Not sure I see the profit in rehashing this topic over and over again. For most it's about emotion and not about science.
The problem for me is not (others') emotional attachment but emotion that also puts forth facts (science) that are incorrect, and emotion that is the product of polemics rather than truth. Ignoring such assertions allows those wrong facts then to become a truth unto themselves -- they are simply repeated until no longer questioned as being unsubstantiated or wrong. This has happened and is shown by posts on this forum.
I agree that "For most it's about emotion and not about science." The dilemma arises for me, in this particular instance, in that I would trace the present rehashing to this post:
I bought one book from the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies titled "A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar" which is somewhat of a polemic but still good information if one can sift through the combative tone of the writing. Anyone have an opinion of this book or know of another?
A real "Scientific Examination" of the Julian calendar can only come to one conclusion, and it is not an auspicious one for the Julian calendar. Though not books, for a non-polemical current appraisal of the issue one should at least be aware of:
1.
The Aleppo Statement [
oikoumene.org]
2.
SCOBA on Aleppo [
scoba.us]
And there was an endorsement of the book:
I know that book well - and it's quite good.
Fr. Serge
and a criticism of the Aleppo study (the links):
I've read them both, and am profoundly unimpressed.
Fr. Serge
The assertion is a study purporting to be scientific: "A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar." Attempts to examine the issue on the basis of scientific merit and accuracy are then met with the response that it's not really about science and accuracy, they are secondary, scientific accuracy was not the goal, etc.
[
Linked Image]
I also suspect that the sense of accuracy and being scientific is misunderstood by some in terms of its purpose. I've asked these questons to explore the matter but they have not been answered or addressed.
Would accepting the practice of the Quartodecimans have been an equally acceptable solution for the Church in achieving unity regarding when Pascha is celebrated?
...was the prescription of Nicaea just an arbitrary sequence of astronomical events? Was there some significance to the sequence?
If yes to the latter, what's the significance?
Answers or comments would be helpful and appreciated.
