Every Spring, Catholic websites publish a flurry of articles about the dating of Easter, purporting to explain why the Orthodox celebrate Holy Pascha on a different date. These articles are always written from a Catholic perspective, which is why they’re mostly unhelpful. Usually the author’s thesis boils down to, “Let’s split the difference and do it my way.”
The Fathers of the Council of Nicea declared that Easter should fall on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Importantly, this refers to an ecclesiastical full moon, which is related but not identical to the solar cycles, and is calculated by complicated formulas developed by the Church. This distinction is seldom made in those Catholic articles on the dating of Easter, but it’s hugely important.
At the time of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), the Roman Empire was using the Julian Calendar, which was introduced about half a century before the birth of Christ. So, both East and West calculated this ecclesiastical full moon using the Julian Calendar for the next twelve centuries.
However, the Julian Calendar underestimates how long it takes for Earth to make a complete revolution around the sun. So, 1562, the Council of Trent called upon Rome to introduce a more accurate calendar. The new calendar was promulgated in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, which is why it’s known as the Gregorian Calendar.
The Gregorian Calendar was quickly adopted in the West for both civil and religious purposes. Today, it is used in all but four countries (Afghanistan, Ethopia, Iraq, and Nepal). But it was slow to catch on. Russia only switched to Gregorian Calendar on in 1918 on Lenin’s orders. in 1923, King George II of Greece decreed that his country would also make the switch.
However, while the Orthodox accepted the Gregorian Calendar for civil (that is, non-religious) purposes, they continue to calculate the date of Pascha using the Julian.
Most Catholics will probably read this and say, “Why don’t the Orthodox just adopt the Gregorian Calendar? It’s more accurate, and at this point it’s a whole lot simpler. Surely the Orthodox are just being stubborn.”
If we’re being honest, yeah, that’s part of it. No one does stubborn like the Orthodox, except maybe the Jews. But there’s principle at stake here, too. Because when Catholics say, “The Gregorian Calendar is more accurate,” the Orthodox reply: “By what standard?”
The Council of Trent was convened as a response to the Protestant Reformation. But as we can see, it was also very much a product of the Renaissance, which was still winding down in the Catholic strongholds of southern Europe. And as today’s Catholic apologists like to point out, the Roman Church was a great patron of Renaissance humanism. The Church placed a very high premium on the liberal arts, especially philosophy and the natural sciences.
Of course, this humanism helped provoke Luther to break with the Pope. He felt that Rome was more interested in pagan learning than Christian revelation. He famously referred to Aristotle as “the godless bulwark of the papists,” and categorically condemned his craft. “One should learn philosophy only as one learns witchcraft,” he declared, “that is to destroy it; as one finds out about errors, in order to refute them.”
The Orthodox obviously don’t share Luther’s intense hatred of philosophy. But the Synodikon of Orthodoxy does condemn those “who undertake Greek studies not only for purposes of education but also follow after their vain opinions, and are so thoroughly convinced of their truth and validity that they shamelessly introduce them and teach them to others.” Likewise, the Orthodox Church anathematizes those who are not content with “a pure and simple faith”—and so, by “sophistic demonstration,” misconstrue Church teachings “according to their own way of thinking, and to present them according to their own opinion.”
So, here we have a major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, perhaps the fundamental difference between our two churches, from which every other disagreement flows. The Orthodox Church believes that our duty as Christians is to preserve the faith (orthodoxy) and practices (orthopraxy) which Christ handed down to His Apostles, without addition or subtraction. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believes it is possible for our faith and practices to evolve over time through the exercise of the human intellect, and is then ratified by the Church—both parties, of course, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is essentially related to what John Henry Newman called the development of doctrine, though it applies to every aspect of Church life, not just dogma.
For instance, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was developed by the Franciscan theologian John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. Of course, the Theotokos has been called immaculate since the time of the Apostles! But Rome’s “official theory” about the precise nature of her immaculate-ness was only fleshed out in the Middle Ages ratified after about five hundred years of debate among the Catholic Church’s greatest theological minds, with no less a mind than Thomas Aquinas leading the anti-Scotist camp. The debate was closed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 when he declared the Immaculate Conception as Catholic dogma.
For the Orthodox, this whole way of “doing theology”—of academics (however brilliant; however holy) using suble philosophical reasoning to hash out their respective theses over centuries, before the Pope finally steps in and rules definitively on the matter—is alien to the Scriptures and the Fathers. They follow a strict interpretation of the Vincentian Canon: that “all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
Put it another way. Catholics and Orthodox agree Saint Irenaus with that, in the Church, “as in a rich treasury, the Apostles placed in fullness all thay belongs to the truth.” But the Orthodox would point out that if something already exists in its fullness, there is no room for further development.
So, we come back to the question of which Church’s dating is more accurate. Simply put, the Catholic Church’s dating is more accurate according to the standard of astronomical science; the Orthodox Church’s dating is more accurate according to the standard of Church tradition. It calculates Easter in exactly the same way the Council of Nicea would have. In other words, if the Council Fathers had calculcated the date of Easter in the Year of Our Lord 2024, they would have aligned upon the same date as the Orthodox.
A few years after promulgating his new calendar, Pope Gregory wrote to Patriarch Joachim V Daw of Antioch, asking him to adopt his new calendar as a step towards reunification. Joachim commissioned a response from Archbishop Anastasius al-Marmariti ibn al-Mujalla, which Constantin A. Panchenko quotes in his excellent study Arab Orthodox Christians Under the Ottomans 1516–1831. Anastasius begins by politely thanks the Pope for attempting to kill the weeds of division, which were “sowed between us by the devil.” However, then goes on to inform the Pope that Antioch will stick with the Julian Calendar:
Our community, our bishops, our kings and all our people, scattered in the four cardinal directions—Greeks, Russians, Georgians, Vlachs, Serbs, Moldovians, Turks, Arabs, and others . . . from the time of the Holy Apostles and the God-bearing fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils down to this day recognize one faith, one confession, one Church, and one baptism . . . and all our nations agree in the four corners of the inhabited world with one word and one affair. . . .
We pray with the Holy Apostles and the 318 fathers [of the Council of Nicea] whose signs and miracles shine forth from them manifestly. And so how can we change the tradition of such holy fathers and follow after unknown people who have no other trade but to observe the stars and examine the sky?
Really, Anastasius’s reply is extremely measured when you consider the circumstances.
As we all know, the Schism of 1054 was caused when the the Pope inserted a new clause into the Nicene Creed. Whereas the Creed once said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” the Romans decided that it ought to say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This new clause—known by its Latin form, Filoque—was first proposed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589 at the behest of King Recared, a new convert from Arianism to the Orthodox Catholic Faith. It was firmly and explicitly rejected by several generations of popes, but became popular in France. As Frankish influence on the Vatican grew, especially under Charlemagne, a new generation of popes agreed to adopt the Filioque.
The four Eastern patriarchs—Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—objected to this manouver for three main reasons. First, they regarded the theology behind the Filioque as heterodox. Second, they argued that to alter the Nicene Creed would defeat its purpose as a Symbolon of Faith; this brings us back to the Orthodox conviction that doctrine cannot be “developed.” Thirdly, the Creed itself was ratified by an Ecumenical Council. By modifying it unilaterally, the Roman Patriarch was claiming for himself an authority equal to (if not greater than) an Ecumenical Council. The Orthodox recognized this “papalism” as a grave error, no less than the Filioque itself.
So the Schism was caused by an overweening pope unilaterally introducing practices which originated, not in the Apostolic Treasury spoken of by Irenaeus, but in the academic debates of court theologians. And here we have Pope Gregory writing to Patriarch Joachim, urging him to adopt yet another practice originating, not in the Apostolic Treasury, but in the academic debates of court theologians and introduced unilaterally by an overweening pope.
At least, that’s how the Orthodox see it.
So, yes. There’s a huge amount of “subtext” lurking behind the calendar debate.
To be sure, most Orthodox do not consider this to be a dogmatic issue. Two Orthodox churches—the Finnish and the Estonian—celebrate Pascha according to the Gregorian Calendar, in order to comply with their respective governments’ laws. In itself, the Gregorian calendar generally is not considered the stuff of schism. But where the Catholic Church is concerned, this issue is more of a symptom than a cause. Indeed, when governments force Orthodox Christians to celebrate Pascha on Catholic-Protestant Easter, the Gregorian Calendar can’t help but become a source of even deeper discontent.
This is why the Orthodox will not change the date of Easter. It’s not obvious that doing so wouldn’t help to fix the deeper problem. Broadly speaking, the Orthodox are looking for Catholics to implement two reforms, one theological and one ecclesial:
1. Rome must abandon the “development of doctrine.” It must stop trying to use the secular arts to improve upon the Apostolic Treasury. Instead, it must content itself with the beliefs and practices handed down by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to the Fathers.
2. Rome must renounce its claims to infallibility and supremacy. It must content itself with the modest primacy which (as the Orthodox agree) is clearly evident even from the Early Church.
Put simply, the Orthodox believe that both Catholic theology and Catholic ecclesiology have both succumbed to a culture of humanism or anthropocentrism. The Catholic Church places too much stock in the reasoning and authority of mere mortals. It’s too willing to expound or expand upon Tradition—to innovate, update, and reform. In this, the Orthodox see a clear family resemblance between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Most Orthodox leaders would only consider changing the date of Easter if they saw progress in this direction. The Alexandria Document, which was ratified jointly by the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople last June, seemed evidence of such progress.
Sadly, Fiducia Supplicans—the papal declaration called for blessings for same-sex unions, which Pope Francis promulgated in December—was an even greater setback. The Pope’s decree forced the Coptic Orthodox Church to suspend indefinitely its ecumenical dialogue with Rome. Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest, the Russian Orthodox Church’s chief ecumenist and the greatest living Orthodox theologian, agreed that Fiducia makes reunification impossible.
On the other hand, reverting to the Julian dating of Pascha would be an easy way for Rome to show it’s serious about reunification.
First of all, Rome permits certain Eastern Catholic churches to celebrate Easter according to the Julian Calendar. Elias Chacour, the retired Archbishop of Galilee for the Melkite Church, decided that his diocese would celebrate Holy Pascha on the same day as their Antiochian Orthodox neighbors. Many other Melkite bishops in the Middle East have done the same as a gesture of solidarity in the face of persecution by Muslim and Jewish extremists.
Secondly, it would cost Rome nothing. Unlike the Orthodox, the Catholics have no principle at stake here. Well, that’s not quite true. There is one: Roma locuta, causa finita est. By returning to Julian Easter, Rome would be signaling that it does not demand absolute submission to its every whim by by all Christians everywhere in the world. And that would be progress indeed.
Anyway, it’s just a suggestion.
Good food for thought here.
I feel like there's a stumbling block for me here (as a Catholic) in that the insistence of the Orthodox that the faith is entire and complete as is: no further elaboration necessary. I'm no theologian, so maybe I'm putting my foot in my mouth here, but I struggle with the Orthodox not being able to respond to new moral issues as they arise. The primary example for me is contraception. I've heard of Orthodox priests allowing it "in limited circumstances" and Orthodox couples, unable to find clear guidance for discerning it in Orthodoxy, resorting to Catholic teaching and Humane Vitae. Prior to the twentieth century it wasn't an issue: no one thought it was moral. But then there was a bunch of genuine confusion that happened and people needed clarification: Catholics were able to offer it, Orthodox didn't.
I mean, that's probably a gross oversimplification. As I said, I'm no theologian. And yeah, that last apostolic letter from our pope was, bluntly put, a shit show that clarified nothing and added confusion rather than dispelled it. It's a crummy time to be Catholic (and there's been other confusing and crummy times to be Catholic in the past too). But as I wrestle with what the role of the Church is supposed to be, having the ability to respond as a Church to pastoral situations and clarify what the truth is, even if it's currently being misused or neglected by the current papacy, seems an important function to have.
Not trying to pick a fight. I would be interested in your thoughts on that though. It's a big reason I'm still Catholic.
And yeah...I really wish we could get the band back together as a Church too. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Short of a direct intervention from God, I don't see how it'll happen though. Human pride is an awful thing.
Orthodox Christian here. From what I understand, in Finland, the church wasn't forced to celebrate Easter the same day as the western churches, but the government said they would give the Orthodox Church status of a national recognized church (even with its small number of adherents in Finland) if, in a sign of Christian unity, Easter could be celebrated together. If that's the case, it's certainly not the same thing as being forced, and the agreement to this arrangement by the Orthodox demonstrates that the calendar issue is not necessarily one of doctrine (i.e. there is no "sacred calendar").