Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

New Calendar churches: legitimate or not?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Jason Hunt

Jason Hunt

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 04:29 PM

The link below, from the Old Calendarist "Synod in Resistance", covers the problems related to the claim that the "New Calendar" was anathematized by Pan-Orthodox Councils.  As others here have pointed out, only the Gregorian Paschalian was anathematized since this Paschalian contradicts the decision of an Ecumenical Council (the first).  The Sigillion that you quote from (1583) is not an actual Sigillion from the 1583 Council, nor is there any reference to such a Sigillion being written.  The so-called Sigillion from this Council that you quote is the creation of a Monk Iakovos of New Skete.  He is the one who created (forged) this document, including the words "and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope".  Such a reference is not made anywhere in the documents which followed from this Council that are extant and authentic.   

 

http://www.synodinre...4aSigillion.pdf

 

Also, while it is true that the days of the Revised Julian (New Calendar) do currently line up with those of the Gregorian calendar, the days are actualy calculated differently using the Revised Julian so they are not at all the same calendar.  If you read the acts and decisions from the 1923 Congress (as unfortunate as this event was), those present make it very clear that in adopting a new calendar they would not adopt the Gregorian calendar because if they did so this fact would be exploited by Rome in order to proclaim Rome's superiority and convert more Orthodox to the Unia.

 

There is much to be admired among those who proclaim themselves to be "True Orthodox", but in proclaiming their "correctness" and departing into schism, they have still cut themselves off from Christ.  Elder Eprhaim of Arizona, who you criticize for being on the New Calendar, was once an Old Calendar schismatic and saw the error of these ways.  Elders Joseph the Hesychast and Ephraim of Katounakia were likewise once schismatics but it was revealed to them by God that the schismatics are separated from the Church.  The same was revealed to Elder Cleopa of Romania and countless other contemporary saints.

 

To find out where the true Church is, see who continues to produce saints just like those of old, and see who only produces false zeal and endless schisms.



#22 Jean-Serge

Jean-Serge

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

 Life of saints are interesting but not a decisive proof because first we cannot know them with objectivity : these are always things that are told by other persons and even sometimes forged to suit their interest. By the way, anyone could say that such saint was in fact the victim of spiritual illusion like "catholic saint". Moreover, you can find saints like those of old in old calendarist church like the fool-in-Christ Saint Harambolos who was a matthewite.

 

So I would say that to find out where is the true Church, you must see who continues to hold the faith of old without alteration, and who changes the faith. It is in fact a personal quest and everybody must make his own decision and do not lie to his conscience.


Edited by Jean-Serge, 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM.


#23 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:10 PM

To find out where is the true Church is, see who continues to hold the faith of old without alteration, and who changes the faith.

And the calendar is not a matter of faith - only a matter of practice.

 

Fr David Moser



#24 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:25 PM

Jean Serge wrote: Personally, I don't like Rublev's Trinity : I don't like the colours, and other Hospitality of Abraham are far better.

 

I would like to say, if I may, that icons should not be liked or disliked in the same was as one likes or dislikes a secular painting.  And in what way could other icons of this subject be said to be 'better'?  St Andrei's icon is, as Olga explained earlier, an exposition of trinitarian theology.  As Orthodox Christians, we do not 'like' or 'dislike' theology.  That said, we may find that we somehow are drawn to one icon of a subject rather than another.  It is also probably not reasonable to have a final opinion on this icon unless one has actually seen it.  Although in reality, the effect it has is greater than one might be prepared for, it must be borne in mind that it has been cleaned, overpainted and restored and its appearance today only hints at its original appearance.  Furthermore, this icon was intended for the Holy Trinity cathedral at the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra and is best understood in its intended context.  A very early copy stands in place of the original but the effect is fairly well understood.



#25 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,517 posts

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

The thing with this issue is that we can find a myriad of examples from Church History which justify schisms and theres also plenty of legitimate reasons in church history for severing communion with specific bishops,. We can find examples of parallel synods and parallel patriarchs each claiming to be the canonical bishop(s). 

 

Also most of the historical examples and various modern day writings defending one side over the other can be utilized by both sides in their defense.

 

 I'm a strong believer in the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, that the fullness of the catholic church can be found on the local level lead by a right believing bishop who faithfully upholds proper praxis. In the end of the day, whether that day is tomorrow or in 300 years from now, I believe we will look back at this issue and simply see it as a period of temporary suspension of communion created by a tumultuous political era.  

 

Whether it was brought upon by confusion and distrust during the communist era within the Russian church, or whether the culprit was the greek national schism exasberated by the Smyrna catastrophe which brought to power the modernist greek republic between 1924-35, it will all be forgotten in the future as time heals all wounds.



#26 Reader Luke

Reader Luke

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 February 2013 - 04:58 AM

The thing with this issue is that we can find a myriad of examples from Church History which justify schisms and theres also plenty of legitimate reasons in church history for severing communion with specific bishops,. We can find examples of parallel synods and parallel patriarchs each claiming to be the canonical bishop(s). 
 
Also most of the historical examples and various modern day writings defending one side over the other can be utilized by both sides in their defense.
 
 I'm a strong believer in the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, that the fullness of the catholic church can be found on the local level lead by a right believing bishop who faithfully upholds proper praxis. In the end of the day, whether that day is tomorrow or in 300 years from now, I believe we will look back at this issue and simply see it as a period of temporary suspension of communion created by a tumultuous political era.  
 
Whether it was brought upon by confusion and distrust during the communist era within the Russian church, or whether the culprit was the greek national schism exasberated by the Smyrna catastrophe which brought to power the modernist greek republic between 1924-35, it will all be forgotten in the future as time heals all wounds.


I doubt this will be the case, look at the Old Believer groups who are still in schism (that is, not considering the Orthodox, canonical Old Believers) and its been 400 years. Even if a few schismatic Old Calendarists reenter the Church, I'll bet you money that most, or a significant portion will willingly remain in schism.

#27 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

I doubt this will be the case, look at the Old Believer groups who are still in schism (that is, not considering the Orthodox, canonical Old Believers) and its been 400 years. Even if a few schismatic Old Calendarists reenter the Church, I'll bet you money that most, or a significant portion will willingly remain in schism.

 

Except that many have, in fact, reconciled to the Church already. And those that did not have not are separated from each other and they are not growing. They are very xenophobic and evidently no longer practice the "great commission" to make disciples of all nations.

 

And if they choose to remain in schism, this means what, exactly?



#28 Timothy Phillips

Timothy Phillips

    Junior Poster

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 05:02 PM

You must see who continues to hold the faith of old without alteration, and who changes the faith. 

Whether a matter of "faith" or "practice", clinging to the old paschalion with its self-evident defects amounts to innovation-by-inaction.  Many early writers explicitly associated the Paschal festival with the full moon.  This year, those who follow the old paschalion will be celebrating near the dark of the moon.   The present case is greatly changed from the past situation.



#29 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,033 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:01 PM

Herman is correct.  The Old Believers who reject the Moscow Patriarchate are now very few in numbers.  Old Believers are not to be confused with Old Rite communities or Edinoverie who are very much in communion with MP and whose presence is widespread even if the numbers, though growing, are not great.



#30 Timothy Phillips

Timothy Phillips

    Junior Poster

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 06:03 PM

My post #28 above if off-topic for this thread.  Mods please delete; I'll make the same point elsewhere.



#31 Jean-Serge

Jean-Serge

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

Except that many have, in fact, reconciled to the Church already. And those that did not have not are separated from each other and they are not growing. They are very xenophobic and evidently no longer practice the "great commission" to make disciples of all nations.

 

And if they choose to remain in schism, this means what, exactly?

 

Who are you talking about? Anyway, growth is not a sign a rightfullness.


Edited by Jean-Serge, 09 February 2013 - 08:55 PM.


#32 Reader Luke

Reader Luke

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 February 2013 - 05:28 AM

Except that many have, in fact, reconciled to the Church already. And those that did not have not are separated from each other and they are not growing. They are very xenophobic and evidently no longer practice the "great commission" to make disciples of all nations.
 
And if they choose to remain in schism, this means what, exactly?


In my post I tried to clarify between canonical Old Riters and uncanonical ones, but re-reading it I see it wasn't too clear.

I was replying to Kostas argument that Old Calendarists (schismatic ones) will eventually be reunited and it will all be forgiven and forgotten. I said that won't be the case as we see with the Old Believers in Russia. Many of whom reentered Moscow but many more who remain in schism.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users