The word "Easter"

The word "Easter" is actually a word rooted in the name either of an alleged Teutonic
goddess (Eostre) or, more probably, from the name "Eostur" meaning the "season of rising" and
indicating springtime.

It is only used in the English language.

It came into use because the month of April was known in Anglo-Saxon countries as easter-
monadh, and Eastur became an old Germanic word meaning springtime.

Other languages have different names for Easter -- "Pascha/Πάσχα" (Latin and Greek),
"Pasqua" (Italian), "Pascua" (Spanish), "Paschen" (Dutch), "Pasg" (Welsh), “Пасха” (Russian),Пасха” (Russian),
“Пасха” (Russian),過越の祭り”の祭り”祭り”り””(Kaetsu no matsuri :: Japnaese), etc. -- all of which derives from the Hebrew
word ‫“( פסח‬Пасха” (Russian),Pesach”) meaning "Passover." (‫ = פסח‬La. occidi pascha, Gr. εβραϊκό Πάσχα
[evraïkó Páscha]evraïkó Páscha]); which is the original term used and predates the use of the term “Пасха” (Russian),Easter.”

The point is that the claim that “Пасха” (Russian),Easter is a pagan holiday” because of the word “Пасха” (Russian),Easter” is
ridiculous. The English word for it might have pagan origins deriving from Eostre and/or the
word for springtime, but the Solemnity is rooted in the Old Testament Pesach which was fulfilled
at the Crucifixion which gave us the fruits of the Resurrection.

In addition, all the names for the days of the week are “Пасха” (Russian),pagan” in origin, as well. Sunday is
named for the Sun; Monday for the Moon; Tuesday for god Tiu, Wednesday for Woden,
Thursday for Thor, Friday for Freya, and Saturday for Saturn, so anyone who balks at celebrating
"Easter" because of its "pagan origins" had better not refer to the days of the week by their
English names.

The Easter festival originated with the Church herself and was a legitimate
continuation of the Jewish Paschal season. It would be interesting were people,
fond of glib assertions, to give the date when their supposed additions to
Christianity were made. Eusebius quotes a controversy in the time of Pope St.
Victor in the year 190 as to the right day for the celebration of Easter. St. Irenaeus
shows a diversity of practice in the time of Pope Sixtus, about the year 120. The
feast was in existence then, or there could not have grown up diversity of usages
in different places. St. Irenaeus also mentions that St. Polycarp kept Easter on the
14th of Nisan (‫)נִ יסָ ן‬, clinging rigidly to the Jewish date, and claiming that he was
following the custom of St. John the Apostle, whose disciple he had been. The
idea that the feast was introduced in order to conciliate pagans to nominal
 Christianity is just wild extravagance. The feast was not introduced to conciliate
pagans; its Christian significance and utter repudiation of all pagan Ishtar-worship
could not have conciliated them in any case; and such pagans as were converted
were not invited to become nominal Christians. The early ages of the Church were
not the times for nominal Christians. The invitation to become a Christian was
practically an invitation to martyrdom. --Radio Replies Vol. III (Question 1296)

When Looking at Mathew xxvi. 17-19; we read:

Τῇ δὲ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες αὐτῷ· ποῦ θέλεις
ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα καὶ
εἴπατε αὐτῷ· ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει, ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστι· πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν
μαθητῶν μου. καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ ὡς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ
πάσχα.

Prima autem die azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Jesum, dicentes : Ubi vis paremus tibi
comedere Pascha? At Jesus dixit : Ite in civitatem ad quemdam, et dicite ei : Magister dicit :
Tempus meum prope est, apud te facio Pascha cum discipulis meis. Et fecerunt discipuli sicut
constituit illis Jesus, et paraverunt Pascha.

And the *first day of the Azymes, the Disciples came to JESUS saying : Where wilt thou that
we prepare for thee to eat the Pasch? But JESUS said: Go ye into the city to a certain man: and
say to him: The Master saith, My time is at hand, with thee do I make the Pasch with my
Disciples. And the Disciples did as JESUS appointed them, and they prepared the Pasch.

*MAUNDY Thursday.

Taken from the Haydock Commentary :

The Pascal Supper.

Ver. 17. The first day of the azymes (Greek translation ἄζυμος from the Hebrew matsa (

‫ ;))מַ צָ ה‬unleavened bread. St. Mark (xiv. 12.) adds, when they sacrificed the Pasch: and St. Luke
(xxii. 7.) says, And the day of the unleavened bread came; on which it was necessary that the
Pasch (i.e. the Paschal lamb) should be killed. From hence it follows, that Christ sent his apostles

that very day (the 14th day of the month of Nisan (‫ ))נִ יסָ ן‬on which, in the evening, or at night,
the Pasch was to be eaten; and which was to be with unleavened bread. It is true, the 15 th day of
that month is called (Exodus xii. 1.[evraïkó Páscha]2.?]) the first day of unleavened bread: but we must take
notice, that the Jews began their feasts, or festivals, from sunset of the evening before; and
consequently on the evening of the 14th day of the moon: at which time there was to be no
leavened bread in any of their houses. This shews that Christ eat the Pasch, or Paschal lamb,
after sunset. And when the Paschal supper was over, he consecrated the blessed Eucharist, in
unleavened bread, as the Latin Church doth. There are two or three difficulties relating to this
matter in St. John, of which in their proper places. (Witham) --- There were four passovers
during Christ's public ministry. The 1st was after the marriage feast of Cana, in the 31 st year of
Jesus, and the 779th from the foundation of Rome. To derive pascha from the Greek, paschein
(πάσχω), to suffer, is a mistake, as St. Augustine observes; tract. lv. in Joah. It is certainly taken
from the Hebrew, and signifies a passing by, or passing over: 1st, because the children of Israel
passed in haste on that night out of the land of Egypt; 2d, because the angel, who on that night
killed all the first-born of the Egyptians, seeing the doors of the Israelites stained with the blood
of the paschal lamb, passed by all theirs untouched; 3d, because that was a figure of our Saviour
passing out of this life to his eternal Father. Yet it must be observed that this same word, pascha,
or passover, is used sometimes for the paschal lamb, that was sacrificed; (Luke xxii. 7.)
elsewhere, for the first day of the paschal feast and solemnity, which lasted seven days;
(Matthew xxvi. 2; Ezechiel xlv. 21.) for the sabbath-day, which occurred within the seven days of
the solemnity; (John xix. 14.) and also for all the sacrifices made during the seven days' feast.
The Passover was the most solemn rite of the old law. When God ordered the Israelites to
sprinkle the blood of the lamb upon their door-posts, it was solely with a view of signifying, that
the blood of the true Lamb was to be the distinctive mark of as many as should be saved. Every
thing was mysteriously and prophetical. A bone of the lamb was not to be broken; and they broke
not the arms or legs of Jesus Christ, on the cross. The lamb was to be free from blemish; to
express the perfect sanctity of Jesus Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God. The paschal lamb was
to be sacrificed and eaten; because Christ was to suffer and die for us: and unless we eat his
flesh, we shall have no life in us. The door-posts of the Israelites were to be sprinkled with blood,
that the destroying angel might pass over them; for with the blood of Christ our souls are to be
purified, that sin and death may not prevail against us. In every house was eaten a whole lamb;
and Christ, at communion, is received whole and entire by every faithful soul. --- The manner in
which it was to be eaten, shews the proper dispositions for Christians when they receive the
blessed sacrament. The roasting by fire, expresses divine charity; the unleavened bread, sincerity,
truth, and a good conscience; the bitter herbs, repentance and contrition for sin; the girded loins
and shod feet, the restraint upon our passions and lusts, and a readiness to follow the rules of the
gospel; the staff, our mortal pilgrimage, and that having no lasting dwelling here, we should
make the best of our way to our true country, the heavenly Chanaan. --- On this day the passover
was to be eaten, at least by a part of the people, according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St.
Luke; i.e. according to some, by the Galileans; for, according to St. John, it appears that the
priests, and the Jews properly so called, such as dwelt in Judea, did not immolate it till the next
day. (John xiii. 1, xviii. 28, and xix. 14.) (Bible de Vence) --- But we have here again to remark,
that the Jews began their day from sunset of the previous day.

Ver. 18. To a certain man, whom Sts. Mark and Luke call, the good man of the house, or
master of the house. When St. Matthew therefore says, a certain man, he seems to do it for
brevity's sake; as no one ever speaks to his servants thus, go to a certain man. The evangelist,
therefore, after giving our Saviour's words, go ye into a certain city, he adds as from himself, to
a certain man, to inform us that there was a particular man to whom Jesus sent his disciples. (St.

Augustine) --- In Greek, ton deina (τὸν δεῖνα); in Hebrew, Pelona (‫;)ּפלׂנִ י‬
ְ words that express a
person whose name is either not known, or is wished to be kept secret. (Jansenius)

Ver. 19. And they prepared what was necessary, a lamb, wild lettuce, and unleavened bread.
(Bible de Vence)

Ver. 20. When it was evening.[evraïkó Páscha]2] St. Luke says, when the hour was come, which was at the
latter evening, after sunset. The time of killing and sacrificing the lamb was, according to the 12 th
of Exodus, to be between the two evenings; (see Mark xiv. 15.) so that we may reasonably
suppose, that Christ sent some of his apostles on Thursday, in the afternoon, to perform what was
to be done, as to the killing and sacrificing of the lamb, and then to bring it away: and he eat it
with his disciples after sunset. --- He sat down, &c. Literally, laid down, in a leaning or lying
position. Some pretend, from this circumstance, that he eat not the paschal lamb that year,
because it was to be eaten, standing, according to the law. But they might stand at the paschal
lamb, and eat the rest of the supper on couches; as it was then the custom. (Witham) --- We must
not hence suppose that he transgressed the law. He first eat the Pasch according to the Mosaic
rite, standing, and then sat down to supper. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxii.)
 Ver. 22. And they being very much troubled. There were three motives for this great sorrow in
the disciples: 1st, because they saw their innocent and dear Master was so soon to be taken from
them, and delivered up to a most cruel and ignominious death; 2 nd, because each of them was
afraid lest, through human frailty, he might fall into so great a crime; for they all were convinced,
that what he said must necessarily come to pass: and lastly, that there could be found one among
them so wretchedly perverse, as to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Hence afraid of
themselves, and not daring to affix a suspicion on any individual, they began every one to say: Is
it I, Lord, on whom so atrocious a crime is to fall? ... It is extremely probable that Christ made
this prediction three times: 1st, at the commencement of supper; (Matthew xxvi. 21.) 2nd, after
washing the feet; (John xiii. 18.) 3rd, after the institution of the blessed Eucharist. (Luke xxii. 21.)
Thus Pope Benedict XIV. Sandinus, &c.

Ver. 23. He that dippeth. He that is associated to me, that eateth bread with me, shall lift up
his heel against me, according to the prophecy of the psalmist, cited by St. John, xiii. 18. ---
Jesus Christ does not here manifest the traitor; he only aggravates the enormity and malice of the
crime.

Ver. 25. Is it I, Rabbi? After the other disciples had put their questions, and after our Saviour
had finished speaking, Judas at length ventures to inquire of himself. With his usual hypocrisy,
he wishes to cloke his wicked designs by asking a similar question with the rest. (Origen) --- It is
remarkable that Judas did not ask, is it I, Lord? but, is it I, Rabbi? to which our Saviour replied,
thou hast said it: which answer might have been spoken in so low a tone of voice, as not
perfectly to be heard by all the company. (Rabanus) --- Hence it was that Peter beckoned to St.
John, to learn more positively the person. Here St. Chrysostom justly remarks the patience and
reserve of our Lord, who by his great meekness and self-possession, under the extremes of
ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy, shews how we ought to bear with the malice of others, and
forget all personal injuries.

The Institution of the Holy Sacrament.

Ver. 26. And whilst they were at supper. Jesus Christ proceeds to the institution of the blessed
Eucharist, that the truth or reality may succeed to the figure in one and the same banquet; and to
impress more deeply upon our minds the remembrance of so singular a favour, his last and best
gift to man. He would not institute it at the beginning of his ministry; he first prepares his
disciples for the belief of it, by changing water into wine, and by the miraculous multiplication of
the loaves. --- Whilst they were, &c. before they parted: for by St. Luke (xxii. 20.) and 1
Corinthians (xi. 25.) the blessed sacrament was not instituted till after supper. --- Jesus took
bread, and blessed it. St. Luke and St. Paul say, he gave thanks. This blessing and giving thanks,
was not the consecration itself, but went before it. See the Council of Trent, session xiii. chap. i.
(Witham) --- This is my body. He does not say, this is the figure of my body---but, this is my body.
(2nd Council of Nice. Act. vi.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely
this is my body; which plainly implies transubstantiation. (Challoner) --- Catholics maintain,
after the express words of Scripture, and the universal tradition of the Church, that Christ in the
blessed sacrament is corporally and substantially present; but not carnally; not in that gross,
natural, and sensible manner, in which our separated brethren misrepresent the Catholic doctrine,
as the Capharnaites did of old; (John vi. 61, 62.) who were scandalized with it. ... If Protestants,
in opposition to the primitive Fathers, deny the connection of the sixth chapter of John with the
institution, it is from the fear of giving advantage to the doctrine of transubstantiation, says Dr.
Clever, Protestant bishop of Bangor. --- This is my body. By these words, and his divine power,
Christ changed that which before was bread into his own body; not in that visible and bloody
manner as the Capharnaites imagined. (John vi.) Yet so, that the elements of bread and wine were
truly, really, and substantially changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood. Christ,
whose divine power cannot be questioned, could not make use of plainer words than these set
down by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul to the Corinthians: this is my body; this is
my blood: and that the bread and wine, at the words of consecration are changed into the body
and blood of Christ, has been the constant doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, in all ages,
both in the east and west, both in the Greek and Latin churches; as may be seen in our
controvertists, and particularly in the author of the books of the Perpetuity of the Faith. The first
and fundamental truths of the Christian faith, by which we profess to believe the mystery of the
holy Trinity, i.e. one God and three divine Persons, and of the incarnation, i.e. that the true Son
of God was made man, was born, suffered and died upon the cross for our salvation, are no less
obscure and mysterious, no less above the reach of human capacity, than this of the real
presence: nor are they more clearly expressed in the sacred text. This change the Church hath
thought proper to express by the word, transubstantiation: and it is as frivolous to reject this
word, and to ask where it is found in the holy Scriptures, as to demand where we read in the
Scriptures, the words, trinity, incarnation, consubstantial to the Father, &c. --- Luther fairly
owned that he wanted not an inclination to deny Christ's real presence in the sacrament, by which
he should vex and contradict the Pope; but this, said he, is a truth that cannot be denied:[evraïkó Páscha]3] The
words of the gospel are too clear. He and his followers hold, what is called impanation, or
consubstantiation; i.e. that there is really present, both the substance of the bread and wine, and
also the substance of Christ's body and blood. --- Zuinglius, the Sacramentarians, and Calvinists
deny the real presence; and hold that the word is, (est) importeth no more, than it signifieth, or is
a figure of Christ's body; as it hath been lately translated, this represents my body, in a late
translation, or rather paraphrase, 1729. I shall only produce here the words and reasoning of
Luther: which may deserve the attention of the later reformers. [evraïkó Páscha]4]"Who," saith Luther, (tom. vii.
Edit. Wittemb. p. 391) "but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting the words of the
holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my
body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only
then the devil, that imposeth upon us by these fanatical men. ... Not one of the Fathers, though so
numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and
wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible,
since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not
so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there,
especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many
Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they
thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them
unanimous." Thus far Luther; who, in another place, in his usual manner of writing, hesitates not
to call the Sacramentarians, men possessed, prepossessed, and transpossessed by the devil.[evraïkó Páscha]5] ---
My body. In St. Luke is added, which is given for you. Granted these words, which is given, may
bear this sense, which shall be given, or offered on the cross; yet as it was the true body of
Christ, that was to be crucified,so it was the same true body which Christ gave to his apostles, at
his last supper, though in a different manner. --- The holy Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but
also a sacrifice, succeeding to all the sacrifices of the ancient law, which Christ commanded all
the priests of the new law to offer up. Luther was forced to own, that divers Fathers, taught this
doctrine; as Irenaeus, Cyprian, Augustine: and in his answer to Henry VIII. of England: The
king, says he, brings the testimonies of the Fathers, to prove the sacrifice of the mass, for my
part, I care not, if a thousand Augustines, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches, like that of
Henry, stand against me. The Centurists of Magdeburg own the same to have been the doctrine
of Cyprian, Tertullian, and also of Irenaeus, in the end of the second age; and that St. Gregory of
Nazianzen, in the fourth age, calls it an unbloody sacrifice; incruenti sacrificii. (Witham)

Commentary Footnotes:
[evraïkó Páscha]1] Ver. 2. Pascha fiet. to pascha ginetai fit. St. Jerome on this place, (p. 125.) Pascha, quod
Hebraicè dicitur Phase: non a Passione, ut plerique arbitrantur, sed a transitu nominatur. So also
St. Augustine, tract 55. in Joan.
[evraïkó Páscha]2] Ver. 20. Vespere facto. See the two evenings, Matthew xiv. 15.
[evraïkó Páscha]3] Ver. 26. Luther. Verum ego me captum video. ... Textus enim Evangelii nimium apertus est.
[evraïkó Páscha]4] Ver. 26. See Luther, tom. 7. Ed. Wittemb. p. 391.
[evraïkó Páscha]5] Ver. 26. See Hospinianus, 2. part. Hist. Sacram. p. 187. He says the Sacramentarians have a
heart, according to a French translation, endiabolè, perdiabolè, transdiabolè.
[evraïkó Páscha]6] Ver. 28. Touto to poterion, e kaine diatheke en to aimati mou, to uper umon ekchunomenon,
and not ekchunomeno; so that it agrees withpoterion, &c.
[evraïkó Páscha]7] Ver. 34. The time towards the morning, called Gallicinium.
[evraïkó Páscha]8] Ver. 37. Lupeisthai kai ademonein. In St. Mark, ekthambeisthai.
[evraïkó Páscha]9] Ver. 71. Aluis, eteros, says St. Luke. St. John says, eipon auto.
[evraïkó Páscha]10] Ver. 73. St. Jerome, in Matt. p. 133, scio quosdam pii affectus erga Apostolum Petrum,
locum hunc ita interpretatos, ut dicerent Petrum non Deum negasse, sed hominem ... Hoc quam
frivolum sit, prudens Lector intelligit; qui sic defendunt Apostolum, ut Deum mendacii reum
faciant.