Great would have accepted a recommendation from a group like the WCC that arose from outside the Church and also has no civil authority.
Since the time of Constantine the dating of Easter has been partly in the civil arena.

Azarius,

Very interesting!

So, St. Leo the Great, 129 years after I Nicaea, seems to be very much aware of--or at least in agreement with--the directive for all Christians to celebrate Pascha on the same day. However, he gives no indication of being aware of any normative status for the Alexandrian method.

What I found particularly interesting, though, was this segment:
True, he is referring to a different decision "made in the East," but the principles invoked still apply.

Good observation ... and let us not forget that as far as the EOC was concerned at the time, even the GC was a recommendation that arose from "outside the Church."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Perhaps. But is using this as an excuse to perpetuate our disunity any more reasonable?


While these statements are undeniably true, the historical fact is that the JC and its associated Paschalion have taken on a meaning that goes beyond the historical facts of their origins. We may not like it this way, but this is the way it is.

Following this line of reasoning, then, should we not be pursuing unity with the Protestants and others who accept the GC, and just leave the EOs to their "folly" if they cannot "see the light?"


Peace,
Deacon Richard