It’s true that some form of “pre-Easter fasting” was practiced In the early church, but there were multiple “traditions” available surrounding this practice, as well as the date and practice of Easter. According to Eusebius, Irenaeus wrote this:
The dispute is not only about the day but also the practice of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, others for two, others even more, and some count forty day-night hours in their ‘day’ [of fasting].
It’s important to note that the one truly “Apostolic” tradition of the early church, one that truly has such origins as it can claim to have been “instituted by the Apostles” was squashed by a bishop of Rome in the late second century.
As Eusebius relates, “no small controversy erupted because all of the Asian dioceses thought that [Easter] should be observed, according to ancient tradition, on the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews had been commanded to sacrifice the lamb” (Eusebius, The Church History, 5.23, Translation and Commentary by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic and Professional, ©1999, 2007, pg 178).
We know it as the “Quartodeciman” practice. This practice frequently put “Easter” on a day other than Sunday. It’s important to note that this was a practice said (in the second century) to have been instituted by Apostles. It is one of the few truly ancient practices of the earliest church that we know of. And yet it was choked out of existence by a “bishop of Rome”, in what we know to be yet another instance of bullying by Rome of other members of the church.
Eusebius provides the text of a letter from an Eastern bishop, Polycrates, to Victor, a “bishop” of Rome late in the second century, explaining this practice, in what he said was an “ancient and revered tradition that his churches (in the east) had received from the Apostles John and Philip”, a truly Apostolic tradition that was “handed on” by “Polycarp at Smyrna, bishop and martyr, and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia”, and a number of others, regarding the practice of Easter:
Thus we keep the day precisely, without addition or subtraction. … And I too, Polycrates, the least of all of you, live according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. Seven of them were bishops and I am the eighth, and my relatives have always kept the day when the people discarded the leaven. Therefore, my brothers, I who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord and conferred with brethren from all parts of the world and have studied all of Holy Scripture, am not afraid of threats, for men better than I have said, “We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. …
This Apostolic practice followed the Jewish calendar, in which the Passover is celebrated based on lunar timing, and which also put Easter on variable days of the week, over successive years. This was not the practice at Rome (supposedly with its “Apostolic” foundations).
The thing about ancient Rome, because it was a center of trade and commerce, people came to that city from all over the empire. And as visitors and immigrants, they brought their own practices (in this case, an Apostolic practice as well). And yet the leaders of the Roman churches sought to dominate. As Eusebius relates:
At this, Victor, who presided at Rome, immediately tried to cut off from the common unity as heterodox all the Asian dioceses, along with neighboring churches, and pilloried them in letters announcing the absolute excommunication of all the brethren there (180).
This was not Victor claiming “jurisdiction” over the churches in Asia. As Irenaeus wrote (related by Eusebius), this “variation in observance did not begin in our own day but much earlier in the time of our predecessors” who had migrated from Asia and settled at Rome. Victor was at first looking at the broad spectrum of practices associated with the various churches at Rome at the time.
There was nothing fixed about it at this time. The practices were variable. Irenaeus notes that while Victor’s “predecessors” “themselves did not observe it” [the Asian custom of fasting], “nor their followers, yet they lived in peace with those who arrived from dioceses that did, even though to observe it was more offensive to those who did not”.
In truth, while some devout individuals in some traditions may have an appropriate attitude toward this type of activity, it seems more likely to me that it is just one more of the largely non-biblical “traditions” borne out of a Roman desire for power that the Reformers rightly decided to do without.
See also:
http://reformation500.com/2013/02/14/putting-lent-and-ash-wednesday-into-perspective/
http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/02/24/quest-historic-liturgy/
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org/2013/02/14/to-lent-or-relent-some-thoughts-on-a-recent-post-at-the-gospel-coalition/
I think you made a mistake in your post. You said : "Was squashed by a bishop of Rome in the late second century." I think you meant to say "Was squashed by the 'house churches of Rome' in late second century. As we all know, there was no controlling legal authority in Rome. It was just a conglomerate of house churches. Who knows maybe the word "Victor" means "Conglomerate"
ReplyDeleteActually, Lampe does note that it was Victor who "was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts ... energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and ... attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision, or where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication". That is what is referred to here.
ReplyDelete