Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Calendars, pros and cons


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#121 Timothy Phillips

Timothy Phillips

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Guest from Another Religious Tradition

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:45 AM

Kosta  on Feb 17 2013 said:

 In 346 Athanasius in exile accepted a revision to Nicea at the council of Sardica.

 This presupposes that there were Nicene tables or detailed mathematical instructions which might be "revised".  This has never been proven from documentation from the Conciliar generation itself.  Documents from the Council of Sardica indicate that the Eastern bishops there (meeting at Philippopolis) intended their Paschal proposals to be a way of complying with the Nicene decision.

 

In 333 many scholars believe Pascha was moved back so Holy Saturday would not coincide with Passover, the anniversary founding of Rome, and the pagan holiday of Parilia.

 In 333, Rome and Alexandria agreed on April 15th, which was the 14th day of the moon by the Alexandrian tables and the 15th by the Roman--too early in the lunar month by both Alexandrian rules (which normally set the festival to the 3rd Sunday in the lunar month, so the age of the moon would be in the range 15-21 inclusive) and by Roman rules (which preferred a lunar age of 16-22).  This cannot have been an attempt to prevent Holy Saturday from falling on Jewish 14 Nisan.  The only Passover date we have for 333 comes from the same Paschal table from Sardica already mentioned, which indicates a Jewish Passover (as always in the context, Nisan 14, not Nisan 15) on March 16th, 333.  If some Jewish communities set their 14 Nisan to the following full moon, this would have been around April 14th or 15th.  So moving Easter 333 forward to April 15th from the following Sunday would have increased, not decreased, the chances of it coinciding with Jewish 14 Nisan, assuming this would have been a problem for anyone at that time, which I doubt.  

 

The other proposal you cite, that the Romans objected to the later date in order to avoid having the festival fall when the merrymaking for the Parilia (April 21st) the Vinalia (April 23rd) and the Robigalia (April 25th) had already begun seems plausible and is accepted, as you say, by many scholars.



#122 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 06:29 AM

Sorry i erred. In 333 ad, it was pushed back and coincided with passover. The epistle has St Athansios contrasting christian Pascha with the jewish celebration, pagan celebrations and if i remember correctly a passing remark about secular merrymaking. Meaning  Pascha was competing with alot of festivals that season..



#123 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

 

I've noticed that in the new calendar this year, Saint Georges will fall during the Great Lent which is one of the problems of internal coherence of new calendar. Saint Georges hymnography refers to Easter and celebrates Easter very much because the Feast of Saint Georges was supposed to happen after Easter. In the worst case, in julian calendar it falls on Holy Saturday and is then transferred to Bright Monday... I don't know how they manage this in new calendar... Another problem of internal coherence is the quite diminished Apostles' fasts...
 
By the way, in Jerusalem and Middle East, from next year, catholics will adopt orthodox paschalion is order to celebrate Easter as the same time as the orthodox... 


First off, it is less a problem of the "new calendar" than of the rather arbitrary mixing of the old and new. If the calculation of Pascha were revised to actually obey the canons, then this "problem" would simply disappear and harmony would be restored.

Obviously the Catholics have recognized that the obstinance of the Orthodox and that there was absolutely no chance of compromise and simply "gave in" to avoid problems. If the Orthodox would simply come up with a calculation for Pascha that obeyed the spirit of the Canon, I suspect the western churches would adopt it whole-heartedly, not that it matters that much.

#124 Jean-Serge

Jean-Serge

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:10 PM

 If the calculation of Pascha were revised to actually obey the canons, then this "problem" would simply disappear and harmony would be restored.

 

"With if, you can put Paris in a bottle". It is a French proverb.



#125 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:43 PM

With God, all things are possible. The early Church was able to deal with this issue, I do have a difficult time understanding why we can't.

#126 Timothy Phillips

Timothy Phillips

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Guest from Another Religious Tradition

Posted 02 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

The Patriarch of Alexandria is called the Supreme judge of the Universe to this very day because Alexandria was looked to, to set the Paschalion, which kept things "in synch". Once the Empire collapsed, there really was no longer any way to enforce these periodic adjustments and things started going out of kilter.

Theophilus, the Bishop of Alexandria cited earlier, never bases his case on any special privileges of his office.  He never refers to Canons or Councils, either.  The only laws he cites are those of Scripture. astronomy, meteorology, and arithmetic.

 

This differs from the situation in our day.  I can't remember ever seeing a defense of the Julian paschalion that did not sooner or later fall back on legalism.



#127 Timothy Phillips

Timothy Phillips

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Guest from Another Religious Tradition

Posted 07 March 2013 - 05:56 AM

Kosta, you are missing the point. We don't have to use the "Western" Paschalion. THEY don't even want to use it, so why should we? 

I want to use the Gregorian paschalion, at least until a better is available.

 

The Milankovitch paschalion, proposed in 1923 but never permanently accepted, would certainly fulfill the minimum requirements for a proper pachalion.  But its superiority to the Gregorian paschalion is not self-evident.  Milankovitch's would be more accurate, certainly.   And accuracy is certainly one criterion.   If it were the only one, then probably we should accept Milankovitch's proposal.  But maybe to-the-nearest-second accuracy is not the only consideration.   The tradition is to use an average solar year and an average lunar month and a lunar calendar with 29-day and 30-day months whose dates are cyclic at 19-year intervals in the civil calendar.  This tradition has the advantage that Easter tables can be constructed easily using simple integer arithmetic.  Maybe this convenience is no longer needed, but, still, adopting the Milankovitch paschalion would be a greater departure from prior custom than using the Gregorian paschalion would be, for the Gregorian paschalion maintains the tradition of using an average lunar month and a schematic lunar calendar that repeats at 19-year intervals in the civil calendar.  The Milankovitch paschalion (like the Rabbinic Jewish calendar) would not be cyclic  in the civil calendar in the same way that the Gregorian paschalion is, and the Julian paschalion was.


Edited by Timothy Phillips, 07 March 2013 - 05:56 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users