1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.1687 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Here's the note for 1687:
The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.
Note that there IS such a thing as a "Christian Passover" (not a Jewish Passover), it was celebrated by the apostles John and Philip ON the day that God commanded Passover to be celebrated.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Next:
The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day. It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal. As Schaff says: “The gist of the paschal controversy was whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire festival.” The former practice emphasized Christ’s death; the latter his resurrection.
Now this last point is important. Emphasized his death:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
No doubt this ONLY occurred on Passsover, to emphasize his death.
Now it should be clear from these statements that the Roman church was practicing something CONTRARY to what God commanded and to what the original disciples practiced.
It is not clear at all. As Eusebius makes clear, it wasn't just the "Roman" church. Only the Johannines in Asia Minor were Quartodeciman; the whole rest of the world was on Sunday.
And my question to Diego stands, if this was such an apostate practice, why did the Johannines not *refuse* Communion with the Roman Church? If Easter Sunday is apostasy, then the disciples of John were gladly keeping company with apostates.
Do you know something they do not?