This is why my question is more about groups such as baptists, pentecostals, charismatics, quakers, non-denominational churches. Basically the religions in the heart of the bible belt. This would not apply to anglicans or lutherans or presbyterians who have retained much of the liturgical cycle.
I am still having a hard time wrapping my head over this one and still doubt the answers I've been given here. If I were to go lets say to Tennessee. In the belly of bible thumping towns, where televangelists are popular, faith healling 'crusades', Holy Roller kind of towns, am I really going to see them celebrating roman catholic easter??? How do they go from bashing the roman 'manmade traditions" (as they call them) to embracing the biggest ones?
Do these preachers say from the pulpits, "today the Pope has informed us Easter Sunday will be celebrated on March 27"... So fat tuesday will fall on February.(whatever date)..."
Do you see how illogical it is?
I would like to know what their thinking and logic is behind it. If your religious society has no connection to those congregations which devised the December 25 Nativity feast, your society does not observe any liturgical cycle, and you believe it was pagan influence for the reason the Nativity was placed on that date by the heterodox Latins, the sane thing to do is either not commemorate such a feast day or transfer it to a date that you feel is historically accurate.
Does your pastor give a christmas homily that starts by saying, "Even though we know Christ was not born on December 25th because our bible says so, and it was only placed on that day by heterodox Latins to coincide with their pagan celebrations of Mithras and Saturnalia, But what the heck! When in Rome we do as the Romans." The entire thing is bizarre.
How would such questions spin off new sects?
The reason you would not have celebrated is first and foremost the unfamiliarity with the rule of Nicea on the calculation of Pascha, and secondly the open rejection of the papal menaion by these sects. Are you saying as a protestant you were also observing the Theophany and having the blessing of waters soon after Christmas and commemorating the beheading of John the Baptist? You didnt celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos on Aug 15th or the Transfiguration (unless you did and i didnt know protestants celebrate that as well).
No, we (I) had never heard of Pascha, nor the Dormition, nor did we gave a date to connect to the beheading of John the Baptist. We had all heard of Epiphany/Theophany, but all I knew was that it came some days after Christmas. I thought maybe it had something to do with the 3 wise men. We never in our denominations concerned ourselves overmuch with Rome, or if we did, it was to consider such things as "works salvation" and the Virgin Mary as "meadiatrix" or "co-redemptix" or the doctrine of purgatory primarily, with a deep mistrust of the Pope. Sometimes you heard about "prayers to the dead" and "worship of statues" and we knew they had some rules for observing Lent. That is about the sum total of the discussion of Rome in my previous denominations. The liturgical cycle was never an issue.
Yes, at times some said that the dates we used for celebrations (especially Christmas) were established by Rome and were really a Christian attempt to overshadow, take over, or incorporate pagan holidays. My understanding of the date of Easter was that it was based on Passover. There were some denominations that also observed Passover as a sort of remembrance and way to tie into our Jewish roots.
I have never heard a pastor stand up and announce the kinds of messages you comment above. Ever. They might at times make mention of their conviction that Dec. 25 was not the actual date of the birth of Christ, but none of the other things you mentioned were ever said in a sermon from the pulpit at any of the denominations I attended. I wouldn't doubt that SOME somewhere might say something like that, but other than Jehovah's Witnesses which I know are distrustful of celebrating holidays, I think others would tend to be very minor or else very heretical groups (or both) if they concentrated on such speech.
Ask 100 people on the street, of any faith or no faith, in the US what day is Christmas, and I'd be willing to bet at least 98 or 99 of them will tell you "December 25". It's just established. In the same way, the date of Easter is established, we just wait each year to hear when it will be. I did not know how "Romish" the setting of the date was until I found Orthodoxy and realized there was any alternative. The idea of "liturgical cycle" never entered into it for me because I did not know such a thing existed, and I'm probably on the more well-read end of the spectrum for the denominations you mentioned, except that my reading stayed mostly within the books of our own groups and I did not actively seek out information of those outside of what is probably best drawn as a line of "low-church Protestantism" and all that falls within it. I knew about Baptists, Pentecostals of various stripes (including Oneness), Methodists (low church), non-denoms, Reformed, and many similar ones, as well as something of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists. But I knew nothing of a liturgical cycle, though I had experienced liturgical service(s) in Catholic and perhaps a few other scattered denominations, but not enough to realize there was a calendar and a cycle.
I am sorry that you don't believe me, but I'm doing my best to explain these things to you. I actually find your question bizarre, stepping back into that Protestant mindset. We simply commemorated the Lord's birth and the death and resurrection every year, and yes, we had prescribed times for doing so. That was simply all that remained within the memory of what was passed down to us, I suppose, and yes, it was divorced from all the rest of the liturgical cycle as a result. Indeed, I was initially very mistrustful of these other feasts and commemorations when I first learned of them, but it did not change (in the beginning) my simple idea that it was proper and right to celebrate Christ's birth, death, and resurrection.
I am aware that some are leery of celebrating such things from within my former groups, but the reason was generally that we do not see commands in Scripture to celebrate them, while God DID command the observance of certain days in the OT. So some concluded it was no longer right to celebrate or observe any days at all. But it was based on silence of Scripture, not because we didn't accept a liturgical cycle none of us even knew existed. (Of course, some pastors, or converts from Catholicism, or those who studied Christian history might have known about liturgical cycles, but it was never once brought into a single discussion I was part of over many years. It just didn't matter to those who did know, and as a result, the rest of us never knew about it.)
But the resurrection of our Lord is so magnificent, so wonderful, that as a group, we nearly all would joyously celebrate every year, without fail. Even those who never attended church at all would often come that one day, if no other. And nearly equal in a Christian context was the celebration of the incarnation. Again, such a wonderful event, it was celebrated without fail. I can't tell you why we didn't need the rest of the liturgical cycle in order to keep these two, but we didn't. As I said, when I step back into that mindset, I find the question bizarre that we would need all the rest in order to celebrate those two.
Frankly, I'm thankful for what has been retained. I would in no way say it is right to begrudge them or take away what little they have kept, but would be of more a mind to encourage its strengthening, and encourage them.
