On the question of the calendar

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

I like the way this article starts out...

"In what follows we will be discussing the problem of so-called "Old Calendarists" which is a schismatic-at-most group of Orthodox Christians that places great emphasis on dates and other things as we shall see during our analysis."

In another era this could have easily read: "In what follows we will be discussing the problem of the iconophiles, which is a schismatic-at-most group of Orthodox Christians that places great emphasis on venerating icons as we shall see during our analysis."

But it is not really that we place such a great deal of emphasis on dates as the articles incorrect prequel charges; it is just that we don't have a great love of ecumenism, which was why the heretics changed the calendar. Because of this, there is no need to read any further, as the very premise of the article is wrong.And it needs to be wrong or we would just be hearing another shallow rendition about "astronomical correctness", which was the same cheap sales advertisement pope Gregory used on the Orthodox bishops in the 1500's.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_1.aspx

[George Australia]

George,
Because of this, there is no need to read any further, as the very premise of the article is wrong.And it needs to be wrong or we would just be hearing another shallow rendition about "astronomical correctness", which was the same cheap sales advertisement pope Gregory used on the Orthodox bishops in the 1500's.

Dear OOD,
I respect your right not to read the article. I also think this is a dangerous position for us to take, because there is nothing in the article about the astronomical correctness of the New Calendar, rather, the writer is arguing that the New Calendar is canonically correct, and that we are canonically incorrect and in heresy for not holding this opinion.
George

[Justin Kissel]

Since however both the Churches following the New Style accept and the Churches following the Old Style put up with this restriction, there was no Schism. We would have had a Schism on the issue if the Autocephalous Churches and the Patriarchates had cut off their fellowship with the New Style Churches. This however did not happen. Therefore there was no Schism!

What a thought! Patriarchates and Autocephalies... these are constructs utilized for administrative purposes, constructs which are actually foreign to the nature of the Church but allowed because of human necessity... and the writer wants to make these the basis for determining Orthodoxy? St. Justin Popovich said truly:

Moreover, is it correct, is it Orthodox to have such representations of the Orthodox Churches at various pan Orthodox gatherings on Rhodes or in Geneva? The representatives of Constantinople who began this system of representation of Orthodox Churches at the councils and those who accept this principle which, according to their theory, is in accord with the "system of autocephalous and autonomous" local Churches - they have forgotten that such a principle in fact contradicts the conciliar tradition of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately this principle of representation was accepted quickly and by all the other Orthodox: sometimes silently, sometimes with voted protests, but forgetting that the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology. - On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church

[George Australia]

Patriarchates and Autocephalies... these are constructs utilized for administrative purposes, constructs which are actually foreign to the nature of the Church but allowed because of human necessity...

Dear in Christ, Justin,
I agree, but I think again we might be missing the point and need to be more circumspect. Nothing in what the author says suggests that he disagrees with your statement quoted above. What the author is saying is that following the Old Calendar does not make one an heretic or schismatic, but objecting to the New Calendar does.
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

...because there is nothing in the article about the astronomical correctness of the New Calendar

George, you must not have understood what I said. But irregardless, if it was not changed for "astronomical correctness", then why was it changed????????

[George Australia]

...because there is nothing in the article about the astronomical correctness of the New Calendar

George, you must not have understood what I said.

Dear in Christ OOD,
Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. That was how I read this:

there is no need to read any further, as the very premise of the article is wrong.And it needs to be wrong or we would just be hearing another shallow rendition about "astronomical correctness"

But irregardless, if it was not changed for "astronomical correctness", then why was it changed????????

I'm not sure what the point of asking me this is, and I don't think disputing this is the point of the article, nor do I dispute it.

George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

"But irregardless, if it was not changed for "astronomical correctness", then why was it changed????????"

I'm not sure what the point of asking me this is, and I don't think disputing this is the point of the article, nor do I dispute it.

George,

The liturgical unity of the Church is immensely important. So how can an article exploring the question of the calendar ignore the most basic question of why the ecumenists destroyed this unity, but rather move immediately to a presumption someone is a "schismatic" as a result? I think this is a very rudimentary question whose answer, if it in any way contributed to the authors position, would have been elaborated on.

The answer as to why they destroyed the liturgical unity with the Orthodox is because they wanted to pursue unity with the Protestants, as they said so themselves. They have been on their own road since.

So now, lets talk about why the crew of the USS Indianapolis in WWII committed grave acts of mutiny. Never mind that their ship was hit by a Japanese torpedo and was sinking, no, we must ignore this point for our answer. We will rather focus on the "mutiny", and the possibility that they hated their captain, who was rumored to be a drunk, and they didn't care for his style, which is the real reason they broke communion with their ship.