jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) (06/12/91)
Does anyone know what the formula is for computing easter for any given year is? For bonus points, what's the formula for the eastern orthodox easter? I know it has something to do with the moon, but that's about all I can remember. Thanks!
Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.49.27.1991.24109@athos.rutgers.edu> jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: > Does anyone know what the formula is for computing easter for any > given year is? For bonus points, what's the formula for the > eastern orthodox easter? I know it has something to do with the > moon, but that's about all I can remember. > > Thanks! I do not know about a given year, but you are right about the moon: Easter sunday is `the first sunday after the first full moon after "vaarjevnd\ogn" (norwegian, sorry)' [equinox, presumably --clh] vaarjevnd\ogn is the day during spring when day and night are equally long. Appr. March 22. The full moon (my phrase?) is when you may see all of the moon. Bjorn -- ______________________________________________________________________ s-mail: e-mail: | | | Bjorn. B. Larsen bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no |__ |__ | SINTEF DELAB | \| \| N-7034 TRONDHEIM tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600 |__/|__/|_ NORWAY fax: +47-7-594302 ______________________________________________________________________
cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) (06/14/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.49.27.1991.24109@athos.rutgers.edu> jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: >Does anyone know what the formula is for computing easter for any >given year is? For bonus points, what's the formula for the >eastern orthodox easter? I know it has something to do with the >moon, but that's about all I can remember. The definition I have is that it's the first Sunday after the full-moon after the Spring Equinox (beginning of Spring). In the Orthodox church it also comes after the Passover. If the passover is late, their Easter can be almost a month later. Charlie
anonymous@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (06/15/91)
In article <Jun.11.22.49.27.1991.24109@athos.rutgers.edu>, jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes: > Does anyone know what the formula is for computing easter for any > given year is? For bonus points, what's the formula for the > eastern orthodox easter? I know it has something to do with the > moon, but that's about all I can remember. I quote from _Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_, of all things (you never know where things will turn up!), the entry for Easter: "Easter Sunday is the first Sunday after the Paschal full moon, i.e. the full moon that occurs on the day of the vernal equinox (21 March) or on any of the next 28 days. Thus Easter Sunday cannot be earlier than 22 March, or later than 25 April, as laid down by the Council of Nicaea in 325." This does not apply to the Eastern Rite churches, whose method of computing the date of Easter is left in obscurity by this tome, unfortunately. ************************************************************************ * Liz Broadwell (broadwel@penndrls.upenn.edu) * * * Department of English * Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam * * The University of Pennsylvania * * ************************************************************************
kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Kurt R. Marko H-P Boise Site) (06/15/91)
The date for Easter was formally defined by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. The Council regulated that Easter must always be celebrated: -- after the vernal (spring) equinox (where the equinox is calculated according to the Julian, 19-year, cycle...usually on March 21st/civil calendar). -- on the first Sunday following the first full moon. -- _after_ the completion of Passover. -- with Passover calculated according to the Hebrew (Mosaic) calendar. The decision was accepted by all 318 Bishops present at the Synod. These regulations are still followed by the Orthodox Church, with Easter occurring on April 7th (civil calendar; March 25th Julian calendar) this year. The Western Church followed these same regulations until 1582 when Pope Gregory th 13th adopted the Gregorian Calendar, and, simultaneously, dropped the decision of the First Ecumenical Council of celebrating Easter _after_ the Passover. This accounts for the difference in the dates between the Orthodox Church and Western churches (the protestant Churches follow the Gregorian decision). Kurt Marko kmarko@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (06/21/91)
In article <Jun.15.01.52.09.1991.18353@athos.rutgers.edu>, kmarko@hpbs654.boi.hp.com (Kurt R. Marko H-P Boise Site) writes: > The date for Easter was formally defined by the First Ecumenical > Council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. The Council regulated that Easter must > always be celebrated: > -- after the vernal (spring) equinox (where the equinox is > calculated according to the Julian, 19-year, cycle...usually > on March 21st/civil calendar). > -- on the first Sunday following the first full moon. > -- _after_ the completion of Passover. > -- with Passover calculated according to the Hebrew (Mosaic) > calendar. > The decision was accepted by all 318 Bishops present at the Synod. Mr. Marko wants to beat the Western Chruch over the head and shoulders because of HIS "understanding" of the Nicene canons. This, I think, is very sad. The Orthodox Church claims to be (and I am quite sure they *intend* to be) following Nicea, specifically on the 1st & 3rd of the points here adumbrated. Let us also be very clear about one practical matter -- the canons of the various ecumenical councils were NOT well known and advertized in the West, though they were better known in the Greek east (where the councils were mostly held, and where the language of the councils was and remained common.) But even making acknowledgment of that, I cannot see any evidence of PRESENT knowledge in the Eastern Church of the canons of Nicea. To the very best of my awareness, NO ONE has any specific statement that would support Mr. Marko's points. All he is doing is relating the CURRENT Orthodox understanding of the Nicene decisions. There *are* no extant canons from Nicea. I will also say that the West LONG had difficulty understanding the issues in the Easter dating dispute, and many of its objections to Alexandrian or Asian practice were on the basis of simple ignorance. It really wasn't any earlier than the 9th century or so that ANY competent calendrical knowledge was available in the West (the works of Bede are the *first* sign of under- standing in extant documents.) That said, the "Nicene" decision DID NOT establish anything like an algorithm for Easter dating. It effectively set CONSTRAINTS (Pacha *was* to be cele- brated on a *Sunday* and this was to be *after* the vernal equinox and after a full moon.) For two centuries after Nicea, the Church essentially left to the patriarchate of Alexandria to determine what to do, within the constraints. IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE ORTHODOX: The Julian calendar (Mr. Marko's first point) was IRRELEVANT. This was NOT used in ANY of the eastern patriarchates! All the Greek empire used Greek calendars, absolutely NONE of them having the remotest resemblance to this artifact that the *current* Orthodox Church thinks so important. It is *possible* (though I personally think it *very* unlikely) that the Nicene fathers agreed to some particular astronomical "lunar cycle" -- but bishops THEN were no more likely than bishops NOW to understand the issues (i.e., the likelihood of a bishop understanding calendars is near zero. This is EXACTLY as true now as it was at Nicea. Furthermore, it is EVIDENT to me that the majority of USENET posters who attempt to deal with this issue are EQUALLY ignorant as their bishops. The amount of pseudo-"knowledge" on this among Christians is appalling! (And it suggests to me that lay Christian statements about ANYTHING should be taken with a very large dosage of salt.) Please get out of your mind the insane notion that the (Western) Julian calendar had ANY importance in the discussions at Nicea. No one before 1000 A.D. could *possibly* have thought so. It is the "triumph" of Western states, particularly after their commercial/political grip on the East was consolidated in the century or so before the Fourth Crusade, that imposed the Julian calendar on the East. It wrenches my guts to see the Orthodox Church using this Western colonial imposition from 1100 to oppose the minor calendrical adjustments of 1600 (give or take several decades in both dates) More to the point of my posting -- I understand that Christians have, from the beginning, felt that it was *important* to celebrate Pascha, and there- fore important to celebrate it "right." It is also important, to those of us who take the great ecumenical councils as formative of Christianity, to see that we are NOT abrogating the conciliar decisions. But what I do NOT understand is WHY the myriad sectarian groupings of Christianity find it so important to DENIGRATE the understanding of others. Rome has NEVER in its history managed to understand Easter dating in the same way that the East does. This is silly, and annoying; and if Rome has the intent to FORCE its understanding on others (as it often HAS had), then one can understand a resistance to Rome. By the same token, the Eastern churches MUST not presume to impose THEIR reading of Nicea on the West without evidence. And if that all means that we have to live with DIVERGENT interpretations, then so what? Such was the case in the 2nd century. Why should we feel that WE have the ability to resolve a controversy that could not be resolved by our ancestors who lived within memory of the apostles? The West and the East have diverged on a number of points, and it is very possible that the East has better understood and preserved conciliar canons. For the East to condemn the West (or vice versa) for an honest divergence in understanding our common heritage is very painful for all of us, even tragic. The best way out of the tragedy is to understand and grant the honesty of the various "sides" in this matter, rather than jumping to any conclusions that those who take things differently than you are "wrong." I pray you to consider that MOST of us, MOST of the time, are "wrong." God may help us over our difficulties in this -- but it should be a matter for our eternal gratitude, as WE are certainly not going to sort out these things by ourselves. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
cms@dragon.com (06/22/91)
[This is a comment on the discussion of how the date of Easter is
set. --clh]
You might want to look at Bede's "History of the English Church and
People," which contains a fascinating section near the end on the
dispute in the Church regarding the proper date of Easter. If you can
manage to wade through it all, I commend you; Bede had some audacity
calling his discussion "brief and cursory" :-).
> * Liz Broadwell (broadwel@penndrls.upenn.edu) * *
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia