Motorists across America saw a strange sight this past Sunday morning if they stopped at a traffic signal near an Eastern Orthodox sanctuary and then, shortly thereafter, passed a Catholic parish.
What they saw was worshippers singing hymns and waving palm fronds as they marched in Palm Sunday processions at these churches. Similar sights will be common during Holy Week rites this week and then on Easter Sunday.
There is nothing unusual about various churches celebrating these holy days in their own ways. What is rare is for the churches of the East and West to be celebrating Easter (“Pascha” in the East) on the same day. This will happen again next year, as well as in 2014 and 2017.
This remains one of the most painful symbols of division in global Christianity….
TM writes, “This remains one of the most painful symbols of division in global Christianity.”
I don’t find it particularly painful, but I know that my opinion doesn’t matter. Still, to me, the calendar issues are adiaphora.
What I find painful is that Christians are nowhere more divided than at the communion table. To me, that matters.
Of all the things that divide the Body of Christ, this seems to be rather low on my list. At least everyone is celebrating Easter in some way on some date.
There are many more divisive things out there that naysayers point to to prove that the Body of Christ is divided.
And to be fair, Christians all the way back to the Quartodeciman controversy have been arguing when to put Easter on the calendar.
Many Orthodox scholars agree that the Western formula for calculating Easter/Paskha is more accurate, but change looks like capitulation and then we’re back to history and the “tradition of resentment” again. One selfish benefit of the two calendars is the opportunity to attend Holy/Great Week and Easter/Paskha services in both traditions when they don’t coincide!
My recently-published article on this question might be of interest:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-02-026-f
which is a sequel to my earlier articles on Lent and Christmas:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-02-009-v
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v
I have never understood why anyone cares when Easter is, so long as it is. Why don’t we just celebrate it on the first Sunday in April and forget about full moons and equinoxes? The full moon/equinox thing has always seemed strange if not semi-pagan. The feast of Easter is a rememberance, but for Christians, Easter is every day.
And it floats all over the place somewhere within a one month span. In 2008, it was on March 23. In 2011, Easter will be on April 24!
Folks – EVERY Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection. This is, as another commenter has already noted, is WAY DOWN THE LIST on the reasons to be sad about Christian divisions.
And I seriously doubt if people stay away from Christian churches (Western or Eastern) because of this difference. Seems like low-hanging fruit to me.
Fr. Darin Lovelace
St. John’s Anglican
Park City UT
I agree with everyone on the thread. What a baffling claim — to be told that when you celebrate Easter is a deep and painful division.
There are other kinds of divisions in Christendom right now (e.g. ours in the AC) that are far more real and painful.
My guess is that the most significant divisions of today are not those between the historic communions (Rome, the East, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) but those INSIDE each communion, between people who believe in the Creeds and traditional faith in all their full blooded form, and those in the same communion who do not. Secondarily would be divisions between the historic bodies (e.g. on issues like justification, the bound will, prayers to saints) — these are important but ultimately not as trying as the intra-commune divides. And way at the end of importance is the exact date we celebrate Easter.
BTW… I love what David Keller said. Can some of you folks who are more knowledgeable comment? His suggestion seems perfect to me — first Sunday of April.
Two quick points…
First ; it was not we who unilaterally tampered with the calendar. If Rome wants to return to the canoncial paschalian the Pope can affect this the same way he took his church off it. That is to say with a stroke of his pen. By contrast…
We have no mechanism for altering the calendar without an OEcumenical Council since the current one was codified by such a council. Attempts by the Greeks to unilaterally change the calendar to conform to the Roman Catholic calendar as far as fixed feasts in the early 1920’s were highly controversial and caused both pain and schism within the Church. Such actions are widely viewed as uncanonical by most Orthodox.
Secondly; as noted by others there are far more pressing issues which separate Rome from Orthodoxy. It would seem to me that one might be more concerned with issues which proscribe communio in sacris then worrying about the date for Holy Pascha (important as that is). I mean if we do not even reciting the same creed (and we don’t) then I think people need to get their priorities in order.
People talk about celebrating Easter together? The problem is that has not happened in many centuries and it has nothing whatever to do with calendars.
Christ is risen!
John
As noted by one of the points in TMatt’s essay,
[blockquote] Honor the first ecumenical council of Nicea by celebrating Easter on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox, which would maintain the biblical ties between the Jewish Passover, Holy Week and Easter. [/blockquote]
All the points above are well made – this is a minor issue, yet it is very symbolic of the split. I like the suggestion of healing, part of which I quoted from above. Moreover, I like the juxtaposition with Passover – I do not think this should be so readily abandoned with a “first Sunday in April” solution. [Were I a theologian, I would probably argue more strenuously against this suggestion because it does seem to want to sever the tie between Passover and the sacrifice of Jesus.]
Just a couple of items regarding comments made above …
1. True, every Sunday is a celebration of the Resurrection. IIRC,
the Russian word which I’m transliterating as ‘Voskressenya’
means both Sunday and Resurrection in that
language.
2. March 22nd is the earliest date (at least in the Western
Calendar) on which Easter can occur. It is also the
rarest date on which Easter can occur; the last time
that happened was 1818, and the next time will be (I think)
in about 2285. March 22nd is also my birthday, so I have
a bit of a personal interest in when Easter falls. I missed the
1818 observance by a comfortable margin, and will miss the
2285 date by an even more comfortable margin.
Hasn’t Terry Mattingly converted from Anglicanism to the Antiochan Orthodox Church? Let’s give him credit for sensing a scandal that many Western Christians fail to grasp. I agree that there are much bigger issues keeping the Eastern and Western traditions apart, but that’s precisely why resolving one of the lesser ones makes sense to me, in order to build positive momentum toward the harder ones.
But when it comes to building better bridges of understanding and cooperation between East and West, I think the key player/mediator is apt to be the largest of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, namely the Ukrainian Catholic Church. This spiritually vibrant church is a true Via Media (IMHO) that can help both sides better appreciate the other side. For example, almost alone among Christians with an eastern liturgy and spirituality, the Ukrainians seem to understand and appreciate St. Augustine, greatest patristic Doctor of the Western Church. From what I hear, the new Ukrainian Catholic University in L’viv (near the Polish border) is flourishing and rapidly becoming the most prestigious and influential Christian university in eastern Europe.
FWIW, I did my little part to help bridge the different traditions at Easter this year by ending my sermon at the Paschal Vigil by quoting the marvelous Easter sermon of St. John Chrysostom (ca. AD 400), one of my favorite eastern saints. It was a big hit with the congregation.
David Handy+
Re #12
David,
I respectfully disagree. The differences between East and West are deeply theological and spiritual. Blessed Augustine, although commemorated as a saint by the Church, is venerated more for his personal sanctity than his writings which are extremely controversial. Most Orthodox regard at least some of Augustine’s views as heretical.
And the Eastern Rite Catholics are far from being a bridge to Orthodoxy. Relations between the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Orthodox Church are positively icey. There is a long history of bad blood there (in fairness both sides share blame for this). But the bottom line is that they are really just Roman Catholics dressed in byzantine vestments. There is not an iota of divergence between them and Rome on doctrine.
My personal feeling on this is that we have grown too far apart. Rome has been adding to the Deposit of the Faith for a thousand years now. And they have dogmatized things that we can not accept. It might have been possible to heal the schism before 1204 without too much difficulty. But we are well past that point. Today I would have to say that restoration of communion would require one or the other of our churches to cease to be what it is.
Given that unhappy fact, I think it better if we agree on the things we can agree on and work together to feed the poor and and resist the encroachments of militant secularism and Islam. But when the time comes to commune the Holy Mysteries of the altar we should go our separate ways, albeit with sadness.
Christ is risen!
John
#13 is too dismissive of Eastern Rite Catholicism. With all respect to the Orthodox party line, there are definitely two kinds Byzantine Catholics: those who are content to be Roman Catholics who happen to use the Byzantine Rite, and those who are very Orthodox in most all ways but accept the Pope as universal head of the Church. The latter have made an uneasy peace with some of the Latin dogmatic developments, it is true, but retain a canoncial independence in dramatic ways (i.e. married priests) that could hardly be called “Roman Catholics in byzantine vestments.” There has also been a general trend within the various Eparchies to clean up Westernized additions and compromises in usage and teaching. Yes, Ukrainian/Ruthenian history is an embarrassment to both sides, and bad blood is hard to thin out, but is there no place for realistic but determined prayer “for the union of all”?
Re # 14
Anastasios,
Please name one article of Roman Catholic dogma rejected by the Eastern Rite Catholics. The other issues mentioned are superficial and generally matters of church discipline. The Latin Rite also allows (albeit rarely) for married clergy.
I stand by my post. They are Catholics in byzantine vestments.
Christ is risen!
John
#15, I believe that the Byzantine Catholics do not recite the filioque. That’s a pretty big difference. Also, please do not lump all Eastern Catholics as Byzantine. The Maronites have no Orthodox counterpart and the liturgy is not Byzantine. There are also Indian and Coptic Churches in union with Rome that are also not Byzantine. While the Byzantines in union with Rome make up a large part of Eastern Catholicism, they are not the only Easterns in union with Rome. They would also take great exception to being classified as “Latins” dressing up as Easterns.
Re # 16
Advocate,
You are correct. There are more than 20 sui juris churches in union with Rome. many do not practice the byzantine rite. That said most are extremely small, with some numbering only in the thousands. Also they are all Roman in doctrine. Most have been heavily latinized over the years. While it is true that there has been some very recent movement away from that on purely liturgical grounds, there has been none at all on matters of doctrine.
Yes, it is true that some of the uniate Catholics do not currently recite the filioque (others do). This however is by dispensation granted from Rome. They are required to subscribe to it irrespective of whether or not it is recited. Rome could at any time require them to recite it if the Pope so wished. And indeed this has happened on many occasions in the past.
For the third time I repeat; I don’t care what kind of vestments they are wearing or which liturgical books they use. They are in full union and complete doctrinal accord with the Pope of Rome. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it does make them Catholics.
Christ is risen!
John
Uh…David Keller, the “first full moon after the vernal equinox” is not “semi-pagan” ! It’s how the Jews (and Jesus) calculate Passover! Easter is supposed to be the first Sunday after Passover, hence it is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. However, the Jews insert a “leap month’ occasionally to make up for the fact that their lunar calander is so far out of whack with the solar calandar, so every few years Passover and Easter are a month apart. The rest of the time Easter is essentially the first Sunday after Passover.
I think the Easter dating thing looms large for a few years after becoming a member of the Orthodox Church then it isn’t a front burner issue. It mostly means you have to explain to a family member why “Your” date differs from theirs. I actually like the oddity of the dating (Whichever method you like). Since it isn’t the same date each year, it’s a moving target for retailers. All they can do is exploit it for candy and flower sales. Nativity stays 12/25 all the time whatever day of the week, sitting duck for commerce (It’s what, 1/3 of all sales in a year?) and a pain in the rear for those who’d like to take the day off. Easter is always a Sunday (And as someone pointed out, THAT’S WHY we worship on Sunday) so rarely needs to be an issue for work. Leave it as it is, whatever method of reckoning. It isn’t broke, don’t fix it. If one doesn’t believe it happened anyway, it certainly doesn’t matter.
1/2 my family is Greek Orthodox and 1/2 various Protestant denominations. My sister and I still agree that we had the best of both worlds being able to celebrate Easter twice when the calendars did not agree. Celebrating an Easter Vigil in the Episcopal Church very much reminds me of the services I attended with my grandmother, aunts, uncles and cousins in the Greek Church.
This greeting and response is the best! and my Greek friends/family and I have been sharing it with one another all week:
Christos Anesti! Alithos Anesti!
#18–Mom–Believe it or not I actually know all that. It doesn’t answer my essential question of why we commerate the resurrection of Jesus based on moons and equinoxes. In fact your answer makes my question clearer, because we don’t follow the Jewish calendar in getting to the feast day so it varies with the date of Passover quite often. And, actually worshiping the equinox is pagan. Look at Stonehenge and Quatzi-whatsit in Mexico. I know the Jews don’t worship the equinox, but it still doesn’t explain why it is necessary, either theologically or practically, to have the feast as a floating holiday. I can commerate the feast’s correlation with Passover without floating the day I do it. I commerate Jesus’ birth every year on December 25 with no problem, but it is very unlikely that he was born in the winter, much less on Saturnalia. I am open to hearing the argument, but I see no valid reason to have wars and schisms over a day, when for Christainity, Easter is supposed to be everyday.
David — I see your point in general, Easter being being the day we celebrate the Resurrection and that could be pretty much any day that the Church decides to set aside for this purpose. However, the early Christians were Jews. They reckoned time by the Jewish calander. To them, Easter was not a “moving” holiday — it was fixed, quite firmly anchored to Passover (both chronologically and theologically). It only became “moving” when pagan converts started to try to reckon it by the (pagan) solar calandar, against which it is, indeed, moving.
Look at it this way. Suppose a group of Americans decides to all emmigrate to a country that uses a lunar calandar. They all still celebrate Thanksgiving — which is the third Thursday in November. (And obviously even if we picked a “fixed” date for Easter it could only be “fixed” insofaras it was the xth Sunday in y — it couldn’t be a fixed number.) Now these Americans have no trouble calculating Thanksgiving, it’s really quite a breeze to do so. But after a certain number of generations go by, their descendants start using the local lunar system. Now calculating it out this way is really difficult — sometimes it’s in one month, sometimes another. But it’s important to keep it as a harvest festival falling roughly 3-4 weeks before the winter solstice. So they end up calculating it as “the fourth Thursday counting backwards from the winter solstice.” Why bother doing it this way? So that it will continue to fall roughly at the same time that it always fell when their ancestors celebrated it.
Mom–OK, but that doesn’t really bother me either. If we assume a year in which Jesus was crucified, say 32 AD,we could pick whatever date Passover was on in that year and do it on the following Sunday after that day every year. Plus I firmly believe the resilience of Christianity is that it is adaptable to all cultures. While the first Christians were mostly Jewish, that didn’t last very long. By the time Paul was writing they had become mostly Gentile. I expect most Gentile converts didn’t care much about how the date was determined. I don’t expect we will alter the way we figure Easter; my only point in the “debate” is, it silly to have schism over something so trivial, when the world needs to hear the Gospel. And, clearly, by the time we had schism over the date of Easter, 99.9% of Christians were Gentile. Anyway, I enjoyed the back and forth.