The Long Way to a Common Easter Date a Catholic and Ecumenical Perspective

THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE A CATHOLIC AND ECUMENICAL PERSPECTIVE

BERT GROEN*

1. INTRODUCTION

‘The feast of feasts, the new drink, the famous and holy day…’ With these words and in other poetic language, St. John of Damascus (ca. 650 - before 754) extols Easter in the paschal canon attributed to him.1 The liturgical calendars of both Eastern and Western Christianity commemorate this noted Eastern theologian on December 4. Of course, not only on Easter, but in any celebration of the Eucharist, the paschal mystery is being commemorated. The Eucharist is the nucleus of Christian worship. Preferably on the Lord’s Day, the ﬁrst day of the week, Christians assemble to hear and experience the biblical words of liberation and reconciliation, to partake of the bread and cup of life which have been transformed by the Holy Spirit, to celebrate the body of Christ and to become this body themselves. Hearing and doing the word of God, ritually sharing His gifts and becoming a faithful Eucharistic community make the Church spiritually grow. Yet, it is the Easter festival, the feast of the cruciﬁed and resurrected Christ par excellence, in which all of this is densely and intensely celebrated.

The ﬁrst Christians were Jews who believed that in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah had come. Initially, they celebrated the festivals of the Jewish calendar,

* Bert Groen is professor of liturgical studies and sacramental theology at the University of Graz, Austria. In that university he also holds the UNESCO-chair of intercultural and interreligious dialogue in South-Eastern Europe. The present article is an annotated and updated version of a talk given at an international ecumenical conference in Amsterdam on December 6, 2010, organized by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. I wish to thank Steven Hawkes-Teeples, S.J. (Rome) for his careful revision of my text and for several valuable comments on its contents. I also am grateful to Peter Ebenbauer (Graz) for sharing several insights on calendar issues with me. 1 Pentêkostarion charmosunon (Athens, 31984), pp. 2-5.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 353353 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 354 BERT GROEN

including Pesach/Passover. First traces of a separate Easter festival may be discerned in the New Testament period, but it is only during the second and third centuries that a fuller form of such a specific feast developed. There were, however, different dates and ways of celebration, as well as theological views on the annual commemoration of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection. Christians in Minor Asia, for instance, emphasized fasting and held on to the 14/15 of Nisan, for which reason they are called ‘Quartodecimans’. Christians elsewhere accentuated the Sunday as main feast day of the paschal event, and any fasting had to precede and stop on that Sunday. Finally, the participants in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 agreed to celebrate the paschal feast on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox. However, the council fathers did not pass a proper decree on this matter.2 Alexandria was the centre for the calculation of the Easter dates. Yet, also after the Nicaea council, some differences in calculating the Easter date remained. Instead of following Alexandria, Rome often stood by its own reckoning system.3

2. JULIAN, GREGORIAN, AND MELETIAN CALENDARS

After in 46/45 BCE C. Julius Caesar had revised the Roman system of time calculation, in the course of time, the Julian calendar named after him dis- played some minor inaccuracies. Because these increasingly became major inaccuracies, in the late sixteenth century (1582), Pope Gregory XIII introduced a reformed and more accurate calendar. In that so-called ‘Gregorian calendar’ the dates were realigned so that the equinox would fall on the 20th or 21st of March each year, as in the time of Nicaea I. This revised calendar soon was accepted in the Catholic Hapsburg realm and subsequently – after some resistance to this ‘papal’ regulation – gradually in other parts of the

2 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta: Editio critica, I: The Oecumenical Councils: From Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787), eds. G. Alberigo et al., Corpus Chris- tianorum: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, 1 (Turnhout, 2006), p. 12; cf. pp. 33-34. 3 V. Peri, La date de la fête de Pâque: Note sur l’origine et le développement de la question pascale (Rome, 1968); G. Larentzakis, ‘Das Osterfestdatum nach dem I. ökumenischen Konzil von Nikaia (325): Die Rolle von Alexandrien und Rom’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 101 (1979), pp. 67-78.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 354354 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 355

Western world too. Yet distinctions must be drawn. As for the Low Coun- tries, for example, several provinces, such as Zeeland and Holland, the Estates General and some southern districts, adopted the New Style calendar as early as 1582/83, whereas other provinces did so only in 1700/01. Another instance concerns the Italian cities of Pisa and Florence, which used their own calendars but were forced by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1749 to adopt the Gregorian calendar. (In both cities a new year began on the festival of the Annunciation, viz. the feast of the incarnatio domini. In Pisa it began nine months before Christmas, in Florence three months after Christmas.) An interesting exception is Crete, which from ca. 1210 to 1669 was under Vene- tian control. The Venetian civic authorities did not permit the Roman Cath- olic Church to introduce the Gregorian calendar on the island, because they wished to avoid annoyance with local Orthodoxy and, in view of the growing Ottoman threat, preferred peaceful coexistence between Italians and Greeks, Catholics and Orthodox.4 A relevant case in another part of the world is China. There, since 1912 and 1928/29 respectively, the Western Gregorian calendar was used for political events and economic structures; in 1949, the communist leadership of the People’s Republic of China adopted this calendar too. At the same time, the complex traditional Chinese calendar still is widely accepted and employed for social and religious festivals, such as New Year and weddings.5 As for Orthodoxy, Pope Gregory XIII negotiated with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II (1572-1595) on the calendar revision. However, agreement was not achieved.6 Only much later, during the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century, a new situation occurred when several Orthodox states adopted the Gregorian calendar and made their respective Orthodox Churches accept it as well. Thus the Greek state, for instance, took on the Gregorian calendar in 1923, the Orthodox Church of Greece had to follow in March 1924. Other Orthodox Churches voluntarily accepted the Gregorian, or Neo-Julian calendar: the Patriarchate of Constantinople – save

4 N. Panagiotakes, El Greco: The Cretan Years, Centre for Hellenic Studies King’s College London Publications, 13 (Farnham, 2009), p. 72. 5 I thank Niek Dubelaar (The Hague) and Barend ter Haar (Leyden) for valuable information on this issue. 6 V. Peri, Due date, un’ unica Pasqua: Le origini della moderna disparità liturgica in una trattativa ecumenica tra Roma e Costantinopoli (1582-1584) (Milan, 1967).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 355355 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 356 BERT GROEN

Mount Athos – and the Church of Cyprus in March 1924; the Patriarchate of Romania in October 1924; and the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Anti- och in 1928.7 The Orthodox Church in Finland even adopted the entire Gregorian calendar, including the calculation of the Easter cycle, at the outset of the 1920s. In that way it could celebrate Easter on the same day as the dominant denomination of that country, the Lutheran Church. In present- day Finland one observes the joyous phenomenon that nearly all Christian denominations perform the paschal rites in the same period; an exception is the tiny Russian Orthodox community, which celebrates the Easter cycle together with the Moscow Patriarchate. Also the Orthodox Church of Amer- ica as well as several Polish and Russian parishes in the Western world adhere to the Gregorian calendar. Although the Bulgarian state already adopted the ‘New Calendar’ in the middle of the First World War, viz. in 1916, the Orthodox Church in that country refused to follow and gave up its resistance only in 1968. I surmise that this happened not only because that Church was urged to do so by the communist regime, but also because the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of Greece, which tried to solve the divergences within worldwide Orthodoxy resulting from the contemporaneous use of different calendars, persuaded their Bulgarian sister to do so. Yet, a compromise was made and several popular festivals of the immovable annual cycle kept being celebrated according to the Julian calendar. Thus, the important festival of St. George, which according to the Gregorian calendar falls on April 23, remained on May 6. Currently, St. George is venerated as the patron saint of the Bulgarian army and his feast has been turned into an ofﬁcial holiday. Interesting too is the ‘fate’ of the beloved Bulgarian feast day of Sts. Cyril and Methodius on May 24 (according to the Julian calendar). Under the communist regime, this festival was transformed in a state holiday of ‘Slavic Literature and Bulgarian Culture’ without religious reference. According to the Gregorian calendar, the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius is now ofﬁ- cially celebrated on May 11, but for many people May 24 still is the proper

7 K. Ware, ‘Old Calendarists’, in Minorities in Greece: Aspects of a Plural Society, ed. R. Clogg (London, 2002), pp. 1-23; F. Mali, ‘Julianische Berechnung des Osterdatums und Gregorianischer Kalender?’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 53 (2004), pp. 309-327. The dates I mention are taken from Ware’s study. According to Mali’s article (pp. 322-323), however, Romania accepted the revised calendar as late as 1925 and Antioch in 1929.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 356356 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 357

date of the festival of both ‘Apostles of the Slavs’. Consequently, the feast of Slavic Literature and Bulgarian Culture on May 24 has not lost its meaning and it is even in the official church calendar.8 This also shows that calendar change is a delicate matter. Unfortunately, the adoption of the Gregorian calendar also led to schisms within the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, and the adherents of the ‘Old Calendar’ set up independent ecclesiastical organiza- tions (‘True Orthodox Churches’). Holding on to the Julian calendar, these Orthodox faithful emphasize the uninterrupted continuity of their old liturgical and spiritual traditions, including the calendar, and they reject the compulsory introduction of the new Gregorian calendar put into effect by the ‘official’ Holy Synods in their countries. As long as those synods stick to the new calendar, the ‘Old Calendarists’ decline liturgical and spiritual communion with the ‘official’ Orthodox Church, and they have their own hier- archy. Many of them think that only a pan-Orthodox council can take a decision on the possibility of calendar improvement. Generally speaking, they consider ecumenical and inter-religious dialogues as ‘heretical’, even as ‘pan-heresy’. Usually they are closely connected – also in liturgical communion – with their co-religionists in neighbouring countries and with non- canonical Orthodox groups in Ukraine, Montenegro, etc. They were also linked to the Synodical Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but when the latter re-united with the Moscow Patriarchate (May 2007), the Bulgarian ‘Old Calendarists’, for instance, broke off communion with it. The most important Orthodox Churches that nowadays still use the Julian calendar for the fixed annual feasts are the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Russia and Serbia, Ukrainian Orthodoxy9 as well as the monasteries at the Holy Mountain of Athos. As for terminology, one has to distinguish the non-canonical ‘Old Calendarists’ who regard themselves as the only true Orthodox, and the canonical Orthodox Churches that adhere to the Julian calendar. There also are Orthodox Churches in which groups using the new calendar and groups employing the old one coexist. Currently, the Julian calendar lags thirteen days behind the Gregorian one.

8 Balgarska patriarsija, Pravoslaven kalendar 2007 (s.l., s.a.), pp. 14-15. 9 Viz. the Ukrainian Orthodox Church / Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church / Kyivan Patriarchate, and the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Worldwide Orthodoxy considers the latter two non-canonical.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 357357 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 358 BERT GROEN

In order to promote calendar unity between the Orthodox Churches that had adopted the Gregorian calendar and those Orthodox Churches that still employed the Julian one, during the 1920s, a decision concerning a common inter-Orthodox Easter date was taken: all Orthodox Churches would continue to determine the Easter date according to the Julian calendar.10 The ‘Meletian calendar’, named after the Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios IV (1921-1923), who very much engaged in this issue,11 prescribes that Orthodox Churches using the Gregorian calendar for the ﬁxed feasts celebrate the cycles of Great Lent and Easter according to the Julian one. This Meletian blend calendar is still being employed. In this way the Byzantine- rite Orthodox Churches (with the exception of the afore-mentioned Churches and communities) celebrate Easter on the same date as the Oriental Ortho- dox Churches, such as the Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Syrian and many Armenian communities. Most Oriental Orthodox Churches namely stick with the Julian calendar. The Armenian Apostolic Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin, however, adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1923/24, but the Armenian Patriarchate of Jeru- salem and several other Armenian dioceses held on to the Julian calendar.12 Furthermore, often with the consent of their mother Churches, some Cop- tic, Ethiopian, and Syrian congregations in the West have adopted the Gre- gorian calendar. Also the Assyrian Catholic Church of the East is divided on the calendar issue: some communities hold on to the Julian calendar, others have taken on the Gregorian one.

As for the major Christian festival of Christmas, in several countries, such as Jordan, the Orthodox and most Oriental Orthodox celebrate it according to the Gregorian calendar, so that for most Christians in that country

10 B. Petrà, ‘L’ortododossia tra vecchio e nuovo calendario: Il rischio di una Pasqua di divisione’, Rivista Liturgica, 88 (2001), pp. 135-155; S. Parenti, ‘La questione pasquale nell’ Oriente ortodosso: Tra liturgia, pastorale ed ecumenismo’, Rivista Liturgica, 88 (2001), pp. 197-2004; P. Plank, ‘Zeitrechnung und Festdatierung als ökumenisches Problem’, in Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, II, eds. W. Nyssen et al. (Düsseldorf, 1989), pp. 182-191; Mali, ‘Julianische Berechnung des Osterdatums und Gregoriani- scher Kalender?’. 11 P. Plank, ‘Der Ökumenische Patriarch Meletios IV. (1921-1923) und die orthodoxe Diaspora’, Orthodoxes Forum, 21 (2007), pp. 251-269, here 264-265. 12 Here I do not discuss other specificities of the Armenian liturgical calendar.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 358358 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 359

this feast too falls on the same date. The Armenians continue to celebrate the original Eastern Christian Epiphany, which is a combined Christmas and Epiphany, on January 6, when other Eastern Christians commemorate Jesus’ baptism. The aforementioned inner-Armenian calendar divergence means that most Armenian congregations celebrate Christmas and Epiph- any on January 6, but the Armenians in the Holy Land on January 19. Concretely, all of this means – my point of departure now is the Gregorian civil calendar – that in Bethlehem Christmas is celebrated three times: for the Orthodox that follow the Meletian calendar (or the Gregorian one), the Roman Catholics and the other Western Churches, on December 25 with Christmas eve on December 24; for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Russian Orthodox, various other Orthodox Churches (see above) and most Oriental Orthodox Churches, on January 7, with Christ- mas eve on January 6; and for the Armenians on January 19, with Christ- mas and Epiphany eve on January 18. On January 19, also the other Ori- ental Orthodox Churches as well as the Orthodox Churches that follow the Julian calendar celebrate Epiphany, whereas the Meletian- or Grego- rian-calendar Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholics and many other Western Christians commemorate the salviﬁc event of Christ’s Epiphany on January 6, with Epiphany eve on January 5. Incidentally, the phenomenon of distinct civic and ecclesiastical calendars in Russia, for instance, sometimes is confusing for outsiders (and perhaps also for insiders): It means that New Year’s Eve and the beginning of the civic new year are celebrated before Christmas. (In the Soviet Union, the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1918 and 1923 respectively, but Russian Orthodoxy refused to follow.) For its part, the Roman Catholic Church in Greece and in various other countries, such as Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Jordan, celebrates Holy Week, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost on the same dates as the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. So, as its practice in those regions clearly shows, the Catholic Church regards the common Easter date as a major sign of ecumenical rapprochement. Unfortunately, in Jerusalem, the place of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, as yet such har- mony has not been reached, und thus this city, so holy for Christianity, Judaism and Islam, also remains a place where inner-Christian division is overt.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 359359 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 360 BERT GROEN

3. FIXED EASTER DATE AND DIFFERENT ROMAN-RITE CALENDARS

Before moving on to the question of whether and how further rapprochement and reconciliation regarding a common Easter date is possible, I shall point out two other issues. First, an interesting mainly twentieth-century development has been the effort to determine a fixed Easter date, that is: a date which does not depend on the movable moon cycle, but is immovable. Some highlights of this effort are these: Mainly for business reasons, in 1928 in British Parlia- ment, the ‘Easter Act’ was passed. This act provided for a fixed paschal date (Sunday following the second Saturday of April), on condition that the Christian Churches unanimously would agree (which did not occur). Also the League of Nations and, after the Second World War, the United Nations repeatedly dealt with the issue of a fixed Easter date. In an appen- dix to the constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, concerning calendar revision, in 1963 the Second Vatican Council declared that it is not against an Easter date on a fixed Sunday in the Gregorian calendar, provided that non-Catholic Christian communities agree.13 Before that council, the Catholic Church had opposed similar proposals. Furthermore, the World Council of Churches, mainly consisting of Prot- estant, Anglican, Old Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, several times took up this difficult item. However, all respective statements more or less remained mere theory, also because the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches feared schisms. The issue reservedly was discussed at an Orthodox consultation in Chambésy, Switzerland, in 1977. Finally, at the Second Preconciliar Panorthodox Conference, in Chambésy again (September 1982), the participants postponed calendar revision to a ‘more suitable time’.14

13 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, III: The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, From Trent to Vatican II (1545-1965), eds. K. Ganzer et al. (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 286-287. 14 Damaskinos Papandreou, ‘Zur Vorbereitung des Panorthodoxen Konzils’, in Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, III, eds. W. Nyssen et al. (Düsseldorf, 1997), pp. 261-286, here 266, 268-269. Cf. A. Calivas, ‘The Date of Pascha: The Need to Continue the Debate’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 35 (1990), pp. 333-343; D. Heller, ‘The Date of Easter: A Church-Dividing Issue?’, The Ecumenical Review, 48 (1996), pp. 392-400.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 360360 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 361

It seems to me that, on the one hand, a fixed date has several advantages, especially for civil calendars and long-term time planning, but that, on the other hand, its theological disadvantages are obvious. A first disadvantage is that the close bonds between the calculation of Jewish Pesach and that of Christian Easter would be lost. This is not just an astronomical and a calendar issue, but has to do with the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. As the Second Vatican Council decree, Nostra Aetate, states, Judaism and Christian- ity essentially belong together. Also Pope John Paul II (1978-2005) often showed his great personal involvement in Christian-Jewish dialogue and reconciliation. God reveals Himself in the entire Bible, not just in the New Testament but in the whole Jewish Holy Scripture. According to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Christianity is a wild branch grafted onto the culti- vated Jewish olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). Another undesirable theological disadvantage of a fixed annual Easter date is that this would contradict the afore-mentioned Council of Nicaea, indeed biblical witness itself and large segments of Christian tradition.

A second relevant, fairly recent development within the Catholic Church has been that in mid-2007 (July 7), in his decree (motu proprio) Summorum Pontiﬁcum, Pope Benedict XVI allowed most Roman-rite service books that were used before the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II to be employed again on a regular basis.15 In April 2011, the Vatican instruction Universae Ecclesiae by the pontiﬁcal commission Ecclesia Dei provided practical direc- tions for the application of the 2007 papal decree.16 These two documents concern not only the Roman Missal, that is: its ‘pre-conciliar’ 1962 revision, but also the other sacraments (save ordinations) and the Breviary. According to both documents the Vatican II service books constitute the ordinary Roman rite and those based on the reforms initiated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent the extraordinary Roman rite; both forms are possible and legitimate as two ‘applications’ of the one Roman rite. Proponents of this development point at what they call the ‘continuity’ and ‘unity’ of the Roman rite: that what for centuries has been the Roman rite

15 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 99 (2007), pp. 777-781. 16 Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei”, ‘Instructio “Universae Ecclesiae”’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 125 (2011), pp. 234-240.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 361361 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 362 BERT GROEN

remains valid today.17 Critics, however, underscore the necessity of revision and change initiated by the twentieth-century Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council. Concretely, so they say, the role of the congrega- tion and the entire people of God (‘full, active and conscious participation of all believers’) and the pre-eminent role of the paschal mystery in the revised calendar are much more explicit, the choice of scripture readings is much wider, etc.18 They also point at several serious problems regarding the contents of the former service books, such as the anti-Jewish statements they contain, and declare that using those books without previous profound examination of their anti-Jewish elements and altering or removing them would be a reversion to the period before the breakthrough in Catholic thought on Judaism formulated in the afore-mentioned normative conciliar decree Nostra Aetate.19 With respect to many festivals, the papal 2007 decree means that the Roman-rite Catholic Church again has two different calendars and two diverse liturgical years, ‘each having largely different presidential prayers, pref- aces and readings’.20 My own name-day, for instance, now falls on January 2, when St. Basil is commemorated together with St. Gregory of Nazianze,

17 For surveys, see: Ein Ritus – zwei Formen: Die Richtlinie Papst Benedikts XVI. zur Lit- urgie, ed. A. Gerhards (Freiburg i.B., 2008); W. Haunerland, ‘Ein Ritus in zwei Aus- drucksformen? Hintergründe und Perspektiven zur Liturgiefeier nach dem Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch, 58 (2008), pp. 179-203; N. Lüdecke, ‘Kanonistische Anmerkungen zum Motu Proprio.”Summorum Pontificum”’, Liturgisches Jahrbuch, 58 (2008), pp. 3-34. 18 M. Klöckener, ‘Wie Liturgie verstehen? Anfragen an das Motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” Papst Benedikts XVI.’, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft, 50 (2008), pp. 268- 305. 19 R. Ferrone, ‘Anti-Jewish Elements in the Extraordinary Form’, Worship, 84 (2010), pp. 498-513. Cf. B. Groen, ‘Antijudaismus in der christlichen Liturgie und Versuche seiner Überwindung’, in Prekäre Zeitgenossenschaft: Mit dem Alten Testament in Konflikten der Zeit – Internationales Bibel-Symposium Graz 2004, ed. J. Kügler, bayreuther forum Transit: Kulturwissenschaftliche Religionsstudien, 6 (Münster, 2006), pp. 247-278, here 249-262; „…damit sie Jesus Christus erkennen“: Die neue Karfreitagsfürbitte für die Juden, eds. W. Homolka and E. Zenger (Freiburg i.B., 2008); B. Leven, ‘The Good Friday Prayer for Jews: A “Borderline Case” of Christian Prayer’, Studia Liturgica, 41 (2011), pp. 78-91. 20 P. Regan, ‘Two Advents Compared: Ordinary and Extraordinary’, Worship, 84 (2010), pp. 527-549, here 527. Regan, who is professor at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, Sant’Anselmo, Rome, is currently writing a monography on the topic, Two Liturgical Years Compared: Ordinary and Extraordinary (Collegeville, Minnesota, forthcoming).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 362362 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 363

whereas according to the former service books this saint’s day falls on June 14. Another example concerns St. John of Damascus, whom the former Roman-rite service books commemorate on March 27, whereas currently, as I noted at the outset of this paper, his feast falls on December 4. Also regarding the cycle of the forty days pre-paschal fast, Easter, and Pentecost, changes can be observed: Whereas in the ‘Tridentine’ books the liturgical year encom- passes a pre-fasting period (Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima) and a Pentecostal octave, these elements are missing in the ‘Vatican II’ service books, because the latter books wish to concentrate on the essence of the forty days, including Holy Week, – especially on repentance, and the commemoration and preparation of baptism – and on the ﬁfty days period from Easter to Pentecost respectively. The revised liturgical books clearly focus on the irreplaceable central position of the paschal mystery and Sunday.21 However, all of this does not concern the calculation of the Easter date any further and therefore is beyond the scope of this paper.

4. COMMON EASTER DATE: AN URGENT ISSUE

As is well-known, currently, Western Christianity – I mainly mean Catholi- cism, Anglicanism, the Reformed and the Baptist Churches, as well as large parts of the Pentecostal movement – and the greater part of Eastern Christi- anity – I mean most Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox – have two distinct calculation systems for determining the Easter date. Sometimes the gap between both dates even is five weeks. Every now and then the two systems coincide, such as 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2017. Then seventeen years will pass before a unified Easter again can be celebrated in 2034. Consequently, time is essential. By celebrating the feast of Christ’s resurrection, Holy Easter, on different Sundays in the same year, ‘the Churches give a divided witness’ to this great mystery, thereby ‘compromising their credibility and effectiveness in bringing the gospel to the world’ (Aleppo Statement, see below). Moreover, ‘families whose members belong to different Churches find themselves in conflict observing two Lenten cycles and two Paschal dates. Christians speak

21 Calendarium Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti oecumenici concilii vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli pp. VI promulgatum (Vatican City, 1969). Cf. R. Ferrone, Liturgy: “Sacrosanctum Concilium” (New York and Mahwah, NJ, 2007), pp. 2-3, 23-25, 91-94.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 363363 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 364 BERT GROEN

through their different Easter celebrations with divided voices’ (North Amer- ican consultation, see below). According to that consultation, the need for inter-ecclesiastical unity is great, for the world has changed and is still chang- ing rapidly. Secular thought, on the one hand, and fundamentalist attitudes, on the other, are growing. There are worldwide effects of repression, poverty, terrorism and war. ‘Is there not more than ever a need for a uniﬁed Christian proclamation and a witness of the core of our common faith: the resurrection of our Lord?! Is the time not at hand for a permanent resolution of this issue?!’ (ibidem). Accordingly, the issue of the Easter date is not simply an academic one, without pastoral implications, but it is a matter of concern in the European and other Western contexts. In several other parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, this is even a much more pressing issue, because there Christians make up a severely threatened (and divided) minority in a larger non-Christian society.

5. ALEPPO STATEMENT (1997)

In March 1997, an important consultation on the subject in question met in Aleppo, Syria. It was jointly sponsored by the Middle East Council of Churches and the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Although the Roman Catholic Church formally does not belong to the World Council of Churches, inter alia it fully participates in its most important theological commission: ‘Faith and Order’. In Aleppo a statement was issued, called “Towards a Common Date for Easter”.22 This Aleppo Statement, which in its own words ‘rightly calls attention to the centrality of Christ’s resurrection as the basis of the common Christian faith’ and describes the resurrection as ‘a sign of the unity and reconciliation which God wills for the entire creation’, recommends among others the following: a. maintaining the norms established by the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, according to which Easter should fall on the Sunday following the ﬁrst full moon of spring, and

22 http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order- commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for easter.html (accessed on July 7, 2011).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 364364 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 365

b. calculating the necessary astronomical data (spring equinox and full moon) by ‘the most accurate possible scientiﬁc means’, using the Jerusa- lem meridian as the basis for reckoning. This Statement was also supported by representatives of the Roman Cath- olic Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and many other Christian communities.

6. REACTIONS FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL CONSULTATION

In its response from 1998 to the Aleppo Statement,23 and its re-affirmation from 2010,24 the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulta- tion warmly welcomes the Statement’s recommendations. Because I consider this North American consultation as an outstanding ecumenical joint Cath- olic-Orthodox theological initiative, I will quote and paraphrase the reasons why that consultation endorses the Aleppo Declaration. First, this statement ‘calls attention to the continuing relevance of the Council of Nicaea. This council is a fundamental point of reference for the traditions of both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This also implies the rejection of proposals to establish a fixed date for Easter/Pascha’. Second, the Aleppo Statement ‘points out that the Council of Nicaea was willing to make use of contemporary science to calculate the date of Easter/ Pascha … This principle still holds valid today. Scientific observations about the cosmos reveal the goodness and wonder of God’s creation, which He embraced in the incarnation of his Son. Moreover, to deny an observable truth about the world is to reject God’s gift to us. Our Churches need to use the findings of contemporary science as did the Fathers of Nicaea … The key today to resolving the issue in accordance with the mandate of Nicaea is to determine the equinox from the meridian of Jerusalem (longitude 35° 13’47.1) using the most accurate scientific instruments and astronomical data available. This will resolve the conflict in our liturgical observance by

23 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1998aleppo.html (accessed on July 7, 2011). 24 http://www.scoba.us/articles/celebrating-easter-pascha.html (accessed on July 7, 2011). The respective quotes in this essay are from these two rather similar and short documents.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 365365 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 366 BERT GROEN

aligning existing Church calendars to the Nicene formula: not just the calendar from one set of Churches, but from both Eastern and Western traditions. As disciples of the risen Lord who all profess adherence to the mandate of the Council of Nicaea, we ﬁnd a profound need to adhere to Nicaea’s formulae, and to calculate the yearly date accurately. As Churches whose faith is rooted in Scripture and Tradition, let us ensure we stay rooted in The One Who is Truth’. Third, the Aleppo Statement ‘accurately presents historical circumstances relating to the Council of Nicaea’s treatment of the relationship between the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Passover. The practice of continuing to celebrate Pascha according to the ancient Julian calendar has often been defended, by some Eastern Christians, as resting on a decision associated with that council prohibiting the Churches from celebrating the Paschal feast “with the Jews”. However, as scholars … have very clearly demonstrated, this prohibition was directed against making the calculation of the date of Easter depend upon contemporary Jewish reckoning, not against a coincidence of date between the two festivals. In fact, a coincidence of Passover and Easter dates continued to occur from time to time as late as the eighth century. Only later, when the increasing “lag” of the Julian calendar made any coincidence impossible, did the prohibition come to be misinterpreted as meaning that the Jewish Passover must necessarily precede the Christian Passover each year’. Brieﬂy, the North American Catholic-Orthodox consultation considers ‘that the implementation of the recommendations of the Aleppo Statement would allow our Churches to adhere more exactly to the mode of calculation mandated by the First Council of Nicaea. The Aleppo Statement is both faithful to this Council and it takes into account the contemporary situation, which calls for a common witness to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the central mystery of the Christian faith’.

During the last decades, also the Pontiﬁcal Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Anglican Lambeth Conference, the Lutheran World Federation, the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, the National Council of Churches in the USA, and Patriarch Gregory III of the Melkites (Greek-Catholics in the Middle East), and others, also advocated a common Easter date and most of them endorse the Aleppo Statement.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 366366 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 367

However, in contrast with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, many other Orthodox Churches did not react at all. This seems strange, because the Aleppo Statement explicitly strives to ﬁnd a way of how to apply the teach- ing of the Council of Nicaea – such an important council for Eastern Chris- tians (of course, not only for them) – to modern times. Yet, the same goes for a host of Roman Catholic and other Western communities. For most of them ‘Aleppo’ has remained a ‘dead letter’, an interesting statement for scholars and calendar experts, but seemingly without any relevance to everyday pastoral reality.

7. INTER-ECCLESIASTICAL OBSTACLES

The North American consultation underscores that a key issue is ‘that the recommendations of the Aleppo Statement have different implications for Eastern and Western Churches. For Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christianity, changes in the actual dating of Easter are more perceptible than for Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Christianity. Fortunately, the Aleppo recommendations to a large extent repeat proposals already developed by the Orthodox themselves’ concerning their preparations for a Holy Pan-Ortho- dox Council. According to the North American theologians involved, ‘this should signiﬁcantly enhance the Aleppo recommendations’ prospects for suc- cess. However, at the same time, in many Eastern Churches, adherence to their present method of calculation often has been a symbol of the Church’s integrity and freedom from the hostile forces of this world’. Therefore, ‘implementation of the Aleppo recommendations in these circumstances must proceed carefully and with great pastoral sensitivity. The material pre- sented in the Aleppo Statement can be of great help to these Churches, should they attempt to carry out this effort to be faithful to the great tradition of the Church’. I eagerly agree. However, I also fear that inter-ecclesiastical obstacles still may seriously hinder the Aleppo implementation. Non-theological factors, such as social-cultural divergences and differences in religious popular culture as well as lack of trust and ecumenical formation, still play a substantial role. They make the Christian denominations stand still and stagnate in this respect. Are these communities mature and daring enough to move forward? Certainly, nowadays many Eastern and Western Christians, including

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 367367 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 368 BERT GROEN

numerous Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are ready to move in this direction. Yet, at the same time, several groups are not ready at all to make such a move. I am thinking of some Western milieus that regret- tably regard Eastern Orthodoxy as ‘backward’ and ‘exotic’ or that in a one- sided way extol the alleged superiority of their own Latin or other traditions. I also think of various groups in Bulgaria and Russia, for example, that insist on being the ‘true Orthodox’ and being ‘distinctive’, that is: different from other Christian communities, which they tend to regard as ‘heretics’ and ‘schismatics’. In both countries main reasons of resistance to calendar mod- ifications and ecumenical cooperation are the lack of intercultural and ecumenical contacts and formation as well as the sad memory of the communist period. Because, under an express condition, communist regimes favoured such cooperation, resistance to ecumenism and calendar revision now is con- sidered as ‘true Orthodoxy’. After decades of living under communist regimes, the Churches in those countries still are in the process of finding their social-cultural and political positions and of defining their new identities. I also believe that in the Orthodox Churches of Cyprus and Greece the situation as yet might not be mature for a daring move as suggested in the Aleppo Statement.25 Usually the Greeks outside Hellas, especially those in Western Europe, America and Australia, dispose of much more experience in contacts and dialogue with people who adhere to other denominations, religions, and worldviews. In the Middle East and in India, again the situation is different. In South-Indian Kerala, Christians constitute a minority in Hindu-dominated society. Also the Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople (on Turk- ish soil), Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria, the Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Orthodox and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia in Lebanon are

25 Cf. Th. Bremer, ‘The Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Challenges of Today: Reflections on a Difficult Relationship’, in Rethinking Ecumenism: Strategies for the 21st Century, ed. F. Bakker et al., IIMO Research Publication 63 (Zoetermeer, 2004), pp. 153-166; idem, ‘The Official Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches’, in Quo Vadis Eastern Europe? Religion, State and Society After Communism, ed. I. A. Murzaku, Collana di studi sui Balcani e l’Europa Centro-Orientale, 30 (Ravenna, 2009), pp. 61-73; W. van den Bercken, ‘“Orthodoxy or Death!”: Anti- Ecumenical Voices in Russia’, in Rethinking Ecumenism, pp. 167-179; P. Mojzes, ‘Ecu- menism and Interreligious Dialogue in Eastern Europe’, in Quo Vadis Eastern Europe?, pp. 27-48.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 368368 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 369

small minority Churches in countries dominated by Muslims. Ecumenical contacts with worldwide Christendom are of vital importance to them. Their membership of the World Council of Churches and other inter-ecclesiastical councils and associations delivers them from their isolation and offers them material and mental support. In addition, throughout the centuries in the Middle East, the two Orthodox families coexisting there (Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy) had a more open attitude to ecumenical contacts with Western Churches than the Orthodox in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans. An exception to this is the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The standofﬁsh attitude of the leadership of that Patriarchate towards the ecumenical movement does not match with the open-mindedness of other Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East. Important reasons for the Jerusalem distantness are the Greek aspiration to preserve ‘Hellenism’ in the Holy Places; tension between its Greek leadership and the Arabic parishes; and the complicated local situation. Nevertheless, throughout the Middle East, Christians are leaving and migrating. They do not feel secure any longer, both because of rising Islamistic fundamentalism and terrorism and because of the wars waged by the USA and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the frequent identiﬁcation between ‘America’/‘the West’, aggression and Christianity. So, in the Middle East much more than in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, all of this facilitates thought on common initiatives, such as a common Easter date. At any rate, both for Western and for Eastern Christianity, it is most necessary to intensify ecumenical formation, to really get to know and esteem other Churches, to recognize Christ’s Church also in other ecclesial traditions.

8. PROPOSAL: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ADAPTS TO THE ORTHODOX AND ORIENTAL ORTHODOX EASTER CALCULATION

Several Roman Catholic bishops and theologians consider that their Church adapt to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions and that Rome adopt the Meletian blend calendar in order to pave the way to a common pan-Christian Easter date. Among others, in a fairly recent letter to Pope Benedict XVI (Spring 2011), the Bishop of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amster- dam, Joseph Punt, argued in favour of this initiative. This is a remarkable

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 369369 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 370 BERT GROEN

development, in view of the fact that for a long time leading Catholic ecu- menists rather rejected this possibility. In 2001, a prominent Austrian litur- gist and ecumenist, Philipp Harnoncourt, for example, wrote that ‘it would be absurd when the Western Churches would return to the Julian calendar, which obviously contains errors; therefore, this option is not even discussed’.26 Of course, Harnoncourt’s remark that the Julian calendar is wrong concerning the Easter date is correct. However, it is obvious that times change too. Perhaps it is now clearer than in 2001 that other ways must be tried out as well. The great and longstanding difﬁculty of a common Easter date requires creativity and unconventional methods. The old Latin adage In extremis extrema tentanda sunt might be applied. In my opinion, in the present ecumenical landscape, the proposal that for the time being Catholicism adapt to Eastern Christianity is attractive. Thus the Church of Rome would substantially contribute to ecumenical rapprochement in the important issue of a common Easter date. It would mean that this Church would keep the Gregorian calendar for the immovable, ﬁxed festivals, such as Christmas and Epiphany, but celebrate the cycles of Great Lent and Easter according to the Julian calendar. In a statement made on April 20, 2011 the Roman Catholic Bishop of Moscow, Paolo Pezzi, even advocated a fuller calendar adaptation of his Church to Russian Orthodoxy: not only for the paschal cycle but for the immovable Christmas feast as well. Also a few prominent Orthodox bishops suggest that regarding the Easter cycle, for the time being, Western Christianity adapt to Orthodoxy. The Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Hilarion Alfeyev, for instance, proposed in 2010 that for a period of ten years all Churches would celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar, and then implement the Aleppo Declaration. All of this shows that, on the one hand, this is a suitable moment, a kairos. On the other, there also are major challenges that must be faced.

26 Ph. Harnoncourt, ‘Unterwegs zu einem gemeinsamen Ostertermin aller christlichen Kirchen’, Heiliger Dienst, 55 (2001), pp. 78-94, here p. 90: ‘Es wäre absurd, wenn die Westkirchen wieder zum offensichtlich fehlerhaften Julianischen Kalender zurückkehrten; diese Möglichkeit wird daher nicht einmal diskutiert.’ Cf. the detailed survey by the same author: ‘Der Kalender’, in Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit, II/1, Gottesdienst der Kirche, Hand- buch der Liturgiewissenschaft, 6,1 (Regenburg, 1994), pp. 9-63.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 370370 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 371

A first and major problem is that in this way the Aleppo Statement as yet is not fully realized. Moreover, an Easter date as late as the beginning of May – this sometimes happens in the Julian calendar – hardly corresponds to the prescription of Nicaea I concerning the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox. But probably this step of a kind of Catholic ‘Meletian’ calendar must be taken and who knows which new and unex- pected developments will follow. If this is an endeavour inspired by the Holy Spirit and if all parties involved recognize it as such, it will be difficult to stop it. Another challenge is that this proposal cannot entirely solve the calendar problem, because the difference between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars for the fixed festivals continues. But this is mainly an inner-Orthodox problem which must be dealt with at the coming Pan-Orthodox Council. A third challenge is the danger of a new divergence of Easter dates. If the Catholic Church were going to celebrate Great Lent and Easter according to the Julian calendar and the Anglican and Protestant Churches were to continue celebrating the paschal feasts according to more modern calculations, there would be new divisions within Christianity. Many mixed marriages, for instance, would suffer from this. Especially in countries where Catholicism and Protestantism coexist, such as Germany and the Netherlands, this would be a new major problem. Therefore, it is most important that regarding a possible official Catholic initiative, the Anglican Communion, the Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, and Baptist Churches as well as Pentecostal groups be consulted. If all have open hearts and minds, these denominations will join. Many Protestant Churches are eager participants in the ecumenical movement who are most willing to find solutions to divisive calendar issues. In Ukraine, for example, not only the Greek-Catholics but also most Protestant denominations celebrate Christmas according to the Julian calendar. At any rate, the goal of ecumenism cannot be a Catholic-Orthodox coalition without participation of the other Western Churches. Its objective is that all Churches together search unity in Christ. As Pope John Paul II repeatedly stated – in his 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint, for example27 – ecumenism occupies a central place in the Catholic Church and all dimensions of Catholic life must

27 Encyclical Letter “Ut Unum Sint” of the Holy Father John Paul II on Commitment to Ecumenism (Vatican City, 1995).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 371371 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 372 BERT GROEN

be permeated by the ecumenical spirit. Also according to his successor, Ben- edict XVI, ecumenism is a vital aspect of Catholicism.

9. POSSIBLE ‘BRIDGE’ ROLE OF THE EASTERN-CATHOLIC CHURCHES?

Could in this respect the Eastern-Catholic Churches serve as bridges? In many places they already celebrate Easter on the same date as their Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox coreligionists. (An important exception are the Lebanese Maronites, who in 1606 adopted the Gregorian calendar.) However, the very existence of Eastern-Catholicism often has been a subject of bitter controversy and dispute. According to the Balamand Statement from 1993, drawn up by the Joint International Committee for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Uniatism has caused deep wounds to the Orthodox Church, and of course also to the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. On the one hand, Uniatism is to be rejected as a method for achieving ecclesiastical union and the Catholic Church no longer considers the Eastern-Catholic Churches as models for such a union. On the other hand, the actual existence of these Eastern-Catholic Churches and the right to their own pastoral care are to be accepted. The document states that the Eastern-Catholic Churches should participate in the theological dialogue, and that freedom of conscience for the faithful, love, forgiveness and respect, open dialogue and condemnation of all acts of violence against the other Church should be the criteria for inter- ecclesiastical contacts. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as sister Churches.28 Whereas the Freising

28 Service d’Information: Conseil Pontifical Pour la Promotion de l’Unité des Chrétiens, No. 83 (1993/II), pp. 99-103; Una Sancta, 48 (1993), pp. 256-264. Cf. A. van der Aalst, ‘De theologische dialoog tussen de orthodoxe en de katholieke kerk: Achtste vergadering – Balamand, Libanon, 17-24 juni 1993’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 45 (1993), pp. 242-257; F. Bouwen, ‘Balamand 1993: VIIe session de la Commission internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe’, Proche Orient Chrétien, 43 (1993), pp. 91-112; H. Biedermann, ‘Orthodoxie und Unia: Das Dokument von Bala- mand (17.-24.6.1993)’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 44 (1995), pp. 11-32; W. Hryniewicz, ‘Uni- atismus: Einst und jetzt – Reflexionen zum Dokument von Balamand (1993)’, Ostkirch- liche Studien, 43 (1994), pp. 328-339; P. Duprey, ‘Une étape importante du dialogue catholique-orthodoxe: Balamand, 17-24 juin 1993’, in Communion et réunion: Mélanges Jean-Marie R. Tillard, eds. G. Evans and M. Gourgues, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theo- logicarum Lovaniensium, 121 (Leuven, 1995), pp. 115-123, here 121-123.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 372372 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 373

Statement from 1990 had only emphasized that Uniatism must be rejected,29 the Balamand Statement is more nuanced and shows a delicate equilibrium. However, this courageous and open-minded declaration, which in my opinion is a great step forward, has been seriously contested and, unfortunately, remains disputed.30 Although the Patriarchate of Constantinople has made strenuous efforts for the acceptance of the Balamand Statement, some advocates of a ‘hard line’ regarding Rome still reject it. The Church of Greece and the abbots of Mount Athos, for instance, thought it unacceptable to make such ‘concessions’ to the ‘papal denomination’.31 Also some Roman Catholic communities, both in the Latin Roman rite and in the Eastern-Catholic Churches, were indignant about the condemnation of the method of uniatism. The Romanian Greek-Catholic leadership even ofﬁcially rejected the Balamand Statement. Presently, silence has fallen around the Balamand Statement. The ofﬁcial theological dialogue of the two Churches now concentrates on the arduous issues of papal primacy and synodality. Yet, I believe that the Balamand Declaration still is most relevant today and that many issues it addresses remain topical. On the one hand, the Orthodox conviction that the ecclesiological status of the Eastern-Catholic Churches is ‘irregular’ and that these Churches result from a wound within Orthodoxy must be taken most seriously.32 On the

29 Una Sancta, 45 (1990), pp. 327-329; Service d’Information: Conseil Pontifical Pour la Promotion de l’Unité des Chrétiens, No. 73 (1990/II), pp. 54-55; cf. 35-36; No. 78 (1991/ III-IV), pp. 148-151. See also W. Hryniewicz, ‘Der “Uniatismus” im katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 39 (1990), pp. 319-338; A. van der Aalst, ‘De theologische dialoog tussen de orthodoxe en de katholieke kerk: Zevende vergadering – Fre- ising, 6-15 juni 1990’, Het Christelijk Oosten, 42 (1990), pp. 225-233; S. Keleher, ‘The Freising, Ariccia and Balamand Statements: An Analysis’, Logos, 34 (1993), pp. 427-463, here 436-457; A. De Halleux, ‘Uniatisme et communion: Le texte catholique-orthodoxe de Freising’, Revue Théologique de Louvain, 22 (1991), pp. 3-29; F. Bouwen, ‘Freising 1990: VIe session de la Commission internationale pour le dialogue théologique entre l’Eglise catholique et l’Eglise orthodoxe’, Proche Orient Chrétien, 40 (1990), pp. 272-298; E. Clapsis, ‘The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy: Twenty-Five Years after Vati- can II’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 35 (1990), pp. 221-236, here 232-236. 30 B. Bourgine, ‘La réception de la Déclaration de Balamand’, Irénikon, 74 (2001), pp. 538-560. 31 B. Groen, ‘The Trojan Horse and a Grecian Gift: Present-day Greek Orthodox Reac- tions to the Union of Brest’, in Four Hundred Years Union of Brest (1596-1996): A Criti- cal Re-evaluation, eds. B. Groen and W. van den Bercken, Eastern Christian Studies, 1 (Leuven, 1998), pp. 201-238. 32 W. Hryniewicz, ‘Union und Uniatismus im katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog: Probleme, Schwierigkeiten und Hoffnungen’, Ostkirchliche Studien, 54 (2005), pp. 209-241.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 373373 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 374 BERT GROEN

other this needs not exclude any positive effect concerning a common Easter date. It is relevant that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartho- lomew, several times admitted – during his visit to the Benedictine monas- tery of Chevetogne on November 15, 1994, for example – that the Eastern- Catholic Churches were able to transmit and transfuse Eastern spirituality and liturgical theology into the Latin Church of Rome and thus could enrich the Western Church. The debate on a common Easter date might be a fit- ting opportunity for the Eastern-Catholic communities to show their possible bridge tasks. A fine example of inter-church cooperation is the Arabic and Syriac Near East where Oriental and Byzantine-rite Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and Eastern-Catholics, on the other, maintain close bonds and do their best to be common witnesses and together bear testimony to Christian hope and love. So, it is not surprising that, also regarding a common Easter date for all Christians, Eastern-Catholics have taken the initiative. Con- cretely, during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Syria in 2001, the Greek- Catholic Patriarch Gregory III (Lutfi Laham) made a plea that the Catholic Church for the time being celebrate Easter according to the Julian calendar. Another relevant example is the international seminar on a common Easter date, organised by the Ecumenical Institute of the Ukrainian Catholic Uni- versity in Lviv on May 15, 2009.33 This seminar too advocated a common pan-Christian paschal date and remarked that mutual inter-ecclesiastical dis- trust was the most important obstacle in realising this ideal. With respect to the Easter date, the decree of the Second Vatican Coun- cil on the Eastern-Catholic Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, explicitly permits local adaptations and solutions to pastoral problems, such as family situations (no. 20-21). This is a fine canonical point of departure for further necessary change.

10. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Obviously, there is great need for careful education and pastoral sensitivity in this issue. According to the North American consultation it is essential that the ecclesiastical media ‘take care to report on this issue with accuracy and fairness’. The consultation accentuates the necessity for both the Orthodox

33 http://ucu.edu.ua/eng/news/179/ (accessed on July 7, 2011).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 374374 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 THE LONG WAY TO A COMMON EASTER DATE 375

and the Catholic media to ‘emphasize the hope and joy that a united Easter/ Pascha witness will bring’ to their Churches and to the entire world. This also goes for the Oriental Orthodox media. Indeed, as the consultation states, ‘there are signiﬁcant pastoral needs at stake: Can the members of our inter- church families celebrate Easter together? For the mission of the Church, a common celebration would support the unity we already share and help to build it further in the future. Like the Fathers of Nicaea, our bishops are called to be agents of healing to resolve once and for all this ancient dispute in the life of the Church. This change would beneﬁt all Christians and enable them to proclaim together, with one voice, heart and mind, “Christ is risen! Indeed He is risen!”’. A common Easter cycle would also mean that Eastern and Western Christianity can better share their liturgical theological treasures and their impressive services with one another.

The ecumenical relevance of a common Easter date does not limit itself to the liturgy and the forms and contents of the worship assembly. According to the French Roman Catholic expert in the ﬁeld of sacramental theology, Louis- Marie Chauvet, the word of God celebrated in worship is inseparably connected with the word of scripture heard in catechesis and God’s word lived in diakonia and charity activity. If these diverse forms of God’s word are sepa- rated, the liturgy risks becoming only navel-gazing, ‘a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1).34 As the Romanian Orthodox theologian, Ion Bria, writes, there also is the ‘liturgy after the liturgy’, or – I might add – the ‘liturgy before the liturgy’.35 The liberating force of the paschal event, also of the common Easter date, must be put into everyday charity practice. Several main readings of the Roman-rite paschal vigil are from Genesis and Exodus. The events of creation and exodus are not only related to the liturgical rites, but also refer to everyday normal Christian life. The liturgy proclaims the experience of liberation and redemption by God. Concretely this means being freed from slavery, poverty and hunger, and the actualization of the biblical vision of food and shelter for all, life in peace and health, coexistence

34 L.-M. Chauvet, Du symbolique au symbole: Essai sur les sacrements, rites et symboles, 9 (Paris, 1979), pp. 81-122. Cf. K. Kok, De kunst van de liturgie (Kampen, 2004), pp. 17-18, 24-37. 35 I. Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective (Geneva, 1996).

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 375375 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14 376 BERT GROEN

in solidarity, reconciliation, mercy and loyalty, the vision of a new world and a new covenant. This is not only what creation, exodus and covenant are about, it also is what resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit imply.

Required is a kenotic spirituality, that is: the Churches need an attitude of willingness, not to make their own confessional identities absolute; a willingness to make sacriﬁces for unity.36 Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christians should not expect from one another that always the other side makes concessions or the ﬁrst step to reach unity. Ecumenism is not about winning or losing. Just as Jesus emptied himself (Philippians 2:7), the established Churches too need an attitude of emptying themselves, not to lose their own essential characteristics, as some might fear, but to get life in fullness.

Abstract

Firstly, the origins of the Julian, Gregorian, and Meletian calendars, the twentieth-century debate on a fixed Easter date, and different Roman-rite calendars are outlined. Secondly, the 1997 Aleppo Statement on an ecumenical common Easter date and the positive reactions from the North American Orthodox- Catholic Theological Consultation from 1998 and 2010 are discussed. Thirdly, some serious inter-ecclesiastical obstacles as well as recent proposals that the Roman Catholic Church adapt to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Easter calculation are examined. On the one hand, these proposals are commenda- ble, on the other, major challenges must be faced. The article concludes with several considerations, inter alia the suggestion of a possible ‘bridge’ role of the Eastern-Catholic Churches.

36 W. Hryniewicz, ‘Towards a More Paschal Christianity: Ecumenism and Kenotic Dimensions of Ecclesiology’, Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 91 (2001), pp. 22-43; idem, ‘The Cost of Unity: The Papal Primacy in Recent Orthodox Reflection’, The Jour- nal of Eastern Christian Studies, 55 (2003), pp. 1-27. During his visit to Rome in June 1995, also the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew used these words. See Episkepsis No. 520 (31 July 1995), pp. 10, 15. The Roman Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of San Francisco, John R. Quinn, accentuates in his book The Reform of the Papacy: The Costly Call to Christian Unity (New York, 1999) also the necessity to make such sacrifices for unity.

995073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd5073_JECS_2011_3-4_04_Groen.indd 376376 227/02/127/02/12 13:1413:14