That some scholars refer to the controversy as an Easter controversy is unfortunate. Easter, of course, is an English word. Today the word implies, for most English-speakers, a host of cultural assumptions alien to the original controversy. The disputants in the Quartodeciman controversy did not use Easter to describe what they were arguing over. Therefore, to describe the Quartodeciman controversy as a Passover-Easter controversy, especially to a Worldwide Church of God member, can obscure the nature of the dispute rather than clarify it.
Scholars disagree about the controversy's details.
Eusebius is our primary source for the controversy between Polycarp and Anicetus. Polycarp knew the apostle John and was of such stature that many considered him John's spiritual, though not apostolic, successor in Asia Minor. Polycarp believed that Nisan 14 was the correct time for the spring festival, but Anicetus, bishop of Rome, favored Sunday. A careful reading of the evidence shows that an annual Lord's Supper was not the issue, neither was Easter, or at least what we think of as Easter. No one was arguing that the Lord's Supper should only be kept once a year.