www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Paschalia

We're ready Father Serge!

Why is this a problem? I don't understand what difference there is in one date or another. I'm positive there is one, which is why I ask your patience in explaining it to me.

Is it simply to be in union with the Orthodox date or is there something about the date itself that warrants it?

Wondering,

From my little corner of the cosmos, it seems that our Orthodox Paschalia was one more aspect of our identity that was lost.

We need to look at our church as a whole and take stock of how closely we're configured to Christ in the context of our Eastern Christian identity.

In Christ,

John

Dear Wondering,

The Orthodox Paschalion was once universal throughout the united Church of Christ as its calculation and observance was enjoined by the canonical weight of an Ecumenical Council.

To observe the canonical date for Pascha is to obey the Ecumenical Councils which were approved and ratified by Rome as well.

Yes, it is part of our Eastern heritage too!

Alex

Pascha should not precede the Jewish Passover.

Andrew

Or alternatively, its date should not be based on the Jewish Passover. At lot depends on how one reads the statement "not with the Jews", and the subsequent history of the date of Pascha in various parts of the Church.

Unfortunately, trying to use the Orthodox calculation of Pascha with the Gregorian (common civil) calendar causes other problems, particularly with the minor fasting periods.

As I have said before, Easter and Christmas are not anniversary dates. They probably have no relation to the dates on which the actual events occurred. I think people who are somewhat anachronistic, or hopelessly romantic about a supposed "golden age" that existed in the past, are the ones doing most of the bickering. Perhaps they can resolve this at the next Flat Earth Society meeting. I don't care if Christmas is in July, or Easter is in September. It's what is being celebrated that's important.

The Orthodox Pashchalion is traditional, perhaps even Traditional, and may also be "authentic" - the criterion of which may simply be "traditional" or even "antiquarian".

But to term them "canonical" from the 1st ecumenical council is an overstatement. From the what remains of the council and its immediate aftermath, it can be undestood that the reckoning was to the based on the astronomical vernal equinox. (There were btw disagreements on the astronomy, and thus there was not a unified celebration of Pascha already in the immediate aftermath of the council.) The promulgation letter of the Emperor also makes it clear, in terms that would be considered anti-Semitic today, that the reckoning should be done irrespective of the whatever the Jews do. The Western Paschalion adheres to these canonical prescriptions far better than the Eastern one; this better adherence has been recognized in numerous Orthodox writings. Links to these writings, the emperors letter etc. have been given in some of the previous discussions of this issue on the forum.

I think the answer to the question posed by JohnS, I strongly suspect, simply: no. I think it highly unlikely that anyone with a memory of calendar "issues" in our church wants to re-open that can of worms.

I think the idea that the old calendar is "part of our identity" is interesting. Having a liturgical calendar that is distinct from the secular ISTM is something of an innovation in Orthodoxy, rather than an element of "identity".

Dear djs,

Yes, and we in the UGCC have a bad history with the calendar issue as well.

But the calculation of the date of Pascha is really separate from that.

If Orthodox (some) can accept the Gregorian calendar with the old calculation of Pascha (save for the Finnish innovation), why can't EC's?

And I think many EC's and Orthodox would challenge you on the canonical question (not that you couldn't acquit yourself very well if they engaged you in debate!).

But both Incognitus and Fr. Keleher make reference of the "canonical" Pascha. And I believe they do so on the grounds of the canonicity established by the First Ec. Council.

Don't get me wrong - some of my best friends and relatives celebrate the new Pascha!

Alex

We can, and (some) do. Fr. Serge used the terms "traditional" and authentic" here. I don't remember what incognitus said, apart from his curious remarks about relentless new calendarist pressure on the forum.

djs,

You belong to an Orthodox parish, right? Does celebrating Easter on the Julian Calendar feel authentic, traditional or antiquated to you? Would you advise your bishop to switch calendars to match the world?

Gary

Gary, I help with the singing at an Orthodox mission parish. I don't belong, strictly speaking, to that parish. It is an OCA parish so it uses, the Gregorian Calendar (fixed feasts) and the Orthodox Paschalion. How does this practice feel? Actually it doesn't have anything that I would characterize as a feel. Feasts are celebrated at appointed times, even with this odd combination of calendars. I sing what's prescribed and don't have strong feelings about the "authenticity" of one or another of the various practices in either the Orthodox or Catholic communions. I haven't checked, for example, as to who is doing what when next year, so I wouldn't e able to begin to suggest that one date or another feels one way or another.

Generally I would would consider myself very disinclined to give advice to a Bishop. But your question is ill-conceived, anyway. The first ecumencial council prescribes that we use celestial "calendar" fixed by God, rather than any calendar of man, to set the date of Pascha. So there is no issue of switching to the "world".

Thanks for the private and public responses. I looked in the Light for Life book 2, pg 45, to see if it gave an explanation for why we wouldn't want Easter to coincide with Passover. (The obvious answer to me being Last Supper=Passover, so Resurrection=a few days later. But I've learned that the obvious answer is not always the correct one.) Light for Life did not provide an answer for this but did reference it. It also said that the Julian calendar "was found to be inaccurate as early as the First Ecumenical Council (AD 325)." and that the error had to be corrected on an annual basis for hundreds of years before they just changed the calendar. Doesn't seem like it the Julian calendar was doing all that well, either.

It seems to me that changing the date of Easter could possibly stir quite a lot of negative emotion if the situation is as dire as many of the posts across these boards let on. Would those who are so scared to embrace their eastern traditions, or to use the word orthodox in their liturgies, be on board with a change in the date of Easter to one their friends, family, neighbors, stores, movies, etc will not recognize? While I understand the sentiment, it seems to me that there are much bigger problems to worry about before this one could ever be considered. Are there any mitigating circumstances that I might not know about that would alter this picture of the current state of the church?

Wondering, you might find this useful. Dating Pascha in the Orthodox Church [goarch.org] .

Andrew

Thank you! Someone else suggested this [antiochian.org] one, which I haven't had time to browse yet. I'll read them both.