PDA

View Full Version : Pope asserts Jesus birth date in error



robertmf
28-11-2012, 04:52
The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives', published on Wednesday.

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies.


Full review (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html)

Looks like the Pope wants to make :uk: Dennis the Small even smaller. Then again, what sort of accuracy is to be expected after 500+ years :question:

Benedikt
28-11-2012, 06:15
and it sells a million copies, not bad at all. Does he get royalties? THAT might be interesting.And what does he do with the money?

robertmf
28-11-2012, 06:50
and it sells a million copies, not bad at all. Does he get royalties? THAT might be interesting.And what does he do with the money?

:pressie: Buy better watch :question:

Benedikt
28-11-2012, 07:18
:pressie: Buy better watch :question:



one to VV and one to Kyrill....:D

rusmeister
28-11-2012, 08:49
I would not brush off anything that Pope Benedict said, though he is not a voice of authority for us. His intelligence and depth of wisdom are formidable.

But I think, whether he is right or not, the tradition is more important than historical exactitude. It would not matter one whit to our history if it were discovered that Julius Caesar were born four years earlier than thought. The rest of the history maintains its significance.

I think, speaking in general, that you greatly underestimate the ability of the ancients and medievals to maintain accuracy, and greatly overestimate that of moderns, Robert.

rubyrussia
28-11-2012, 14:43
Hey Rus, would you consider the Patriarch a voice of authority for ‘us‘?

rusmeister
28-11-2012, 17:19
Hey Rus, would you consider the Patriarch a voice of authority for ‘us‘?

Hi, Ruby,
By "us" I thought it would be clear that I was talking about Orthodox Christians. Most of the regulars here know that I am.

If you listen to what the Patriarch says (try Saturday mornings at 9:45 on channel two (?), and find that what he says contains significant truth, you might also find that insofar as he speaks the truth, he is authoritative. I cheer on the Pope when he says true things, and I don't have to be Catholic to do so; the same goes for you regarding an Orthodox leader.

It's good to keep in mind that our relationship to the Patriarch is quite different from the Catholics' relation to the Pope.

rubyrussia
28-11-2012, 22:40
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I will tune in sometime. Is there a live feed on the internet? I don't have a TV...

Benedikt
29-11-2012, 05:05
Hi, Ruby,
By "us" I thought it would be clear that I was talking about Orthodox Christians. Most of the regulars here know that I am.

It's good to keep in mind that our relationship to the Patriarch is quite different from the Catholics' relation to the Pope.



otherwise they would not be where they are. and both have their minds set onto things they consider right and what is wrong. it is than up to the faithful to believe it or not. to follow or not what comes out from the Vatican or Moscow.
Both men think they do what is right. Both are men and humans. And humans are not infallible, they also tend to err. Including the Pope and the Patriarch.

rusmeister
29-11-2012, 05:44
otherwise they would not be where they are. and both have their minds set onto things they consider right and what is wrong. it is than up to the faithful to believe it or not. to follow or not what comes out from the Vatican or Moscow.
Both men think they do what is right. Both are men and humans. And humans are not infallible, they also tend to err. Including the Pope and the Patriarch.

Well, Benedict, we agree. That is why the Patriarch is not a Pope.

The biggest mistake made by non-Orthodox (and you can see it all the time in the media) is to assume that the Patriarch is an Orthodox version of the Pope. This leaves out the very basic fact that the Great Schism happened over Papal authority. If we could accept the Catholic idea of what a Pope is and does, we would BE Catholic. I think the errors of the Catholic Church (that many here will complain about at the drop of a hat) spring from that "structural design" rather than mere human sin. I still respect Catholics, but could not BE Catholic because I agree with most here that Papal authority is wrong. And the Orthodox Patriarch does not HAVE that kind of authority.

Benedikt
29-11-2012, 06:00
[QUOTE=rusmeister;1093839]Well, Benedict, we agree. That is why the Patriarch is not a Pope.


i thought that for -you- the patriarch is the same as for -me- the Pope. Like for the anglican church the Queen is the head.
With the latter i was reading up and know more or less why and when it happened. is there any thing to read about that explains why the Pope and why the Patriarch?

rusmeister
29-11-2012, 06:03
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I will tune in sometime. Is there a live feed on the internet? I don't have a TV...

OK, dude, I went to town for you:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%80%D1%8F
It's not so useful, as the links are broken. Plus, the show is only 15 minutes, not half an hour as stated there.

A text from one of the programs from a couple of years ago:
http://www.1tv.ru/projects/si=298

And a live feed, if you're good at juggling time on Saturday morning:
http://stream.1tv.ru/live

My father in law (a wonderful man!) is technically agnostic, doesn't go to church, says his old atheist habits die too hard, but he watches that program religiously...

rusmeister
29-11-2012, 06:45
Well, Benedict, we agree. That is why the Patriarch is not a Pope.


i thought that for -you- the patriarch is the same as for -me- the Pope. Like for the anglican church the Queen is the head.
With the latter i was reading up and know more or less why and when it happened. is there any thing to read about that explains why the Pope and why the Patriarch?

Well, for starters, try this:
Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic ecclesiastical differences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this:

The bishops of the Orthodox Churches trace unbroken succession to the very apostles themselves, therefore ultimately receiving their consecrations from our Lord Jesus Christ. All the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, no matter their titles, are equal in their sacramental office. The various titles given to bishops are simply administrative or honorific in their essence. At an ecumenical council, each bishop may cast only one vote, whether he is the Ecumenical Patriarch or simply an auxiliary bishop without a diocese. Thus, there is no equivalent to the Roman Catholic papacy within the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Orthodox think any human can go wrong. Even and especially if he is entrusted with ex cathedra infallibility. Whatever ANYONE says or teaches has to be held up to the whole Tradition of the Church, the consensus of what has always been taught, and nothing and no one, not even a Patriarch, can generate new dogma on their own. This forces any introduction or change of any sort to be collegial, including the laity as well as the clergy, and makes change very unlikely. One reason why Orthodox have the best claim for not having changed anything, generally speaking, for having continued the ancient traditions in the ancient way. It also means that everyone will take the Patriarch seriously, but he cannot issue orders or encyclals or ex cathedra statements or proclamations. He's more like the Archbishop of Canterbury than the Pope.

That collegial approach of Orthodoxy avoids the problem in Catholicism of one man being able to lead everyone off the tracks, and in Protestantism of any individual being able to go off on his or her own authority (where one interprets Scripture based on their OWN understandings - or lack thereof) and conduct schism after schism ad infinitum.

Benedikt
29-11-2012, 07:23
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/beginning/cross.shtml

this is actually a very interesting site, and THAT particular article was enlightening. so far i always was doing it wrong..
suppose one is never to old to learn, special when a logical explanation is being given and not just told -you do because- and nothing else.
maybe these are all minor details and i am definitely not a fanatic or fervent believer, to the contrary, but if certain things can be done right with not to much effort, why not.

rusmeister
29-11-2012, 12:10
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/beginning/cross.shtml

this is actually a very interesting site, and THAT particular article was enlightening. so far i always was doing it wrong..
suppose one is never to old to learn, special when a logical explanation is being given and not just told -you do because- and nothing else.
maybe these are all minor details and i am definitely not a fanatic or fervent believer, to the contrary, but if certain things can be done right with not to much effort, why not.
I wouldn't worry much about "doing it wrong". One thing I have definitely found in Orthodoxy is that it is a LOT less important if you are "not doing things exactly right". People are REALLY unfocused on what other parishioners are doing during a service, much more so than all my Protestant experience.

Same thing with prayer, even private home prayer. You don't know "official prayers" (which, btw, are meant to teach us how to pray, what we should be praying about, modeled on the Lord's Prayer), you do the best you can. God knows our hearts, and what we are trying to say - but it's good when we are focused less on our (perceived) needs (me, me me) and going with the wisdom of the ancient prayers which guide us in what we should be focused on.

I've also totally got the need to get info from the horse's mouth and trust nothing the media says - they don't understand what they are looking at, and usually just want "a story", the more controversial-seeming, the better. And we wind up getting totally false info. If I want to know what Catholics believe, I'll go to an authoritative Catholic source, and so on. The worst thing is to think you have something aced, and never discover that your understanding is wrong. As it is, my respect for Catholics went up a thousand points when I discovered that Jack Chick was full of cr%p and didn't express ANY Catholic teaching as Catholics actually believe them. (I had been raised on rabid anti-Catholic propaganda, of which Jack Chick is a leading generator.) Jack T. Chick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When you discover what a religion really teaches, false propaganda against it backfires. That's why it's so important to get it right.

But yeah, understanding the theology behind practices is cool.