Because Christ was crucified at Passover, which the Gregorian Paschalion does not take into consideration.
Alexandr,
I don't know what you mean here. Your explanation from Priest Andrew Phillips states very plainly that:
... the Fathers looked at the events which in chronological order preceded the Resurrection and determined its date. They are as follows:
1) The spring equinox i.e. the moment when on the 21 March the day is as long as the night.
2) The first full moon after this equinox (the full moon being the moment when the night sky is illuminated by a maximum of light).
3) The first Sunday after this first full moon. Sunday is the third day after the Crucifixion and the first day of the week (Matt. 28, 1). It is the day of the Resurrection, the Lord's Day.
The Jesuit astronomers who devised the Gregorian Calendar were very much aware of these requirements. Indeed, their
foremost concern was the fact that by the 16th Century, the spring equinox was no longer falling on 21 March, but some time earlier, which they determined to be 11 March.
As we have already seen, and the Fathers saw long before us, it is impossible to harmonize the two calendars with absolute astronomical accuracy. The Fathers therefore chose to base the calendar not on an imperfect astronomical calendar, but on a perfect theological calendar.
The Fathers of Nicea I were not astronomers, and it is unlikely that they were aware of all the difficulties involved in harmonizing the solar and lunar calandars. They established the principles mentioned above, based on well-considered theological principles, then commissioned astronomers from Alexandria to come up with a table everyone could use to determine the date for Pascha each year.
This is important--the Fathers did not devise the table itself. Thus, to say that "... the Fathers managed to harmonize the solar and lunar calendars to the end of time." is a bit of a flight of fancy.
In sixteenth century Rome, however, none of this theological depth was understood. This was because the criteria of thought at the time were not Christian but humanist, worshipping not Christ, but fallen man, with his fallen reason and its fallible understanding of the world around it.
The only thing I can say about these
outrageous statements is that some very devout but ignorant Latin priests have over the centuries directed similar vicious but meaningless rhetoric toward the Orhodox.
This change led to disharmony between the solar and lunar calendars and the loss therefore of all the dogmatic and theological harmony and symbolism of the Julian calendar and its associated Paschalia.
I fail to perceive how re-establishing the date of the spring equinox does all these things. Rather, allowing the date of Pascha to drift ever-farther from the spring equinox might well be seen as causing that loss of symbolism.
Indeed, as the Orthodox Church in the sixteenth century saw, the new Gregorian calendar and Paschalia are anticanonical. A number of canons (The Apostolic Canons VII and LXX; Laodicea XXXVII and XXXIX; Antioch I) state quite clearly that the Christian Easter must neither coincide with or fall before the Jewish Passover.
Here is another thing I don't understand--why should it be necessary to rely on the calculations made by modern-day Jews (which may or may not be accurate) for the date of their Passover celebration? Does that have
anything to do with the symbolism of Pascha coming on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox? Furthermore, I have heard it affirmed that Pascha did sometimes coincide with the Jewish celebration of Passover prior to the 11th Century.
I have noted that Old-Calendarists frequently begin by referring to the principles given at Nicea (i.e. the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox), then eventually go on to state that it doesn't matter
when Pascha takes place.
Peace,
Deacon Richard
