The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1909-07-03
FEASTS MOVABLE
AND IMMoVAsLE

AND IMMoVABLE
The London (Ont.) Catholic Record,
replying to a query from one of its
readers, says:
That the date of the (feast of the)
Resurrection does not always REMAIN
the same is due to the lunar year not
corresponding to the solar year. If these
two years correspond exictly, Easter
Sunday, the feast of the Resurrection,
would every year fall on the same day.
The date of Easter depended upon
the Jewish Feast of the Passover. This
In turn was regulated by the day upon
which fell the full moon either on, or
next after the twenty-fifth of March.
We thus have Easter shifting between
the twenty-fifth of March and the next
twenty-nine days. AS Pentecost comes
fifty days after Easter, it moves with
the feast of the Resurrection. Since our
Lord spent forty days upon earth after
rising from the dead, Ascension Thurs
day also moves in the same proportion.
Our Blessed Lords birth, on the other
hand, is celebrated on a fixed day, Nat
urally we should think this to be the
case. In the cases of the CrucifiXion
and the Resurrection there were good
reasons for keeping the associations of
the Paschal lamb and the feast of the
Passover. Type and prophecy were there
bearing historical evidence to Him who
was in very truth the Pasch. Not so
was the feast of Christmas. Here only
the place; Bethlehem the City of Bread,
had relationship with the Messias. The
day remains fixed from at least the
sixth century. Pope Benedict XIV
proves from st. Chrysostom, st. Greg
DRY of Nissa, and other fathers that the
25th of December is the exact day upon
which Christ was born.
The Catholic Fortnightly Review, in
its current issue, amplifies this answer:
First as to Easter. The date of the
Resurrection depends on that of the
Passion. We know that Christ died on
the 18th Jewish Nissan; but it is i'm
possible, and was already impossible a
few decades after his death, to deter
mine on which day the 18th Nissan had
fallen in that year, for the reason that
the Jews adjusted their linear year ar
bitrarily. The introduction of the neces-
sary additional days depended entirely
upon the good pleasure of the priests,
so that after three or four decades had
past, no one knew whether the 18th
Nissan in any given year had fallen in
March or April, or on what day of the
Julian or any other calendar.
Thus, where the Semetic calendar was
not understood, it was necessary TO fix
the date of Easter which was believed
to have real and historical connection
with the Passover, by some other
method. Another starting point was
sought. and this was naturally given by
the spring full moon, i. e., the full moon
nearest to the vernal equinox; for the
18th Nissan must fall either on this full
moon or Whereabouts. Thus the rule
was adopted that Easter must be cele-
brated on the Sunday after the full
moon following the equinox, Sunday be-
ing introduced as an additional factor
in the calculation, since our Lord had
risen on that day Of the week.
The answer to the question why
Christmas is an immovable feast fall
ing on the 25th of December, is even
more difficult.
Christmas is not enumerated among
the early Christian feasts by Tertullian,
Origin, and the recently published Tes-
lament of Jesus Christ. On the con-
trary, there is clear proof that even in
the fourth and fifth centuries it was I'M
known in some parts of the Church.
(Cfr. Kellner Neurology, PIP. 12S sqq)
In the East it began to be celebrated
when Catholics undertook to repel Ari-
anism. The Roman Church, John Bish-
op of Nicea, informs u.s. had begun un-
der Pope julius 1 (337-352- OF celebrate
the birth of our Lord on the 25th of De-
cember. He recurs substantially to the
reckoning Of st, Chrysostom, according
to which the appearance Of the angel to
Zachary in the Temple happened on the
September % and the Annunciation on
March %. From these data it was
supposed to follow as matter of course
that December % was the day of
Christ's birth. This reckoning how
ever, as KeIlner shows Top. cit, p. 134)
rests upon an insecure foundation. The
Roman Chronographer of 354 added to
his list of consuls, which, naturally, he
did not draw up himself, the notice that
Christ was born under the consulship of
Caesar and Paulus" (754 U. CO on
December %, because this was in
the fourth century, the generally &C
cepted date. Which proves that Christ
mas existed in Rome A. D. 354 and that
it was celebrated on December %.
But did not the early Christians know
for certain? Is not the tradition in IA
vor of December % reliable?