|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Easter Change?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This Report is very interesting. My view is that we should go back before Whitby or any other changes/differences/arguments that may have occurred, and reinstate Easter to be simultaneous with the Jewish Passover. This will not only bind Christians together in the one date, but also affirm our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Think what an evangelistic opportunity as well - we can boldly proclaim, at the correct time, Christ our Passover lamb has been slain.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I might be wrong, but I don't think Eastern Easter coincides with Passover necessarily because it is calculated in a different way.
And if all churches moved it to the same week as Passover, I doubt Jews would see that it was the Christian church "affirming" them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
You're right. It doesn't. This would only work if we all went over to using the (current) Hebrew calendar (which is quite possibly different from that used in the 1st Century).
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
This is just a blog report, without much else to support it. While I'm fine with it if it ever comes to pass, Pope Francis is simply echoing statements made by his recent predecessors, particularly the Pontiff Emeritus. I don't think that we are any closer to any sort of change than we have been previously.
[ 26. June 2015, 15:20: Message edited by: Ceremoniar ]
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
A question about this has been floating around in my head that people here may have some insight into: if the Catholics moved to join the Orthodox, who'd come with? The mainline Protestants? The evangelicals? Civic calendars? Hallmark?
Would we be increasing unity, or trading unity with some for unity with others?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Whatever way of calculating Easter were chosen, I'd be very reluctant to see the link broken between the events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the full moon.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Before trying to harmonise with the Jews, or at least at the same time, the Christian Church should agree a date for Easter, and end the absurdity of different Easters East and West. I would agree that the Orthodox calculation is from an older calender, but that the overwhelming majority of the world follows Western Easter. So I would propose a compromise which would probably see the monks of Mt Athos going beserk with their holy water.
The West should drop the filioque from it's version of the Nicene Creed. Whether or not it's theologically justified, it's a later addition put in without proper ecumenical consideration. Also the Catholic and Anglican Churches can live without it, as Pope Benedict XVI did when he recited it with the Ecumenical Patriarch in 2009. And as the Church of England did in the enthronement ceremony for Archbishop Justin Welby. But the Orthodox Church can never accept it, so take the line of least resistence and eliminate it.
In return, the Orthodox Church should conform it's Easter with the West. Easy? Hardly!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This Report is very interesting. My view is that we should go back before Whitby
Whitby has nothing to do with the date of Easter. It was a meeting whose authority was confined to some parts of England. It affirmed the practice of the universal church, and denied the eccentric practice of some (not all) groups of Christians in some parts of what is now England. It had no mandate to decide anything for anyone else.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I have always felt that Easter should not be a moveable feast as the change of dates each year is chaotic. I'm sure nobody would agree with me, but I would like to see easter celebrated at the first weekend of April.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This Report is very interesting. My view is that we should go back before Whitby
Whitby has nothing to do with the date of Easter.
Huh? Are we talking about the same Whitby?
quote:
It was a meeting whose authority was confined to some parts of England.
CONCERNING OF THE DATE OF EASTER.
quote:
It affirmed the practice of the universal church
AS REGARDS THE DATE OF EASTER
quote:
and denied the eccentric practice of some (not all) groups of Christians in some parts of what is now England
AS TO THE DATE THEY CELEBRATED EASTER.
quote:
It had no mandate to decide anything for anyone else.
CONCERNING THE DATE OF EASTER.
How can you say it had nothing to do with the date of Easter? That's what it was fucking ABOUT. That's why it was called, that's what it decided. What planet do you gather your information from?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Before trying to harmonise with the Jews, or at least at the same time, the Christian Church should agree a date for Easter, and end the absurdity of different Easters East and West. I would agree that the Orthodox calculation is from an older calender, but that the overwhelming majority of the world follows Western Easter.
Ah, truth by plebescite. Are we still talking about Christianity? Let's put every belief we have up to a vote, shall we? We would officially become modalists overnight.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Um, Mousethief, why not consider the context of what I wrote before reacting to it. Don't react to a single phrase taken out of context, but look at the point I was trying to make in response to a comment by Mudfrog.
What authority did Whitby have over anything that mattered? Yes, it talked about the observance of Easter -- in one or two small parts of England, for one or two small groups. It decided nothing that affected the vast majority of Christians then (or now).
To make myself a little clearer, as that seems necessary, I was reacting to a relatively common English assumption that what happened in the church in England at any time must have had global importance.
Assuming that Whitby actually decided anything that mattered for the universal church -- and that going back on it would have any effect at all on the date of Easter -- was more than slightly presumptuous on Mudfrog's part.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This Report is very interesting. My view is that we should go back before Whitby or any other changes/differences/arguments that may have occurred, and reinstate Easter to be simultaneous with the Jewish Passover. This will not only bind Christians together in the one date, but also affirm our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Think what an evangelistic opportunity as well - we can boldly proclaim, at the correct time, Christ our Passover lamb has been slain.
That would go against the Council of Nicaea. I think it would be better if Christians agreed among themselves as to the date of Easter. Anyway, Eusebius tells us that the Apostolic tradition was that Easter always fell on the Sunday.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have always felt that Easter should not be a moveable feast as the change of dates each year is chaotic. I'm sure nobody would agree with me, but I would like to see easter celebrated at the first weekend of April.
For a start, I don't agree for the reason I've already given.
It would also be rearranging God's calendar to suit the convenience of head teachers and garden centres.
Going back to 'before Whitby' doesn't mean much. The issue then was that, as now, there were two dates people were using. The Synod was to decide which one the kingdom should use, on the assumption that everyone would celebrate on the same day. The king, an Angle (for this read English) decided to accept the authority of the Pope, far away in Rome, rather than the British bishops (for this read Welsh) who were a few miles to the west, and whose claims to authority in other areas, he didn't want to encourage.
Going back to 'before Whitby' therefore means three dates, the conventional western one, the conventional eastern one and another one that everyone has forgotten how to calculate, but at least it doesn't involve nasty foreigners. It's a Farage approach.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
What authority did Whitby have over anything that mattered? Yes, it talked about the observance of Easter -- in one or two small parts of England, for one or two small groups. It decided nothing that affected the vast majority of Christians then (or now).
To make myself a little clearer, as that seems necessary, I was reacting to a relatively common English assumption that what happened in the church in England at any time must have had global importance.
Not global, but the Whitby decision did have repercussions for Celtic traditions within the church over a fairly wide area of north west Europe. Monastic foundations in the Irish model, looking to Iona for leadership, could be seen in France as well as the British Isles, and were seriously undermined by the decision. Had the decision gone the other way it would have bolstered the power of the monastic system instead of the Papacy, and the knock on effects of that could have been significant given the later history of the British churches.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Mousethief, you've been around long enough to know not to deploy personal abuse when disagreeing with a post (outside of Hell).
Let's keep things civil, folks.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Mousethief, you've been around long enough to know not to deploy personal abuse when disagreeing with a post (outside of Hell).
You are correct. I was in the wrong. I withdraw my personal statement and apologize for it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This Report is very interesting. My view is that we should go back before Whitby
Whitby has nothing to do with the date of Easter. It was a meeting whose authority was confined to some parts of England. It affirmed the practice of the universal church, and denied the eccentric practice of some (not all) groups of Christians in some parts of what is now England. It had no mandate to decide anything for anyone else.
John
I understand that at the time of the Synod of Whitby, Christians in Ireland were already celebrating Easter on the Roman date. Were the Northumbrian "Celtic" Christians the equivalent of English Missal Anglo Catholics who are holding to practices which the mainline church has gone beyond.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I understand that at the time of the Synod of Whitby, Christians in Ireland were already celebrating Easter on the Roman date. Were the Northumbrian "Celtic" Christians the equivalent of English Missal Anglo Catholics who are holding to practices which the mainline church has gone beyond.
The impression I've got is that Whitby was a decisive moment in the power struggle between Iona and those who looked directly to Rome. Iona and its satellites were still using the old calculation until 716.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I call bunk on that article. Unless and until the entirety of Christendom agrees to use a single calendar, then we will continue to have divergent dates of Easter.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The impression I've got is that Whitby was a decisive moment in the power struggle between Iona and those who looked directly to Rome. Iona and its satellites were still using the old calculation until 716.
My research suggests it was a proxy for the power struggle in the British church between the Celts in general (not just Iona) and the Anglo-Saxons.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's also important to appreciate that neither Rome nor the Papacy in 664 bore much resemblance to what they were in 1529, or for that matter 1075. It was a long way away and such power as it could exercise was by later standards very soft.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The impression I've got is that Whitby was a decisive moment in the power struggle between Iona and those who looked directly to Rome. Iona and its satellites were still using the old calculation until 716.
My research suggests it was a proxy for the power struggle in the British church between the Celts in general (not just Iona) and the Anglo-Saxons.
Except that many parts of Ireland had already moved to the new calculations before Whitby, so I think there's an element of struggle among the Celts as much as with the Anglo-Saxons.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The impression I've got is that Whitby was a decisive moment in the power struggle between Iona and those who looked directly to Rome. Iona and its satellites were still using the old calculation until 716.
My research suggests it was a proxy for the power struggle in the British church between the Celts in general (not just Iona) and the Anglo-Saxons.
Except that many parts of Ireland had already moved to the new calculations before Whitby, so I think there's an element of struggle among the Celts as much as with the Anglo-Saxons.
I said the British church, not the Irish church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Was there a difference, Mousethief - not trying to be clever, I understood the Celtic churches in Northern Britain were close to those in West Wales and Ireland. Maybe you know more form your research?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Was there a difference, Mousethief - not trying to be clever, I understood the Celtic churches in Northern Britain were close to those in West Wales and Ireland. Maybe you know more form your research?
Well, I may owe you an apology. Looking back over my notes, Iona does seem to be the lone holdout. My sources say that both the Anglo-Saxon church and Ireland as a whole were new-style, with the exception(s) of Iona and its missionaries in the field (and bishops loyal to them), including and especially Colmán, who huffed back to Iona with half his monks (and half of St. Aidan) after the council.
[ 28. June 2015, 21:29: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I said the British church, not the Irish church.
As has been alluded to, Iona was, effectively, an Irish foundation. I presumed you were meaning British in the sense of the British Isles. The geopolitics of the time mean that talking about land masses is less relevant than talking about the coasts surrounding a particular body of water - the Hebrides and west coast of what is now Scotland had way more links to the northern Irish coast than they did to the Picts found inland and in the east.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I said the British church, not the Irish church.
As has been alluded to, Iona was, effectively, an Irish foundation. I presumed you were meaning British in the sense of the British Isles. The geopolitics of the time mean that talking about land masses is less relevant than talking about the coasts surrounding a particular body of water - the Hebrides and west coast of what is now Scotland had way more links to the northern Irish coast than they did to the Picts found inland and in the east.
Allow me to repeat myself for people who posted without reading the thread. Emphasis added.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, I may owe you an apology. Looking back over my notes, Iona does seem to be the lone holdout. My sources say that both the Anglo-Saxon church and Ireland as a whole were new-style, with the exception(s) of Iona and its missionaries in the field (and bishops loyal to them), including and especially Colmán, who huffed back to Iona with half his monks (and half of St. Aidan) after the council.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have always felt that Easter should not be a moveable feast as the change of dates each year is chaotic. I'm sure nobody would agree with me, but I would like to see easter celebrated at the first weekend of April.
For a start, I don't agree for the reason I've already given.
It would also be rearranging God's calendar to suit the convenience of head teachers and garden centres.
God's Calendar? Do you really think God gives a monkeys exactly which date we celebrate Easter? I'm pretty bloody sure he couldn't care less.
These dates and rules and stuff are all human. Made up by human institutions and people, for people. Some of whom are headteachers and managers of garden centres.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have always felt that Easter should not be a moveable feast as the change of dates each year is chaotic. I'm sure nobody would agree with me, but I would like to see easter celebrated at the first weekend of April.
How on Earth is it chaotic? You can calculate the dates for Easter for probably the next million years. Plenty of notice and far from chaotic.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I get that Nicea settled the idea that Easter should not be the same time as passover; what I don't get is why we are shackled to this, after all, it's not a doctrinal point!
Secondly, I would ask 'why did the good folk at the Council of Nicea do this?' Is there a good reason why this decision must be upheld - other than 'we like the Council of Nicea and we don't want to change what they decided'?
Finally, why does Nicea get to tell us that Easter must not be observed at Passover when the Bible evidently tells us that it all happened at the Jewish passover?
Doesn't history have some say in this?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have always felt that Easter should not be a moveable feast as the change of dates each year is chaotic. I'm sure nobody would agree with me, but I would like to see easter celebrated at the first weekend of April.
Or the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I get that Nicea settled the idea that Easter should not be the same time as passover; what I don't get is why we are shackled to this, after all, it's not a doctrinal point!
Secondly, I would ask 'why did the good folk at the Council of Nicea do this?' Is there a good reason why this decision must be upheld - other than 'we like the Council of Nicea and we don't want to change what they decided'?
Finally, why does Nicea get to tell us that Easter must not be observed at Passover when the Bible evidently tells us that it all happened at the Jewish passover?
Doesn't history have some say in this?
i think the answer is that the Council thought it important that Easter always fall on the first day of the week.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Aha! Now I understand!! If we aligned Easter with Passover every year, Good Friday and Easter Sunday could be a Monday and Wednesday, a Thursday and Saturday, etc, etc!
I totally get the idea that we need to stay with the Biblical account of Friday and Sunday.
I have no idea why this never occurred to me before!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Really? It had genuinely never occurred to me that Passover isn't always on the Sabbath. Like Mudfrog, that makes things much simpler for me in terms of understanding why Christian groups first started changing how they reckoned Easter.
Thank you!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
That it always fall on the first day of the week, yes, but also that Easter not be confused with the Jewish Passover, which is why if both fall on the same day Easter is moved to the following week. When I say "not to be confused with" I'm not saying that they are not linked (the link is taken into account in the calculation for the date) but nevertheless they are not the same.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Finally, why does Nicea get to tell us that Easter must not be observed at Passover when the Bible evidently tells us that it all happened at the Jewish passover?
Doesn't history have some say in this?
i think the answer is that the Council thought it important that Easter always fall on the first day of the week. [/QB][/QUOTE]
This is interesting because of course the Orthodox have nothing at all to do with Nicea, and yet we too always celebrate Pascha on Sunday. I wonder if there was a previous conciliar decision that Nicea was merely affirming?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Sadly, on this site I found this comment:
quote:
In addition to the perfectly reasonable desire to keep the memorial on the same day of the week as Christ's Resurrection, there were other, ignoble motives for separating the Christian celebration from the Jewish holy day. In his letter to those not at the Nicene Council, the Emperor Constantine spells out some of what we would refer to as anti-semitism:
"Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."
- Eusebius The Life of Constantine
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I have sometimes played around with the calculation of Easter's date. Just for the record:
--- Easter is always between weeks 12 and 17, inclusive, in any year. The range is March 23 to April 25.
--- Week 12 is very rare, and week 17 is nearly as rare.
--- Most Easters are in April, and there can be as many as 7 April dates in a row, or as few as 1. There are never two consecutive years with March.
--- March 24 does not seem to occur.
I myself like the seemingly-irregular, hard-to-fathom pattern of Easter dates. There should be room in life for such.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Councils sometimes just codify general practice already.
In which case Nicea didn't "tell us" anything we didn't already know, so (referring back to Nick Tamen) it makes no sense to rail about them telling us what to do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[startled look]
Was I railing?
Personally, I have no opinion about the date of Easter, except that I'd like to see everybody stop getting upset about it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Actually, there's something wonderfully eccentric about having to ask 'When is Easter next year?'. That would disappear if it were a fixed or predictable date.
It's a little like the English always talking about the weather - please don't take it away from us...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
--- March 24 does not seem to occur.
Except in 1940. (No, I don't remember!)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That it always fall on the first day of the week, yes, but also that Easter not be confused with the Jewish Passover, which is why if both fall on the same day Easter is moved to the following week.
I had forgotten that. Thank you.
Meanwhile, The Wiki on Quartodecimanism.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[startled look]
Was I railing?
Personally, I have no opinion about the date of Easter, except that I'd like to see everybody stop getting upset about it.
No, not you. I was referring to what Nick Tamen had written. Your only mention of Nicea (on this page) was the fairly uncontroversial fact that councils sometimes codify what everybody's been doing already anyhow. (Usually, I would add, in reaction to someone claiming otherwise.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's a little like the English always talking about the weather - please don't take it away from us...
Believe me, that's not just an English thing.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
