On the question of the calendar

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

George Australia wrote:

The First Ecumenical Council decreed that Pascha should be celebrated "not with the Jews" because prior to this, in some places, the Church was celebrating Pascha on the actual day of Passover (no matter what day of the week it was). These were the "Tessareskaedecatites" (literally "Fourteenth-ites") who celebrated Pascha on the 14th of Nissan, rather than the Sunday which followed it.

Correct, Pascha and the Nomical Passover can never coincide by their respective definitions. The Nomical Passover occurs on the night of the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox (14th Nissan), and Pascha is the Sunday after the first Vernal Full Moon (i.e., the Sunday after the Nomical 14th of Nissan), so, if the first Vernal Full Moon falls on a Sunday, the Pascha is the following Sunday. This is also why Pascha should never be a week later than the Nomical Passover.

Actually, it was the Apostles who influenced this. The "Wave-Sheaf" offering or "Omer" is commanded in the Old Testament (Leviticus 23:9-14). The "omer" was originally a unit of measure, which came to mean the "Wave-Sheaf". On the morning after the Sabbath of the Passover (i.e. Sunday Morning, or what should be our Pascha), the firstfruits were brought to the Temple to be offered to God. This consisted of a sheaf of Barley which was the "first-fruit" to ripen after the Winter. The priest would wave the sheaf before the God to offer it, and only after the Omer offering could food made from that year's fruits be eaten (only dried grains, legumes, fruits etc from the previous year could be eaten until the "Wave-Sheaf" or "Omer" was offered). So this was a firstfruit offering made on the day which came to be the day on which Christ Rose from the Dead. And the Apostle St. Paul makes this connection between the Resurrection and the Firstfruits when he says:
"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:20.)
The days and weeks after the Wave-Sheaf offering had to be counted each day for seven weeks, (Leviticus 23-15-16) and this is known as "Counting the Omer". So, for example, on the 9th day after the Wave Offering, the announcement is made during prayer that "Today is the ninth day, which is one week and two days of the Omer (i.e. the "Wave-Sheaf"). After the Seven Weeks of the Omer (49 days) came the Feast of Shavu'ot on the 50th day or "Pentecost". This day was the harvest festival of the first-fruits, when the firstfruits would be harvested and brought to the Temple. It was also the Day which commemorated the giving of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai. And on this Day in AD 33 the Holy Spirit, Who teaches Truth, descended on the Apostles and established the Church, and through the Truth of the Holy Spirit, the Church is where the "firstfruits" of all creatures are gathered (or "harvested") as an offering to God, as the Apostle St. James says:
"Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." (James 1:18 )

The assumption is often made that the decree that we should celebrate Pascha "not with the Jews" is antisemetic, but in fact, it isn't. If we were calculating Pascha as the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decreed we should, then our Pascha would always fall on the day of the Wave-Sheaf offering.
Think about it: the first day of Passover is actually the 15th of Nissan, remembering that the Day begings at sunset, so Sunset on the 14th of Nissan is actually the start of the 15th. The Wave-Sheaf had to be offered in the Morning of the Sunday after the Saturday in Passover. Therefore if 14th Nissan was a Saturday, then the Wave-Sheaf would not be offered the next day, but on the following Sunday, since that 14th Nissan was not the Saturday in Passover, but the Saturday before it (and this most recently occured in 2001). Therefore, "the Sunday following the first vernal full moon" (or the Nomical Christian Pascha) is the Nomical Day of the Omer or "Wave-Sheaf" offering.
Therefore "not will the Jews" cannot mean anything other than not celebrating Pascha on any day other than Sunday (unlike the Jews who celebrate thier Passover on any day of the week). Yet, our Pascha (if we calculated it correctly) would always falls on the Nomical day of the Wave-Sheaf Offering, so it cannot be said that the decree "not with the Jews" was meant to be antisemetic, since we would always be celebrating Pascha on the same Jewish Holiday every year, and always during the Passover Week (or "Days of Unleaven Bread").
The conclusion of all this is that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decreed that we should be celebrating the Resurrection for Pascha, and the Resurrection of Our Lord took place on the day of the Wave-Sheaf (Omer) Offering. Our Pascha is a Resurrectional Pascha, whereas, if we celebrate "with the Jews", it would be a Crucifixional Pascha.

I've been giving this some more thought and I can see the logic in standardising the day of resurrection to the wave-sheaf offering day, but in reality it's no more accurate than any manipulation to standardise could be because it has to reject the reality of the orginal event which while including the wave-sheaf offering day only did so because it followed a particular 14 Nissan, an event which is not repeated annually.

In effect then, and I don't know how often this happens, Pascha bears no real relation to the orginal event any more than celebrating Pascha on the 14th does if by this the "Tessareskaedecatites" were remembering the resurrection. If the 14 Nissan falls on a Saturday then Pascha is celebrating a 7 day internment.

My objection here is that I do think it important that we remember Pascha for the day which Christ chose it to be, since it means Passover and Passover has specific theology in respect of Christ's death, the freeing from slavery etc. I think forgetting this by making it a moveable feast when it is the one immoveable we can all agree on is putting the cart before the horse.

I'd rather see 'Resurrection Pascha' on whichever day it really fell whether or not it was a Sunday and then, I don't know how often this would happen, when it did fall on a Sunday it would be so much more meaningful for me.

However, even if we continued to celebrate Pascha on the wave-sheaf offering day every year, I think we still need to remember Pascha the Crucifixion day.

Myrrh

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

More thoughts.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/holidays/passover.htm

The argument here comes back to the original, not that the Quartodecimans celebrated a 'Crucifixion Pascha' or that others celebrated a 'Resurrection Pascha' as they both celebrated the resurrection, but on which day this was to be commemorated. Always on a Sunday versus 14 Nissan. I think the 14 Nissan is special in that it was instituted by Christ to be a memorial day, it's not the day of crucifixion or the resurrection, but includes both in anticipation of the reality to come. And further even, of all the time up to and including Pentecost.

I'd settle for this to be included in its own right within the liturgy, in tandem with Pascha calculated to whatever Sunday the wave-sheaf offering was made.

Myrrh

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Myrhh,

When you ask for a change in Pascha, or ideas of femal clergy, you are putting yourself above the Church fathers. Please be careful in this. It is good to research , but not to think we know better than the saints or the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Deacon Nikolai wrote:

Myrhh,

When you ask for a change in Pascha, or ideas of femal clergy, you are putting yourself above the Church fathers. Please be careful in this. It is good to research , but not to think we know better than the saints or the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

I'm not a member of the Church of the Church Fathers...

Christ gave them no authority over us, period.

"It shall not be so among you."

That is the Orthodox Church's first Canon.

Myrrh

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Dear Deacon, I think I should elaborate on my rather blunt last post.

The Orthodox Church is not as is thought of in the RCC, an organisation of people governed by rules and regulations and subject to a hierarchical authority, it is ever and always the Body of Christ and our Lord is the only Head of this His Church, subject to no one but ever guided by Him. One description of our relationship to this and to each other in this is as cells in His Body. We are each of us baptised in an Orthodox baptism, our death and resurrection in Christ, and each sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit, our first experience of Pentecost where the whole Church in each individual equally receives the Holy Ghost. We have guarded and preserved this from the beginning, against all comers, and we are encouraged to "acquire the Holy Spirit" for ourselves to understand ourselves in this.

I really don't understand where this emphasis 'the Church of the Fathers' comes from, I've never heard any Orthodox teach them as authoritative above the Church, but this especially denies the reality that our Mothers of the Church are just as numerous, who else remembers our many women Equal-to-the-Apostles? That we had to give them this title shows our defence of orthodoxy in the Church's history - and it's an ongoing battle.. :) More worrying is that this emphasis puts us in danger of Christ's admonition - that in exalting the traditions of men we break God's commandment, here just as surely as in His example regarding the korban food which disregarded the commandment to honour father and mother, by putting the idea of 'Church Fathers' alone as orthodoxy we dishonour our Church Mothers.

The canons are not simply rules and regs for us to obey, as we've seen in previous discussions there are many contradicting each other, they are responses to time and place and primarily as this article points out, corrective in nature. The rest of the article is also worth reading to appreciate how canons in the Orthodox Church are understood and for a view of this through some current and past examples .

http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/c ... dition.htm

The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church
By Lewis Patsavos, Ph. D.

Unlike the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, the canon law of the Orthodox Church has not been codified. Neither is it prescriptive in character, anticipating a situation before it actually takes place; instead, it is corrective in nature, responding to a situation once it has occurred. Because of the absence of a universal codification binding upon all autocephalous or self-governing Orthodox Churches, great importance is attached to the local legislation of each of these Churches. Canon 39 of the Quinisext Synod or the Synod of Trullo, held in 691, recognized the right of a local Church to have its own special laws or regulations: "For our God-bearing fathers also declared that the customs of each church should be preserved..." Such laws or regulations, however, must always reflect the spirit of the Church's universal law as found in the holy canons.

.....

The canons ought also to be understood as pastoral guidelines. As such, they should serve as models upon which subsequent ecclesiastical legislation is based whenever possible. The canons of the Fathers, in particular, reflect the pastoral nature of their contents. The Fathers who wrote them did not think that they were writing legislative texts. In most cases, they were either responding to the questions put to them by individuals seeking their counsel, or else expressing their views on matters of grave concern to the Church.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say with respect to the calendar arguments of our time is that I think it necessary to correct an earlier error, the banishing of the holy Apostolic tradition from St John which 'the Fathers' failed to protect. In all the righteous indignation as each side hurls invective against the other this continues to be ignored, I believe, to our detriment, a smidgin of shame wouldn't be amiss here. Perhaps then both sides will also find time in this battle to appreciate as George has explained, that neither old or new calendar actually conforms to the calculations carefully worked out for our liturgical year.

Myrrh

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Myrrh wrote:
Deacon Nikolai wrote:

Myrhh,

When you ask for a change in Pascha, or ideas of femal clergy, you are putting yourself above the Church fathers. Please be careful in this. It is good to research , but not to think we know better than the saints or the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

I'm not a member of the Church of the Church Fathers...

Christ gave them no authority over us, period.

"It shall not be so among you."

That is the Orthodox Church's first Canon.

Myrrh

Dear Myrhh,

I am afraid that you are making the error that Protestants do, in readin the Bible and interpreting it for themselves. We have the Church Fathers who interpreted these words, and the Bible even says that we need Fathers to interpret it for us. We liik to the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils which were headed by the Holy Spirit, the Bishops who were give the right to lock and loosen, and to the constant Tradition of the Church. So indeeed the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ, the Church of Tradition, the Church of the Church Fathers, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church of Truth.

Myrrh
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon 18 October 2004 8:00 pm

Post by Myrrh »

Post Reply