Talk:Revised Julian calendar
![]() | Christianity: Eastern O. B‑class | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Time C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
there are other orthodox churches, such as the ASSYRIAN, the SYRIAC,& THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES who are also using the Julian calendars (both original and revised)--69.194.255.150 22:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC). The ASSYRIAN, the SYRIAC,& THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES are not Eastern Orthodox but Non-Chalcedonian (They are considered Heretic Churches by Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian
- _ _ ... despite Eastern Orthodox calendar redirecting here. I'm creating a Dab to remedy that, and those who know more will want to fix it.
- _ _ I came here pursuing the idea that Christmas
- ... is ... observed in much of the world on 25 December, or on 7 January in most Eastern Orthodox Churches
- suggests that EO would say
- I believe Christmas is Jan 7
- contrary to my impression that they would say
- Christmas is Dec 25, but most of the world uses a bad calendar and therefore celebrates it a couple of weeks early
- _ _ Even if this article were on the Julian calendar it would have been indecently inaccessible. The statement
- the two calendars will first differ in 2800
- is buried inside an incredibly legalism- and math-ridden article, and that is the one that i needed to tell me that this article is totally worthless for what i came here for, which is rewording the Xmas article.
--Jerzy•t 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Moveable feasts and the date of Easter
I'm unclear about this point:
- Liturgical objections to the New Calendar stem from the fact that it adjusts only those liturgical celebrations that occur on fixed calendar dates, leaving all of the commemorations on the moveable cycle on the original Julian Calendar.
Computus#Julian_calendar gives more detail:
- The method for computing the date of the ecclesiastic Full Moon that was standard for the Latin (Catholic) church before the Gregorian calendar reform, and is still used today by Eastern Christians, made use of an uncorrected repetition of the 19-year Metonic cycle in combination with the Julian calendar. ... In this case, the epact was counted on 22 March, the earliest acceptable date for Easter.
- Putting these two statements together, is the following correct?
- that the epact in both JC and RJC is 22 March JC, i.e. 4 April RJC
- And that the moveable feasts are, on average, 13 days later in the year relative to fixed feasts
- Assuming this is correct, one obvious question is: why was the epact of Easter not moved from 22 March JC to 22 March RJC as part of the change?
- Was it because the proposal to switch Easter to an astronomical calculation was the only one considered, and once that was rejected no backup plan was thought of?
- Or was the idea consciously rejected for some pragmatic or theological reasons?
jnestorius(talk) 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Revised Julian calendar does not now and never had an epact, even in its rejected astronomical form, to place on 22 March or any other date. An astronomical Easter using instants for the vernal equinox and for the full moon does not need an epact to determine Easter. Only if the vernal equinox and the full moon are whole days is an epact necessary. It is the Julian calendar, which does use whole days for all of these parameters, that has an epact on 22 March, which is never converted into a Revised Julian calendar date or even into a Gregorian calendar date. Eastern Christians use the Julian calendar, not the Revised Julian calendar, to calculate Easter. The Julian Easter was never incorporated into the Revised Julian calendar. Thus some Eastern Orthodox churches use both the Revised Julian calendar (for fixed feasts) and the Julian calendar (for movable feasts). No country uses either calendar—all countries in Eastern Europe use the Gregorian calendar as their official and legal calendar.
- Because only a few churches use the Revised Julian calendar whereas almost all Eastern Orthodox churches use the Julian Easter, it is more appropriate to regard the latter as the reference. When both the Revised Julian fixed dates and Julian movable dates are converted into the Gregorian calendar, the fixed dates are a few days earlier than the range of movable dates. Thus the fixed feasts will be 13 days earlier than the movable dates only until 2099. Beginning in 2100 they will be 14 days earlier, in 2200 15 days earlier, etc. — Joe Kress 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Joe. I think this is a question of my misunderstanding the terminology rather than the calculations. My previous interpretation was something like:
- "The Roman Catholic Church uses the Gregorian Calendar"
- "The Greek Orthodox Church uses the Revised Julian Calendar"
- "The Russian Orthodox Church uses the Julian Calendar"
- So you're saying "Revised Julian Calendar" refers to both parts of the 1923 proposal: the Easter date calculation (never adopted) and the general date calculation (adopted by some churches).
- Thanks, Joe. I think this is a question of my misunderstanding the terminology rather than the calculations. My previous interpretation was something like:
- "Calendar" as I was interpeting it above seems to encompass a mixture of liturgical year and calendar. Whatever this may be called, it consists of:
- a method of calculating the date
- an assignment of fixed feasts to particular dates
- a method of calculating the date of Easter
- an assignment of moveable feasts to particular offsets from Easter
- Then we have:
- "Calendar" as I was interpeting it above seems to encompass a mixture of liturgical year and calendar. Whatever this may be called, it consists of:
Church date calc fixed feasts Easter epact Easter formula moveable feasts Roman Catholic Church Gregorian Roman Catholic calendar of saints March 22 New Style Gregorian computus RC moveable feasts Finnish Orthodox Church Gregorian Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar March 22 New Style Gregorian computus Paschal Cycle (1923 synod proposal) Revised Julian Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar K.A. Astronomical Paschal Cycle Greek Orthodox Church Revised Julian Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar March 22 Old Style Dionysian computus Paschal Cycle Russian Orthodox Church Julian Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar March 22 Old Style Dionysian computus Paschal Cycle
- If and when this table is accurate, I think it would be a useful addition to this article, or liturgical year, or some other related article; the current text is a bit tricky to get one's head around, at least if my experience is typical. jnestorius(talk) 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your interpretation corresponds with my interpretation. However, the terminology and rhetoric used by the various Orthodox churches is quite ambiguous. Indeed, some Orthodox bishops have complained that the words used by the various Orthodox churches when they adopted the Revised Julian calendar could mean that they actually adopted the Gregorian calendar for their fixed feasts. The problem is that both calendars produce the same dates for fixed feasts until 2800. The use of the term new calendar (added by another editor) is a prime example. Does that mean the Revised Julian calendar created in 1923 or does it mean the Gregorian calendar adopted by Greece in the same year, 1923? Furthermore, various authoritative sources state that the country of Greece adopted the Gregorian calendar anywhere between 1916 and 1924. Without access to a copy of the actual decree, I have ignored early adoption years, and think that 1924 is the year that the Greek Orthodox Church adopted the Revised Julian calendar. I should mention that I generally ignore any discussion of liturgy and how feasts are celebrated—my interest lies in the technical aspects of the various calendars. — Joe Kress 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Revised Julian error-graph/users
Does anyone know if there is a graph representing the difference between the true seasons and the revised julian calendar like this[1] for the Gregorian calendar? Also any numbers on how many people use this calendar? Crd721 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- A graph of the vernal equinox (rather than the winter solstice) relative to the Revised Julian calendar is here (#3 on this page). However, the Revised Julian calendar uses the mean tropical year as its benchmark, not the vernal equinox nor any other solstice or equinox. The mean tropical year is the average of all solsticial and equinoctial years so it is the average of all curves on this page (#6 on this page). The average year of the Revised Julian calendar is in light gray. The mean tropical year in terms of mean solar days appears to be getting shorter because the length of the mean solar day is getting longer due to tidal friction. Thus the number of those days in the relatively constant mean tropical year decreases over time. When Milankovitch devised his rule the mean solar day was thought to be constant.
- Although more autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox churches use the Revised Julian calendar than use the old Julian calendar, their total population is dwarfed by the population of the Russian Orthodox Church alone (255,000,000 worldwide), let alone the few others who still use the old Julian calendar. From the limited population figures I've found, my guess is that about 50,000,000 use the Revised Julian calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Vernal equinox year?
- However, the vernal equinox year is slightly longer [than the tropical year, by context ], so for a few thousand years the Revised Julian calendar does a slightly worse job the Gregorian calendar at keeping the vernal equinox on or close to March 21.
What is this supposed to mean? The tropical year is measured from vernal equinow to vernal equinox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The word slightly is the keyword. Note:
- Vernal equinox year: 365.242375 days
- RJC average year: 365.242222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 days
- GC average year: 365.2425 days
- Average of 2 averages years: 365.2423611111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 days
So the word "slightly" makes sense. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- So what is the meaning of vernal equinox year, which can differ from the tropical year of 365.242199 days? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- The vernal equinox year (365.242374 days) is the time between vernal equinoxes. In contrast, the mean tropical year (365.242190 days) is the average of all tropical years, including the vernal equinox year (365.242374 days), the summer solstice year (365.241626 days), the autumnal equinox year (365.242018 days), the winter solstice year (365.242740 days), and all those in between these four. The vernal equinox year is a little closer to the mean Gregorian year (365.242500 days) than it is to the mean Revised Julian calendar year (365.242222 days), hence the Gregorian calendar is slightly better than is the Revised Julian calendar at keeping the vernal equinox near March 21. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. I see that is only a temporary statement, true for the next few millennia, since the vernal equinox year varies with the perihelion. Since the RJ calendar has a cycle of 6,300 years, this seems less than material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The vernal equinox year (365.242374 days) is the time between vernal equinoxes. In contrast, the mean tropical year (365.242190 days) is the average of all tropical years, including the vernal equinox year (365.242374 days), the summer solstice year (365.241626 days), the autumnal equinox year (365.242018 days), the winter solstice year (365.242740 days), and all those in between these four. The vernal equinox year is a little closer to the mean Gregorian year (365.242500 days) than it is to the mean Revised Julian calendar year (365.242222 days), hence the Gregorian calendar is slightly better than is the Revised Julian calendar at keeping the vernal equinox near March 21. — Joe Kress (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Tone and style of article
This article reads like a debate on a discussion board. It needs some serious work. Kaldari (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would be happy if the Criticism and Defense sections were deleted. Both are relatively unsourced, amounting to original research. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Zeller's congruence
Is there a variant of Zeller's congruence available for the Revised Julian calendar, and if so how can we source it for putting it in? It would be straightforward to work it out, but that would be original research and banned - even though the actual result would be no different from one found elsewhere. PMLawrence (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to change article name
It is proposed to change the name of this article to "New calendar (Eastern churches)".
Reasons:
1. Eastern churches do not use the name "Revised Julian calendar". Like Protestants they use the Gregorian calendar but call it the New calendar. This is how the calendar is described in the 1751 legislation introducing it in Great Britain and her then colonies.
2. Nobody, asked if they were using the "Revised Julian Calendar" (i.e. the Gregorian calendar) would have the faintest idea what the questioner was talking about.
3. It is better that calendar articles use the same terminology as people in the countries which use the calendars. That way they will have a better chance of locating the article when they search the database.
PLEASE VOTE HERE. 62.31.226.77 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. There is already a redirect from "New Calendar" to this page. No changes in the name of the page should be made until reliable English-language sources are provided to show what English-speaking members of the Orthodox churches call the two calendars of interest. The first calendar of interest is the one proposed in 1923, which has the same calendar dates and same leap years as the Gregorian until 2800, but uses the astronomical position of the equinox and moon to calculate Easter. The second calendar of interest is just like the first one as far as leap years go, but uses the traditional Julian-calendar based method to compute the date of Easter. The second calendar of interest is the one actually used by some Orthodox churches. This article should be revised to clarify and provide sources for the actual Easter dating practices of the Orthodox churches, but we don't have enough information to decide if the name of the article should change. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I vote no. A re-direct exists from New Calendar already.Michael of Houston 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. If you go to the website [2] you will find a list of articles to download, all of which make frequent reference to the New calendar but none whatsoever to the "Revised Julian calendar". 62.31.226.77 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- That site describes says
But the calendar described in the article has a different leap year rule from the Gregorian calendar, so it is not clear the same calendar is being described. The site clearly favors the Julian calendar, so more sources should be found to obtain a balanced view. Also, the site is under the control of the webmaster, Patrick Barnes, and might be considered a self-published source as described in WP:SELF. Sometimes self-published sources are reliable, but they must be used with greater caution than sources from established publishers. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)The Orthodox Church is internally divided over the issue of the Church calendar. A minority of Orthodox churches worldwide, beginning in 1923, decided to follow the so-called "New" (Gregorian) Calendar. This is the same calendar used by the Roman Catholics and Protestants, except for the period of Great Lent and Pascha (known as the Paschalion).
- Of note: Barnes' website orthodoxinfo.com while self-published contains electronic copies of material written by various Orthodox authors and publications. His website is a depository for such articles, not just his own.Michael of Houston 11:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is the same calendar in the sense that the date is the same. It is not the same calendar in the sense that the date will be different after 28 February, 2800. Whatever, the word "Julian" links it with the Julian calendar which is thirteen days behind. So IMHO the reference to Julian only confuses and should be removed altogether. The title should be changed to "Meletian calendar" with redirects from "New calendar" and "Revised Julian calendar". The issue of which rules are used for calculating the date of Easter isn't really relevant. Taking the Gregorian calendar as an example, when German states moved from the Julian calendar in 1700 they adopted the Gregorian calendar, although for the first seventy years or so they used astronomical methods for calculating the date of Easter. All Orthodox churches (with very few exceptions) use the Julian calendar to calculate the date of Easter. To talk about them using a "Revised Julian calendar" is simply wrong.Vote (X) for Change (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Since I called the ballot, I have found that the new calendar already has a name - the Meletian calendar. I'm changing my vote to support that as the new name. Apologies for the confusion - I'm extending the voting period indefinitely. Read the background information before making up your mind. World Council of Churches: Frequently asked questions about the date of Easter (31 January, 2007) available at [3]. There is a mistake in this document - there is a common Easter date many times between 2017 and 2034. Miletian (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. I am Eastern Orthodox Serb and I know this calendar under the name Revised Julian calendar. It is not true that Eastern churches do not use this name, as it is stated in the proposition. And, I never heard the term "Meletian calendar" in my whole life. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- No. I note that "Revised Julian Calendar" has 3,580 ghits, including 9 on the official website of the Orthodox Church in America (www.oca.org). It seems that the OCA at least prefers that name. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (goarch.org) seems to just use "new calendar". "Meletian Calendar" has only 94 ghits. Most appear to be pejorative uses by opponents of the calendar; I can find no example of it being used as the preferred name by an adherent. Mrhsj (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to back your claim that only people who oppose the Meletian calendar use the name? The World Council of Churches (an impartial body) uses it - see link number [3] on this board. Use of the term "Revised" Julian calendar fuels misunderstanding because, as Fr George Lardas points out in On the question of the Revised Julian calendar, (available here [4]) the Gregorian calendar is also a "Revised" Julian calendar. 188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- (1) I did not say that "only people who oppose the Meletian calendar use the name." Perhaps you could read what I actually wrote? It wasn't that complicated. (2) Yes I read your WCC link. (3) It doesn't matter if people think RJC is a confusing name. The point is that at least one established local Orthodox Church does in fact use that as the name of the calendar, whereas none uses "Meletian Calendar". Mrhsj (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can you provide links to back your claim that only people who oppose the Meletian calendar use the name? The World Council of Churches (an impartial body) uses it - see link number [3] on this board. Use of the term "Revised" Julian calendar fuels misunderstanding because, as Fr George Lardas points out in On the question of the Revised Julian calendar, (available here [4]) the Gregorian calendar is also a "Revised" Julian calendar. 188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- It appears from what you say that one parish uses "Revised" Julian calendar, most parishes
use "new calendar" and many people, not necessarily Orthodox, including the World Council of Churches, use Meletian calendar. If you want your vote to be counted you have to follow the voting rules clearly set out on the individual churches' talk pages. This is not a simple yes or no vote. You are voting for one of four options. The options are
- Option 1 - Meletian calendar - 1 valid vote so far - (recommended option)
- Option 3- New calendar - (no valid votes so far) - (this option is not recommended)
- Option 5 - No change - (2 valid votes so far) - (this option is not recommended)
- Option 6 - "Revised" Julian calendar - (no valid votes so far)
- To vote by proxy, write QUICKVOTE and sign with four tildes. If you want your proxy to vote in a particular way, add the option number in brackets. Thus QUICKVOTE (1) means your vote will be cast in favour of Option 1.
- The tilde is the wavy line ~ which is sometimes placed above n (in Spanish) or a or o in Portuguese where, following the medieval Latin copyists, it marks the omission of a following letter n. O povo unido jamais sera vencido. 188.220.41.240 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Election 2010
In view of Mrhsj's comment, I'm adding more options. Choose one from the following:
- Option 1 - Meletian calendar (recommended option)
- Option 2 - Eastern European calendar
- Option 3 - New calendar
- Option 4 - New calendar (Eastern churches)
- Option 5 - No change
- Option 6 - "Revised" Julian calendar
Falta cinco minutos as vinte e tres. 82.45.211.161 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Tall stories: Meletian calendar v Gregorian
A gentleman named Simon Cassidy has some strange views on calendars. You can read some of them here: [5] and here: [6]. There is some doubt as to his qualifications to write on this topic. He says:
- For instance, see [7] which states "............................... As did Pope Gregory, so did the Orthodox Church refine the calendar by reducing the number of leap years, so that the average length of the civil solar year would be nearer to the natural length of the solar year. By reducing the number of leap years in a 900 year cycle, the margin of difference was trimmed to 2.2 seconds a year which is virtually perfect. In this version, the Spring Equinox will arrive on March 21st for over 40,000 years.
- This last sentence is false! Milankovich may well be the cause of such misinformation since he derived the Revised leap - year rule by adopting an average calendar year of 365.242222 (.25 less 7 in 900) in imitation of the astronomer's mean tropical year. This is the wrong tropical year to use for comparing to calendar's based on the Vernal equinox!
There is only one tropical year, just as there is only one sidereal year. In "Vernal equinox year?" (above) there is a discussion on the relative merits of calendars tracking the vernal equinox. But why should they track the vernal equinox? Observation - based calendars all have the same disadvantage - it is difficult to convert dates expressed in them to other calendars. It is not as if the vernal equinox is a particularly noteworthy phenomenon. The new calendar is an excellent civil calendar in which the vernal equinox has no significance whatsoever. There is no need to keep a close eye on it as it tends to regress in whichever calendar is being used.
As far as calculating the date of Easter is concerned, there are only two requirements - it must be celebrated neither before nor together with the celebrations of the Jews. The Gregorian calendar is quite good with meeting the second requirement but fails totally with the first. The date of the actual vernal equinox has no relevance to Orthodox Easter. I therefore fail to see why the Estonian and Finnish Orthodox have thrown in their lot with the Catholics. In contrast, many Catholics (in Uniate churches) observe Orthodox Easter. And when Britain was still on the Julian calendar, Irish Catholics begged the Pope to let them observe Orthodox Easter so they wouldn't be conspicuous. The Catholics and Protestants invite Orthodox to observe the Catholic Easter in the name of "ecumenism". It would make more sense if they observed Orthodox Easter.
Much fuss is made about the migration of the festival towards the summer. In the southern hemisphere it is already being observed in autumn. Muslim festivals revolve through all four seasons every 33 years. Easter has moved just thirteen days.
Again, I fail to see why some Orthodox churches moved the dates of fixed festivals onto the new calendar when they adopted it. This has messed up the whole liturgical structure. All that was necessary was to translate the dates - thus Christmas becomes January 7, for example. Jewish schoolchildren are envied by others because they get Jewish holidays in addition to all the others. Had Orthodox in non - Orthodox countries stayed on the Old Calendar they could have got extra holidays as well. Russia has taken this a stage further with an extended Christmas break from December 25 to January 7.
Unfortunately, it's not just a question of taking more time off. It is always better not to innovate. The Anglican church has been torn apart by gay and women clergy and bishops, with mass defections to Rome. In a world where Orthodox are persecuted by their Muslim rulers there are more important things to do than arguing over thirteen days. This is a civil war which takes lives - believers add thirteen days to the calendar whereupon representatives of the hierarchy descend and, by force of arms, make them take them back out again.
WP is the reference source for the modern age. The proposal in the above section is a modest attempt to start removing the fog of misunderstanding which surrounds the issue. Let us bring peace to a troubled world. A people disunited is a people weakened. Use your vote. Support the proposition. Vote yes. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, I feel that Orthodox were in the same position as the Irish Catholics. For "British" read "the atheist dictator Stalin, determined to liquidate the Orthodox church". The Russian Orthodox Church was in a different position. It is Russian and deeply conservative, so they would have been under the cosh whatever they did.
I was listening to the BBC World Service in 1963 when they announced that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was changing to the new calendar. The leader of the Church then came on and said that it was felt that the time had come to make the change. Since then communism has become a shadow of its former self.
In 2010 and 2011 Christians around the world will join together in common Easter celebrations (this won't happen again, unless something is done, until 2037 and 2038). This might be an auspicious time, therefore, for the Estonians and Finns to announce that they are returning to the fold and never again will they celebrate Easter on a date different to their Orthodox brethren. Vote (X) for Change (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)