COMMENTARY: Another look at the issue of two Church calendars (03/13/05)

COMMENTARY

Another look at the issue of two Church calendars

by Andrew Sorokowski

This year, some of us in the diaspora will celebrate Easter on March 27, others on May 1. Most Christians in Ukraine will celebrate on May 1. The divergence between the two dates is a stark reminder of the fact that our Eastern Churches (Greek-Catholic and Orthodox) in Ukraine and the diaspora do not agree on when to celebrate their chief holidays.

There are really two issues. One is when to celebrate Christmas and the various other fixed or immovable feasts such as Theophany, Annunciation, Transfigu-ration, Immaculate Conception, Nativity and Dormition of the Mother of God. This is not really a question of dates - for example, our Churches agree on December 25 as the birthdate of Jesus Christ - but of calendars. The other issue is how to calculate the date of Easter. This determines the dates of the Great Fast, as well as of the moveable feasts of Ascension and Pentecost (Descent of the Holy Spirit).

The matter of when to celebrate Christmas and the other immoveable feasts depends on whether one follows the calendar of Julius Caesar or that of Pope Gregory XIII. The Gregorian calendar, actually a correction of the Julian calendar, was introduced in October 1582 on the basis of calculations by Vatican astronomers. It was resisted for many years by Protestant and Orthodox countries because it was a "Catholic" calendar. Russia held out until January (or rather, February) 1918, and even after that, its Church retained the "old" calendar. Church and state were separated temporally as well as institutionally.

The usual argument for following the Julian calendar in the West is that this is the Ukrainian tradition. But traditions evolve. After all, we no longer count our years from the Creation, or begin them in March.

A common objection to introducing the Gregorian calendar is that this constitutes a Latinization of the Byzantine rite (shared by Ukrainian Catholics and Orthodox). I fail to see, however, what is so "Latin" about a scientifically more accurate system for measuring time, or what is so "Byzantine" about the calendar of Julius Caesar (whose Latin was surely better than Pope Gregory's). Or does loyalty to Eastern tradition require slipshod chronometry?

A novel argument against the Gregorian calendar is that it is "Polish." In pre-war Galicia this made sense. But since the imminent Polish invasion rumored in 1990-1991 proved nothing more than a horde of weekend shoppers from Peremyshl, this point has become moot. Besides, the Copernican theory that the earth revolves around the sun is most certainly a "Polish theory," yet to my knowledge no Ukrainian Church has rejected it.

True, there is a philosophical rationale for keeping the Church calendar separate from the civil calendar (which in most of the world is the Gregorian one). Sacred time is different from ordinary time, just as the spiritual realm is distinct from the common everyday world. On the other hand, such a compartmentalization of our lives into religious and secular components, if only symbolically in how we measure time, invites spiritual schizophrenia and double-think. And in the end, we relegate sacred time to the realm of fantasy.

When we come to Christmas liturgy on January 7, we are asserting that it is really December 25; yet we date our donation checks January 7. Are we living in two realities, or is it just make-believe? Time is a fundamental dimension, and if we cannot record it with a single system, there is something unresolved. Perhaps this is a consequence of the artificial division of life into sacred and secular spheres, now so entrenched in our civilization. But if our aim is to overcome our ambivalence and Christianize our entire lives, should we not express this with a single system of counting time?

The date of Easter is a separate matter. It is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The Eastern tradition additionally requires that Easter occur after Passover. This is because, historically, the Crucifixion and Resurrection took place after the Jewish holy day. Theologians say that this reflects our respect for the historical reality of the entire redemption story.

Can one celebrate Christmas by the "new" Gregorian calendar and Easter by the Eastern calculation? Of course. Most of the Greeks do, and we have traditionally followed the Greeks, from whom, after all, we received Christianity. In fact, the "Eastern Easter" eliminates a major objection to the Gregorian calendar, which is the danger of Easter coinciding with Passover.

To be sure, there is good reason to celebrate all our holidays "together with Ukraine." But that begs the question of how Ukraine should celebrate. Must it follow Russia? Must Ukraine cling unthinkingly to tradition, or can it enliven tradition through thoughtful development? Ukraine's European choice suggests a fresh look at its heritage.

Ecumenical discussions about a universal determination for Easter may solve that problem for us. As for Christmas and the other fixed holidays, realists might predict that while Ukraine's Orthodox will never abandon their Eastern calendar, the diaspora Churches, in the inevitable process of assimilation, will all eventually adopt the Western one. Though idealists loyal to a Kyivan Patriarchate (Greek-Catholic, Orthodox, or both) may insist on a single Church calendar for Ukrainians worldwide, others may not care who celebrates when.

It has not always been so. When Greek-Catholic Bishop Hryhorii Khomyshyn attempted to introduce the Gregorian calendar in the Stanyslaviv Eparchy in 1916, it was roundly rejected. When Bishop Jaroslav Gabro did likewise in St. Nicholas' Cathedral parish in Chicago in 1964 the opposition mounted, culminating, in the revolutionary year of 1968, in a near riot. One may regret the conflict, but not the concern.

For the matter is not trivial. It is not just that in some of our communities, saying "Christ is Risen" to the wrong person at the wrong time invites the somewhat blasphemous retort, "Not yet!" Nor is it just that a Greek-Catholic traveling from Lviv to New York gains seven "civil" hours but loses 13 ecclesiastical days, and if he does so between December 25 and January 7 by the civil calendar, he will miss Christmas altogether. Nor is it only the awkwardness and disruption of different Ukrainian Church communities living out of rhythm with one another. It is also that this is one more symptom of our cultural immaturity. Counting time is fundamental. If there is such a thing as a Kyivan-Byzantine tradition shared by Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholics throughout the world, and indeed by all Ukrainians, it has to be coherent and cohesive. Coordinating the dates of our holidays is a small but necessary step in this direction.

Being no expert on these issues, I have surely omitted many arguments pro and con. Nor do I know how they should be resolved. Perhaps one of our learned pastors or theologians can correct or supplement my comments and provide an authoritative opinion. Then, I hope, our Churches will act. They can hardly reach ecumenical understanding if they can't celebrate Christmas or Easter on the same days.

A lawyer and historian by training, Andrew Sorokowski wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Greek-Catholic parish clergy in Galicia between 1900 and 1939. He is employed at the Environment Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington as a researcher on the U.S. war industry in the 1940s.

| Home Page |