www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Seeking information about dates for Easter Calculation

Could anyone explain the conflict between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox on when to keep Lent and Easter? I'd love a little clarification on this.

Thanks,

David

Yes I would be interested in this too.

Especially in this year [2002] where there is such a huge gap between the dates: Western Easter - March 31st, Eastern date - May 5th ! My Orthodox aunt will be starting the Great Fast just as we go into Holy Week.

PAX

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

The first ecumenical council of Nicea (325) set forth that Pascha was to be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, but not "with the Jews" (meta ton Ioudaion). The difference between the present date of Easter/Pascha between the West and East results from two factors: (1) the continued use of the Julian calendar by the East in calculating the date of the vernal equinox, and (2) the different interpretation of the East of the phrase "meta ton Ioudaion".

The vernal equinox was fixed by council at 21 March (Julian). This kind of fixing is necessary because the exact date of the equinox may be different in different regions ... and, in fact, today with the large number of Southern hemisphere Christians, the date of Pascha would be 6 months different between North and South (precisely the kind of variation in Pascha dating that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council were seeking to avoid by setting forth a common dating system for Pascha). The Eastern Churches continue to use 21 March Julian as the fixed date of the vernal equinox, whereas the western churches use 21 March Gregorian. Because there is presently a 13 day difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, this results in a different calculation of the first full moon following the vernal equinox in some years (typically those years where Pascha and Easter are 5 weeks apart, like in 2002).

Further, the Eastern Churches interpret the prohibition on celebrating Pascha "with the Jews" as meaning that the feast of Pascha must come *after* the feast of Passover has been completed. Passover is a feast, according to Jewish custom, that lasts seven days, and so the Eastern Churches adjust the dates of the vernal equinox (Julian) and/or the date of the Sunday following the first full moon thereafter, depending on when the Jewish passover falls in aq given year. The Western Church generally does not do this, and as a result Western Easter almost always falls after the first day of Jewish Passover but during the seven days of Jewish Passover celebration.

Applying these to 2002 and 2003 may help to illustrate the difference.

2002
====

Orthodox calculation
21 March Julian = 3 April Greg.
Jewish Pesach -- 28 March to 4 April Greg.
First full moon after vernal equinox is 26 April Greg.
2 days added to compensate for fact that vernal equinox falls during Jewish Pesach (first non-Pesach day thereafter is 5 April), so effective day for first full moon is 28 April Greg., which is a Sunday. The first Sunday thereafter is 5 May, the date of Orthodox Pascha in 2002.

Western Calculation
21 March Greg. considered vernal equinox
first full moon thereafter is 28 March
first Sunday thereafter is 31 March, the date of Western Easter in 2002. Jewish Pesach continues until 4 April.

2003
====

Orthodox calculation
21 March Julian = 3 April Greg.
Jewish Pesach -- 17-23 April. Greg.
First full moon after vernal equinox is 16 April Greg.
First Sunday thereafter is 20 April, but this falls during Jewish passover, so Orthodox Pascha is celebrated on the first Sunday following thereafter.

Western Calculation
21 March Julian considered vernal equinox.
First full moon thereafter is 16 April.
First Sunday thereafter is 20 April, the date of Western Easter in 2003. Jewish Pasover continues until 23 April.

Brendan

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

http://www.smart.net/~mmontes/ortheast.html

http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/easter-date

http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~h.reints/easter/?frame=easterlinks.htm

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/2398/bginfo/church/holiday.html

http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html

http://www.hourworld.com/easter.htm

http://users.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/eastalg.htm


I hope this simplifies things. :p

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Friends,

Excellent responses by Brendan and Edwin!

It is also interesting to note that His Holiness the Pope has encouraged Roman Catholics living in predominantly Orthodox countries to adopt the Orthodox Easter date.

While individual Orthodox Churches have adopted the new calendar, they still adhere to the Easter/Pascha calculation of the fourth century.

Since it was codified by an Ecumenical Council, the East believes it cannot be changed.

I've always believed that a good compromise would be for the East to accept the western Calendar and for the West to accept the Eastern (original) Paschal calculation.

Alex

"Since it was codified by an Ecumenical Council, the East believes it cannot be changed."

Or, rather, that it *can* be changed only by a council. :-)

"I've always believed that a good compromise would be for the East to accept the western Calendar and for the West to accept the Eastern (original) Paschal calculation."

The only problem with this (which is, in fact, what most North American Orthodox do, and which is also done by the Church of Greece) is that, over the course of the centuries, Pascha is going to slip forward gradually due to the gradually increasing lag between the Julian and Gregorian calendars (ie, the Julian presently lags the Gregorian by 13 days, but gradually that number will increase). It's not a problem in the short term, but in the long term, it would be the case that Pascha would be celebrated during the Dormition Fast, for example, or even during the Nativity Fast (assuming that created time goes on for long enough for that to happen ... but we don't know that).

The fact that Nicea used the Julian calendar for the Pascha dating issue is the principal reason why the Old Calenrdrist Orthodox believe that the Julian should also be used for the fixed feasts (ie, what Orthodox refer to as the Menaion), so the two issues are also linked in that way as well.

Brendan

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Oh boy ! and I thought I would understand after the explanations.

I will obviously have to continue to rely on Calendars plus of course my good friends and educators here.

Alex,

Was the celebration of Pascha transferred from the 14th of Nisan to its permanent home on a Sunday done by an Ecumenical Council. I believe getting the Easterners on board was quite a trip.

Our Lady's Slave,

Yup! You may be right. I'd rely on the liturgical calendar without trying to understand the algorithm behind it. Let the others get headaches from it.

So, you are from Scotland, eh? Just bought me some good 12-year old Scotch for the holidays from your neck of the woods. The very best!

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin --

I agree, but my sense is that the questions that were asked were not about the mechanics but about the "why" of the matter -- ie, why is it that the two churches observe Easter/Pascha on a different date. One answer is that there is a different algorithm, but that begs the question of why that's the case.

I think we probably agree that it is a fairly poor use of time to delve very deeply into the mathematical calculations involved unless one has an interest in mathematics or calendar science ... but I think it's pretty useful to have at least a general understanding of the underlying reasons for why the two churches observe on different dates.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

O.K., O.K.

You belong to a jurisdiction that celebrates Christmas on the 25th of December, but the Orthodox Easter, correct?

Was this not done on the grounds that the Council of 325 affirmed the Easter calculation emphatically, but the Julian calendar less so?

Otherwise, if the Julian calendar is approved by the Council, is not your jurisdiction breaking Conciliar law in this respect?

Yes, of course a future Council can change the date and calendar thing. Could not the Orthodox Church effect a change in this respect in other ways?

It seems to me that we've been waiting for quite a few years for another Ecumenical Council to come about.

Alex

Dear Edwin,

It was indeed a trip, Friend in Christ!

I remember reading about how Pope St Victor wanted to excommunicate those Christians who continued to observe the 14th of Nisan, the "Quartodecimans."

St Irenaeus and others urged him not to, especially since very great Saints and Martyrs, like Polycarp of Smyrna, were Quartodecimans.

The Celtic calculation was slightly off as well, but the Celtic Fathers at the Council of Whitby (which is near Angela's way!) insisted on keeping it and retired to Scotland (definitely Angela's way)to maintain it.

The Celtic Easter is making a comeback in some areas of North America and among some Protestant churches in Britain.

One Welsh non-conformist minister was heard to have said, "We should have celebrated Ash Wednesday last week, but since we forgot, we'll do it this Sunday."

Alex

Dear Brendan,

As for the underlying reasons for the different calendars, what are they?

I suggest that they also have to do with the enduring "We're right, you're wrong" attitude on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides.

To "give in" on the calendar issue may be seen by one side to be acknowledging that perhaps they were wrong on other issues of a more theological character (Filioque, Original Sin, Purgatory and papal infallibility shoot immediately to mind).

Some strong Eastern defenders of the Julian Calendar would also say that Rome is rationalist since worldly astronomers made the change to the calendar, while the East maintains liturgical integrity by means of the Old Calendar.

Alex

Orthodox Catholic,

There are many dangers when we approach issues and overly simplify them. While I'm sure there are many out there who feel it is a case of "we're right and you're wrong", the issue is much deeper and very spiritual.

Aside from the fact that the calendar revision was instituted by a Freemason who gained office uncanonically, recognized Anglican Orders and wanted to do away with all fasting, the real problem was not that.

Few have understood the significance of the "old calendar" issue. The reason for the Old Calendarist refusal to comply was very theological and sprang from a deep ecclesiastical consciousness. The liturgical unity of the Church is in shambles and all for the syncretistic interests and the favor of the world. The calendar change brought a severance in the liturgical accord between the some Churches and most other Orthodox Churches, which preserve the old calendar to this day. And it was not only a matter of discord in the liturgical life of the militant Church - the continuity of the liturgical life of the militant Church with the triumphant also was broken.

In Greece when the church bells call the faithful to celebrate Christmas and the chanters chant joyfully the "Christ is born, glorify ye", millions of Orthodox throughout the rest of the world and on the Holy Mountain are still in the fast of Advent: and they do not hear the bells, nor chant with them the hymns of Christmas.

Can one imagine anything worse for the Church than this break in liturgical concord which estranges us spiritually not only from the triumphant Church of those who have fallen asleep in Christ, and from the Saints who celebrated and performed the Liturgy according to the old calendar which they rejected?

So many efforts of our Fathers, so many synods were needed to enact that festal calendar - and all this so that there would be liturgical harmony between the Christian churches, because this harmony and accord expresses the internal liturgical unity of the Church. This is what makes the Church visibly one, despite the multiplicity of local churches. The Church is not made one the way the Pope thinks, by hard discipline and obedience to a prescribed hierarchy which has as its head a single individual who claims to represent Christ on earth, and who by now would not be able to recognize his own church of past centuries after so many changes - but the Church is made one by the mystical communion in the Body and Blood of Christ.

The unity of the Church, therefore, is not administrative, is not disciplinary or organizational, but liturgical. That is why the festal calendar is so important. The unity which springs from the Holy Eucharist, the one Faith, and the one Baptism ceases to be manifested externally when there is liturgical anarchy. The form and the words of the Liturgy have been prescribed so that all the churches can worship God in the same way. And the service book for each month (the Menaion that Brendan mentions) contains the daily hymns commemorating the Saints of the day and the chants for every holy day. In this way no discord can disrupt the liturgical harmony. Even the music and the iconography, which are called liturgical arts, have similarly been prescribed so that no icon painter or chanter can paint an icon or chant according to his own imagination, but is compelled to adapt his personal skill and ability to prototypes of the most austere spiritual realism (not physical realism). And similarly the calendar of festivals has been prescribed in order that no priest can celebrate the holy days whenever he wishes, but that there be complete communion of prayer among all the faithful upon the earth.

And with all this in consideration, it is difficult not to see the contempt those calendar reformers had/and have for Orthodoxy...or their display of great ignorance and indifference...who with a single stroke untied a hundred tethers of unity. Truly a satanic ploy.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

"You belong to a jurisdiction that celebrates Christmas on the 25th of December, but the Orthodox Easter, correct?"

Yes.

"Was this not done on the grounds that the Council of 325 affirmed the Easter calculation emphatically, but the Julian calendar less so?"

I think it was done first by the Church of Greece in the 1920s on the grounds that the Gregorian calendar is more astronomically accurate (which it undoubtedly is). It was, in my opinion, a pastoral blunder for the Church of Greece to do this without the remainder of Orthodoxy agreeing to it. The date of Pascha could not be so readily changed because conciliar decree specifically states how it is to be calculated, in reference to the Julian dates -- I think that's why "the buck stopped there". I don't think, honestly, a whole lot of thought was given to the problem of using the Gregorian Menaion with the Orthodox/Julian Paschalion.

"Otherwise, if the Julian calendar is approved by the Council, is not your jurisdiction breaking Conciliar law in this respect?"

My own view is that the Julian Menaion was not the subject of the concilliar decree, and so the Menaion is not directly impacted. However, I think it would have been pastorally better to think about the consequences of changing one without the other, and I also don't think that the unilateralism was a good thing -- in fact, it has been a very bad thing for the Orthodox Church, in that it generated schisms. But having said that I don't think that the Gregorian Menaion is evil, heretical or violative of any direct conciliar decree.

There are (some prominent) Orthodox who would also argue that the language in Nicea about "meta ton Ioudaion" does not call for taking into account the Jewish Paschalion at all - rather the reference is intended to force the Church to ignore the Jewish Paschalion entirely. That's a minority view within Orthodoxy, but the view does exist.

"Yes, of course a future Council can change the date and calendar thing. Could not the Orthodox Church effect a change in this respect in other ways?"

At this point with all the damage that has been caused by this, I would think that a pan-orthodox council of some sort would be the best body to lend whatever solution is taken a greater degree of legitimacy.

"As for the underlying reasons for the different calendars, what are they?

I suggest that they also have to do with the enduring "We're right, you're wrong" attitude on both the Catholic and Orthodox sides.

To "give in" on the calendar issue may be seen by one side to be acknowledging that perhaps they were wrong on other issues of a more theological character (Filioque, Original Sin, Purgatory and papal infallibility shoot immediately to mind)."

This definitely has *something* to do with it. The Catholics argue, correctly, that the Gregorian calendar is more astronomically accurate. The Orthodox argue, in a recurring theme in the critique of Rome, that the New Calendar is yet another example of Roman unilateralism, and that the Catholics fail to take into account the language of Nicea relating to 'meta ton Ioudaion' (but some Orthodox say that this is not important, and some Catholics say that they do follow this because Easter is never before the first day of Jewish Passover). Hopefully at some point there will be a meeting of the minds about what Nicea's formulation means -- but at this point I don't think that the WCC's recommendations (which were basically to ignore the 'meta ton Ioudaion' language of Nicea and to correct the Gregorian formulation to arrive at an even more astronomically accurate date) will be accepted by Orthodoxy anytime soon.

"Some strong Eastern defenders of the Julian Calendar would also say that Rome is rationalist since worldly astronomers made the change to the calendar, while the East maintains liturgical integrity by means of the Old Calendar."

I have read these and I'm personally not highly sympathetic to them. I think that the Fathers of Nicea were being pragmatic (ie, they wanted a single form of calculating Easter and they used the civil calendar of the age as a reference), while trying to keep within the bounds of the meaning of the feast and its relation to Jewish Pesach. I'm skeptical of the attempt to somehow baptize the Julian civil calendar and make it, too, a part of holy writ, in a way. I honestly don't think that this is the way the first millenium fathers viewed the Julian calendar! When Rome changed the calendar unilaterally (at that point Rome believed firmly that Rome = Church), there was going to be a definite bristling from the East ("here they go again..."), when in effect what the Latins were doing was simply updating the astronomical calendar based on more accurate measurements. The Julian calendar is also an atronomically-derived calendar, so ISTM that there isn't really a reason to complain about the rationalist West imposing a rationalist calendar over the 'mystical' Julian calendar. I think there is a better argument that the West ought to have not acted unilaterally (Rome has a bad track record on that score) and ought to have made an attempt to reconcile what it was doing with what the Eastern Church does and with the Council of Nicea. In effect, when Rome changed the calendar without the remainder of the Church participating, the very spirit, the very raison d'etre of the Nicea formulation -- which was that the entire Church should celebrate Easter on the same day -- was thrown out. That, in my opinion, was a mistake -- an understandable one, given Rome's ecclesiological awareness at the time, but a mistake nonetheless that went against the "spirit" of what the Fathers were trying to do at Nicea by introducing yet again a division in the Church in the dating of Pascha.

Brendan