“O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But grant rather a spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to me thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own errors, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art thou unto ages of ages. Amen.”

This is the translation of the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian (ca. 306-373 A.D.) with which I am most familiar, and which I cite from memory; it is the version commonly in use in the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), i.e., the former Russian Metropolia, as well as in many other Orthodox churches. It is possible that it is based on what is found in Bishop (now Metropolitan) Kallistos Ware’s translation of the Lenten Triodion; unfortunately my copy of this translation is elsewhere at the present moment, so I cannot check up on this (as readers of this blog may know, I am in the process of moving, and my books are scattered in different places).

The prayer of St. Ephraim is said throughout Lent, and only during Lent, in the services of the Orthodox Church; it is one of the treasures of Orthodoxy, as much so, or rather more so, than any gilded icon. It is one of the “apples of gold in pictures of silver” (or rather, “within silver carvings”) of which King Solomon speaks (Prov. 25:11), a word fitly spoken, applicable directly to the human condition, which is why the Church teaches it to her children. The manner in which the prayer is recited varies from place to place, and from service to service, but the general practice is the following: the prayer is first recited verse by verse, with a full prostration after each of the three petitions; then the supplication “God, cleanse me, a sinner!” is repeated twelve times, each time accompanied by a metanoia, i.e., a bow; then the prayer of St. Ephraim is repeated once in full without interruption, with a single prostration at the end of the prayer. Along with the Hymn of St. Cassiana, and the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, and the Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God, and the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialogist, and the reading aloud of the Life of St. Mary of Egypt, it is something that marks off the season of Lent, for Orthodox Christians, as a special time, a time of preparation for the great feast of the Lord’s Resurrection, a time for self-reflection and purification and renewed commitment to following Christ with one’s whole heart.

St. Ephraim wrote in Syriac; whether an original Syriac version of this prayer is extant, I do not know. The Greek version of the prayer goes like this:

Κύριε καὶ Δέσποτα τῆς ζωῆς μου, πνεῦμα ἀργίας, περιεργείας, φιλαρχίας καὶ ἀργολογίας μή μοι δῷς.

Πνεῦμα δὲ σωφροσύνης, ταπεινοφροσύνης, ὑπομονῆς καὶ ἀγάπης χάρισαί μοι τῷ σῷ δούλῳ.

Ναί, Κύριε, Βασιλεῦ, δώρισαί μοι τοῦ ὁρᾶν τὰ ἐμὰ πταίσματα καὶ μὴ κατακρίνειν τὸν ἀδελφόν μου· ὅτι εὐλογητὸς εἶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

The first thing one notices about this Greek version is that there is a rhetorical structure to it that suggests that it was either composed in Greek originally or had a very artful Greek translator. The four feminine, abstract nouns in the first sentence show what students of rhetoric call homœoteleuton, that is to say, they all have the same ending, -(ε)ίας; this is true also of the four feminine, abstract nouns in the second sentence: they all end in -ης, and the first two, more strongly, end in -φροσύνης.

Furthermore, in comparing this version with the standard English translation given above, one may note certain differences. The first one is trivial; the English version translates μή μοι δῷς, which literally means, “do not give me”, as “take from me”; this is evidently chosen purely as a matter of style on the part of the English translator (although someone might argue that, by translating the expression in this way, the implication is given that “the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk” is something the worshipper already possesses and is trying to get rid of, which, in the case of most of us, is probably true). Arguably more significant is the translation of two of the abstract nouns, περιεργείας in the first sentence and σωφροσύνης in the second one, as “despair” and “chastity” respectively. The literal sense of περιεργείας is something more like “busybodiness,” “meddling,” “nosiness,” “over-curiosity,” “hyperactivity,” activity directed towards no real end aside from the end of staying active, and which often results in one’s dabbling in business that is not properly one’s own. It may be that the spiritual condition underlying such undirected activity is indeed despair (read Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death), that the reason one wastes one’s time dabbling in business not one’s own is that one’s own proper business seems empty and pointless, and one engages in hyperactivity primarily to escape the dreaded prospect of being alone with one’s unhappy thoughts. The translation of περιεργείας as “despair” might therefore be said to be lexically inaccurate but spiritually precise. My guess is that both it and the translation of σωφροσύνης as “chastity” testify to the existence of a Slavonic version of the prayer, upon which the translation in use in the OCA would presumably be based.

As for σωφροσύνης, this is one of those Greek words for which it is difficult to find an exact English equivalent. The standard translation is “prudence,” but this somehow lacks the power and immediacy of the Greek word. The reason for this, I suspect, is to be seen in the way the Greek word is structured: it is clearly and visibly built upon the verb σώζω, “to save, preserve,” and the noun φρήν, “mind” (originally, the region around the heart, conceived of as the seat of thought and of passions). Literally and visibly, therefore, the word signifies “that which saves the mind.” The clear implication of this word is that we are in danger of losing our minds, and we need a certain quality — σωφροσύνη — in order to preserve our minds and keep us from going mad. Somehow “prudence” fails to convey that sense of imminent danger. The translation of σωφροσύνης as “chastity” probably testifies to the human experience that it is the sexual passions that are most easily productive of madness. Thus, in the Old Testament, the word “fool” (nabal) is often synonymous with “libertine”; see, e.g., the story of Ammon and Tamar, 2 Samuel ch. 13, where Tamar tells her half-brother that, if he proceeds in his intention to rape her, he will be as “one of the fools in Israel” (2 Sam 13:13). There are, of course, many forms of foolishness; one reason why the book of Proverbs is read during Lent is that it catalogues, as it were, the various kinds — not that the Church has any bibliographical devotion to cataloguing as such, but it provides us these examples so that we may recognize, in these various forms of mindlessness, our own specific illnesses. Still, the sexual kind has a kind of primacy of dishonor among them all; and it is doubtless for this reason that the translation “chastity” has been adopted for the Greek σωφροσύνης, again perhaps through a Slavonic intermediary.

So the general structure of the prayer is as follows: The first sentence presents a list of four spiritual qualities (vices) that one wishes to avoid and asks God to remove from oneself; the second sentence presents a list of four spiritual qualities (virtues) that one wishes to acquire and asks God to grant; the final sentence might be said to sum up all that has preceded it, specifying both an essential desideratum and an essential thing to be avoided, followed by a concluding doxology: “Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own πταίσματα (“errors,” more properly, “stumblings,” “failures,” “failings”), and not to judge my brother, for blessed art thou unto ages of ages. Amen.” The essential desideratum is the gift to see one’s own shortcomings; the essential “evertendum” is the habit of finding fault with others. It is a clear echo of the Sermon on the Mount:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

(Matthew 7:1-5)

Apparently, Jesus thought that this issue of judging one’s brother was a sufficiently serious one in the life of faith to warrant his returning to it time and again. It is what polluted the prayer of the Pharisee, when he saw the sleazy taxcollector at the back of the church and congratulated himself on being not like him; it is what hardened the heart of the elder brother in the story of the Prodigal Son, so that we are left not knowing if that brother ever actually came in to celebrate his brother’s return; it is what shocked the morally upright members of the community when Jesus associated with harlots and other disreputable persons in his will to call “not the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” It is evidently a continuing problem for all of us. Some will perhaps say that, given the present conditions of society, the opposite problem is more compelling; that is, there is a prevalent philosophical assumption, which has filtered down into popular culture, that holds that there is no real basis for moral judgment at all; that all moral judgments are the result of one’s freely and arbitrarily choosing certain “values” over certain others, and all imposition of one’s chosen values upon other people, who may not themselves share them, is inherently an act of violence. (Of course, if there is no real basis for moral judgment, then there is also no real basis for condemning an act of violence. The anti-moral argument, if it attempts to take a moral high ground, finds itself floating in empty space; it is self-contradictory.) The danger of moral relativism is real, and Jesus, who came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, is no exponent of such a philosophy. But could it possibly be that the contrary temptation, which is to see Christianity as simply identical with the moral law, is more insidious and dangerous? St. Paul makes it very clear that, if a law could have been given that, in itself, gave life, then salvation, righteousness, would have been by that method (Galatians 3:21). St. Augustine’s whole polemic against Pelagius was precisely about this very point, that Christianity is not just the moral law with a divine example added to give us an extra incentive. Christianity is the life, love, and power of God, communicated to us through the atoning death and victorious resurrection of God’s Son and the indwelling in us of God’s Holy Spirit. The offer of that life, love, and power of God is extended, not only to the righteous, but to sinners like you and me, so that in Christ we might become righteous. The evidence of a life lived in Christ is of more concrete value to persuading a cynical world of the truth of the gospel than is any philosophizing or theologizing or social criticism; the people who are potentially to hear the word of life want to know if we, who claim to know the Lord, have truly been changed by him; i.e., do we in fact love one another? Undoubtedly, most of us show, in countless ways, that we have not been changed, and are incapable of love; Great Lent provides us an opportunity to work on that. The prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian is a time-honored, valuable tool in that labor. May God bless that work, may he cast out the beam from our own eyes, so that, as the Lord commands us, we may love our neighbor as ourselves, and be reckoned children of God and sons of peace.


Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, I.9; Greek text in Migne, PG 67, 92 A-B; translated by A. C. Zenos, in P. Schaff and H. Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 15.

Moreover this should also be considered, that in a matter so important and of such religious significance, the slightest disagreement is most irreverent. For our Saviour left us but one day to be observed in commemoration of our deliverance, that is the day of his most holy Passion: he also wished his Catholic Church to be one; the members of which, however much they may be scattered in various places, are notwithstanding cherished by one Spirit, that is by the will of God. Let the prudence consistent with your sacred character consider how grievous and indecorous it is, that on the same days some should be observing fasts, while others are celebrating feasts; and after the days of Easter some should indulge in festivities and enjoyments, and others submit to appointed fastings. On this account therefore Divine Providence directed that an appropriate correction should be effected, and uniformity of practice established, as I suppose you are all aware.

On calculating Easter

March 14, 2008

Although for most Christians Easter is just around the corner, for the Orthodox Church Lent began this week; there is a five-week disparity this year between the dates of Easter (April 27th for the Orthodox, March 23rd for everyone else). When I was younger I asked my mother why the Orthodox Easter and the Protestant and Catholic Easter fall on different dates, and was given the following explanation: for the Protestants and Catholics, Easter falls upon the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox; for the Orthodox, Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox after Passover. As a rule of thumb, I have found this explanation always to work (e.g., Passover begins this year on the evening before April 20th, which also happens to be a full moon); however, I have also learned that, as an explanation for why the differences exist between the Orthodox Church and other churches in their calculation of the date of Easter, it is erroneous. The difference between the dates of Easter arises from the fact that the Western churches calculate this date according to the revised, Gregorian calendar while the Orthodox Church calculates Easter according to the old Julian calendar. That is to say, all the churches observe the rule, established by the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, that Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox; but they identify differently the day on which the vernal equinox occurs. Although the vernal equinox — the moment when day and night are exactly equal, or, to speak in Ptolemaic terms, when the sun, in its annual journey through the zodiacal belt, crosses the celestial equator, marking the beginning of Spring in the Northern hemisphere — actually occurs on March 20th this year, the Orthodox Church reckons “March 21st” as a fixed date for this astronomical event, and it reckons this fixed date according to the Julian calendar. Currently, the Julian March 21st is the Gregorian April 3rd, that is, roughly 13 days later than the astronomical equinox; over time, the discrepancy will continue to grow, at the rate of about a week per millennium, so that, if nothing else changes, Orthodox Christians in the year 6008 will be celebrating Easter in late May or June.

I subjoin an article on the effort to agree upon a common date of Easter; it is copied from the website of the World Council of Churches, http://www.oikoumene.org/?id=2677.

Towards a Common Date for Easter

World Council of Churches/Middle East Council of Churches Consultation
Aleppo, Syria
March 5 – 10, 1997

“Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival.”
1 Cor. 5:7-8.

I. The Issues

Background to this consultation

1. In the 20th century the churches have rediscovered a deep concern for Christian unity. They have expressed this in their efforts to find common ground on theological issues that have long divided them. They have learned to give common witness in a variety of ways. But despite this progress towards visible unity, many challenges remain. One very sensitive issue, with enormous pastoral consequences for all the Christian faithful, has taken on growing urgency: the need to find a common date for the celebration of Easter, the Holy Pascha, the feast of Christ’s resurrection. By celebrating this feast of feasts on different days, the churches give a divided witness to this fundamental aspect of the apostolic faith, compromising their credibility and effectiveness in bringing the Gospel to the world. This is a matter of concern for all Christians. Indeed, in some parts of the world such as the Middle East, where several separated Christian communities constitute a minority in the larger society, this has become an urgent issue. While there has been some discussion of this question, it still has not been given the serious attention that it deserves.

2. While the question of a common date for Easter/Pascha has been addressed at different times since the earliest Christian centuries, a renewed discussion of this issue has arisen in the present century in the churches of both East and West. It also has emerged in significant ways in the secular world. The question was put to the wider Christian world in a 1920 encyclical of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople and addressed in a 1923 Pan-Orthodox congress, whose decision to revise their calendar unfortunately led to several schisms within the Orthodox churches. Around the same time, discussion was beginning in secular circles especially in Western Europe concerning the possibility of establishing a fixed day for Easter, such as the Sunday following the second Saturday in April, so as to facilitate commercial planning and public activities. In addition, proposals for introducing a new fixed calendar were being advanced, for similar utilitarian reasons. After World War II the context for discussion of such issues changed in several ways. International secular initiatives received little support. The churches were especially opposed to any calendar reform which would break the cycle of the seven-day week. On the other hand, many churches continued to express interest in the idea of a common day, whether movable or fixed, for the celebration of Easter/Pascha. The Orthodox returned to the paschal question from 1961 onwards, in the context of preparations for the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church; the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council (1963) gave renewed impetus in the Roman Catholic Church to discussion of this issue; and since 1965 the World Council of Churches has taken up the subject on a number of occasions.

3. In recent years, concrete steps have been taken in the Middle East, where Christians of so many traditions live closely together in a largely non-Christian society. The Middle East Council of Churches has been particularly active in encouraging and facilitating the celebration of Easter/Pascha on a common day. Two recent WCC consultations have taken up this concern. A consultation on “Christian Spirituality for Our Times” (Iasi, Romania, May 1994) proposed that “a new initiative be taken towards the common celebration of Easter.” Even more striking are the conclusions reached by a consultation “Towards Koinonia in Worship” (Ditchingham, England, August 1994):

Besides the work already done on baptism, eucharist and ministry, the churches need to address the renewal of preaching, the recovery of the meaning of Sunday and the search for a common celebration of Pascha as ecumenical theological concerns. This last is especially urgent, since an agreement on a common date for Easter – even an interim agreement – awaits further ecumenical developments. Such an agreement, which cannot depend on the idea of a “fixed date of Easter”, should respect the deepest meaning of the Christian Pascha, and the feelings of Christians throughout the world. We welcome all initiatives which offer the hope of progress in this important area.” (T.F. Best/D. Heller, eds., So We Believe, So We Pray: Towards Koinonia in Worship, Faith and Order Paper No. 171, WCC Publications, Geneva 1995, pp. 9-10.)

In view of the concerns expressed at these consultations, the Executive Committee of the WCC, meeting in Bucharest, September 1994, recommended that Unit I, “especially the Ecclesial Unity/Faith and Order stream and the Worship and Spirituality stream, give renewed attention to the subject of the common celebration of Easter, keeping in mind that in the year 2001, the dates of Easter according to both Eastern and Western calendars coincide.”

4. The present consultation, meeting in Aleppo, Syria, March 5-10, 1997, comes in response to this request. Sponsored jointly by Unit I of the WCC and by the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), it brings together representatives of a number of communions which participate in the annual meeting of the Conference of Secretaries of Christian World Communions, representatives of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, representatives of the MECC, and invited experts and staff. Together participants in the consultation enjoyed the hospitality of the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of Aleppo and experienced first-hand the commitment to unity of the Christian communities of this city. At a meeting with members of these communities, they listened to a call for removal of the painful sign of separation which differing dates for Easter/Pascha constitute. In an atmosphere of prayer and common study, participants considered the problem of a common day for the celebration of Easter/Pascha from various perspectives – theological, historical, liturgical, catechetical and pastoral. The consultation offers to all the churches the following observations and recommendations.

Christ’s resurrection, basis of our common faith

5. The apostolic faith of the Church is based on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. As St. Paul says: “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the death, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:12-14) Viewed as the ultimate victory over the powers of sin and death, the resurrection of the Lord is not only an historical event but also the sign of God’s power over all the forces which can keep us from his love and goodness. It is a victory not only for Christ himself but also for all those united with him (1 Pet. 1:3f). It is a victory which marks the beginning of a new era (Jn 20:17). The resurrection is the ultimate expression of the Father’s gift of reconciliation and unity in Christ through the Spirit. It is a sign of the unity and reconciliation which God wills for the entire creation.

6. As the apostles began their missionary activity, the resurrection was at the heart of their preaching (1 Cor. 15: 1-17, Acts 2:22-36, 1 Pet 1:3), and as the evangelists began to record aspects of the Lord’s teachings and ministry, the resurrection comes as the culminating event in their gospels. In every aspect of her life, the early Church was first and foremost the community of the resurrection. Thus the early Church’s life of worship focused on God’s reconciling love as manifested in the saving passover of Christ’s death and resurrection. The first day of the week became the preeminent day of the Christian assembly because it was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead (Jn 20:1, Acts 20:7). At the same time, this came to be known as the “eighth day,” a day of new creation and ultimate fulfillment. Each year too, Christians both remembered and experienced the continuing power of Christ’s passion and resurrection in a single but multifaceted celebration. This celebration also became the occasion for baptism, in which Christians shared in Christ’s passage from death to life, dying to sin and rising to new life in him. Therefore the behavior of Christians was rooted in their relationship with the risen Lord and reflected the new reality inaugurated by him (Col. 3:1-11).

Historical background to the present differences

7. The New Testament indicates that Christ’s death and resurrection were historically associated with the Jewish passover, but the precise details of this association are not clear. According to the synoptic gospels, Jesus’ last supper was a passover meal, which would place his death on the day after passover, while according to John his death occurred on the day itself, indeed at the very hour, when the paschal lambs were sacrificed. By the end of the 2nd century some churches celebrated Easter/Pascha on the day of the Jewish passover, regardless of the day of the week, while others celebrated it on the following Sunday. By the 4th century, the former practice had been abandoned practically universally, but differences still remained in the calculation of the date of Easter/Pascha. The ecumenical council held at Nicea in 325 AD determined that Easter/Pascha should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first vernal full moon. Originally passover was celebrated on the first full moon after the March equinox, but in the 3rd century the day of the feast came to be calculated by some Jewish communities without reference to the equinox, thus causing passover to be celebrated twice in some solar years. Nicea tried to avoid this by linking the principles for the dating of Easter/Pascha to the norms for the calculation of passover during Jesus’ lifetime.

8. While certain differences in the mechanics of determining the date of Easter/Pascha remained even after Nicea, which occasionally resulted in local differences, by the 6th century the mode of calculation based on the studies of Alexandrian astronomers and scholars had gained universal acceptance. By the 16th century, however, the discrepancy between this mode of calculation and the observed astronomical data was becoming evident. This led to the calendar change introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Since that time, western Christians have come to calculate the date of Easter on the basis of this newer Gregorian calendar, while the eastern churches generally have continued to follow the older Julian calendar. While calendrical changes in some of the Orthodox churches in 1923 affected fixed-date feasts, the calculation of the Easter date remained linked to the Julian Calendar. Our present differences in calculation of the date of Easter thus may be ascribed to differences in the calendars and lunar tables employed rather than to differences in fundamental theological outlook.

9. In its study of the mechanics of the paschal calculation, the consultation took note of the fact that both the current eastern (Julian) and the current western (Gregorian) calculations diverge in certain respects from the astronomical data as determined by precise scientific calculation. As is well known, the Julian calendar at present diverges from the astronomical by thirteen days; the Gregorian at present does not diverge significantly, though it will in the distant future. Less well known is the fact that both Julian and Gregorian calculations rely upon conventional tables for determining the lunar cycle. For both modes of calculation, these tables at times give results that diverge from the astronomical data

The continuing relevance of the Council of Nicea

10. In the course of their deliberations, the participants in the consultation came to a deeper appreciation of the continuing relevance of the Council of Nicea for the present discussion. The decisions of this council, rooted as they are in scripture and tradition, came to be regarded as normative for the whole Church.

(a) Despite differences in the method of calculation, the principles of calculation in the churches of both East and West are based on the norms set forth at Nicea. This fact is of great significance. In the present divided situation, any decision by one church or group of churches to move away from these norms would only increase the difficulty of resolving outstanding differences.

(b) The Council of Nicea’s decisions are expressive of the desire for unity. The council’s aim was to establish principles, based upon the scriptural data concerning the association of the passion and resurrection of Christ with the passover, which would encourage a single annual observance of Easter/Pascha by all the churches. By fostering unity in this way, the council also demonstrated its concern for the mission of the church in the world. The council was aware that disunity in such a central matter was a cause of scandal.

(c) The Nicene norms affirm the intimate connection between the biblical passover (cf. especially Exod. 12:18, Lev. 23:5, Num. 28:16, Deut. 16:1-2) and the Christian celebration of “Christ our paschal lamb” (1 Cor. 5:7). While the council rejected the principle of dependence on contemporary Jewish reckoning, it did so on the grounds that this had changed and become inaccurate, not because it regarded this connection as unimportant.

(d) In the course of their discussions the consultation also gained a deeper appreciation for the wealth of symbolism which the Nicene norms permit. In the worship of many of the churches, especially in the biblical readings and hymnography of the paschal season, Christians are reminded not only of the important link between the passover and the Christian Easter/Pascha but also of other aspects of salvation history. For example, they are reminded that in Christ’s resurrection all creation is renewed. Some early Christian sources thus linked the Genesis account of the seven days of creation with the week of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.

(e) The Council of Nicea also has an enduring lesson for Christians today in its willingness make use of contemporary science in calculating the date of Easter. While the council sought to advance the concrete unity of the churches, it did not itself undertake a detailed regulation of the Easter calculation. Instead it expected the churches to employ the most exact science of the day for calculating the necessary astronomical data (the March equinox and the full moon).

II. Two recommendations

First recommendation

11. In the estimation of this consultation, the most likely way to succeed in achieving a common date for Easter in our own day would be

(a) to maintain the Nicene norms (that Easter should fall on the Sunday following the first vernal full moon), and

(b) to calculate the astronomical data (the vernal equinox and the full moon) by the most accurate possible scientific means,

(c) using as the basis for reckoning the meridian of Jerusalem, the place of Christ’s death and resurrection.

12. This recommendation is made for the following reasons.

In regard to point a:

(i) The Church needs to be reminded of its origins, including the close link between the biblical passover and the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ – a link that reflects the total flow of salvation history. In the estimation of this consultation, a fixed date would obscure and weaken this link by eliminating any reference to the biblical norms for the calculation of the passover.

(ii) Easter/Pascha has a cosmic dimension. Through Christ’s resurrection, the sun, the moon, and all the elements are restored to their primordial capacity for declaring God’s glory (Ps. 19:1-2, 148:3). Easter/Pascha reveals the close link between creation and redemption, as inseparable aspects of God’s revelation. The Nicene principles for calculating the date of Easter/Pascha, based as they are on the cycles of sun and moon, reflect this cosmic dimension much more fully than a fixed-date system.

(iii) In addition to underscoring many important symbolic aspects of the feast, a movable date for the observance of Easter/Pascha also indicates in palpable fashion the dramatic way in which the resurrection breaks into the comfortable routines of this world. While such a date may in some respects be less convenient than a fixed Sunday, it does call attention to a significant theological point which otherwise might be overlooked.

(iv) An earlier WCC consultation on the date of Easter/Pascha (Chambésy, 1970) observed, “In any case the churches should arrive at a solution for reasons based entirely on the religious meaning of the feast and for the purpose of Christian unity rather than for the purpose of satisfying inherently secular interests.” The present consultation wholly concurs with this sentiment.

(v) This recommendation maintains what, for most churches, is an important aspect of tradition. Adoption of a fixed Sunday approach would raise difficulties for many churches and, if introduced unilaterally by one church or group of churches, might well result in not two but three different dates for Easter/Pascha in a given year.

In regard to point b:

In recommending calculation of the astronomical data by the most accurate possible scientific means (as distinct, for example, from reliance on conventional cyclical tables or personal observation), the consultation believes that it is being completely faithful to the spirit of the Council of Nicea itself, which also was willing to make use of the best available scientific knowledge. We are fortunate that experts in astronomy have already provided these necessary calculations; they are conveniently presented in Synodica V (Chambésy – Genêve, Les Editions du Centre Orthodoxe, 1981) 133 – 149.

In regard to point c:

Astronomical observations, of course, depend upon the position on earth which is taken as the point of reference. This consultation believes that it is appropriate to employ the meridian of Jerusalem, the site of Christ’s passion and resurrection, as this necessary point of reference for the calculation of the March equinox and the subsequent full moon.

13. The recommendation just stated will have some different implications for the churches of East and West as they seek a renewed faithfulness to Nicea. Both will face the need for education of their faithful. For eastern churches, changes in the actual dating of Easter/Pascha will be more perceptible than for the western churches. Given the contexts in which these churches live, this will require both patience and tact. For western churches, on the other hand, the challenge may lie in communicating deeper aspects of the Nicene principles for the calculation of Easter/Pascha, such as those sketched above, and in acquainting their faithful with the concerns and insights of the eastern churches.

14. The consultation is well aware of the particular circumstances of many eastern churches. In some countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, where the Christian churches have lived with the challenge of other religions or materialistic ideologies, loyalty to the “old calendar” has been a symbol of the churches’ desire to maintain their integrity and their freedom from the hostile forces of this world. Clearly in such situations implementation of any change in the calculation of Easter/Pascha will have to proceed carefully and with great pastoral sensitivity.

15. To aid the churches in their discussion of the above recommendation, the consultation appends to this report a table of Easter/Pascha dates from 2001 through 2025, based on the astronomical specifications already indicated. For convenience of reference, the table also indicates the dates of Easter/Pascha according to the current Gregorian and Julian reckonings, the astronomically determined date of the first vernal full moon, i.e., the first full moon following the March equinox (cf. Exod. 12:18, Lev. 23:5, Num. 28:16, Deut. 16:1-2), and the date of passover according to current Jewish reckoning.

Second recommendation

16. This consultation also recommends that the churches now undertake a period of study and reflection towards the goal of establishing as soon as possible a common date for Easter/Pascha along the lines set forth above. In the year 2001 the paschal calculations now in use by our churches will coincide. Together, Christians will begin a new century, a new millennium, with new opportunities to witness to the resurrection of Christ and to proclaim their joy in his victory over sin, suffering and death. The unity that will be reflected as Christians celebrate Easter/Pascha on the same date will be for many a sign of hope and of witness to the world. This celebration of Easter/Pascha on the same date should not be the exception but the rule.

17. The way is now open for the churches to consider again their current practice for determining the date of Easter/Pascha. As a first step, in the interval between 1997 and 2001, this consultation encourages the churches to take up consideration of the recommendations here proposed, and, if they find them acceptable in principle, to explore ways of implementing them according to their own procedures, in light of their own opportunities, and within their own contexts. This consultation suggests that during these years the churches consult with each other on the ways in which a common date for Easter/Pascha can be implemented. In this interval also, the present consultation encourages continuation of existing local and regional initiatives, as interim measures, for observance of a common Easter/Pascha.

18. As a second step, the consultation suggests that the year 2001 would also provide a good opportunity for the churches to review reactions and to assess progress made towards agreement on this matter. It recommends, therefore, that the World Council of Churches, in cooperation with its ecumenical partners and other Christian groups, organize then a consultation in which this assessment could be reported and implementation could be discussed.

19. It is the sincere hope of the participants in this consultation that the churches will give an early and prayerful consideration to the recommendations made in this report, as a step towards preparing for a united witness to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


Dr Bert Beach, U.S.A.
     (for the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists)
Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandreou), Switzerland
     (for the Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Canon John Halliburton, United Kingdom
     (for the Anglican Communion)
Rev. Fayiz Y. Henain, Syria
     (for the Evangelical Churches in the Middle East)
Fr. Datev Mikaelian, Syria
     (for the Armenian Orthodox Church)
Archbishop Boutros Marayati, Syria (Armenian Catholic Church)
     (for the Middle East Council of Churches)
Ven. Dr. Koenraad Ouwens, Netherlands
     (for the Old-Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht)
Msgr. John Radano, Vatican City
     (for the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity)
Mr. Alexander Sologoub, Syria
     (for the Patriarchate of Moscow)
Archbishop Dr. Gunnar Weman, Sweden
     (for the Lutheran World Federation)
Metropolitan Elias Yusef, Syria
     (for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch)


Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim
     (Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch)
Mr Razek Syriani
     (Syrian Orthodox Church / MECC)


Prof. John H. Erickson, U.S.A.
     (Orthodox Church in America)
Rev. Dr. Ronald Kydd, Canada
     (Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada)

WCC Staff:

Fr. Dr. Thomas FitzGerald
     (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Rev. Dr. Dagmar Heller
     (Evangelical Church of Germany, United)

Table for finding Easter/Pascha dates

         Easter/Pascha Easter/Pascha  Easter/Pascha  Vernal full  Passover by
 Year         by         by current    by current      moon by      current
         astronomical    Gregorian       Julian      astronomical    Jewish
           reckoning     reckoning      reckoning     reckoning    reckoning

 2001    15 April       15 April      15 April        8 April       8 April
 2002    31 March       31 March       5 May         28 March      28 March
 2003    20 April       20 April      27 April       16 April      17 April
 2004    11 April       11 April      11 April        5 April       6 April
 2005    27 March       27 March       1 May         25 March      24 April
 2006    16 April       16 April      23 April       13 April      13 April
 2007     8 April        8 April       8 April        2 April       3 April
 2008    23 March       23 March      27 April       21 March      20 April
 2009    12 April       12 April      19 April        9 April       9 April
 2010     4 April        4 April       4 April       30 March      30 March
 2011    24 April       24 April      24 April       18 April      19 April
 2012     8 April        8 April      15 April        6 April       7 April
 2013    31 March       31 March       5 May         27 March      26 March
 2014    20 April       20 April      20 April       15 April      15 April
 2015     5 April        5 April      12 April        4 April       4 April
 2016    27 March       27 March       1 May         23 March      23 April
 2017    16 April       16 April      16 April       11 April      11 April
 2018     1 April        1 April       8 April       31 March      31 March
 2019    24 March       21 April      28 April       21 March      20 April
 2020    12 April       12 April      19 April        8 April       9 April
 2021     4 April        4 April       2 May         28 March      28 March
 2022    17 April       17 April      24 April       16 April      16 April
 2023     9 April        9 April      16 April        6 April       6 April
 2024    31 March       31 March       5 May         25 March      23 April
 2025    20 April       20 April      20 May         13 April      13 April

For further information about this text, its availability in printed form
and in languages other than English, please contact Rev. Dr. Dagmar Heller