Fair enough. I think the medievel canonists on the other hand are the ones being misunderstood by the modernists. From time immemorable the simple explanation has been that Easter falls on the first sunday following the vernal equinox which is not on or before the passover. A medeivel canonist is easier to pick on than St Ambrose and St John Chrysostom who say the same thing.
As I noted above, the question is whether the medieval canonist are indeed "saying the same thing" as the earlier fathers, or whether they are making up an additional rule.
As I read the history, the customary computation can be summarized in three rules. Easter must be
(i) On Sunday,
(ii) after the νομικον φασκα, notionally the full moon,
(iii) that falls no earlier than the Spring equinox.
Since my last post I have examined Matthew Blastares's Syntagma, and as I read him, he is clearly claiming that there is a 4th rule in addition to the three above:
*(iv) and that also does not fall on the same day as the Passover computed on the Rabbinic Jewish calendar.
I have marked the 4th rule with an asterisk since I deem it spurious.
Blastares does not explicitly use the phrase "Rabbinic calendar", and does not state whether the "Jewish observance" with which Easter must not coincide is the 14th of Rabbinic Nisan or the 15th. He says that Easter is always at least at least three days after "their festival". This might be a clue.
Now it is true, as you note, that some of the early fathers stated that Easter must not be "on the same day" as the Passover. But this was a clarification of rule (ii) above, that Easter must be "after" the νομικον φασκα. It was for them a restatement of an existing rule, not a statement of an additional rule. For Blastares, on the other hand, it seems on my reading to have the status of an additional, independent rule. So if my reading of Blastares is right, he was not "saying the same thing" as the earlier fathers.
Even if my reading of Blastares is wrong, I have, as I noted above, encountered people who interpret the paschalion in the way I have argued that Blastares did. This is the inescapable conclusion when such folk use rule *(iv) above, or its equivalent, as an argument against adopting the Milakovic paschalion, which scrupulously follows rules (i), (ii), and (iii) but ignores *(iv).
Edited by Timothy Phillips, 04 July 2015 - 06:21 PM.