Questions about the History of Tradition? :0

Street Preacher said:

I've done a little reading on these two denominations, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and I have a few questions to ask, they deal with the history between the two...so I thought I’d ask in here.

I’ve come to learn that both Catholics and Orthodox use tradition but disagree on the traditional dates of Christmas and Easter, why is that, does it matter and how come the tradition is different in both denominations if they both use the same historical traditions?

Click to expand...

Hi Street Preacher.

Actually, you might find it more helpful to ask this in One Bread One Body as there are many more who would be able to help you than here in this forum, which is not well attended by the ones you are really directing your questions to . .

But I will share what I can.

First, you have to differentiate between Sacred Tradition and Ecclesial traditions. (Notice Big "T" and little "t" plural)


Sacred Tradition is the doctrinal teachings of the Church handed down from the Apostles and the Early Church. These are not changeable.

Ecclesial traditions are those traditions which the Church has the authority to establish, change and remove as it deems necessary . .

The date of the celebration of Easter is not a Sacred Tradition . . it is an ecclesial tradition and can be celebrated when the ecclesial leaders of that Church group decide it should be celebrated. It is a very holy and important tradition so the Church leadership, whether Eastern or Western would change it lightly . . But both groups have the right to decide when they will celebrate it and there is no real conflict regarding this . .

I’ve read, and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, the Orthodox Church claims the council at Nice was inspired, yet it rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept, why is that? (or do I have it backwards?)

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "inspired", like scripture? I know of no Orthodox or Catholic who holds that the council of Nicea was inspired in the same way or to the same level as sacred scripture . .

I’ve been told, but never read, that private interpretation of the Bible is not allowed when determining doctrine within the RC and EO Churches, how do you know which tradition(s) are correct between the RC and EO Churches? I’m pretty sure both the Watchtower and the Mormons teach the something about private interpretation, how is the RC and EO Churches doctrine different from the Watchtower/Mormon doctrine on 'no private interpretation?'

Click to expand...

The Watchtower/Mormon doctrines do not go back to the Apostles in a direct line of succession . . and they do not have Early Church documents/writings from the first century onward to demonstrate that what they hold as true really was believed by the Church founded by the Apostles . . the Watchtower/Momoms are only a couple centuries old . . They have no history, no tie to the early church in any way.

That is one big difference!

Thank you for your time, please forgive me if I made spelling or errors in gramer, I'm trying to do better.

SP

Click to expand...

don't worry . . I type so fast sometimes and my eyes get blurry, and half the time I do not recognize a spelling error no matter how many times I look at it . . and I haven't figured out the spell check here yet . . I have no clue how it works. . .


I hope my answers helped!


Peace in Him!

Street Preacher said:

I’ve been told, but never read, that private interpretation of the Bible is not allowed when determining doctrine within the RC and EO Churches.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't state it quite that way, SP. You're correct that RC and EO do not believe in "sola scriputura"--the belief that only scripture is authoritative--and the related notion that each believer is qualified to judge the meaning and truth of scripture for him/herself. That does not mean, however, that RCs and EOs are required to be mindless zombies accepting without analysis the words of their priests and bishops. There is room--indeed, there is encouragement of--study, reflection, discussion, and questioning.

As for the dates of Easter, there are "old calendarists" and "new calendarists" within the EO church, and (IIRC) the RC church is "new calendar". In all honesty, I don't think the date on which Easter/Pascha is celebrated is a terribly big deal.

To Vatican Catholics and the Orthodox, you can add Anglicans to that list

I was wondering about that--thanks for the correction, PV.

The following link outlines the reasons that the celebrations are different. As the calendar is more of a practical devise based on science more than on spiritual matters, and the reasons that eastern branch does not share the calendar of the western branch is due to differences in political systems rather than differences in sacred teacings, this is not really a serious point of contention.


http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html

2.3 History of the Gregorian Calendar

The Gregorian calendar resulted from a perceived need to reform the method of calculating dates of Easter. Under the Julian calendar the dating of Easter had become standardized, using March 21 as the date of the equinox and the Metonic cycle as the basis for calculating lunar phases. By the thirteenth century it was realized that the true equinox had regressed from March 21 (its supposed date at the time of the Council of Nicea, +325) to a date earlier in the month. As a result, Easter was drifting away from its springtime position and was losing its relation with the Jewish Passover. Over the next four centuries, scholars debated the "correct" time for celebrating Easter and the means of regulating this time calendrically. The Church made intermittent attempts to solve the Easter question, without reaching a consensus.



By the sixteenth century the equinox had shifted by ten days, and astronomical New Moons were occurring four days before ecclesiastical New Moons. At the behest of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V introduced a new Breviary in 1568 and Missal in 1570, both of which included adjustments to the lunar tables and the leap-year system. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pope Pius in 1572, soon convened a commission to consider reform of the calendar, since he considered his predecessor's measures inadequate.

The recommendations of Pope Gregory's calendar commission were instituted by the papal bull "Inter Gravissimus," signed on 1582 February 24. Ten days were deleted from the calendar, so that 1582 October 4 was followed by 1582 October 15, thereby causing the vernal equinox of 1583 and subsequent years to occur about March 21. And a new table of New Moons and Full Moons was introduced for determining the date of Easter.

Subject to the logistical problems of communication and governance in the sixteenth century, the new calendar was promulgated through the Roman-Catholic world. Protestant states initially rejected the calendar, but gradually accepted it over the coming centuries. The Eastern Orthodox churches rejected the new calendar and continued to use the Julian calendar with traditional lunar tables for calculating Easter. Because the purpose of the Gregorian calendar was to regulate the cycle of Christian holidays, its acceptance in the non-Christian world was initially not at issue. But as international communications developed, the civil rules of the Gregorian calendar were gradually adopted around the world. Anyone seriously interested in the Gregorian calendar should study the collection of papers resulting from a conference sponsored by the Vatican to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the Gregorian Reform (Coyne et al., 1983).

Momzilla said:

As for the dates of Easter, there are "old calendarists" and "new calendarists" within the EO church, and (IIRC) the RC church is "new calendar". In all honesty, I don't think the date on which Easter/Pascha is celebrated is a terribly big deal.

Click to expand...

Hi Momzilla!

There is more to the date of Pascha than a New Calendar/Old Calendar question. The west and the east use different criteria to establish the date for Easter/Pascha. This is excerpted from http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/calendar.htm.

"There are four things that must be satisfied for the celebration of Pascha:

a) Vernal equinox

b) First full moon after this equinox

c) After the Nomicon Pascha

d) the first Sunday after a) - c).

The Gregorian or Papic Calendar takes into consideration only a), b) and d). It totally ignores c), the legal pascha of the Jews. Thus Papics can happen to celebrate their Easter together with that of the Jews or before the Jewish Pascha despite the 7th canon of the Apostles and despite the historical fact that Christ resurrected after the Pascha of the Jews. However, we NCs take into consideration all 4 points on the Christian Pascha, namely a) - d), and thus differ from the Gregorian or Papic Calendar not only from a calendarist but also from an ecclesiastical point of view. In other words, we celebrate our Easter after the Jewish Pascha, in accordance with the decisions of the First Oecumenical Synod."

James

Thanks, James!

Street Preacher, then you never knew the Anglican Church.

The differences between High, Broad, and Low Church Anglicanism deals with liturgy and Biblical interpretation, not Holy Tradition.

Iacobus said:

Hi Momzilla!

There is more to the date of Pascha than a New Calendar/Old Calendar question. The west and the east use different criteria to establish the date for Easter/Pascha. This is excerpted from http://www.eastern-orthodoxy.com/calendar.htm.

"There are four things that must be satisfied for the celebration of Pascha:

a) Vernal equinox

b) First full moon after this equinox

c) After the Nomicon Pascha

d) the first Sunday after a) - c).

The Gregorian or Papic Calendar takes into consideration only a), b) and d). It totally ignores c), the legal pascha of the Jews. Thus Papics can happen to celebrate their Easter together with that of the Jews or before the Jewish Pascha despite the 7th canon of the Apostles and despite the historical fact that Christ resurrected after the Pascha of the Jews. However, we NCs take into consideration all 4 points on the Christian Pascha, namely a) - d), and thus differ from the Gregorian or Papic Calendar not only from a calendarist but also from an ecclesiastical point of view. In other words, we celebrate our Easter after the Jewish Pascha, in accordance with the decisions of the First Oecumenical Synod."

James

Click to expand...

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but Pascha is not celebrated on the same weekday every year is it? And it is through this fact that the 'risen on the third day' conundrum can be explained?

Ann, Pascha is always celebrated on Sunday. The "three days" conundrum stems, IIRC, from the fact that in Jewish reckoning of the time, a partial day is a "day". So, Jesus died before sundown on Friday (day 1); he remained dead all through Saturday (day 2), and he rose on Sunday (day 3).

Ann,
I am pretty sure we follow the jewish holiday of the passover and then just insert pasha where it should be....on the first day of the week. Its never the same date though.
GEL