Determination of the Date of Easter

St Polycarp of Smyrna and other Saints, along with their fellow Christians, actually celebrated Easter on the first day of the Jewish Passover which is the 14th day of the month of Nisan on the lunar Hebrew calendar. It did not matter that the Passover did not fall on a Sunday, they simply ended their Lenten fast on Passover and celebrated Christ's Resurrection then. They were called "Quartodecimans" or those who celebrated the "fourteenth day" (of Nisan, Passover.).

Pope Saint Victor wanted to excommunicate them for this practice, but others, such as St Ireneaus of Lyons, wrote to the Pope to ask him to leave those Christians alone, since they produced such great teachers and Saints and Martyrs etc. Eventually that practice was outlawed.

The Celtic Christians followed their own version of the Julian Calendar, a Calendar they said they inherited from St John the Theologian. This led to the calculation of a Celtic Easter that was different from the one celebrated by everyone at the time throughout Christendom. We may read of incidents in the history of the British Church where a King is celebrating Easter while his Queen is still fasting, both being on two different Calendars.

The Council of Whitby in the seventh century decided against the Celtic Easter, although a number of Celtic Saints and Fathers withdrew into the desert ("diseart") to keep their ancient traditions. Today there are some independent Celtic groups in the U.S. that follow the Celtic Easter calculation and some Protestant churches in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere who do as well.

Today the Catholic-Protestant West has a different Easter calculation than the Orthodox Catholic Church (which is both Eastern and Western). It has less to do with the Gregorian calendar and more with the rules laid down at the First Ecumenical Council in AD325. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church has the "Reformed Julian" calendar and celebrates Christmas-Nativity on December 25th, yet celebrates Easter along with all other Orthodox Christians (with the exception of the Finnish Orthodox Church which follows the Gregorian practice).

In addition to the rules you describe, the First Ecumenical Council added the proviso that Easter cannot fall on Passover, that Passover must occur first, and then Easter, as the New Testament records the salvific events of our Lord's Passion, Death and Resurrection. This Council was accepted by the Churches of the West when, as you know, the Orthodox-Catholic Church of Christ was one. The Orthodox Church of today continues to follow that rule because a universal Ecumenical Council laid it down for all posterity.

Apart from the issues surrounding the "Old Calendar/New Calendar" debate, the Orthodox Date of Easter is something that is actually and accurately laid down in law by a universal Church Council.

I too agree that a single celebration of the Pascha or Passover of the Lord would be a wonderful thing. There is one way of achieving this which requires respect for the 1st Ecumenical Council and its decrees. It is for the Catholic and Protestant West to simply adopt the Orthodox Easter. In so doing, the West would understand, at a deeper level, the Orthodox Church's commitment to the Ecumenical Councils. As a matter of fact, if all Churches in Christendom followed the Seven Ecumenical Councils, we would have One, Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church, as was obtained in the first thousand years of Christianity.

To adopt the Orthodox Pascha, the West would not have to give up its Calendar. It would be returning to the practice of Christianity of the first Millennium. And it would be taking an important step in accepting other ancient doctrines and practices of the historic One Church of Christ.

This is already happening in other theological areas. For example, the Roman Catholic Church of Greece has, for some years now, deleted the "Filioque" from the Nicene Creed. Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have already agreed that the "And the Son" should be removed from the Creed used by all Christians. Anglican and Lutheran Churches often place the "And the Son" in brackets and some Catholic theologians have interpreted the Pope's recent overtures and actions toward the Orthodox Church as meaning that the Roman Catholic Church should delete the "Filioque" as well.

The problem with ecumenism is that its model is a corporate, almost business one. Two or more parties get together to discuss "issues" and "concerns" and then draft "agreements" based on "compromise." In actual fact, the Christian Church has never believed in compromises where the faith and morals are concerned. Its attitude is entirely one of "take it or leave it." But if the Churches were to do that today, what standard would they use? Well, the standard of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, of course! By accepting the Orthodox Pascha, the West would not be accepting a "new" or novel idea, but it would go back to something that it believed, and whose Popes defended, for the first Christian Millennium.

As I see it, there are no "losers" in this theological perspective. The Orthodox Church should not be castigated, therefore, for its "intransigence" on these and other matters. The Orthodox Church is simply defending and protecting the deposit of faith of the Apostles and the Fathers. Frankly, if any Church would refuse to do that, it simply is NOT the authentic Church of Christ.

Christus Resurrectus Est!

Dr. Alexander Roman