That the Ebionites (a second-century Jewish Christian sect) celebrated the Passover on the day when it was commanded to the Jews under threat of a curse ( Ex. 12:6, 14, 18 ; Lev. 23:5 ; Deut. 27:26 ), i.e., on the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan), we have seen in the commentary on the 7th Apostolic Canon. This belief of the Ebionites, that it was precisely on this day, any day of the week, that this feast was to be celebrated, was shared by many Christians of the East, who were otherwise, generally speaking, Orthodox, especially in the churches of Asia Minor. In the West, and especially in the Roman Church, the custom was established for a time of celebrating this feast on the first Sunday (die Dominico, χυριαχή ήμερα ) after the fourteenth day of the same first month.
The Christians of Asia Minor, citing the Apostle John, Philip, and some of the Apostolic disciples, believed that, following the example of Christ, when He celebrated Passover with His disciples, they too should observe the remembrance of His death ( πάσχα σταυρώσιμον ) on that same day, in the same manner as Christ had done. To this end, they organized a special supper, which they linked with the Lord's Supper, and did this at the time when the Jews celebrated their Passover, that is, on the 14th day of the first month, and during this time they broke the fast of Holy Week. After this, they again continued to fast until the third day, on which they celebrated the Resurrection of Christ ( πάσχα άναστάσιμον ), regardless of whether this third day fell on Sunday or on any other day of the week. Believing that in this case they were acting entirely correctly, they considered the custom of the Western Church an innovation, contrary to historical truth. For its part, the Western Church justified its custom by the general freedom of Christians, who were not obliged to adhere to the Jewish ceremonial law. According to its argument, if Christians were not obliged to celebrate the Jewish Sabbath, then they could be even less obliged to celebrate the Jewish Passover, since the Apostle Paul not only generally granted Christians freedom regarding the celebration of certain days, but specifically said this regarding Passover ( 1 Cor. 5:7 ). Moreover, it is impossible for Christians to observe the Jewish Passover in its entirety, just as it is impossible to preserve all the rituals associated with it, which were not observed even by the Christians of Asia Minor. Finally, the Western Church considered it completely arbitrary and forbidden to break the fast during Holy Week, as the Christians of Asia Minor did, because this fast, according to Apostolic Tradition, could only end on the day of Christ's Resurrection ( Truly 89 ; Dionysius Alexis 1 ).
Regarding the aforementioned disagreements between the churches of Asia Minor and the Western Church, a great dispute arose which lasted for several centuries, and all those who followed the Asia Minor custom regarding the time of the celebration of Christ's Resurrection were called forty-day followers, as we discussed in the interpretation of the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council.
This issue first came to light in the early years of the second half of the second century, when Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, while in Rome, sought to negotiate with the Roman Bishop Anicetus on various matters of church life that were causing conflicting opinions among the Asian and Western churches. The question of the time of the celebration of Christ's Resurrection was also raised, but both Polycarp and Anicetus defended their respective churches' customs, and reaching an agreement was impossible, as neither was willing to make concessions, each citing the Apostolic Tradition of their respective churches. Nevertheless, the bishops parted in fraternal love, each adhering to their own custom. However, the issue was soon raised again, and with considerable urgency. Controversies over this arose in Laodicea, and Melito, Bishop of Sardis (in Lydia), published a treatise on the matter in defense of the practice of the churches of Asia Minor ( περί του Πάσχα ). This served as the pretext for the convening of numerous councils, the majority of which declared in favor of the practice of the Western Church. Upon learning of this, the Roman Bishop Victor (189–199) wrote several letters to the churches of Asia Minor, threatening in some of them with excommunication of their bishops if they did not accept and recognize the practice of the Western Church. This threat irritated all the bishops of Asia Minor, and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, wrote a sharp reply to Victor on behalf of all of them, declaring that they had no intention of deviating from the Apostolic Tradition and despised his threat. After Polycrates' reply, passions flared even more fiercely, and even more dire consequences threatened the peace of the Church, had not Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and a disciple of Polycarp, originally from Asia Minor, fortunately intervened. He wrote a letter to Victor in which, while arguing in favor of the Western Church's custom of celebrating Easter on Sunday, he also offered good advice (Victorem tanien decenter admonet) not to violate it, for the sake of such ritual distinctions, of which there had been many since the very beginning of the Church, and of ecclesiastical peace and fraternal unity. Irenaeus' authoritative voice succeeded in calming passions, and the peace of the Church was not disturbed.
The debate over the day of Easter ceased for a long time, and each church continued to follow its own custom. The issue was raised again in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council. The Council set about reconsidering the matter with the intention of preventing any potential disputes and establishing uniformity throughout the Church through a single, general decision. First, based on the Seventh Apostolic Canon, it was decided that Christian Easter should not be celebrated on the same day as the Jews. Further, based on the New Testament teaching on the seventh day, it was decided that Christian Easter should always be celebrated on Sunday. Finally, it was decided that the first full moon after the vernal equinox should always be used to indicate the time of year at which Christian Easter should be celebrated. Based on all this, the following decision was made: 1) Christian Easter must be celebrated by everyone on a Sunday, 2) this Sunday must fall after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. 3) If it happens that the Jewish Passover also falls on the same Sunday, then Christian Easter must be celebrated on the following Sunday. Matthew Blastares writes the following about this in his Alphabetic Syntagma: "Concerning our Easter, it is necessary to pay attention to four decrees, two of which are contained in the Apostolic Canon, and two originate from unwritten tradition. The first is that we must celebrate Easter after the vernal equinox ( μετά ισημερίαν έαρινήν ), the second is not to celebrate it together with the Jews on the same day; the third – not simply after the equinox, but after the first full moon that occurs after the equinox ( μετά την πρώτην μετ᾿ ισημερίαν πανσέληνον ), and the fourth – after the full moon, not otherwise than on the first day of the week.” This decision of the Council of Nicaea became obligatory for the entire Church, and our Orthodox Church is still guided by it.
In order that the former disorders might not arise in the future regarding the day on which Christ's Resurrection should be celebrated annually, and consequently that the whole Church should celebrate this feast on the same day, the Nicene Fathers decreed that the Alexandrian bishop should announce every year at a certain time on what day of the current year Christ's Resurrection should be celebrated.
This task was entrusted to the Bishop of Alexandria because Egypt was renowned at the time for its mastery of timekeeping. The key to determining when exactly the Resurrection of Christ should be celebrated is the nineteen-year monthly cycle adopted for this purpose, the same one that was adopted in Alexandria, after which the full moons and lunar phases fell on the same days of the month as the preceding ones. The full moon after the vernal equinox during this nineteen-year cycle fell on various days in the months of March and April, always from March 21 to April 18 ( από της χα . του μοφτίοο μέχρι της ιή του άπριλι᾿ου ).
During this period, the Jewish Passover occurs, i.e., the 14th day of the first month, or the first full moon of spring, falls on one of these 39 days. Since it is established that Christian Passover should not coincide with the Jewish Passover, but should be on the first Sunday after it, it may happen that Christian Passover falls after April 18; and if it happened that the Jewish Passover falls on this very day, i.e., on April 18, which falls on a Sunday, then Christian Passover is celebrated on April 25, i.e., the following Sunday. But it also happens that the Jews do not pay due attention to the extra number of days after a certain number of turns of the moon, as a result of which they sometimes celebrate their Passover earlier than the full 14 days of the first month, i.e., before March 21; In such a case, says Blastares, the divine law ( νόμος θείος ) commands us to abandon this month altogether and move to the full moon of another month, aligning it with the day of the Christian Easter, so as not to celebrate at the same time as the Jews, but to cleanse and free our Easter from Jewish celebrations - this is how it happened and happens now, so that there is a long interval of time between ours and the Jewish Easter.
In accordance with the decree of the Council of Nicaea, the Alexandrian bishops immediately began to inform the entire Christian world of the day of Easter for a given year through special letters. Over time, these letters were replaced by a special canon ( κανόνων , paschalia), which designated for several years in advance when and in which year Easter was to be celebrated. The first such canon was compiled and published in 388 by Timothy of Alexandria. Then Cyril of Alexandria published a new canon for 95 years (from 436 to 531), and this continued thereafter.
The decree of the Council of Nicaea regarding the time of celebrating Easter, although decreed by an ecumenical council, nevertheless could not compel all the churches of Asia Minor to obey it. So much so that even after this council, we encounter some bishops who violated this decree and continued, as before, to celebrate Easter simultaneously with the Jews. It was against such stubborn individuals that this Antiochene Canon was issued, imposing the most severe ecclesiastical penalties on all those, whether laymen or clergy, who refuse to submit to the decree of the Council of Nicaea. Laymen are subject to excommunication and expulsion from the church, while clergy of the highest hierarchical ranks, such as bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are subject to defrocking. That is, these individuals are not only deprived of the right to perform sacred rites, but also of the very name of priesthood, which is erased from the priestly catalog, after which they are considered equal to laymen. Although the canon does not mention clerics of lower hierarchical ranks who violated the decree, such individuals must be included among the laity who violated it; that is, they must be excommunicated and expelled from the Church. The canon imposes such punishment not only on those who committed the aforementioned offense but also on those who dare to maintain spiritual communion with such already excommunicated clergy.
This canon reveals a specific legal norm regarding the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties. Appropriate penalties for crimes committed are imposed by Orthodox church law either by a damnatory (indictable) or a declaratory (explanatory) verdict. In the case of a damnatory (indictable) verdict, it is an absolute requirement that the appropriate ecclesiastical court comply with all the provisions of the judicial process, in order to thereby become familiar with and verify the case to be punished and, accordingly, impose the appropriate punishment on the perpetrator. However, it sometimes happens that a person guilty of a known crime is subject to punishment without such a verdict, and this occurs when, at the very moment of the crime's commission, the offender has already been subjected to the punishment prescribed by law. In such a case, the court has no need to investigate the crime committed, since the perpetrator has already incurred the appropriate punishment upon its commission. All that remains is to confirm the commission of the punishable act and the punishment, and the judicial verdict is only declaratory (explanatory). In accordance with this difference in sentences, the corresponding punishments are also called differently. If the sentence is of a damnatory (accusatory) nature, the punishment is called διχαστική ποινή , a judicial punishment; if the sentence is of a declaratory (explanatory) nature, then the punishment is called and is called νομική ποινή, a legal or statutory punishment. The latter occurs when a crime places the perpetrator in a position where the court has no need to judge them and punish them with the deprivation of certain rights, since the crime itself is associated with their deprivation, and as soon as the crime is committed, the loss of rights occurs intrinsically. For certain serious crimes, especially those concerning church unity or the legal capacity of a given person to fulfill certain duties within the church structure, such punishment is imposed by church law itself. For example, if a Christian openly renounces the Christian faith and converts to a non-Christian religious society, then by the very act of their apostasy, they have lost all rights belonging to them as a Christian, and therefore the verdict of an ecclesiastical court declaring them deprived of these rights is superfluous. Or, if a member of the Church is sentenced by a proper secular court to imprisonment or some similar punishment for some punishable offense of a secular nature, then that person is thereby subject to canonical infamy (disgrace), without the ecclesiastical court having to specifically impose this punishment. In such and similar cases, the punishment occurs intrinsically, as a direct consequence of the known punishable offense. From this, the concept of legal or statutory punishment developed in canon law, as opposed to punishment imposed after a proper judicial investigation and pronounced by a proper ecclesiastical court.
The basis for this type of punishment is found in Holy Scripture . The Apostle Paul, reminding Titus of a heretic who refuses to listen to the admonition to convert to the Orthodox faith but persists in his heresy, says that such a man has become corrupt, being condemned, και άμαρτάνει , ων αυτοκατάκριτος ( Titus 3:10, 11 ). All the canons of the Council of Gangra are also significant , prescribing that all those who have committed one of the crimes mentioned in these canons are to be considered excommunicated from the Church. The Gangrian canons do not state that only an ecclesiastical court should pronounce punishment for a crime, but regarding each such criminal, the proper canon, like the Apostle Paul, says: ανάθεμα έστω , that such a persistent sinner is already condemned. This (1) Antiochian canon best explains to us punishments of this kind. By this canon, while establishing when Christians should celebrate the annual commemoration of Christ's resurrection, the council at the same time orders that bishops, presbyters, and deacons who have decided to act against its decree be considered excommunicated ( τούτον ή άγια σύνοδος εντεύθεν ήδη άλλότριον έκρινε της εκκλησίας ). Consequently, the court has no need to summon and try such persons, since they are already condemned by this canon of the council from the moment they violated the decree. In such a case, the ecclesiastical court, if it deals at all with criminals who, by their very actions, have become subject to punishment, can only establish the punishment the guilty party has incurred for the crime committed, and the corresponding sentence will have only a declaratory (explanatory) effect. However, all of the above applies only to certain crimes for which such legal punishment is categorically expressed in the canons. Regarding other ecclesiastical crimes, the sentence must always be damatory (accusatory), preserving all the legal provisions established in formal ecclesiastical proceedings.
Source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikodim_Milash/pravila-pomestnyh-soborov-s-tolkovanijami/#0_62