Calculating Easter

For the thinkers, theologians, philospophers.
User avatar
Wosbald
Sunday School Superintendent
Sunday School Superintendent
Posts: 993
Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Calculating Easter

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Pope tells patriarch Catholics are ready for a common Easter date

Image

Image
Pope Francis shakes hands with Catholicos Awa III, patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, at the end of a meeting Nov. 19, 2022, in the library of the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)

Vatican City — Meeting the U.S.-born patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, Pope Francis expressed his hope that Christians of the East and West could finally agree on a common date for celebrating Easter.

"Let us have the courage to put an end to this division that at times makes us laugh" with the ridiculous possibility that Christians could ask each other, "When does your Christ rise again?" the pope told Catholicos Awa III, the patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East.

[…]

The Assyrian Church of the East, which is not in full communion with any of the Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches, began a theological dialogue with the Vatican in the mid-1990s.

During their meeting, Awa mentioned his hope and the hope of many other Christians to find a way to celebrate Easter on the same day.

Francis thanked him and said, "I want to say — indeed, to repeat — what St. Paul VI said in his day: We are ready to accept any proposal that is made together."

In 2025, the pope noted, Christians will celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, and the Gregorian and Julian calendars will align that year so that Christians of the East and West will celebrate Easter on the same day.

Christian leaders should "be courageous and search together" for a solution that will bring a common celebration of Easter every year, the pope said. "I'm willing, yet not me, the Catholic Church is willing to follow what St. Paul VI said. Agree and we will go where you say."

Francis was referring to an appendix to the Second Vatican Council's 1963 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, promulgated by Pope Paul. The declaration "on revision of the calendar" said council members "would not object if the feast of Easter were assigned to a particular Sunday of the Gregorian calendar, provided that those whom it may concern, especially the brethren who are not in communion with the Apostolic See, give their assent."

Since that time, the Vatican's position consistently has been that if Eastern Christians agree on a way to determine a common date for Easter, the Catholic Church would accept it.

Before the Council of Nicaea, different Christian communities celebrated Easter on different dates; the council decided that for the unity of the Christian community and its witness, Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.

But the Julian calendar, which is what Christians used in the fourth century, was increasingly out of sync with the actual solar year, so March 21 — generally assumed to be the date of the Northern Hemisphere's spring equinox — gradually "drifted" away from the actual equinox.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, relying on the work of the best astronomers of his time, reformed the calendar, dropping 10 days and making the equinox fall on March 21 again. Most Eastern Christians did not adopt the new calendar, leading to a situation where Easter occasionally is on the same day, but Eastern Christians' celebration can be as much as four weeks later.


Image
User avatar
Jocose
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2308
Joined: 09 Apr 2022, 12:10
Location: Ulaanbaatar
Has thanked: 300 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Calculating Easter

Post by Jocose »

Dang Schism ruined everything.
The views expressed here are either mine or not my own, not sure.
The opinions expressed here may or may not be my own.
I post links to stuff.
Make your own choices.
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2727
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 372 times

Calculating Easter

Post by Del »

Jocose wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 09:51 Dang Schism ruined everything.
You're dang right.
SlowToke
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 238
Joined: 09 Oct 2022, 08:58
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Calculating Easter

Post by SlowToke »

Jocose wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 09:51 Dang Schisms ruined everything.
There I fixed it for you.
sweetandsour
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2243
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 03:59
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 269 times

Calculating Easter

Post by sweetandsour »

Times for the Passover varied, based on what I read. Per my Sunday School teacher just last Sunday in fact, Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, Nisan 14, at 9a.m.. "This is the only way He could be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights AND resurrection on the 3rd day. The two requirements are NOT the same thing."
The Indians will not bother you now, on account of ... you are touched.
User avatar
tuttle
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 424
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 05:21
Location: Middle-west
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Contact:

Calculating Easter

Post by tuttle »

I'd be curious to know what the EO reluctance to change to the Gregorian calendar is.
"tuttle isn't saved" - Legion
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Calculating Easter

Post by mcommini »

tuttle wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 05:26 I'd be curious to know what the EO reluctance to change to the Gregorian calendar is.
Better a late reply than never-

It comes down to a couple of things- the biggest lies in the name. Back when Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar it was specifically to modify the dating of Pascha to conform to solar time. Historically, we have always had a problem with Rome making modifications to universal Church practice just because She feels like it. Even more historical is the Churches of Asia telling Rome exactly where She can stick Her Paschal reckonings. Long story short, not long after the Gregorian calendar reform, we called a council in 1583 - three Patriarchs out of the Four of the Five we kept attended, which is almost as big a deal for us as an Ecumenical Council would be for Rome (it's kind of hard for us to round up everybody for a council when we're constantly being persecuted by the Turks, Communists, and a third party I won't name for politeness' sake -but the name rhymes with "Whore of Babylon"). And they flat out rejected the calendar.

Now, it should be pointed out that the main reason for rejecting the calendar is that it was produced by the "atheist astronomers of the Pope". Anti-Roman polemic was quite high in Constantinople around this time. We're just past a century out from the fall of Constantinople to the Turks and a lot of Greek Orthodox placed the blame on the earlier sack of Constantinople by the Fourth "Crusaders" weakening the Eastern Empire to the point where it could no longer properly maintain what little border it had left. And then when the Turks were on our doorstep, Rome used the prospect of aid as a carrot for reunion on entirely Roman terms- the Emperor and bishops ate the carrot and then were roundly condemned by the Christian laity for betraying the faith. By this point in history, other Orthodox nations offered aid against the Muslim threat would reply "Better the Turkish crown than the Roman miter."

So the Patriarchs rejected the Gregorian calendar and rejected it specifically so that we would not celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholics on the dates our Paschalions and calendars diverge.

Since that time a lot of myth has popped up in Orthodox circles appealing to mysterious "canons" (I use "mysterious" here in the more common sense and not in a sacramental sense) regarding when Pascha can be celebrated in the Orthodox Church and why this relates to us continuing to use the Julian Calendar. Or claims that the Julian calendar has somehow been "canonized" by the Orthodox Church and we can use no other. None of it bears any historical fact and the impressive ordination titles of various authors behind internet articles that claim these myths are fact are primarily from a jurisdiction that is rather well known for it's lax educational requirements for clergy.

But the above is really about why we didn't change the calendar. As to why we don't do it now- there is a rather large contigent of Orthodox bishops and laity who would be happy to avoid celebrating Pascha in May. But there is also a rather large contigent of Orthodox who still believe it would be untoward to change our dating of Pascha to match the Roman practice in even the slightest- they don't want outward signs of unity with Rome to proceed doctrinal and ecclesial unity. If our bishops were to wholesale change the date of Pascha a lot of bishops, priests, and laity would leave the Church.

In 1923 a Pan-Orthodox Council introduced the Revised Julian Calendar- at this point in time it would match the Gregorian calendar, though in a few hundred years it will be more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar. The New Calendar was entirely optional for the local Churches and did not touch the calculation of Pascha at all- the Paschalion is still calculated off the Old Julian Calendar date where March 21 happens 13 days later. And it's introduction caused schisms almost everywhere it was implemented- something we're still feeling the effects of to this day. If you see a parish website for an Orthodox Church calling itself the "True, Genuine, Traditional, Authentic, etc" Greek or other ethnicity(a lot of the Old Calendar schisms came from Greece) Orthodox Church it can certain that it came, primarily, out of this schism (and as such, none of the adjectives are correct).

Again, the revised Calendar was optional and had to be decided on locally by synods of the various local Churches. The only feast dates it changed were the fixed feasts such as Christmas or Theophany. And churches schismed. If we changed the date of Pascha for everyone in the Orthodox Church you'd see schisms of not just parishes and idividual bishops but entire local Churches. And we'd much rather maintain unity among our brethren than extend a symbolic olive branch to the Pope.

Finally, the miracle of the Holy Fire in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre happens only on Orthodox Pascha. We must be doing something right.
User avatar
tuttle
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 424
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 05:21
Location: Middle-west
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Contact:

Calculating Easter

Post by tuttle »

mcommini wrote: 20 Dec 2022, 13:40
tuttle wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 05:26 I'd be curious to know what the EO reluctance to change to the Gregorian calendar is.
Better a late reply than never-

It comes down to a couple of things- the biggest lies in the name. Back when Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar it was specifically to modify the dating of Pascha to conform to solar time. Historically, we have always had a problem with Rome making modifications to universal Church practice just because She feels like it. Even more historical is the Churches of Asia telling Rome exactly where She can stick Her Paschal reckonings. Long story short, not long after the Gregorian calendar reform, we called a council in 1583 - three Patriarchs out of the Four of the Five we kept attended, which is almost as big a deal for us as an Ecumenical Council would be for Rome (it's kind of hard for us to round up everybody for a council when we're constantly being persecuted by the Turks, Communists, and a third party I won't name for politeness' sake -but the name rhymes with "Whore of Babylon"). And they flat out rejected the calendar.

Now, it should be pointed out that the main reason for rejecting the calendar is that it was produced by the "atheist astronomers of the Pope". Anti-Roman polemic was quite high in Constantinople around this time. We're just past a century out from the fall of Constantinople to the Turks and a lot of Greek Orthodox placed the blame on the earlier sack of Constantinople by the Fourth "Crusaders" weakening the Eastern Empire to the point where it could no longer properly maintain what little border it had left. And then when the Turks were on our doorstep, Rome used the prospect of aid as a carrot for reunion on entirely Roman terms- the Emperor and bishops ate the carrot and then were roundly condemned by the Christian laity for betraying the faith. By this point in history, other Orthodox nations offered aid against the Muslim threat would reply "Better the Turkish crown than the Roman miter."

So the Patriarchs rejected the Gregorian calendar and rejected it specifically so that we would not celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholics on the dates our Paschalions and calendars diverge.

Since that time a lot of myth has popped up in Orthodox circles appealing to mysterious "canons" (I use "mysterious" here in the more common sense and not in a sacramental sense) regarding when Pascha can be celebrated in the Orthodox Church and why this relates to us continuing to use the Julian Calendar. Or claims that the Julian calendar has somehow been "canonized" by the Orthodox Church and we can use no other. None of it bears any historical fact and the impressive ordination titles of various authors behind internet articles that claim these myths are fact are primarily from a jurisdiction that is rather well known for it's lax educational requirements for clergy.

But the above is really about why we didn't change the calendar. As to why we don't do it now- there is a rather large contigent of Orthodox bishops and laity who would be happy to avoid celebrating Pascha in May. But there is also a rather large contigent of Orthodox who still believe it would be untoward to change our dating of Pascha to match the Roman practice in even the slightest- they don't want outward signs of unity with Rome to proceed doctrinal and ecclesial unity. If our bishops were to wholesale change the date of Pascha a lot of bishops, priests, and laity would leave the Church.

In 1923 a Pan-Orthodox Council introduced the Revised Julian Calendar- at this point in time it would match the Gregorian calendar, though in a few hundred years it will be more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar. The New Calendar was entirely optional for the local Churches and did not touch the calculation of Pascha at all- the Paschalion is still calculated off the Old Julian Calendar date where March 21 happens 13 days later. And it's introduction caused schisms almost everywhere it was implemented- something we're still feeling the effects of to this day. If you see a parish website for an Orthodox Church calling itself the "True, Genuine, Traditional, Authentic, etc" Greek or other ethnicity(a lot of the Old Calendar schisms came from Greece) Orthodox Church it can certain that it came, primarily, out of this schism (and as such, none of the adjectives are correct).

Again, the revised Calendar was optional and had to be decided on locally by synods of the various local Churches. The only feast dates it changed were the fixed feasts such as Christmas or Theophany. And churches schismed. If we changed the date of Pascha for everyone in the Orthodox Church you'd see schisms of not just parishes and idividual bishops but entire local Churches. And we'd much rather maintain unity among our brethren than extend a symbolic olive branch to the Pope.

Finally, the miracle of the Holy Fire in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre happens only on Orthodox Pascha. We must be doing something right.
Thank you.

You may not believe me but I was riveted. That was absolutely fascinating. I already knew EO had an admirable kind of spunk, but that sealed the deal.

Here I was thinking, I wonder why they wouldn't just use the Gregorian calendar so that they're on board with everyone else. But the EO are like, "hey we cool with everyone else, we love unity. What calendar is the Pope using? Aw hell naw, we good." And it makes sense not to move on today for the sake of the unity of the church.

Really appreciate you taking the time to answer!
"tuttle isn't saved" - Legion
mcommini
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 138
Joined: 12 Jul 2022, 15:56
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Calculating Easter

Post by mcommini »

tuttle wrote: 21 Dec 2022, 05:49
mcommini wrote: 20 Dec 2022, 13:40
tuttle wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 05:26 I'd be curious to know what the EO reluctance to change to the Gregorian calendar is.
Better a late reply than never-

It comes down to a couple of things- the biggest lies in the name. Back when Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar it was specifically to modify the dating of Pascha to conform to solar time. Historically, we have always had a problem with Rome making modifications to universal Church practice just because She feels like it. Even more historical is the Churches of Asia telling Rome exactly where She can stick Her Paschal reckonings. Long story short, not long after the Gregorian calendar reform, we called a council in 1583 - three Patriarchs out of the Four of the Five we kept attended, which is almost as big a deal for us as an Ecumenical Council would be for Rome (it's kind of hard for us to round up everybody for a council when we're constantly being persecuted by the Turks, Communists, and a third party I won't name for politeness' sake -but the name rhymes with "Whore of Babylon"). And they flat out rejected the calendar.

Now, it should be pointed out that the main reason for rejecting the calendar is that it was produced by the "atheist astronomers of the Pope". Anti-Roman polemic was quite high in Constantinople around this time. We're just past a century out from the fall of Constantinople to the Turks and a lot of Greek Orthodox placed the blame on the earlier sack of Constantinople by the Fourth "Crusaders" weakening the Eastern Empire to the point where it could no longer properly maintain what little border it had left. And then when the Turks were on our doorstep, Rome used the prospect of aid as a carrot for reunion on entirely Roman terms- the Emperor and bishops ate the carrot and then were roundly condemned by the Christian laity for betraying the faith. By this point in history, other Orthodox nations offered aid against the Muslim threat would reply "Better the Turkish crown than the Roman miter."

So the Patriarchs rejected the Gregorian calendar and rejected it specifically so that we would not celebrate Pascha with the Roman Catholics on the dates our Paschalions and calendars diverge.

Since that time a lot of myth has popped up in Orthodox circles appealing to mysterious "canons" (I use "mysterious" here in the more common sense and not in a sacramental sense) regarding when Pascha can be celebrated in the Orthodox Church and why this relates to us continuing to use the Julian Calendar. Or claims that the Julian calendar has somehow been "canonized" by the Orthodox Church and we can use no other. None of it bears any historical fact and the impressive ordination titles of various authors behind internet articles that claim these myths are fact are primarily from a jurisdiction that is rather well known for it's lax educational requirements for clergy.

But the above is really about why we didn't change the calendar. As to why we don't do it now- there is a rather large contigent of Orthodox bishops and laity who would be happy to avoid celebrating Pascha in May. But there is also a rather large contigent of Orthodox who still believe it would be untoward to change our dating of Pascha to match the Roman practice in even the slightest- they don't want outward signs of unity with Rome to proceed doctrinal and ecclesial unity. If our bishops were to wholesale change the date of Pascha a lot of bishops, priests, and laity would leave the Church.

In 1923 a Pan-Orthodox Council introduced the Revised Julian Calendar- at this point in time it would match the Gregorian calendar, though in a few hundred years it will be more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar. The New Calendar was entirely optional for the local Churches and did not touch the calculation of Pascha at all- the Paschalion is still calculated off the Old Julian Calendar date where March 21 happens 13 days later. And it's introduction caused schisms almost everywhere it was implemented- something we're still feeling the effects of to this day. If you see a parish website for an Orthodox Church calling itself the "True, Genuine, Traditional, Authentic, etc" Greek or other ethnicity(a lot of the Old Calendar schisms came from Greece) Orthodox Church it can certain that it came, primarily, out of this schism (and as such, none of the adjectives are correct).

Again, the revised Calendar was optional and had to be decided on locally by synods of the various local Churches. The only feast dates it changed were the fixed feasts such as Christmas or Theophany. And churches schismed. If we changed the date of Pascha for everyone in the Orthodox Church you'd see schisms of not just parishes and idividual bishops but entire local Churches. And we'd much rather maintain unity among our brethren than extend a symbolic olive branch to the Pope.

Finally, the miracle of the Holy Fire in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre happens only on Orthodox Pascha. We must be doing something right.
Thank you.

You may not believe me but I was riveted. That was absolutely fascinating. I already knew EO had an admirable kind of spunk, but that sealed the deal.

Here I was thinking, I wonder why they wouldn't just use the Gregorian calendar so that they're on board with everyone else. But the EO are like, "hey we cool with everyone else, we love unity. What calendar is the Pope using? Aw hell naw, we good." And it makes sense not to move on today for the sake of the unity of the church.

Really appreciate you taking the time to answer!
I believe you! The Orthodox calendar question was a big stumbling block to me when I was first looking into Orthodoxy, but the history of it is fascinating.

It is also important to note that it's not all about rigidity- in countries like Finland where the Established (Lutheran in this case) Church managed to pass laws requiring all denominations to celebrate Pascha on the same day, the local Church celebrates on the Western Paschalion. We can be adaptable when needed- we just don't like it!
User avatar
Wosbald
Sunday School Superintendent
Sunday School Superintendent
Posts: 993
Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Cathanglodox Relations

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Source: Crux
Link: cruxnow DOT com/news-analysis/2023/05/unpacking-how-history-changed-yesterday-with-recognition-of-coptic-martyrs
Unpacking how history changed yesterday with recognition of Coptic martyrs [News Analysis]

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

ROME — For those with ears to hear, every so often it’s actually possible to detect the sound of history’s tectonic plates as they shift. Such was the case Thursday, with a remarkable gesture by Pope Francis of inscribing a group of Coptic Christian martyrs into the Roman Martyrology, Catholicism’s official compendium of saints.

The move was not quite completely unprecedented, since, as Vatican News pointed out, the martyrology was updated in 2001 with certain Orthodox saints who date from the period after the historical separation between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Still, this was the first time the martyrology was revised with the explicit approval of a non-Catholic cleric, in this case Coptic Pope Tawadros II — suggesting, in some sense, that non-Catholics can have a say in whom the Catholic Church chooses to venerate.

It was also the first time the newly inscribed martyrs are contemporaries, as these 21 martyrs (20 Egyptian Copts and one Ghanian Christian) were beheaded by ISIS in 2015.

The full implications of the act will become clear only with time. For now, four immediate observations suggest themselves:
  • It’s a rare case in which a papal act is likely to play well with both the Catholic left and right.
  • For a pope often accused of breaking with his immediate predecessors, this decision places Francis squarely in continuity with Pope John Paul II.
  • The decision may increase pressure on Francis to beatify and canonize his own new martyrs from the Middle East.
  • It also upends the saying, “Sometimes the only way around is through.” With regard to ecumenical progress, Francis seems to be suggesting that sometimes the best way through is around.
Left and Right

To traffic in wild over-generalizations, ecumenism, meaning the press for Christian unity, tends to be a greater concern for Catholic moderates and progressives. Conservatives sometimes fret that too much doctrinal ground may be given up in the search for consensus, and are likely to emphasize Catholic distinctiveness.

On the other hand, anti-Christian persecution, especially in its 21st century forms, often finds greater traction among conservatives. That’s especially so given that numerically, the largest number of new Christian martyrs today tend to be victims of Islamic fundamentalism. Liberals often worry that too much emphasis on anti-Christian persecution may lead to Islamophobia, and also may be exploited to gin up sympathy for conservative positions in the Western culture wars.

In this instance, Pope Francis has performed a deeply ecumenical act by honoring martyrs to Islamic extremism. While his motives were clearly pastoral, the immediate political reactions are nonetheless likely to be unusually compact, and in a positive direction.

Continuity with John Paul II

As early as his 1994 apostolic letter Tertio Millenio Adveniente anticipating the Great Jubilee of 2000, John Paul II began calling for a joint Christian memorial of the new martyrs. He repeated the idea in 1995’s Ut Unum Sint, his encyclical on ecumenism. In 1998, his preparatory commission for the jubilee proposed a “Common Martyrology,” meaning a listing of martyrs that would be shared among all the Christian churches.

That proposal ran into a theological buzzsaw, torpedoed by critics who said it would be incoherent to propose role models of holiness who went to their deaths upholding beliefs the Catholic Church officially regards as heretical.

Nonetheless John Paul persisted, staging an ecumenical liturgy in 2000 at Rome’s Colosseum dedicated to new martyrs, including non-Catholics such as Martin Luther King Jr.

In that sense, Pope Francis on Thursday advanced a cause to which John Paul II was also devoutly devoted.

Catholic Martyrs

Ironically, the lone constituency likely to be disconcerted by Francis’s inclusion of the Copts are members of his own flock across the Middle East, who may wonder why the same papal solicitude isn’t being shown to their own martyrs.

An emblematic case would be the 48 Chaldean Catholics who were executed by Islamic militants at Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, Iraq, on Oct. 31, 2010, including an unborn child in the womb. Their sainthood cause has been languishing in Rome since 2019, despite the fact that Francis actually visited the site of their martyrdom during his trip to Iraq in 2021, including sitting in the very spot where Father Taher Abdal was shot to death.

[…]

Nevertheless, acting on Coptic Orthodox martyrs while delaying Catholics still is likely to rankle. As one sainthood expert put it Thursday, it may come off as “marketing in the guise of ecumenism.”

Around, Not Through

It’s often said that the best marriages begin as friendships, when the partners aren’t thinking about themselves as spouses but simply people bound by common interests and values. In the same vein, it may well be that Christian unity doesn’t begin with formal declarations of structural reintegration, but rather with expressions of common cause on other fronts.

In that sense, by honoring the martyrs of another Christian confession, to the extent of including them in the Catholic Church’s official daily prayer, and by doing so only with the blessing of the leader of that non-Catholic tradition, Pope Francis effectively has achieved a new degree of integration, only without calling it that.

Where will this lead? At present, it’s difficult to say. At a minimum, however, it opens a new set of possibilities for joint recognition of sanctity that didn’t exist before, and that alone can’t help but feel like momentum.


Image
Post Reply