The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1927. A FIXED EASTER.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17078, 16 April 1927, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1927. A FIXED EASTER.

A question that has been brought prominently to the fore on various occasions has been that of a fixed Easter. The Festival is now a moveable one, and is celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon, which occurs upon or next after March 21; and if the full inoon happens upon a Sunday, Easter day is the Sunday after. The date cannot fall earlier than March 22 or later than April, 1923, a joint committee of both was a long conflict between the sense of its natural connection with the Lord’s Day and the desire to celebrate it yearly on the day which represented its historical connection with the Jewish Passover. The Western Church insisted upon the one, and many Eastern churches on the other. •Finally, by a decree of the Nicene Council in A.D. 325, the. former principle prevailed and Easter was fixed as the Sunday nearest to the calculated anniversary of the actual Resurrection. There has, however, been apparent a growing desire to make the Festival a fixed one, and the proposal has received serious consideration in ecclesiastical circles. In April, 1925, a joint committee of both Houses of Convocation of Canterbury reported that while there was no great desire apparent for a change, a fixed Easter would not conflict with any doctrine of Hie Christian faith. The Patriarchal Council of Constantinople has accepted the unanimous decision of the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 that, if all the Christian Churches arc in agreement, the Orthodox Church is prepared to pronounce in favour of the fixing of Easter, provided always that it is fixed on a Sunday. The Roman Church sees no sufficient reason for the change, hut agrees that there are no difficulties involved from the point of view of dogma. It would apparently be ready to consider the question if it were shown that a change was demanded by the general good. It thus seems clear that two of the three Churches are ready to accept the change if it is accepted by both the others, while the Holy Sec would agree on certain conditions to take the matter into consideration. None of them raises fundamental objection to the fixing of Easter on dogmatic grounds. So far as the Church of England, at all events, is concerned, the question -is one on which no one is in a better position to speak with authority than the Archbishop of Canterbury. Six years ago, in the House of Lords debate on the second reading of Lord Desborough’s Fixed Easter Bill, he moved the following amendment: “That this House recognises the desirability of a fixed date for Easter, and is of opinion that steps should forthwith be taken by His Majesty’s Government to ascertain the views of the Christian Churches in Europe with respect to the matter, together with the views of civil authorities and of the representatives of commercial and educational interests; and this House is further of the opinion that the Fixed Easter Bill should not be proceeded with until such information has been acquired.” He stated thaL he was as anxious as Lord Dcsborough to bring about the change suggested; that the initiative rested with the civil Government rather than with the ecclesiastical authorities; and that, without speaking in any way officially, he had reason to believe that the attitude of the Holy See was one of willingness to sanction the proposed change provided that aprac-. tically unanimous request to that effect is received from the principal Governments. The Primate’s view of the position is in complete accordance with the sentiments expressed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford in a letter which he addressed to the Tablet in 1920, namely: “I am delighted to see that the Tablet has taken up, and with approval, the idea of a fixed Easter. That is a reform that has long been needed. . .. . The dogmatic dangers and' difficulties involved in a change of the Paschal calculation are no longer existent, and there can surely now be no objection from the theological point of view. . . I do not anticipate that there would be any difficulty in negotiations to induce the Governments of the various nations to agree, as the advantages arc so very obvious.” If there are ecclesiastical objections to the proposed change and apparently there are not —it seems that the advantages the change would confer are so overwhelming from the business 1 and social aspects that active efforts should be made to bring it about.