Pope Gregory XIII...calendars...Easter and Baptist...oh my

[Agnus_Dei]

*Note: This discussion is NOT whether or not celebrating Easter on the same day as the RC Church is evil or wrong, but more about the Baptist claim to the NT Church and why they celebrate Easter the same day as the mean 'ol Catholics.

So we have a few active threads floating around discussing the antiquity of the Baptist Church, so will discuss ‘when’ the ‘Resurrection’ Sunday is to be celebrated in regard to a ‘calendar’ event. I use the term ‘Resurrection Sunday’ as to not offend any Baptist that doesn’t like the word ‘Easter’.

Why discuss a calendar event? I was speaking with my mother last night and she told me that she had gotten our kids their ‘Easter’ (weird my parents are IFB and they still use ‘Easter’) outfits and she asked…’when is Easter this year?’ I remarked I wasn’t sure, but we Orthodox Christians will celebrate Pascha a week later than the Protestants and Roman Catholics. This year Easter or Resurrection Sunday is April 12 and as Orthodox we will celebrate Pascha April 19 a week later.

My mother asked why, and I told her that the Orthodox Churches didn’t adopt the Gregorian calendar that was decreed in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. The first countries to adopt this calendar were primarily Roman Catholic nations. The American Colonies made the switch in 1752 along with the whole British Empire.

Don’t get me wrong; we Orthodox use the Gregorian calendar, but ONLY for our ‘fixed’ Feast dates, like: Christmas, The Presentation of Christ in the Temple and The Annunciation. Our ‘floating’ Feast dates, such as the Ascension, Pentecost all are based on what day of the month Pascha falls. To calculate Pascha, we use the Julian calendar, b/c the vernal and Spring Equinox is calculated from the Julian calendar.

We also follow the ‘Rule of Nicaea’, which states that: Pascha shall be the first Sunday (Lord’s Day) after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. We shall NOT however, celebrate Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Feast of Passover, in this case we will celebrate Pascha the following Sunday. (This rule is not followed by the Western Churches, including the RC Church or the Baptists.

So, my question to my mother was that why as an Independent Fundamental Baptist who believes the Trail of Blood to be accurate, do they celebrate Easter or Resurrection Sunday at the same time as the RC Church? IF the true NT Church is this remnant Baptist Church that was ‘underground’, why did they decide to adopt the Pope's Gregorian calendar? Basically she celebrates Easter when the Pope tells her to.

Any thoughts?

In XC
-

 

[Darron Steele]

*Note: This discussion is NOT whether or not celebrating Easter on the same day as the RC Church is evil or wrong, but more about the Baptist claim to the NT Church and why they celebrate Easter the same day as the mean 'ol Catholics.
...

Any thoughts?

In XC
-

You like arguments and disparaging church groups too much.

This comes from a non-Baptist Christian.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You like arguments and disparaging church groups too much.

This comes from a non-Baptist Christian.

I don’t think arguing is it; it’s more about exposing this myth that a certain Baptist sect is the true authentic NT Church. Many of them are really militant against the RC Church, yet I find it odd that they do as the Pope says in regard to adopting a calendar developed by the RC Church.

IF this certain Baptist sect is the true authentic NT Church, regardless if they were ‘underground’ or not, they would NEVER adopt anything put forth from the Roman Catholic Church.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don’t think arguing is it; it’s more about exposing this myth that a certain Baptist sect is the true authentic NT Church. Many of them are really militant against the RC Church, yet I find it odd that they do as the Pope says in regard to adopting a calendar developed by the RC Church.

IF this certain Baptist sect is the true authentic NT Church, regardless if they were ‘underground’ or not, they would NEVER adopt anything put forth from the Roman Catholic Church.

In XC
-

"When in Rome" right? So. The Paschal celebration though problematic in the early church didn't cause separation. The churches could have went with the Alexandrian Calander but stayed with the Roman except those primarily in Turkey and Syria that went with the traditional Jewish Passover. Isn't that right? The fact is that all protestants come fromt the Catholic church from one respect or another so it only makes sence that they keep certain aspects. For instance all protestant Churches hold to the Catholic view of the Trinity (to include the Filique). Not one holds the Orthodox view of the trinity.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The fact is that all protestants come fromt the Catholic church from one respect or another so it only makes sence that they keep certain aspects.

Which is the whole point of the OP, right? IF certain Baptist sects that are “Landmarkist” are in fact the authentic NT Church, as laid out by the Trail of Blood, then it would make sense that they would have not accepted the Gregorian calendar that was decreed in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII.

Remember, these Landmarkist do not consider themselves ‘protestant’, therefore, I find it odd that they celebrate Easter when the Pope says so, by his decree in 1582.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which is the whole point of the OP, right? IF certain Baptist sects that are “Landmarkist” are in fact the authentic NT Church, as laid out by the Trail of Blood, then it would make sense that they would have not accepted the Gregorian calendar that was decreed in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII.

Remember, these Landmarkist do not consider themselves ‘protestant’, therefore, I find it odd that they celebrate Easter when the Pope says so, by his decree in 1582.

In XC
-

You make a good point. And wouldn't they also be better versed in Greek than they are? :smilewinkgrin: However, wasn't the dispute between when celebration of easter occur in the 2nd century the Alexandrians had their calander and the Romans had their calander and there was disagreement with the Eastern churches in Turkey and Antioch when actually to celebrate easter? Long before 1582? Alexandria went along with Rome since they just a different variation of the same calander? I guess 1582 is when the current calander was standardize so you may have another good point. They went along with the degree after the reformation began. Landmarkist seem to be revisionist attempting a revisionist type of history for the Christian faith. The truth is disturbing that Landmarkest have to invent a fantastical history to very their faith. Which conserns me greatly.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm sorta curious. Why is it okay for the RCC to claim apostolic roots, the Orthodox to claim essentially the same thing, but it's not okay for Baptists to assert some apostolic roots?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm sorta curious. Why is it okay for the RCC to claim apostolic roots, the Orthodox to claim essentially the same thing, but it's not okay for Baptists to assert some apostolic roots?

Because there is no history of baptist churches in the early church. Unless you want to claim apostolic roots through the Catholic Church. But to do so would mean that from 325 AD to th 1500's true believers were mixed in with the Catholics until they felt free to leave because it was safe so then baptist had to be apochryphal (hidden) until the reformation. There are no documents or acheological finds to support an apostolic era baptist churches.

 

[Tom Butler]

Because there is no history of baptist churches in the early church. Unless you want to claim apostolic roots through the Catholic Church. But to do so would mean that from 325 AD to th 1500's true believers were mixed in with the Catholics until they felt free to leave because it was safe so then baptist had to be apochryphal (hidden) until the reformation. There are no documents or acheological finds to support an apostolic era baptist churches.

I understand that argument. Here is my argument. Since Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, I hold that there have always been New Testament churches from the first century until now. They were not always known as Baptists. And they were not part of the RCC. The fact that they may be difficult to identify by name does not mean they did not exist.

Further, I hold that the historic Baptist doctrines and principles are the same or similar to those of the first century NT churches. Thus Baptists may rightly claim a kinship with first-century churches. And they may rightly claim that they did not come of of the RCC, but that groups just like them have existed from then until now.

 

[Tom Butler]

Jim1999, who is a regular poster on this board, asserts that there were identifiable Baptists in Wales prior to the reformation.

Jim, if you're around, you might join in this discussion.

 

[Zenas]

I understand that argument. Here is my argument. Since Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, I hold that there have always been New Testament churches from the first century until now. They were not always known as Baptists. And they were not part of the RCC. The fact that they may be difficult to identify by name does not mean they did not exist.

Further, I hold that the historic Baptist doctrines and principles are the same or similar to those of the first century NT churches. Thus Baptists may rightly claim a kinship with first-century churches. And they may rightly claim that they did not come of of the RCC, but that groups just like them have existed from then until now.

Tom, if you bring this up to a RC who understands his church's teachings as well as you understand yours, he will tell you that the Catholic Church is the N.T. church; that it was guided by both written and oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15); that it has continued from 33 A.D. to this day; that Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 has been kept in the continuity of the RCC; and that Baptists and other non-catholics are the apostate groups. History seems to be on their side. So how would you respond to this agument?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

wasn't the dispute between when celebration of easter occur in the 2nd century the Alexandrians had their calander and the Romans had their calander and there was disagreement with the Eastern churches in Turkey and Antioch when actually to celebrate easter? Long before 1582? Alexandria went along with Rome since they just a different variation of the same calander?

How I understand it in the Orthodox world is that in 1382 the Byzantine Emperor noted some difficulties with the Julian Calendar (45 BC) or ‘Old Calendar’ and he suggested some changes. However, for pastoral reasons the corrected calendar was not accepted by any Orthodox.

In 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece changed the Julian Calendar with all its ‘fixed’ dates ONLY to the Gregorian system (1852), called the ‘Revised Julian’ or ‘New Calendar’, but those Orthodox Jurisdictions that follow this ‘New Calendar’ still calculate Pascha based on the Julian Calendar and the ‘Rule of Nicaea’ is followed.

Not all Orthodox jurisdictions follow this ‘New Calendar’. Mostly the Slavic jurisdictions have continued following the ‘Old Calendar’ based on the Julian system without any changes.

So, yes, there were and still are some disagreements concerning the date of Pascha, but nothing major enough to cause a schism (maybe bickering) in the Orthodox Church today or yesteryear.

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

...he will tell you that the Catholic Church is the N.T. church; that it was guided by both written and oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15); that it has continued from 33 A.D. to this day...

As an Orthodox Christian, I would take issue with this statement...

In XC
-

 

[Jim1999]

Obviously the RC church also says Peter was the first pope.........funny, Peter would have to go to Rome first to be the first pope.

Naturally they will claim authenticity, but this not bear out with scripture, which delineates what is a New Testament church.

If there were no biblical churches along the way, just whom did the RC church persecute burn at the stake and hang along the way?

Certainly the name baptist was not used until the later anabaptists, or rebaptizers.

As to the Gregorian calendar, it was a global change, and any country would be foolish not to accept it. Does date really matter? Get to my age and one hardly remembers what day it is, let alone the date! The date only matters to business.

Does t matter about Easter or Christmas? Hardly. We celbrate the resurrection every day and especially every Sunday. I only celebrate Easter and Christmas because the churches do it. It is an opportunity to preach Christ risen from the dead, and to declare His birth.

TheTrail of Blood is just that. A trail of the blood of Christ and a peoples who followed the trail. Accurate? Perhaps not, but is a decent historical guide. Much of history is tainted by Romanism and there are obvious bends and curves in all historical accounts.

Even St. Patrick himself was never catholic but was declared catholic after his death. Yet, look how that church has claimed him so dearly. He went to Ireland from Wales to evangelize the heathen in Ireland.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand that argument. Here is my argument. Since Jesus said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, I hold that there have always been New Testament churches from the first century until now. They were not always known as Baptists. And they were not part of the RCC. The fact that they may be difficult to identify by name does not mean they did not exist.

Further, I hold that the historic Baptist doctrines and principles are the same or similar to those of the first century NT churches. Thus Baptists may rightly claim a kinship with first-century churches. And they may rightly claim that they did not come of of the RCC, but that groups just like them have existed from then until now.

Here is where the Apostolic Fathers come into play ie Papias, Polycarp, and very possibly Ignatius. These people were trained by the apostles particularily John however the Orthodox and Coptic churches can identify different apostles for the establishment of their regional churches. How do they describe christianity? Does it match with Historic Baptist doctines? Clearly this is not the case. There are significant differences. The best baptist could do is associate their beliefs from the NT writings and say "see we formulated ourselves on these writings and this is what the apostles meant and only meant." Which, means that Christianity departed from Apostolic teachings immediately after they died and there was a period of time from 90 AD to 1500 that there was no church except for a few real believers that were in bondage to the Catholic Church whether Orthodox, Copitic, or Latin until the reformation. The fact is there is no early writings (apart from the claim of NT consistency), or archealogical finds to suggest that there were minority churches that followed historical baptist idiology in the first century. None. Which your quoted verse would seem to indicate was a lie. Of course we don't believe this. We must conclude then the church was hidden.
Or contend that the Lord was "patient" with misunderstanding of Christians and slowly (like in the OT) revealed himself until the printing press was developed and a bible could get into everyones hands and that he could lead people directly through his word.

Either way Landmarkist are playing with mythology.

 

[Jim1999]

No mythology unless you consider ALL of history to be a myth!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No mythology unless you consider ALL of history to be a myth!

Cheers,

Jim

What evidence what writings can you present to show that baptist have been there since 33 AD until the present age? The series of sermons pamphleted after Carolls death? Clearly there are issues with it. Historical ones that we have documents for. What archeological finds do we have to support its hypothesis? None. But please provide them if you have them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What evidence what writings can you present to show that baptist have been there since 33 AD until the present age? The series of sermons pamphleted after Carolls death? Clearly there are issues with it. Historical ones that we have documents for. What archeological finds do we have to support its hypothesis? None. But please provide them if you have them.

Which in the end conserns me. Because how to differentiate between those who hold a non-supported historical view and a cult like the Mormons? At least Landmarkist hold to the bible. But so claim the mormons who also like to re-write history.

 

[Eric B]

Here is where the Apostolic Fathers come into play ie Papias, Polycarp, and very possibly Ignatius. These people were trained by the apostles particularily John however the Orthodox and Coptic churches can identify different apostles for the establishment of their regional churches.

Papias and Polycarp do not teach 'catholic' doctrine. Ignatius begins exalting the bishops, and Eusebius does not say he was tained by John, and even him having discourse with Polycarp does not mean his position on bishops is correct.

Tom, if you bring this up to a RC who understands his church's teachings as well as you understand yours, he will tell you that the Catholic Church is the N.T. church; that it was guided by both written and oral Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15); that it has continued from 33 A.D. to this day; that Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 has been kept in the continuity of the RCC; and that Baptists and other non-catholics are the apostate groups. History seems to be on their side. So how would you respond to this agument?

Why discuss a calendar event? I was speaking with my mother last night and she told me that she had gotten our kids their Easter (weird my parents are IFB and they still use Easter) outfits and she asked "when is Easter this year?" I remarked I wasn't sure, but we Orthodox Christians will celebrate Pascha a week later than the Protestants and Roman Catholics. This year Easter or Resurrection Sunday is April 12 and as Orthodox we will celebrate Pascha April 19 a week later.
My mother asked why, and I told her that the Orthodox Churches didn’t adopt the Gregorian calendar that was decreed in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. The first countries to adopt this calendar were primarily Roman Catholic nations. The American Colonies made the switch in 1752 along with the whole British Empire.
Don’t get me wrong; we Orthodox use the Gregorian calendar, but ONLY for our ‘fixed’ Feast dates, like: Christmas, The Presentation of Christ in the Temple and The Annunciation. Our ‘floating’ Feast dates, such as the Ascension, Pentecost all are based on what day of the month Pascha falls. To calculate Pascha, we use the Julian calendar, b/c the vernal and Spring Equinox is calculated from the Julian calendar.
We also follow the Rule of Nicaea, which states that: Pascha shall be the first Sunday (Lord's Day) after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. We shall NOT however, celebrate Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Feast of Passover, in this case we will celebrate Pascha the following Sunday. (This rule is not followed by the Western Churches, including the RC Church or the Baptists.
So, my question to my mother was that why as an Independent Fundamental Baptist who believes the Trail of Blood to be accurate, do they celebrate Easter or Resurrection Sunday at the same time as the RC Church? IF the true NT Church is this remnant Baptist Church that was ‘underground’, why did they decide to adopt the Pope's Gregorian calendar? Basically she celebrates Easter when the Pope tells her to

So was this "Rule of Nicaea" or the Gregorian calendar (whether used for Easter, or only for other feasts; why do you follow "the Pope" for even those then) one of those "traditions" that was passed down from the apostles?

You all claim the NT had liturgy because they came out of the synagogue, but if that's the case, why are they avoiding the date of the Jews' Passover? (Which two of those ECF's connected to the apostles, Polycarp and Polycrates, fought the bishop of Rome in defense of!)

Looks like there was a lot of stuff that came later, from the church's own authority. Hence, the RCC's "right" to switch to the Gregorian calendar!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

TheTrail of Blood is just that. A trail of the blood of Christ and a peoples who followed the trail. Accurate? Perhaps not...

Can you name Jim a martyr from the Third, Fourth or Fifth Century that the Baptist would claim as their own?

In XC
-