Origin of Old Calendarism

Origin of Old Calendarism
additionally, even if the claim of a forgery is incorrect, examining the texts
that ROAC (Old Calendarist) makes available http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/THE%20CALENDAR%20QUESTION.pdf
shows that the central issue was the Paschalion, the determination of the
date of Pascha (Greek for Passover, Easter is the later western term, Jesus
Christ is our Passover) and determining always to keep this happening AFTER
the Jewish Passover has been celebrated, since out Pascha focusses on Christ's
Resurrection (Christos is Greek for Messiah), which occurred after the
Jewish Passover.

Clearly, any modification of the Calendar that does not change how Pascha
is done doesn't matter. Pascha must itself remain Julian, whatever you do with
the rest of the calendar, because The Holy Light refused to come to the Gregorian
date for Pascha but came on the Julian date for it in Jerusalem in I think it was AD
1929.

It makes sense to retain Julain dates for ceremonies relating to Christ Himself,
since this emphasizes that these things happened in historical reality, when the
spring equinox fell on a date now 13 days later than it actually occurs now.

And the reversal of the Jordan's flow where Jesus was baptized occurs on
Julian Epiphany.

I AM ON TWITTER!

http://www.twitter.com/infowolf1

JP Morgan is biggest shareholder in BP

http://tinyurl.com/2fqpl47

Gulf oil spill a danger to nuclear plants that draw water for cooling

Nuclear plants drawing water from the Gulf and from the Atlantic
could be endangered if the oil reaches their intake water.
DOE is monitoring.
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1719&category=Environment

Watch this.

Testimony of  Randall N. Baer.

His All Holiness (okay, Orthodox titles are a bit over the top sometimes) Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I

 

An exclusive interview of Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency) with His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I. At the end of May 2010, His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I paid a visit to Bulgaria for the opening of a new church in the Sveti Vlas resort on the Black Sea coast for which the Constantinople Patriarchate donated holy relics. In the city of Burgas, Bartholomew I was welcomed by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov. Shortly after that, on May 24, 2010, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was in Moscow where he performed a service together with Russian Patriarch Kirill on the occasion of the Day of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, the authors of the Slavic script.   What would you say are the major, basic characteristics that continue to distinguish today Eastern/Greek Orthodox Christianity from the other Christian churches?   It is sometimes best to discern similarities and common ground, rather than differences and distinctive features among Christian Churches. There is often more that unites us than separates us, and we should not be complacent in a defensive presence of Orthodox Christianity in the world. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church has a profound wealth in its spiritual tradition, which retains a more cosmic, liturgical and mystical world view. This is why current issues of global concern, such as the ecological crisis, are of utmost importance to us inasmuch as they underline how doctrine and ethos are integrally related. The way we worship and pray to God reflects the way we lead our lives and treat our planet.   What is the most unique thing about the tradition of Eastern/Greek Orthodox Christianity? What should members of the other Christian churches or other religions know about it?   The Orthodox Church is often seen as a traditional Church. And, while it is true that we preserve many elements from the early Apostolic community, which witnessed the Resurrection of our Lord and the Pentecost of the Church, we are also a Church that seeks to dialogue with the present. In this regard, we are a Church that looks both to the past (with the treasures of the Church of the Fathers) as well as to the future (with an expectation of the heavenly kingdom, as we profess in the Nicene Creed). This all-embracing theology and all-encompassing spirituality is “always prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that lies within us.” (1 Peter 3.15)   There is a widespread impression that Western churches are generally more pro-active with respect to social causes and initiatives. What is the main attraction and the main message of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 21st century, the rapidly changing time of the Global Age?   In many ways, there is truth in that widespread impression, and it would be helpful for us as Orthodox Christians to be prepared also to learn from our Western brothers and sisters. As we observed earlier, it is more helpful and beneficial for us to work together in a spirit of healthy ecumenism, rather than work in an isolation that resembles a closed ghetto-like community. From as early as the third century, the West emphasized the role of the Church in the present world, excelling in law, ethics, and the worldly institution. By contrast, the East stressed the heavenly (or eschatological) dimension of the Church, presenting unparalleled models and examples of mysticism and spirituality. So both East and West can learn from one another. The Orthodox Church can reveal how the Holy Spirit and the Divine Liturgy are able to inspire all aspects of the earthly Church – including the organizational leadership of the Church and the social standards of the people.   Is it correct to say that the Orthodox Christian religion is a key trait of a Greco-Slavic Civilization, as it is often described by western scholars?   While it is true that Orthodox Christianity was the cradle of civilization on the Eastern world – both Greek and Slavic – the unfortunate truth is that the Western world has neglected its Byzantine roots. It is a sad reality that Western historians have been dominated by the importance and influence of the Renaissance, while overlooking the fact that Constantine the Great moved the capital of the Empire to New Rome, Constantinople, in 330AD as well as the fact that all seven Ecumenical Councils of undivided Christianity were held not in Greece or Rome, but in the East, in what is now Turkey. Nevertheless, more recent scholarship has embraced a more comprehemsive view of history. As shown in Dr. Runciman’s great books, the memory preserved by the Mother Church of Constantinople through the centuries was the memory of an Orthodox ecumenical civilization. However, it is not easy to turn around a tide of historical prejudice.   Greeks and Bulgarians used to have more powerful medieval empires, which boosted Orthodox Christianity. What is the role of these two nations today as far as Orthodox Christianity is concerned? Is it fair to say that Russia is the leading Orthodox nation nowadays?   We should remember that the situation of the first millennium no longer prevails in our world, and we should not live in such a manner that reflects those circumstances. Moreover, while the original system of Pentarchy emanated from respect for the apostolicity and particularity of the traditions of these ancient Patriarchates, the autocephaly of later Churches grew out of respect for the cultural identity of nations. Thus, today, we have reached the perception that Orthodoxy comprises a federation of national Churches, frequently attributing priority to national interests in their relationship with one another. Yet, secular forces have never been the primary focus or foremost definition of Orthodox ecclesiology. Our criteria of ecclesial identity and unity are not the measures of this world – of numbers and wealth – but derive instead from the Holy Spirit, as this is revealed in the Church Councils and the Holy Eucharist. We do not, as during Byzantine times, have at our disposal a state factor that guaranteed – and sometimes even imposed – our unity. Nor does our ecclesiology permit any centralized authority that is able to impose unity from above. Our unity depends on our ecclesial conscience. The sense of need and duty that we constitute a single canonical structure and body, one Church, is sufficient to guarantee our unity, without any external intervention. This is precisely why we have to date convened five meetings (Synaxes) of Heads of Orthodox Churches throughout the world, while we have at the same time insisted on advancing preparations for the Holy and Great Council of our Orthodox Church. We have been blessed with a recent official visit to Russia at the invitation of His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and we have, therefore, witnessed the vital rejuvenation as well as the complicated adversities of the Russian nation.   From your position as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople you have sought to promote peace among Christians, Muslims and Jews. What are some of your successful initiatives in that respect? In an age of rising sectarian violence, what can religious figures of your rank do to help bring about peace and understanding?   In addition to the bilateral academic dialogues that we hold on a regular basis with both Jews and Muslims (since the early 1970s), the initiatives that we have promoted in recent years include: the Peace and Tolerance Conference (Istanbul, 1994); the Conference on Peaceful Coexistence between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Brussels, 2001); the Conference on Religion, Peace and the Olympic Ideal (Athens, 2004); and the second Peace and Tolerance Conference (Istanbul, 2005). These gatherings, and others like them, have proved both pioneering in purpose and historical in substance. For they opened our eyes to the diversity of cultures and religions that comprise our fragmented global world. It is our firm conviction that all religious leaders can benefit from such meetings inasmuch as they widened people’s appreciation of racism and fundamentalism, while assisting in distinguishing between religious tolerance and religious absolutism.   All rights reserved, 2001-2010 (c) Novinite Ltd. You are permitted to use any of the articles in this message only if you kindly quote the source - Sofia News Agency (novinite.com). --------------------------------------------------------------

Persistently Pernicious Myths of Hypatia

Click on the link to reand the entire article,
which also refutes the legend of Christian
destruction of the Alexandria Library. That
occurred in stages, twice because of pagans
warring with each other.


This article is a good reality check on the
stuff we are usually presented as fact.


Hypatia didn't die because she was an
intellectual woman who spoke publicly or
because she was a threat to Christianity,
she got caught in a factional brawl.


There was no conflict between science and
Christianity, philosophy was often used to
argue for Christianity, and intellectual
prominent women were nothing unusual 
among early Christians.


" the frankest account of her murder was written 
by the Christian historian Socrates, who obviously 
admired her immensely. It seems likely that she 
died simply because she became inadvertently 
involved in a vicious political squabble between the 
city’s imperial prefect and the city’s patriarch, and 
some of the savages of the lower city decided to 
take matters into their own hands.

In the end, the true story of Hypatia—which no one 

will ever make into a film—tells us very little about

 ancient religion, or about the relation between 

ancient Christianity and the sciences, and absolutely 

nothing about some alleged perennial conflict between 

Christianity and science; but it does tell us a great 

deal about social class in the late Hellenistic world....

In the royal quarter, pagans, Christians, and Jews 

generally studied together, shared a common 

intellectual culture, collaborated in scientific endeavor, 

and attended one another’s lectures. In the lower city, 

however, religious allegiance was often no more than a 

matter of tribal identity, and the various tribes often 

slaughtered one another with gay abandon."

And this latter is exactly what went on whenever

the Serbs decide to go on the warpath. Sarajevo was

a cosmopolitan city where the best chance for easy

conversion of Muslims to Christ (Who was even then

referred to as "Son of Allah" by some) existed. All

that was destroyed when satan persuaded the Serbs

to start their arrogant breakaway move in Bosnia.

Precisely the mentality Mystagogue's blogger

describes in Alexandria street level people, is what

most of the Serbian Orthodoxy and Croatian Roman

Catholicism is all about.  

Out Lord and Savior Jesus Christ warns us, that

you cannot get bad fruit off a good tree, nor good

fruit off a bad tree. "By their fruits you will know

them." With the exception of notable and unknown

holy men and women among the Serbs, the majority

are just members of a clicque. 

Let us beware we don't abuse Orthodoxy as an

excuse to fight or a flag to rally around to get a

heroic rush.