Replies

I am not judging you about anything. You are setting up strawmen. The point of the article was the negate the notion that Easter was borrowed from pagans. As was pointed out, in most Catholic Countries, Easter is not even used. In Italy, what is called Easter here is called Pascha (Latin) or Pasqua (The Direct Italian word derived from it).

Now some customs starting in the 15th and 16th centuries were added for kids like Easter eggs and bunnies, not that they are part of the Church’s celebration, those are more of ethnic celebrations that were adopted around the time the Church Liturgically celebrated Pascha (easter).

Since you are not Catholic, then what the Catholic Church defines really has nothing to do with you does it?

For Catholics and Orthodox, and perhaps some Liturgically and Creedal based Protestants, it does. No harm no foul.

And again, by 180 AD per the writings of Saint Ireneaus, the celebration of both Lent and Pascha (Easter) were well established in the Church, if you read his letter carefully, he lists the Popes who celebrated Easter according to the Roman Custom and did not break communion with those who celebrated according to a local Eastern tradion (the so called quarterodecimanism controversy). The list of Popes gets you back to around 114 AD during the time of Sixtus. In other words, the celebration of Pascha/Easter can be dated going back to around 114AD. That would be about 10 years after the death of the last Apostle, John. Pretty darn close, and it likely means it goes back to Apostolic times.

Why is it OK to use a pagan word to name a Christian holiday? Where's the scriptural basis for the celebration? You are certainly free to invent and celebrate whatever festivals you choose, but you shouldn't claim them as "Christian" without the scriptural authority to do so. Which you don't have.

quote-Since you are not Catholic, then what the Catholic Church defines really has nothing to do with you does it?

For Catholics and Orthodox, and perhaps some Liturgically and Creedal based Protestants, it does. No harm no fou

Oh, not true..

It’s the difference between understanding Paul’s 1st/chief importance of the gospel, in accordance with the scriptures-

or following rome’s 1st/chief importance of the gospel, in accordance with rome’s catechism and calendar.

the fact more protesants or orthodox don’t see it, isn’t ‘a no harm no foul’, as you put it, at all.
sort of sets up what Paul warned about.

Rome sets the premise for the world. and it isn’t ‘no harm, no foul’.
even jews and muslims accept rome’s version. they just can’t see it.
everybody is born into roman citizenry these days.

the world doesn’t run on a roman calendar named after a pope, by accident.
that is prophetic.