Sunday, December 12, 2004
The Easter controversy
Irenaeus'
doctrine
of apostolic succession and the
explicit statement of the universal uniformity of the teaching of the
true church (which I mentioned already in the notes
on gnosticism and resurrection)
are ingenious and effective devices to refute heretical teachings.
It has to be said, though, that not even Irenaeus was consistent in believing they were true. An an illustration, we can take the Easter controversy (see also here); in summary, eastern Churches in particular used to celebrate Passover and the paschal communion on the 14th of Nisan, perhaps following a chronology of Johannine origin, regardless of the day of the week. Because of this practice, these Christians were called Quartodecimans. Note that with I am not talking here of Ebionites, but of "orthodox" churches, a representative of which was for example Polycarp, which we have already seen to be taken by Irenaeus as a champion of the true faith. The "churches in the rest of the world" (as Eusebius puts it, but he's probably quite concerned to put forward his "now-orthodox" view), on the other hand, standardized the practice of celebrating Christ's resurrection on the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan (later on came the practice to celebrate the death of Christ always on Friday.)
Eusebius tells us how things went during a meeting in Rome between Polycarp and bishop Anicetus in HE V.24, and he explicitly labels this "a question of no small importance", acknowledging by the way that the Asian churches were following "an older tradition." (HE V.23). It seems to me that this is indeed an important question on several levels; examples that readily come to mind are
Categories: Church_History
It has to be said, though, that not even Irenaeus was consistent in believing they were true. An an illustration, we can take the Easter controversy (see also here); in summary, eastern Churches in particular used to celebrate Passover and the paschal communion on the 14th of Nisan, perhaps following a chronology of Johannine origin, regardless of the day of the week. Because of this practice, these Christians were called Quartodecimans. Note that with I am not talking here of Ebionites, but of "orthodox" churches, a representative of which was for example Polycarp, which we have already seen to be taken by Irenaeus as a champion of the true faith. The "churches in the rest of the world" (as Eusebius puts it, but he's probably quite concerned to put forward his "now-orthodox" view), on the other hand, standardized the practice of celebrating Christ's resurrection on the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan (later on came the practice to celebrate the death of Christ always on Friday.)
Eusebius tells us how things went during a meeting in Rome between Polycarp and bishop Anicetus in HE V.24, and he explicitly labels this "a question of no small importance", acknowledging by the way that the Asian churches were following "an older tradition." (HE V.23). It seems to me that this is indeed an important question on several levels; examples that readily come to mind are
- the relative importance of the paschal chronology of John's gospel vs. that of the synoptic gospels; considerations on the authority (or authenticity) of diverse gospel traditions;
- the desire to maintain vs. the desire to diminish or even severe links to original Jewish traditions;
- the difference between a
focus on the death of Christ
vs. a focus on the resurrection.
- Anicetus and Polycarp cannot
come to an agreeement on this issue. But even if there was disagreement
on such an important question, the epilogue of their meeting is
instructive:
For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church. (HE V.24.16-17)
- Irenaeus is well aware of
these differences. As a matter of fact, in the "demonstration" of his
theory of apostolic succession he mentions both the Church of Rome and
Polycarp and he certainly knows of their divergence on the matter. And
when Victor, bishop of Rome, "attempted to cut off from
the common unity the parishes of all Asia", Irenaeus, while supporting
the Roman customs, admonished Victor not to do that, and wisely wrote
that
this variety in observance (and not only about the day of the
resurrection,
but also about the duration of the fast - what will later become
standardized in the Quadrigesima)
has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith." (HE V.24.13)
We must consider, too, that a discordant judgment in a case of such importance, and respecting such religious festival, is wrong. [...] Since, therefore, it was needful that this matter should be rectified, so that we might have nothing in common with that nation of parricides who slew their Lord: and since that arrangement is consistent with propriety which is observed by all the churches of the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern also: for these reasons all are unanimous on this present occasion in thinking it worthy of adoption. And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities, in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia, with entire unity of judgment. And you will consider not only that the number of churches is far greater in the regions I have enumerated than in any other, but also that it is most fitting that all should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews. In fine, that I may express my meaning in as few words as possible, it has been determined by the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be kept on one and the same day. For on the one hand a discrepancy of opinion on so sacred a question is unbecoming, and on the other it is surely best to act on a decision which is free from strange folly and error. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, XVIII.XIX)Getting the right date for Easter was apparently not an easy task anyway, if Ambrose can write in his Letter XXIII (387) to the bishops of the province of AEmilia that Easter was celebrated on March 21 in Gaul, April 18 in Italy, and April 25 in Egypt.
Categories: Church_History
