THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1933 THE DATE OF EASTER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21467, 15 April 1933, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1933 THE DATE OF EASTER

Easter, in the matter of its date of observance, has long been a subject of ardent controversy. At a very early period in i:he history of the Christian Church there was a sharp division between believers of respectively Jewish and Gentile descent; as a consequence, the Western Churches generally kept Easter on the first day of the chosen week and the Eastern Churches, following the Jewish rule relating to the Passover festival, kept it on the fourteenth day of the appropriate month. So marked p, divergence in the commemoration of the central fact of an influential religion invited efforts to. end the difference, and Constantine's calling of the Council of Nicea in 325 was partly induced by a wish to settle the date. Unanimously, the assembly favoured the choice of a Sunday, but the correct Sunday was left for the calculation of the astronomical experts at Alexandria, and the bishop of that see was to announce it yearly. The outcome was the fixing of Easter Day on the first Sunday after the spring equinox. Difficulty was met, however, in the obvious variation of the equinoctial period according to different longitudes, as dwellers in the southern hemisphere have the clearest reason to note; and the position was further complicated when attempts were made to fix the correct time bv means of cycles of years, in the course of which the changes of the sun and moon are approximately repeated. Eventually, a cycle of nineteen years was accepted, as is known particularly to those familiar with the preface of the Book of Common Prayer. However, uniform observance long tarried, and the Gregorian correction of the calendar in 1552 led to a renewal of differences, not yet resolved. Even where the Nicean decision and the Gregorian reform hold sway, an awkwardness persists in a variation from year to year of no less than thirty-five days—between March 22, and April 25. Apart from problems raised by disparity between astronomical and common reckonings, certain practical disabilities are occasioned by' the remarkable mobility of this festival, when considered in its bearing on mundane affairs. To remove the inconvenience so widely experienced has become a very general aim, in connection with modern attempts at calendar reform. The impulse is manifold, originating in more than a desire to achieve harmony in Christian practice. When movable religious feasts dictate secular holidays it is desirable that their observance should be discussed from all points of view, care being taken to respect the point of view taken by religion. This principle has guided all authoritative discussion. In Britain there was action, sympathetic with the fixing of Easter particularly, in 1921. Then a Fixed Easter Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, its main clause providing that the date should always be the second Sunday in April. It was urged in support of the choice that this Sunday is the nearest to the date generally accepted as that of the event commemorated, that the mean date of Easter for more than a century had been April 8.3, that it divides the Christian year equally, and that it is a convenient date for the people. The argument was cogent, only erne qualification being deemed necessary —that, as the balance of opinion names Friday, April 7, as the date of Christ's crucifixion, to make Easter Day April 9 when that date is a Sunday, or the Sunday following April 9 when it is not a Sunday, might be preferable. It was naturally urged that, as December 25-* a fixed day—had been selected by enactment since the fourth century in celebration of Christ's birth, no good reason existed why the observance of His death and resurrection should vary more than a month in accordance with a fictitious moon. The question again came before Parliament in 1928, when a European referendum was favoured, but as a committee of the League of' Nations had begun international discussion in 1923 the bill was passed, its operation being suspended until international agreement was assured. It was the League's standing committee on communications and transport that then had the matter of calendar reform in hand. It has continued its work in this particular, and in 1931 summoned a fourth international conference for furthering its general business. Thirty-nine States were represented. They put on record the view that public opinion no longer regarded the present calendar as a law of nature or as a sacred and inviolable institution. Inconveniences felt by the business world, by statisticians, by professional men arid women, rvnd by the ordinary citizen, were noted. As the League Assembly of 1929 had expressed a desire to have the expediI ency of this reform examined by a preparatory committee and in several countries national committees had

consulted religious organisations, the ground was found well prepared ; in particular, a recent commission, inclusive of representatives of the Holy Bee, of the Ecumenical Patriarch and of the Archbishop of Canterbury had found that the fixing of Easter was not likely to encounter insurmountable difficulties, while other religious bodies had welcomed the idea. That conference adopted a resolution declaring that, from the economic and social standpoints, the common good called for a fixed date, and a majority of the delegates agreed that this should be the Sunday following the second Saturday in April. The League Council was asked to bring the resolution to the notice of religious bodies, to invite their opinions, and to notify Govern ments, before April 30, 1933, of any views expressed by the religious authorities. Thus there should shortly be taken a definite step.