Ship of Fools: Myths and facts about Old-calendar Easter

Thread: Myths and facts about Old-calendar Easter Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023273

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

Common myths about the Julian Easter computation, with their refutation.

MYTH: Orthodox Easter is always the first Sunday after 15 Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar.

FACT: In the 23 years 1998 to 2020 inclusive, Julian Easter is the first Sunday after Rabbinic 15 Nisan in nine of those years, or less than half the time. Gregorian Easter is the first Sunday after Rabbinic 15 Nisan in all but three of the 23 years. So it is the Gregorian Easter, not the Julian Easter, that can said to fall most of the time on "the first Sunday after Passover."

Here is a table showing Rabbinic 15 Nisan, Gregorian Easter, and Julian Easter for 1998 to 2020. The column labeled N indicates the number of the Sunday after 15 Nisan. So "1" under "N" after Gregorian or Julian Easter indicates that the corresponding Easter that year is on the 1st Sunday after 15 Nisan. A "2" indicates the second Sunday, and so on. A zero would indicate Gregorian Easter coinciding with 15 Nisan, though no cases occur in the years listed. A negative number indicates a Sunday prior to 15 Nisan. The Julian Easter dates are given in the Gregorian calendar.

code:

Year | 15 Nisan | Gregorian Easter | N(G) | Julian Easter | N(J)
1998 | 11 April | 12 April         |  1   | 19 April      | 2
1999 |  1 April |  4 April         |  1   | 11 April      | 2
2000 | 20 April | 23 April         |  1   | 30 April      | 2
2001 |  8 April | 15 April         |  1   | 15 April      | 1
2002 | 28 March | 31 March         |  1   |  5 May        | 5
2003 | 17 April | 20 April         |  1   | 27 April      | 2
2004 |  6 April | 11 April         |  1   | 11 April      | 1
2005 | 24 April | 27 March         | -4   |  1 May        | 1
2006 | 13 April | 16 April         |  1   | 23 April      | 2
2007 |  3 April |  8 April         |  1   |  8 April      | 1
2008 | 20 April | 23 March         | -4   | 27 April      | 1
2009 |  9 April | 12 April         |  1   | 19 April      | 2
2010 | 30 March |  4 April         |  1   |  4 April      | 1
2011 | 19 April | 24 April         |  1   | 24 April      | 1
2012 |  7 April |  8 April         |  1   | 15 April      | 2
2013 | 26 March | 31 March         |  1   |  5 May        | 6
2014 | 15 April | 20 April         |  1   | 20 April      | 1
2015 |  4 April |  5 April         |  1   | 12 April      | 2
2016 | 23 April | 27 March         | -4   |  1 May        | 2
2017 | 11 April | 16 April         |  1   | 16 April      | 1
2018 | 31 March |  1 April         |  1   |  8 April      | 2
2019 | 20 April | 21 April         |  1   | 28 April      | 2
2020 |  9 April | 12 April         |  1   | 19 April      | 2

MYTH: The Eastern churches have an explicit mathematical rule requiring Easter always to follow 15 Nisan in the Rabbinic calendar.

FACT: This "Zonaras proviso" is an invention of medieval Byzantine canon lawyers. They were trying to account for some 4th century conciliar canons, in particular Apostolic Canon 7 and Antioch Canon 1. They didn't have the ability simply to say "These canons are obsolete and no longer apply." So they invented this cock-and-bull story about Passover.

In fact the Julian computus, like the Gregorian, is entirely self-consistent and makes no external reference to the Rabbinic or any other calendar. In modern times Julian Easter does, indeed, always follow Rabbinic 15 Nisan, but this is an artifact of the Julian calendar's accumulated errors, not an explicit mathematical formula into which the date of Rabbinic 15 Nisan must be entered.

MYTH: The Eastern churches have an explicit mathematical rule requiring Easter always to follow the entire Scriptural week of Unleavened Bread according to the Rabbinic calendar.

FACT: This is a variant statement of the Zonaras proviso referred to above, and it is just as false that other. If the statement were true, the dates for Julian Easter 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2017 would be impossible. In every one of those years, Julian Easter falls on the 6th day of Unleavened Bread according to the Rabbinic calendar. Hence it is possible for Julian Easter to fall within the seven Scriptural days Unleavened Bread.

MYTH: The Eastern churches compute Easter using the astronomical true equinox, true moon, and meridian of Jerusalem.

FACT: A synod of Orthodox bishops in 1923 agreed to do this, but the agreement was never permanently put into effect. No church, East or West, uses the astronomical method to compute Easter. The Gregorian Easter, however, almost always agrees with the date that the astronomical method, referred to the prime meridian, would set.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Mockingbird, what is it you would have us discuss here? And what does it have to do with liturgical practice?

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

The most relevant paschal myth, though not Rabbinic, Julian, Gregorian, Quartodeciman, Nicene, Alexandrian or whatever, is that there is so much as a single verse in the NT, consisting of either precept or precedent, requiring the annual observation of Easter.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Observation? Observance.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The most relevant paschal myth, though not Rabbinic, Julian, Gregorian, Quartodeciman, Nicene, Alexandrian or whatever, is that there is so much as a single verse in the NT, consisting of either precept or precedent, requiring the annual observation of Easter.

Red herring. Easter was observed before the canon of the NT was fixed.

It's church ---> book, not book ---> church.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Red herring. Easter was observed before the canon of the NT was fixed.

Before any council published a fixed list, yet. But not before the vast majority of the NT - including the four gospels - was already almost universally accepted by Christians.

quote:

It's church ---> book, not book ---> church.

But the churches that wrote the NT were not the modern Orthodox or Catholic churches, or even the churches of the ecumenical councils and the Apostolic Fathers, they were the churches of the first century. And the NT is our best - almost our only - evidence as to what those churches were like and what their doctrine and liturgy were.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I haven't heard any of those myths mentioned in the OP. I was only thought that the East calculated Pascha according to the date of the first full moon after 21 March, just like the West, but the date would be 13 days later for them. Therefore sometimes the two Easters coincide, but they can be up to a month out.

(The book/church thing is no doubt an old chestnut. But the NT is a collection of authoritative texts, not a comprehensive guide. If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Mockingbird, what is it you would have us discuss here? And what does it have to do with liturgical practice?

I consider the calendar to be inherently liturgical subject-matter, so I posted to Ecclesiantics instead of Purgatory.

I want to give any who hold to one of the propositions I have labeled as myths above to have a chance to present evidence that supports their view. I also wanted to know if others have encountered folk who hold to any of the myths I have identified. I have encountered all of the myths at one time or another on the web, though I have never met anyone in person who defends them.

The question of the origin of annual (as opposed to weekly) festivals in Christianity is an interesting one. It is indeed true that no New Testament passage unambiguously supports the proposition that the first generations of Christians had annual festivals. At the same time, it is clear that some gentile Christians were aware of the Jewish calendar. For example:

Paul tells the Corinthians, "I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost", clearly expecting the Greek Christians to know what "Pentecost" is.
Luke mentions "the days of Unleavened Bread" (Acts 12.3) and the Day of Atonement (Acts 27.9) expecting his readers to know what is meant.
(On the other hand, Luke, following Mark, calls 14 Nisan "the Day of Unleavened Bread", which it isn't. Mark was perhaps confused, or perhaps was reckoning the day in Roman fashion from midnight. But Luke should have known better.)
The entire middle section of John's Gospel is structured around the Jewish annual festivals. Could this have been directed to Jewish Christians, as a way of encouraging them to abandon the annual festivals, or alter their annual rituals? Either way it suggests that some Jewish Christians continued to observe annual festivals as they always had. Suggests, but no more than this.
From a slightly later time, the Work known as 1 Clement states "there ought to be strict order and method in our performance of such acts as the Master has prescribed for certain times." (Chapter 40). This too suggests, but does not prove, annual festivals.

When the Easter festival and the celebration of martyrs' anniversaries emerge clearly from the mists in the mid-2nd century, they seem to be well-established in at least some places, suggesting that these observances had begun at least a generation earlier. Furthermore, the Easter festival, unlike the martyrs' "birthdays", is found from the first time it is clearly mentioned to be fixed by means of an archaic lunar calendar, suggesting (but again, not proving) that it had entered Christianity fairly early.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Mockingbird, thank you for your response. While I agree with your premise that the calendar is liturgical, your focus here is on the origins or construction of the calendar, and that is just too far removed from liturgical practice to have a home in Eccles. If the Purgatory Hosts are willing to host the discussion as you have framed it, we will transfer it to that board. For the time being at least, the thread is closed.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Following consultation, we're moving to Purgatory...

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm not at all happy with the use of the word "myth" in the OP to mean "a commonly held but inaccurate belief".

Myths are generally a way of conveying profound insights about life, and they may well include perfectly accurate historical information.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Myth can, surely, be a big idea and / or a big lie. In Eastern Europe, our old friend, the Jewish-Bolshevik-Masonic conspiracy, is still used to explain everything and anything from gay rites, to the pope being an anti-pope really, or the 'bus being late. It is nothing if not a big idea and some French monsignor swears it was all perfectly true and has the minutes to prove it. For all I know, a masonic conspiracy is spying on us all and responding in subtle ways to our posts at this very moment.

But, myths aside, the odd thing, for me, is the notion that the eastern churches equate with the Julian Calendar. Bede and the Celts all had bother over Easter but the Julian Calendar, as such, was alive and kicking in England into 1750-something. OS and NS are a separate issue from the calculation of Easter.

It seems doubtful there is any "common" myth whatsoever about any of this in the first place. It is not going to make it into "the Sun", so the nearest to any common myth about a "Julian calendar" might be to wonder if it had anything to do with Kenneth Williams. So far as more esoteric stuff goes, it certainly is a myth to think the Julian calendar is an uniquely eastern concern.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I haven't heard any of those myths mentioned in the OP.

I have, but on;ly in books about ancient heresies and mediaeval cults and schisms. I don;t think any of it is of the slightest relevance to the Church today, though individuals might get some fun out of finding out about it, in a sort of retrogothick way. In the ladder of scholarship I think arguing about the date of Easter is pretty near the bottom, maybe one step above the SCA, one step below wargames with model soldiers. Mostly harmless, and it doesn't really matter that much. File it with alchemy, illuminated bestiaries (considered as natural history rther than art), the Quest for the Holy Grail, the Knights Templar and the hidden king of Burgundy.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
ken scoffs:
In the ladder of scholarship I think arguing about the date of Easter is pretty near the bottom, maybe one step above the SCA [and church reunion]. Mostly harmless, and it doesn't really matter that much [except for church reunion]. File it with alchemy, illuminated bestiaries [and other things, like church reunion, which don't really matter.]

There. FTFY.

Any Old Calendarists care to comment?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)

Such as the veneration of relics?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)
Such as the veneration of relics?

Sure, why not?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
...and other things, like church reunion, which don't really matter.

If "Church reunion" ever happens on this earth we'll easily fix our problems with the date of Easter. If it doesn't, it won't be the date of Easter that stops it.

And the Old Calendrist schism wasn't fundamentally about dates, any more than the Russian Old Believer schism was about how many fingers you hold up when blessing someone, or the Reformation was about Calvin's dislike of incense and vestments.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I haven't heard any of those myths mentioned in the OP. I was only thought that the East calculated Pascha according to the date of the first full moon after 21 March, just like the West, but the date would be 13 days later for them. Therefore sometimes the two Easters coincide, but they can be up to a month out.

Under current rules, Gregorian and Julian Easter can differ by 0, 1, 4, or 5 weeks. If the 13-day difference in the equinox were the sole source of difference, the 1-week difference (as in 2012) would be impossible.

In fact, besides the 13-day difference in the equinox there is a 4-day (sometimes a 5-day) difference in the age of the moon. It was this lunar discrepancy that caused 2012's 1-week difference. The astronomical moon was full on Friday, April 6th, 2012. The Gregorian moon was full on Saturday, April 7th, so Gregorian Easter was April 8th. The Julian moon, however, was not full until Wednesday, April 11th, so Julian Easter was April 15th.

All of the canards listed above can be found on the web. For the first one, the "first Sunday after Passover" canard, see the comment by "CT" at http://liturgy.co.nz/when-easter/2715 . "CT" writes:

quote:
Being Greek Orthodox, I think our way of reckoning Easter is vastly simpler: The first Sunday following Jewish Passover. Never understood why the Western Church insists on an arcane formula.

For the second canard (Zonaras proviso, weak form) see http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/qt/whyeasterchange.htm where the author states

quote:
additionally, in keeping with the rule established by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Eastern Orthodox Church adhered to the tradition that Easter must always fall after the Jewish Passover.

The word "additionally" implies an extra mathematical rule.

For the third canard (Zonaras proviso, strong form) see http://frmilovan.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/calculating-easter-for-dummies/ where the author's picture implies that "Passover" lasts 9 days (14 Nisan, the Passover strictly so called, + 15-21 Nisan, the scriptural days of Unleavened Bread, + 22 Nisan the extra day traditionally added in the diaspora) and that Easter must be after these nine days, and that this rule is in addition to the equinox-and-moon-and-Sunday rule.

For the fourth canard, see http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-western-orthodox-easter-fall-on.html where you can find the self-contradictory statement

quote:
Some Eastern Orthodox churches not only maintain the date of Easter based on the Julian calendar, they also use the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual vernal equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem.

[ 09. May 2012, 01:47: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
ken said:
But the churches that wrote the NT were not the modern Orthodox or Catholic churches, or even the churches of the ecumenical councils and the Apostolic Fathers, they were the churches of the first century. And the NT is our best - almost our only - evidence as to what those churches were like and what their doctrine and liturgy were.

I assume by "almost only" you are allowing for the Didache and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers? Or would you say that by the time John died the church had lost the thread and left the apostolic path?

ETA: (in response to Kaplan Corday):

Is there any group anywhere that has ever taught that the NT prescribes the celebration of Easter? Or is this just a giant red herring?

[ 09. May 2012, 06:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any group anywhere that has ever taught that the NT prescribes the celebration of Easter?

It is a red herring to talk about the NT prescribing the annual celebration of Easter.

Rather, the NT simply never mentions it, which means that Easter, like so many other things, falls under the category of adiaphora.

The questions of whether, when and how it is celebrated are therefore immaterial.

For what it's worth, I personally enjoy celebrating it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)
Such as the veneration of relics?
Sure, why not?

Because it is sub-Christian, faux-soteriological, superstitious bullshit, permeated by counterfeits, frauds, swindles, thefts and murders?

Or did you mean apart from that?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Leaving aside the Great Schism, the Synod of Whitby and the changes of 1752, the great advantage of the current western way of calculating Easter is that it gets it closer to a full moon. So it is always going to be closer in flavour to the events of Jesus's death and resurrection. For example, on the night of Maundy Thursday a large moon will rise within an hour or so of sunset.

It doesn't quite fit, because, as I understand it, Passover will be on any date of the week 14 days after the New Moon, whereas Good Friday has to be on a Friday and Easter has to be a Sunday. But linking this to an 'ecclesiastical' full moon rather than the real astronomical one, means this will fit in fewer years.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Sorry, just what is it that prompted the OP?

I usually just wait until someone tells me the results of the calculation. Whether the rules for doing so are the same or different to the rules in other centuries (or indeed, in other churches in this century) seems to be an incredibly esoteric point unless you are trying to discern the precise date for a historical purpose.

(The one that leapt to my mind was that the exact date of first performance for many of J.S. Bach's cantatas can be determined partly because of the liturgical calendar.)

But in terms of knowing the date for Easter in 2013 or 2017, I really don't think it matters so long as there IS one. The only real concern with the rules would be if someone announced that there wouldn't be an Easter celebration one year on the grounds that no Sunday met the criteria.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: From what I can gather, the OPer has found errors on the internet. And has never found anyone in real life who shares the same errors.

I find errors on the internet all the time, but it's a little difficult to see how that translates to debating them on the Ship if there's no evidence that anyone on the Ship shares the erroneous views or puts them into practice.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is a red herring to talk about the NT prescribing the annual celebration of Easter.

From which it follows as does the day from the night that it is a red herring to talk about the NT NOT prescribing the annual celebration of Easter.

quote:
Rather, the NT simply never mentions it, which means that Easter, like so many other things, falls under the category of adiaphora.

Only if you are wed to a "Bible-only" methodology and a very low view of the Church.

quote:
The questions of whether, when and how it is celebrated are therefore immaterial.

So on a bible-only, low-church view, anything not in the Bible is immaterial? Really? Are you sure the word you want is immaterial? Or do you mean immaterial vis-a-vis our salvation? If the latter, then you could make a case, at least from your premises. Which as you must know, aren't the only possible set of premises.

[ 09. May 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)
Such as the veneration of relics?
Sure, why not?
Because it is sub-Christian, faux-soteriological, superstitious bullshit, permeated by counterfeits, frauds, swindles, thefts and murders?

Or did you mean apart from that?

Like all those Methodists trekking up to Epworth? Or visiting Wesley's or his mother's grave in City Road? OK, they don't kiss things, but the human urge to get in contact with something or someone near to God is the same.

And even if I don't venerate relics, or persuade anyone else to do so, those who were nearer in time and continuity to the earliest church, saw nothing inconsistent. What was the date of Igantius of Antioch's martyrdom?f

Sorry, off topic. Though I'm at a lost to know what the topic really is.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
If most Christians had almost universally adopted a custom by 300, then either nobody had ever seen any inconsistency with NT religion, or we can accept it as a legitimate development.)
Such as the veneration of relics?
Sure, why not?
Because it is sub-Christian, faux-soteriological, superstitious bullshit, permeated by counterfeits, frauds, swindles, thefts and murders?

Or did you mean apart from that?
Like all those Methodists trekking up to Epworth? Or visiting Wesley's or his mother's grave in City Road? OK, they don't kiss things, but the human urge to get in contact with something or someone near to God is the same.

And even if I don't venerate relics, or persuade anyone else to do so, those who were nearer in time and continuity to the earliest church, saw nothing inconsistent. What was the date of Igantius of Antioch's martyrdom?f

Sorry, off topic. Though I'm at a lost to know what the topic really is.

I found visiting C.S. Lewis's grave at Oxford a moving experience, but I would not have been moved at the prospect of paying money to view his nose or his thyroid gland or one of his testicles in a jewel-encrusted gold reliquary in the shape of the contained organ, as a way of getting some time off Purgatory (and yes, I realise he wasn't a martyr, but you get the point).

As for Ignatius, sure, he was martyred, and his relics harvested, very close to the NT era, but there were plenty of things which went on during the NT era which we would hardly want to emulate, as can be read in books such as Galatians and Corinthians.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
a very low view of the Church.

In these contexts it is confusing to talk about a "low" view of the church if you don't specify whether you are using the word in its popular or its theological sense.

As regards the popular sense, my belief that the church consists of the sum total of the redeemed, both the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in Heaven, and is the eventual Bride of Christ, means that my view of the church could not be higher.

As regards the technical ecclesiological meaning, yes my view is very low, because I don't believe that the episcopacy and clergy have any spiritual status denied to the "laity", or that the sacraments are a vehicle of grace, or that "extra ecclesiam nulla salus".

If you want to celebrate the Orthodox Easter, go nuts and enjoy yourself, just as others are equally free to celebrate it at a different time, or in a different way, or not at all.

[ 10. May 2012, 02:58: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If you want to celebrate the Orthodox Easter, go nuts and enjoy yourself, just as others are equally free to celebrate it at a different time, or in a different way, or not at all.

Thank you. I'm so glad I finally have obtained your permission.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I found visiting C.S. Lewis's grave at Oxford a moving experience, but I would not have been moved at the prospect of paying money to view his nose or his thyroid gland or one of his testicles in a jewel-encrusted gold reliquary in the shape of the contained organ, as a way of getting some time off Purgatory (and yes, I realise he wasn't a martyr, but you get the point).

Money? Purgatory? The suggestion of martyrs only? Reliquaries in the shape of genitals?

You sound like that earth historian from that episode of Dr Who with the space cruise ship Titanic. You know? The one who had no actual experience of earth but had just got a crackpot degree from somewhere, and told the cruise tourists that Good King Wenceslas ruled over Old London Town, that human beings worship a ferocious god called Santa and his wife Mary, and that the UK goes to war every Christmas with a country called Turkey, whose inhabitants we then eat with Brussels sprouts and gravy.

The reality is that the veneration of relics has nothing to do with a non-existent purgatory or the paying of money, and such things never occur to me when I venerate the relics of saints. What unscrupulous people may choose to do is a different matter but I have never encountered this personally. Besides, unscrupulous people will use anything for their ends - not just holy things. It is also not the relics of martyrs alone that are venerated, and while jewel-encrusted, oddly-shaped reliquaries of gold are not unknown and may have been more common in certain times and places in history, far more usual seems to be a wooden, glass-topped casket with the relics laid out (if they are complete), or, in the case of smaller fragments, a simple box of carved wood or perhaps metal, with the relics set into wax.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Besides which, relics do have Scriptural precedents.

2 Kings 13:21

Acts 19:11-12

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I found visiting C.S. Lewis's grave at Oxford a moving experience, but I would not have been moved at the prospect of paying money to view his nose or his thyroid gland or one of his testicles in a jewel-encrusted gold reliquary in the shape of the contained organ, as a way of getting some time off Purgatory (and yes, I realise he wasn't a martyr, but you get the point).
Money? Purgatory? The suggestion of martyrs only? Reliquaries in the shape of genitals?

You sound like that earth historian from that episode of Dr Who with the space cruise ship Titanic. You know? The one who had no actual experience of earth but had just got a crackpot degree from somewhere, and told the cruise tourists that Good King Wenceslas ruled over Old London Town, that human beings worship a ferocious god called Santa and his wife Mary, and that the UK goes to war every Christmas with a country called Turkey, whose inhabitants we then eat with Brussels sprouts and gravy.

The reality is that the veneration of relics has nothing to do with a non-existent purgatory or the paying of money, and such things never occur to me when I venerate the relics of saints. What unscrupulous people may choose to do is a different matter but I have never encountered this personally. Besides, unscrupulous people will use anything for their ends - not just holy things. It is also not the relics of martyrs alone that are venerated, and while jewel-encrusted, oddly-shaped reliquaries of gold are not unknown and may have been more common in certain times and places in history, far more usual seems to be a wooden, glass-topped casket with the relics laid out (if they are complete), or, in the case of smaller fragments, a simple box of carved wood or perhaps metal, with the relics set into wax.

First, there have been reliquaries in the shape of a number of body parts, including hands, feet and heads.

Secondly, a whole group of relics, ie the various Holy Prepuces, have consisted of genital parts.

They might not have made foreskin-shaped containers for them - that would have been grotesque - but Catherine of Siena dreamed of wearing one of them as a wedding ring, which is far more normal.

Thirdly, while the exploitation of C.S. Lewis's remains was fairly unlikely, dying as he did four hundred years to the year after Trent, there was indeed a flourishing mediaeval ecclesiastical industry in relics, paying to see them, and being promised remission of time in purgatory for having viewed them.

There is an accessible, entertaining yet historically factual description of this racket in Roland Bainton's classic biography of Luther, Here I Stand.

[ 10. May 2012, 11:16: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A fair call on medieval Western practices, Kaplan, not quite so sure how it applies to the Eastern Churches which don't believe in Purgatory and so on.

That's not to say that the Orthodox don't have some pretty odd practices - from a Protestant POV - when it comes to relics and so on. I've got a scrap of cloth somewhere in a waxed paper cover with an icon of Christ on the front that a convert to Orthodoxy gave me following a trip to Greece. He told me it was a piece of cloth from the cloak of an 11th century Saint. You didn't need to be an archaeologist or subject it to carbon dating to tell at a glance that it was of modern manufacture.

I've mentioned this to some Orthodox priests and they've chuckled to themselves ... they know that the man was gulled just as much as I do.

But then, I've also had very sane and sensible Orthodox priests tell me that they've seen myrrh-streaming icons in Russia or Greece and lots of other wierd things besides ... [Eek!]

Of course, we all know that the early Church was Protestant and just like the Plymouth Brethren and so knew better ... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, we all know that the early Church was Protestant and just like the Plymouth Brethren and so knew better ...

Wicked heresy. The Church of England as by law established, the Book of Homilies and its worship in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer are that truest and most faithful Comformitie with the Primitiff Church and an odour moste pleasing to Allmighty Godde.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

As regards the popular sense, my belief that the church consists of the sum total of the redeemed, both the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in Heaven, and is the eventual Bride of Christ, means that my view of the church could not be higher.

Precisely.

Which is why when any individual church or denomination claims to be the only true Church on Earth, they immediately invalidate themselves. Its an oxymoron. The claim disproves itself. The sentence "We are the Holy Church and anyone not a member of our organisation is not a member of the Church eternal" is self-contradictory.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Unless you are RC or Orthodox ...

Then it makes sense.

But both bodies would accept the possibility of the rest of us being included in the final tally, as it were.

That's not the issue, if I understand them correctly. The issue for them is that the rest of us aren't necessarily part of the ChurchTM as it is now, not as it will be.

'We can say where the Church is, but not where it isn't,' and so on.

As a Proddy, then my ecclesiology is similar to Kaplan's, of course. But there are difficulties with it - as indeed there are difficulties with the RC and Orthodox approaches. Both of them would accept that 'not all Israel are Israel' and that there are people beyond the bounds of their own communion - and possibly even the Christian faith itself - who will be in that number when the Saints go marching in.

It'll all come out in the wash.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

While we're on this tangent, and sorry to double-post, but it's struck me on visits to synagogues that we can find echoes of all three main divisions of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox - within what I've seen of Judaism.

The rabbinical function is very reminiscent of non-conformist clergy, it seems to be, with the Rabbi performing a similar role to that of a Baptist or other Free Church pastor ie. he's part of the congregation only has a particular function.

The worship itself is very liturgical with set prayers and so on (even prayers for the dead at special midweek meetings) and the way people seem to come and go and wander in and out at will is reminiscent of Eastern Orthodoxy. The way the scrolls and the Torah are venerated is very reminiscent of the way RCs and Orthodox venerate icons and the cross etc.

There's a sense of 'family' ritual about the whole thing.

I'm not saying that any one strand of Christendom is closer to the Jewish model (from which we all derive) than any other, just noting some interesting echoes and similarities. Of course, neither contemporary Judaism and contemporary Christianity - of whatever stripe - is an exact match for what went on in the first century, but the seeds of what we all get up are found there.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If "Church reunion" ever happens on this earth we'll easily fix our problems with the date of Easter.

I'm not sure why church reunion gets scare quotes, but some of us earnestly pray for it. Scoff all you like about a common date for Pascha.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Besides which, relics do have Scriptural precedents.

2 Kings 13:21

Acts 19:11-12

Not to mention the ark of the covenant. [Cool]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Of course, we all know that the early Church was Protestant and just like the Plymouth Brethren and so knew better ...

Not quite, because they didn't yet have The Believers (that's right, no apostrophe)Hymn Book.

Its later advent is an example of progressive revelation, or what Newman called the Development of Doctrine.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Besides which, relics do have Scriptural precedents.

2 Kings 13:21

Acts 19:11-12

Anyone who tried to erect a theology of relics on the foundation of those two passages would earn full marks for ingenuity, but a fail in Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101.

[ 11. May 2012, 09:24: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm not sure why church reunion gets scare quotes

Because the phrase "church reunion" seemed to be referring to some preconcieved model of reunion between just two connexions of churches, neither of which would recognise the vast majority of churches as churches.

quote:

...but some of us earnestly pray for it.

Of course. But also recognising that the unity of the Church is in Christ, not in our earthly organisations. And that no earthly organisation is co-terminous with teh Church on Earth. And that pretending to be is one of the man barriers - probably the main barrier - to visible unity.

quote:

Scoff all you like about a common date for Pascha.

Scoff? I was right and you know it. Reunited churches would agree on a date. Divided churches wouldn't reunite even if they did agree on a date. The original reason for the schisms was nothing to do with dates. The OP is fun in a sort of geeky way but its not about anything very important to church unity.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm not sure why church reunion gets scare quotes
Because the phrase "church reunion" seemed to be referring to some preconcieved model of reunion between just two connexions of churches, neither of which would recognise the vast majority of churches as churches.

Well, you have to start somewhere.

The vast majority of churches have infinitely little chance of ever reuniting with other churches within even their own flavor of Protestantism. I can't imagine reunion between all the pentecostal churches, for example.

(Oh, and the obvious response to your shot at the Catholic and Orthodox is that the vast majority of Protestants don't consider them to be Churches either. Hell many Protestants don't consider other protestants to be saved, or part of the church, or whatever.)

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Besides which, relics do have Scriptural precedents.

2 Kings 13:21

Acts 19:11-12
Anyone who tried to erect a theology of relics on the foundation of those two passages would earn full marks for ingenuity, but a fail in Hermeneutics and Exegesis 101.

There's also the ark of the covenant, as I mentioned. Also, the theology of relics was developed in a church that was not constrained with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Relics were given respect and a place in the church after it was observed than they facilitated the working of God.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I think Easter should be observed at Passover.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think Easter should be observed at Passover.

So did the early Quartodecimans, but the practice seems to have been dropped because of anti-Semitism ie we're not going to have those Jews relling us when to celebrate Easter.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Big Grin]

Well, if Newman's progressive revelation is going to give you the Believers Hymnbook (funny, because I'm sure they used Redemption Hymnal in the Brethren assembly I knew best, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks) then surely it can graciously grant Irish Lord, Michael Astley and others of a more 'Catholick' and Orthodox persuasion to develop a theology of relics based on the verses that have already been cited.

Thinking about it, none of that sounds any more bizarre than the dispensationalist Schofield style hermeneutics I heard in the Brethren assemblies back in the day.

And a theology of relics needn't imply Purgatory, indulgences and sharp-practice - although I will grant that they can open people up to that sort of thing and much more besides.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think Easter should be observed at Passover.
So did the early Quartodecimans, but the practice seems to have been dropped because of anti-Semitism ie we're not going to have those Jews relling us when to celebrate Easter.

Indeed.
The arguments over Easter would all disappear if Good Friday was always the same week as Passover - as of course, it should be.

"For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. - even though we're deliberately and artificially two weeks early/late..."

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
While we're on this tangent, and sorry to double-post, but it's struck me on visits to synagogues that we can find echoes of all three main divisions of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox - within what I've seen of Judaism.

The rabbinical function is very reminiscent of non-conformist clergy, it seems to be, with the Rabbi performing a similar role to that of a Baptist or other Free Church pastor ie. he's part of the congregation only has a particular function.

The worship itself is very liturgical with set prayers and so on (even prayers for the dead at special midweek meetings) and the way people seem to come and go and wander in and out at will is reminiscent of Eastern Orthodoxy. The way the scrolls and the Torah are venerated is very reminiscent of the way RCs and Orthodox venerate icons and the cross etc.

There's a sense of 'family' ritual about the whole thing.

I'm not saying that any one strand of Christendom is closer to the Jewish model (from which we all derive) than any other, just noting some interesting echoes and similarities. Of course, neither contemporary Judaism and contemporary Christianity - of whatever stripe - is an exact match for what went on in the first century, but the seeds of what we all get up are found there.

Curiously, many years ago a Jewish family I knew well said that from outside Orthodoxy looked more like their own way of doing things than the version of the CofE they had encountered at school in the 1930s or 1950s, depending on generation.

It does though strike me that it is at least possible that synagogues may themselves have been influenced by what surrounded them in C17-19 western Russia.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Speaking of relics, I keep on my desk as a memento mori a small plastic skull.

Not sure whether it came from a small plastic saint.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think Easter should be observed at Passover.
So did the early Quartodecimans, but the practice seems to have been dropped because of anti-Semitism ie we're not going to have those Jews relling us when to celebrate Easter.

My own hunch is that the original practice (if there was a single "original" practice for Easter, and not a variety of practices from the start) was to have Easter on the Sunday of Unleavened Bread. Quartodecimanism looks like a somewhat contrived, "made up" practice by contrast.

Some scholars think that the Quartodeciman practice was to fast on 14 Nisan and break the fast in the small hours of the 15th. I don't know what they base this on. In Eusebius's description, the Quartodecimans clearly describe their practice as ending the Lenten fast on "the day the people [i.e. Jews] put away the leaven," and clearly state that the 14th (not the 15th) of the lunar month is the beginning of the festival. (Church History 5.24.) The leaven is put away on the 14th. The Mishnah (Pesachim 1.1) describes the search for leaven as beginning at sunset on the 13/14 of Nisan. This suggests that the Quartodecimans began their celebration on the night of the 13/14 Nisan, when their Jewish neighbors (if they followed rules like those described in the Mishnah) were beginning their search for the leaven; and that the Quartodecimans continued their merrymaking into the hours of daylight, when some Jews would fast in the afternoon until sunset. (For the custom of fasting on the afternoon of the 14th, see Mishnah Pesachim 10.1). Perhaps the Quartodeciman practice was motivated by 1 Corinthians 5.7-8, in which "celebrating the festival" is connected with "cleansing out the old leaven."

Besides this, Quartodecimanism is only attested in western Asia Minor, and in Asian "stranger churches" in Rome. It is not attested in Syrian, Palestinian, or Mesopotamian Christianity, in the places where (as I read the history) Jewish influence was strongest. But maybe someone on-list knows of sources I know not of, that might bear a different interpretation.

As it happens, the Gregorian Easter is very often on the Sunday of Unleavened Bread anyhow. This early practice was abandoned in the 3rd-4th centuries because the Jewish calendars of that time often placed the Week of Unleavened Bread before the spring equinox. The Christians, however, had a memory of an earlier practice, in which the Easter festival always came after the equinox. So some of the churches began experimenting with independent computations.

In the following centuries, Rabbinic Judaism developed the calendar it now uses. This present-day Rabbinic calendar has always set the Week of Unleavened Bread, or most of it, after the equinox. If it had been adopted by most Jewish communities before around A.D. 210, the Christian move to independent computations might never have happened. But this is not how things went. Instead, the Rabbinic calendar seems to have been developed over a long period from the later 4th to the early 9th century. (A late Jewish tradition attributes the present-day Rabbinic calendar to one "Patriarch Hillel II" in the year corresponding to A.D. 359. But this tradition is wrong.)

However, the Rabbinic calendar, like the Julian, has a solar drift, though the Rabbinic calendar's is much slower than the Julian's. This is why, in years 3, 11, and 14 of our 19-year cycle, Rabbinic Matzoth is in the lunar month after Gregorian Easter-month. The Rabbinic calendar's lunar month is very accurate, but its implied solar year has drifted; it now has an implied equinox of around 24-25 March. If we were to adopt the Rabbinic calendar for Easter now, our Easter too would slowly drift summerward.

For now, we are in a sweet spot in which we often celebrate on the Sunday of Unleavened Bread, just as some early Christians did, despite the differences between our lunar calendar and the Rabbinic. In the table above, the only years in which Gregorian Easter does not fall within the 7 scriptural days of Unleavened Bread are 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2016. We should enjoy this state of affairs while it lasts, but don't think we should go on the Rabbinic calendar until our Jewish brethren first adopt some scheme for "rectifying" their calendar and eliminating the solar drift.

Slightly off topic, but possibly of interest: This year, 2012, the Samaritan Passover sacrifice was offered on Mt. Gerizim on the afternoon of Friday, May 4th.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Scoff all you like about a common date for Pascha.

Although a common date for Pascha would I think certainly preferable, I don't think observing one calendar is necessarily a prerequisite for unity. Within the Orthodox world there are three systems for observing feasts. In the Catholic communion of churches there are at least two. Interestingly, the Latin Church in the Holy Land has decided to return to the old method as reported here.

The most important question to ask oneself as we all know is "what was the calendar of 19th century Russia?"

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Small plastic Saints? Can I have one? I've heard of plaster ones, but not plastic ones ...

Although some sections of the megachurch side of things look pretty plastic to me ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

First, I think we all owe Mockingbird a standing round of applause for his most unlikely thread attaining a second page. Well done, sir! You are an inspiration to geeks everywhere. [Does anyone know how things turned out with that astrology company exerting copyrights over the timezone database?]

Second, we know that ken is beyond reach, but surely you, Alt Wally, must know that unity can only be achieved when formerly discordant bishops can get together to do their thing at the divine liturgy. I don't think that can happen without a common calendar.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Well yes, but I think the will to get together is likely to precede the common calendar rather than vice versa which is how I interpreted ken's post upthread.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Does anyone happen to know whether Protestants in Russia, e.g. Baptists, follow the same calendar as the Orthodox church or the western one Protestants follow in Western Europe?

For some years I've been trying to find out whether prior to 1752 in England, Easter and the rest of the Christian year would have fallen on the same day as it does in the Orthodox calendar or a different one. And also, whether English recusants celebrated Easter on the same day as their Protestant neighbours or on the day Roman Catholics on the continent celebrated it. Nobody seems to know.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For some years I've been trying to find out whether prior to 1752 in England, Easter and the rest of the Christian year would have fallen on the same day as it does in the Orthodox calendar or a different one.

If you go here: 1717 print of 1662 BCP and click on the "Front matter" PDF (which is large) you will find several pages down a table "To find Easter for ever." This is a table of 19 rows and 7 columns. The earliest of all the 7 dates in each row is the 15th of the Paschal lunar month for that year. One day before the 15th is, obviously, the 14th--the traditional Paschal Full Moon (PFM). The 19 PFMs so abstracted are:

code:

Year
of Cycle	PFM from 1717 print of 1662 BCP
---------	------
1		April 5
2		March 25
3		April 13
4		April 2
5		March 22
6		April 10
7		March 30
8		April 18
9		April 7
10		March 27
11		April 15
12		April 4
13		March 24
14		April 12
15		April 1
16		March 21
17		April 9
18		March 29
19		April 17

These PFMs agree with those of the Julian cycle used most of the present-day Eastern Orthodox churches. (The only exception I know of is the Orthodox churh of Finland, which uses the Gregorian Easter cycle. But there may be others. The Julian computus is used also by most Oriental Orthodox churches. The only exceptions known to me are two Malankara Syriac churches of India, which use the Gregorian Easter cycle. But there may be others. ) So it looks as though the answer to Enoch's question is, "English Easter before 1753 agreed with Greek and Russian Easter."

Where the Armenian church uses the old calendar (as in Jerusalem), its 1st-year's PFM is April 6th, not April 5th, reflecting an earlier stage of the cycle's development. This means that the Armenian old-calendar Easter differs from Greek Easter in 4 years out of 532. The last such occasion was in 1824. The next will be in 2071. In 1824 the Armenians in Jerusalem agreed to celebrate on the same day as the Greeks. Maybe a few of us will live to see what happens in 2071.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And also, whether English recusants celebrated Easter on the same day as their Protestant neighbours or on the day Roman Catholics on the continent celebrated it. Nobody seems to know.

I wonder the same. I'll try to find out.

[ 13. May 2012, 23:46: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Mockingbird, not entirely unrelated to this topic, Wednesday 29 February occurred in this leap year of 2012, but it did not coincide with Ash Wednesday, which will not happen again until 2096. In a year when Ash Wednesday falls on the last day of February makes the date of Easter 15 April.

When did Ash Wednesday last fall on 29 February, be it in the Julian Calendar or in the Gregorian Calender? It must have happened sometime, even if it was many centuries ago, but according to one source of information - Ash Wednesday has never yet fallen on 29 February. Thus, on my own, I concluded that it happened so long ago that it ceased to be a point of academic interest.

What do you make of that?

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Mockingbird, not entirely unrelated to this topic, Wednesday 29 February occurred in this leap year of 2012, but it did not coincide with Ash Wednesday, which will not happen again until 2096. In a year when Ash Wednesday falls on the last day of February makes the date of Easter 15 April.

When did Ash Wednesday last fall on 29 February, be it in the Julian Calendar or in the Gregorian Calender? It must have happened sometime, even if it was many centuries ago, but according to one source of information - Ash Wednesday has never yet fallen on 29 February. Thus, on my own, I concluded that it happened so long ago that it ceased to be a point of academic interest.

What do you make of that?

Easter on April 15th in a bissextile year of the Julian calendar occurs when a year with Golden Number 3, 6, 14, or 17 coincides with the 17th year of the 28-year solar cycle. The 17th year is a bissextile year that starts on January 1st. By my computation, this happened in 1688 Julian and 1772 Julian, and it should happen every 532 years after each of these dates. There may be other years in the past which fit the criteria, but these are the first two I found.

As you probably know already, the date we call "February 29th" is not always so-called in historical documents, for the bissextile day was sometimes considered a repeat of February 24th. (There was a dispute about whether the 1st or the 2nd February 24th was the extra day. The celebration of St. Matthias's Day, for some, depends on the answer.) So our February 29th would have been called "February 28th" by those who counted two February 24ths. In any case, in Latin it would have been Pridie Kal. Mart., "the day before the Kalends of March," equivalent to the locution "last day of February" that you used in your post above. Hereafter I will use "the last day of February in a bissextile year" or some roughly equivalent locution to refer to the date.

In the Gregorian calendar, Easter is on April 15th in years with Sunday Letter G and Epact 29, 30(=0, sometimes written "*") or 1 through 5. In the period 1900-2199 these are the years with Golden Numbers 1, 4, 7, 12, and 15. The year 2096, which you mention, is bissextile with Sunday Letter A in January/February and G starting in March. So everything lines up, and that year is a bissextile year which will have Ash-Wednesday on the last day of February.

However, as you yourself know well, one can't simply add 532 years to get the next such date in this line, because of the centurial years that are not bissextile in the Gregorian calendar. So if we call the year 2096 the 17th year of the 28-year solar cycle, then 2099 is the 20th year, 2100 is an anomalous year, and 2101 is the 10th year of the next solar cycle. In a manner of speaking, seventeen years of the 28-year solar cycle are replaced by the single anomalous common year 2100.

Anyhow, for 2100-2199 as for 1900-2099, Easter will be April 15 when the Sunday Letter at Easter-time is G and the year has Golden Number 1, 4, 7, 12, or 15. If any such year is bissextile with Sunday Letters A/G, then by my reckoning it should be one of the years you are seeking.

In 2200-2299 (and 2400-2499) the years which will have Easter on April 15th when the Eastertide Sunday Letter is G will have Golden Number 4, 7, 12, 15, or 18. If a bissextile year with Sunday Letters A/G lines up with one of these, then it should be one of the years you are looking for. In 2300-2399 the years which will have an April 15 Easter when the Sunday Letter at Easter-time is G will have Golden Numbers 4, 7, 15, and 18.

[ 16. May 2012, 04:14: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

Update: Found the other two lines of dates for the Julian calendar: the years 1856 and 1940, and all years that are reached from these by adding or subtracting multiples of 532 years. The year 1940 is in the line for Golden Number 3. The year 1772 is in the line for Golden Number 6. The year 1856 is in the line for Golden Number 14, and the year 1688 is in the line for Golden Number 17. In Modular arithmetic 17+8 = 6 mod 19, 6 + 8 = 14, 14 + 8 = 3 mod 19, so we get 17->6->14->3 in intervals of 84 years. Then I think (but I'm still checking--maybe I've overlooked something) the cycle won't re-start until 280 years have passed and one reaches the year 1688+532=2220, followed by 2304, 2388, and 2472.

[ 16. May 2012, 05:09: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

Many thanks for your detailed response Mockingbird, which I am studying.

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Unity can only be achieved when formerly discordant bishops can get together to do their thing at the divine liturgy. I don't think that can happen without a common calendar.

A common calendar would certainly make things easier. Indeed for some (such as myself) the calendar issue is an obstacle to unity: one of my several reasons for not joining the EOs is their use of a calendar that would force me to pretend that the moon is not full when my own eyes can see in the sky that she is.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Speaking of relics, I keep on my desk as a memento mori a small plastic skull.

Not sure whether it came from a small plastic saint.

Perhaps a plastic prayer to a plastic deity could elicit a suitable answer?
[Snigger]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0