Metropolitan Kyprianos II of Oropos and
Phyle | May 13/26, 2024 | Phyle
The Traditional Apostolic Orthodox Paschalion
as an unalterable and eternal Ecclesiastical Tradition
A.
The Paschal Canon
Holy Pascha always
was, is, and will continue to be the first and greatest Feast of our Orthodox
Church.
All together, the
pious chant the Eighth Ode of the Canon of Pascha:
“This
is the chosen and holy day, the one of the Sabbaths, the queen and lady; the
feast of feasts and the festival of festivals, on which we bless Christ unto
the ages.”
[“This
solemn and holy day (of the Resurrection of the Lord), the first of the days of
the week, the queen of all the days of the year, surpassing every other day, is
the greatest of feasts and celebrations; on this day (in a particular and
exceptional manner) we glorify the (risen) Christ unto the ages.”]
The annual date of
this great Feast, which is movable, [1] has been divinely regulated by the
Orthodox Paschal Canon or Definition or Rule by the Holy First Ecumenical
Council.
In the year 325
A.D., the Holy First Ecumenical Council of the Church convened in Nicaea of
Bithynia, during the reign of the most pious Emperor Constantine the Great, in
which 318 God-bearing Fathers took part, among whom were Athanasius the Great,
Saint Nicholas, Saint Spyridon, and Saint Achillios.
The Holy Council,
after the condemnation of the great heresy of Arianism, determined by a special
Definition of the highest importance the manner of calculating the holy Feast
of Pascha, so that it might be celebrated by all Christians once each year, on
the same day, after the Jewish Passover and always on a Sunday.
The Sacred Canons
prescribe most severe penalties for
“all
those who dare to nullify the Definition of the Holy and Great Council convened
in Nicaea, in the presence of the piety of the most God-beloved Emperor
Constantine, concerning the holy Feast of saving Pascha.”
What are the
prescribed penalties? As regards the laity: excommunication and expulsion from
the Church. As regards the clergy: deposition and deprivation of every priestly
honor!
That is, the
transgression of the Paschal Canon of the Holy Fathers is a great and serious
matter. [2]
***
The Paschal Canon,
that is, the Determinations [3] on the basis of which the date of Pascha would
be calculated each year, was founded upon the Calendar which was then in use
throughout the entire Roman Empire, namely the Julian Calendar, that which today
we commonly call the Old Calendar. [4]
With the passage of
the centuries, all the Feasts of our Church — the Festal Calendar, the Paschal
Cycle, that is, the period of the Feasts before Pascha (Triodion, Great
Lent) and after Pascha (Pentecostarion), the Fasts, and the Order of the
Readings of the Gospels and Apostles — had as the basis of their calculation
the Julian Calendar.
Thus, the Julian
Calendar became interwoven with the Tradition of our Church so deeply that, on
the one hand, it came henceforth to be called the Ecclesiastical Calendar, and,
on the other hand, confusion and disorder would be unavoidable if it were to be
changed. [5]
Moreover, the
common use of the Julian Calendar by all Orthodox Christians throughout the
centuries contributed to Liturgical and Festal unity, as well as to the unity
of the Faith of all the Local Churches. [5a]
The Church never
concerned itself with the imperfections and errors of this Calendar, although
it knew them. The Church always sought to preserve peace and love among Her
members. [6]
The accuracy of
calendars is the work of scientists, that is, of astronomers and
mathematicians.
Behold what Saint
Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes on this matter:
“For
let them know that even the Ecumenical Councils which took place after the
First, and the other Fathers, also saw, being wise as they were, that the
Equinox had greatly receded; nevertheless, they did not wish to transfer it
from the 21st of March, where the First Council had found it, preferring rather
the concord and unity of the Church than the accuracy of the Equinox, which
causes neither any confusion in the determination of our Pascha, nor any harm
to piety.” [7]
***
B.
Anti-syncretistic spirit
It is worthwhile
here to insist further.
One of the four
Determinations of the Holy First Ecumenical Council — namely, “(not) to
celebrate together with the Jews” — essentially has an anti-syncretistic
character. [8]
In our
[Ecclesiological] unifying Text, in the year 2014, we of the Patristic Calendar
had strongly pointed out, and with particular emphasis, the following:
“The
Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, through Her supreme synodal authority, has
expressed Her firm and immovable will, that Her unity be manifested also
through the common celebration by all Christians of the greatest of Feasts,
namely Holy Pascha, having definitively established at the Holy First
Ecumenical Council in the year 325 the eternal Rule of Pascha, the Paschal
Canon.
The
Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council convened in Nicaea expressed, in a
divinely inspired but also prophetic manner, the anti-syncretistic spirit of
the Church: the ‘not to celebrate together with the Jews,’ and, by extension,
not to seek to celebrate together with heretics, safeguarded the
external—visible—Unity of the One Body of the Church and established the
boundaries between Truth and Heresy, that is, altogether contrary to the
condemnable Calendar Reform of 1924, which aimed at celebrating together with
the heterodox of the pan-heresy of Papism and Protestantism, in order that the
supposedly existing invisible unity between them and Orthodoxy might become
visible.” [9]
Modern serious
interpreters of the apostolic spirit also arrive at the same conclusion:
“And
we emphasize this, because it is equivalent to the likewise sacred-canonical
and patristic commandment: ‘not to celebrate Pascha together with
heretics-heterodox,’ as also ‘nor together with those of another faith and
another confession…’.
And
such, in the present case, are the heretical Papists and Protestants, indeed as
they have always been insidious and hostile enemies and persecutors of our
Orthodox Faith and Church.
Let
this not be considered intolerance and fanaticism, as the heretical Papists and
Protestants themselves claim, together with the Ecumenist ‘Orthodox’ who walk
with them, being ‘unionist’ and Uniatizing.
If
we wish to be objective students of our holy patristic Tradition and to ‘boast
in the Lord’ (II Cor. 10:17), because we have inherited this inestimable
treasure, this is the general, as previously mentioned, sacred-canonical and
patristic commandment and principle: ‘Not to celebrate together, to pray
together, or to communicate—have communion—with heretics-heterodox,’ and here,
with the Papists and Protestants.” [10]
***
C.
Roman Catholicism or Papism?
Here a
clarification is required.
Indeed, the
characterization of Western Christianity, with its center in the Vatican and
the Pope, as Papism and not, as has prevailed in Ecumenist circles, as the
Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church, does not constitute an expression
of intolerance or fanaticism.
We must not forget
that the term Catholic or Roman Catholic Church is not correct, and the
authentic Orthodox Tradition never accepted it when referring to the body of
Western Christians who, in 1009 / 1014 or 1054, were definitively cut off from
the Body of the Church. [11]
The heterodox
Western Christianity, insofar as it has fallen away from Catholicity, that is,
the fullness of the Apostolic Faith through the acceptance of a multitude of
heretical doctrines, cannot be regarded or called Catholic.
We must never
overlook that in the Patristic Tradition, Catholicity means Fullness (fullness
of Truth and Life); and since Catholicity is synonymous and identical with
Orthodoxy, the authentic and genuine Church of Christ was always called
Catholic [12] in distinction from the particular heretical and schismatic
pseudo-churches. [13]
Therefore,
contemporary non-Catholic, that is, heretical, Christianity, which has as its
administrative center the Vatican, is characterized as Papism, because as its
foundation it has the Papal institution (Primacy and Infallibility), indeed as
an institution of divine right and therefore as a dogma of revelation
obligatory for faith and salvation.
The dogmatization
of the papal Primacy and Infallibility by the First Vatican Council (1870) [14]
and its strengthening by the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) [15] fully
confirms the view that
“the
papal institution constitutes the greatest heresy, which distorts the dogma
concerning the Church.” [16]
“No heresy,” wrote
very characteristically the ever-memorable Fr. Justin Popović, “has risen so
radically and so completely against the God-man Christ and His Church as Papism
has done through the dogma of the infallibility of the pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies.” [17]
***
The use of this
terminology, as correct and Orthodox, is approved and well justified even by
those who are in communion with the Ecumenists.
“We
do not use the term Roman Catholicism, because it is historically unfounded and
theologically inaccurate: From the beginning of the 2nd century the undivided
One Church of Christ is called, as we also confess in the Symbol of Faith,
Catholic, because it possesses the universality of the faith, that is, the
fullness of the truth.
Also,
after 330, when New Rome / Constantinople became the capital of the Roman
Empire, the term Roman or Romaios designated every Orthodox citizen of
it, regardless of his ethnic origin.
Thus,
Roman-Catholics, in the literal sense, are the Orthodox Christians, as Romans—Romioi,
that is, descendants of the Roman Empire, and as Catholics, that is, members of
the Orthodox Church, which continues to possess the universality of the faith.
On
the contrary, the Papists, after the seizure of the throne of Rome by the
Franks (1009), are not Romans, but Franco-Latins.
And
after their falling away from the catholicity (that is, the fullness) of the
faith, through the acceptance of a multitude of heretical doctrines, they are
not Catholic, but heretical.
Nevertheless,
after the definitive Schism (1054), they usurped these terms.
The
Orthodox peoples, however, until the 19th century well knew that Roman—Romaios
and Catholic meant Orthodox; for this reason, they called the heretics of the
West Latins, Papists, and the like.
The
confusion that is observed today in terminology was created at the beginning of
the 20th century, with the appearance of Ecumenism.” [18]
***
D.
Pan-Orthodox Anti-Papal Stance
In 1582, the
heretical Papists, who had separated from the Orthodox Church in 1054 A.D.,
added to their other errors and heretical doctrines also the change of the
Calendar.
Pope Gregory XIII
(1502–1585) implemented for the West the new Calendar, which, however,
overturned the Paschal Canon / Definition of the Holy Fathers of the Holy First
Ecumenical Council, which determined how Holy Pascha was to be celebrated each
year.
And the Papists, of
course, did not remain at that point, but attempted to impose their Calendar
Reform also upon the Orthodox, something which brought about great confusion in
the East and indeed caused a “worldwide scandal.” [19]
***
Our Holy Orthodox
Church did not accept the Gregorian Calendar, but also opposed it firmly,
because the possible acceptance of this new papal error would have meant a
denial of the Patristic Traditions and a transgression of the Ecclesiastical
Sacred Canons, as well as a reward of the papal rebellion.
Thus, initially,
three Pan-Orthodox Councils in Constantinople repeatedly condemned the new
papal Calendar (1583, 1587, 1593).
It must be
emphasized that
“Patriarch
Jeremias II, initially, in 1582, responded negatively to the papal proposals
for acceptance of the Gregorian Calendar–Paschalion, and in November 1583
convened a Synod of Metropolitans in Constantinople, in the presence also of
Sylvester of Alexandria, which rejected and condemned the papal change.
And
the same was done also by a local Synod of Constantinople in 1587, and
especially by the great Synod of Constantinople in 1593, since the papal
pressures had intensified. In this great Synod participated Jeremias II of
Constantinople, Meletios Pegas of Alexandria, who also represented Joachim of
Antioch, Sophronios of Jerusalem, and forty-one Hierarchs.” [20]
It is also
noteworthy that
“[The
Synod of 1593] rejected the Gregorian Calendar as an innovation contrary to the
Canons and ordinances of the Church. Moreover, the Synod, through its 8th
Canon, repeated the Paschal regulation of the First Ecumenical Council,
deciding that it should remain immovable…” [21]
This Great Synod
“proclaimed
adherence to those things established by the Ecumenical Councils, and upon
those who might transgress what had been determined by them concerning Pascha
imposed excommunication and deposition.” [22]
***
But also, during
the following three centuries, Local and Pan-Orthodox Synods were convened
which condemned the Gregorian Calendar and the heretical papal dogmas, such as
under the Ecumenical Patriarchs Cyril Loukaris (1620–1638), Parthenios I
(1639–1644), Paisios II (1726–1752), Cyril V (1748–1759), Gregory VI
(1835–1871), Anthimos VI (1845–1873), and especially under Anthimos VII
(1895–1896).
Likewise, in the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the great Patriarchs Nektarios (1660–1669),
Dositheos II (1669–1707), and Chrysanthos (1707–1731) also strongly opposed the
papal Innovations.
Of particular
importance is the stance of the last two Synods of the 19th century.
a. The Synod of
1848, for the monumental passage:
“…Among
us neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce anything new,
because the defender of religion is the very Body of the Church itself, that
is, the People themselves, who desire their religion to remain forever
unchanged and identical with that of their Fathers…” (§17); but also for the
likewise monumental phrase: “rejecting every innovation as a suggestion of the
devil” (§20).
And b. the Synod of
1895, for the monumental passage:
“…The
present Roman Church is the Church of innovations, of the adulteration of the
writings of the ecclesiastical Fathers, and of the misinterpretation both of
Holy Scripture and of the Definitions of the holy Councils. Therefore, rightly
and justly it was rejected and is rejected, so long as it persists in its
error. ‘For commendable war is better,’ says also the divine Gregory the
Theologian, ‘than peace which separates from God.’” (§20) [23]
***
E.
“A Double and Great Good”
The implementation
of the Gregorian Reform of the year 1582, apart from other things, admittedly
brought about a “double and great good.”
The Papacy, after
its failures to subjugate the Orthodox of the East, used the new Calendar and Paschalion
with this prospect in view (a Trojan Horse).
The Reform of the
Pope
“proved,
by divine providence, to be a positive and effective means and a defensive
weapon of the Orthodox against the heretical and innovative Papists and
Protestants.
For
at that time, at the end of the 16th century, the papal Unia (Propaganda de
fidei) had been strongly activated, as well as the mission of Protestant
‘missionaries’ — supposedly ‘apostles’ — for the subjugation of the Orthodox
Peoples, who were groaning under the Turkish yoke.
Especially
the change of the Paschalion, which was and is a violation of the
ecumenical authority of the Paschal Definition–Canon of the Holy First
Ecumenical Council, was rightly regarded by the Orthodox Patriarchs and, in
general, by the Clergy and the Orthodox People as an untimely and unacceptable
innovation, particularly since it was carried out unilaterally by the Pope
alone.” [24]
The papal change,
indeed by divine Providence, brought about results contrary to what Rome
desired, since
“unexpectedly
and unforeseeably it ‘achieved’ not rapprochement, but separation and festal
differentiation between Orthodox and Papists–Protestants, because of the
innovators and instigators themselves.
Thus,
the festal separation made perceptible, at the most appropriate period, the
essential dogmatic-liturgical ‘great gulf’ between Heresy and Orthodoxy.
The
Orthodox became conscious, through the different chronological celebration, and
in a tangible manner, of the ‘they are one thing and we another.’
Different
is their Pascha, changed and altered, and different is our traditional
Apostolic and Patristic and uninnovated Orthodox Pascha! [25]
The
change and the ‘God-sent’ differentiation also brought about another good,
indeed double and great.
And
this was the knowledge and deep awareness of the papal innovations that had
taken place, as well as of the Protestant ones, which until then were not
widely known among the Orthodox. But also the emergence, within the unbroken
front of Orthodoxy, for more than three centuries (320 years), of truly great
figures — Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and genuine theologians.” [26]
***
F.
The “unbroken front” is broken
Thus, until the end
of the 19th century, our spotless Orthodoxy set forth an unbroken front against
every Innovation originating from the West and reacted decisively against the
change of the Calendar and the Paschalion.
However, the period
of the previous, the 20th, century until today, in complete contrast with the
preceding centuries,
“is
characterized by the attempts of six (6) Patriarchs of Constantinople to change
both the Calendar and the Paschalion. In the Calendar they partially succeeded
in bringing about change, with the creation of divisions and schisms. In the
Paschalion they failed, and now Patriarch Bartholomew is attempting to achieve
it.” [27]
This observation is
very important, and we must not overlook the continuity and unity of an
“uninterrupted and ecumenistic line”:
“The
most critical period of Ecumenism against Orthodoxy is distinguished in the two
halves of the 20th century, in each of which there stands out and predominates
a triad of Ecumenical Patriarchs as Ecumenists. The first triad consists of the
Patriarchs Joachim III, Dorotheos I of Prusa, as locum tenens, and
Meletios IV (Metaxakis), while the second consists of the Patriarchs
Athenagoras I, Demetrios I, and Bartholomew I. Unfortunately, the ‘Works and
Days’ of both triads inaugurated and maintain an uninterrupted ecumenistic,
heterodox-friendly, and unionist — and in any case anti-Orthodox — line, which
they gradually transmitted to almost all the Orthodox Local Churches, both
formally and substantially.” [28]
Very rightly — and
the relevant sources are in full agreement — that which the previous patriarchs
did not achieve, namely the change also of the Paschalion,
“as
an important step toward the ‘union of the churches,’ Patriarch Bartholomew
seeks to accomplish, taking advantage of the anniversary of the completion of
1,700 years since the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea.”
[29]
This “uninterrupted
ecumenistic line,” in the perspective of the so-called “union of the churches,”
through a Common Pascha,
“always
— but always — has been used in the past (from the time this pan-heresy
appeared on the stage of history until today) as a ‘vehicle’ and as an
‘instrument’ for the promotion of the ‘union’ of East and West, Orthodoxy and
Papism, and subsequently Orthodoxy and the other Heterodox.” [30]
Perhaps the rumors
and the related publications are not unfounded, that
“in
2025, a ‘Pan-Christian Council’ will take place, which will not only determine
the common celebration of Pascha, but will also mark the ‘union of the
Churches,’ and perhaps even proclaim it!” [31]
The Ecumenists
“have
even announced a ‘Pan-Christian Council,’ which will constitute the starting
point for the launching of the full visible ‘union’ with the heterodox at the
common Chalice… the new paschalion — this will proceed as the first ‘bold’ step
toward the union of the fragmented Christian world.” [31]
In April 2023, a
Joint Text of the Patriarchal Metropolitan of France, Mr. Demetrios, and the
papal bishop Matthieu Rougé was published in a French newspaper. [32]
According to this
publication,
“The
two issues raised by the two officials are the common celebration of Pascha and
the union of the Churches… As an opportunity for the realization of the common
celebration of Pascha, the Metropolitan of France and the Bishop of Nanterre
see the year 2025, which marks the 1,700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical
Council, during which the manner of determining the date of Pascha was
established, and in which the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics will
celebrate Pascha on the same date, 20 April. The union of the Papists with the
Orthodox Church is placed by the two clergymen later, in 2054, on the 1000th
anniversary of the Schism…
“…In
their joint text, the two clergymen emphasize that the step of the common
celebration of Pascha could be the beginning of new paths toward full unity,
which is not unattainable, even from a human point of view… One of us [it is
not stated who] wishes for full unity by 2054 — only 31 years remain for
preparation — so that the unpleasant ‘parenthesis’ of the thousand years of the
Great Schism may be suitably closed. The other [his name also is not mentioned]
states that a good first step would be the common celebration of Pascha from
2025 onward. In our communities, to those who lead in our Churches we say with
one heart in the light of Pascha: ‘We do not fear this great and beautiful step
forward in order to bear witness to the Resurrection!’” [33]
***
G.
“Horrible religious syncretism”
This year, on the
Second Sunday of the Fast, 18 / 31 March 2024, Patriarch Mr. Bartholomew
addressed “his heartfelt wishes to all the non-Orthodox who celebrated Holy
Pascha” on that day.
Among other things,
he also said the following pertinent words:
“…And
we pray to the Lord of glory that the common celebration of Pascha which we
shall have in the coming year may not constitute merely a happy coincidence, a
random circumstantial event, but the beginning of the establishment of a common
date for its annual celebration by Eastern and Western Christianity, also in
view of the anniversary of the completion of 1,700 years, in 2025, since the
convocation of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which, among other
things, also dealt with the issue of regulating the time of the celebration of
Pascha. We are optimistic, since on both sides there exists good will and
readiness toward this. For indeed, the separate celebration of the unique event
of the one Resurrection of the One Lord constitutes a scandal!” [34]
It has been very
rightly observed in this regard that
“the
scandal does not consist in the separate celebration of Pascha by Orthodox and
Papists, but in the sought-after joint celebration of Pascha by common
agreement between Orthodox and heretics, while they do not confess the same
Faith and do not belong to the same Church of the One Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ.
The
Holy First Ecumenical Council decided definitively and irrevocably concerning
the common celebration of Pascha by all the faithful members of the Church, and
not between them and the heretics.
The
Orthodox Eastern Church in the 16th century definitively and conclusively
rejected, through Pan-Orthodox Synods, any change whatsoever in the celebration
of Pascha.” [35]
***
Fifty years ago, in
1974, the eminent interpreter of the Sacred Canons, Fr. Epiphanios
Theodoropoulos (†), excluded, with irrefutable and crushing theological
arguments, the possibility of joint celebration between Orthodox and Heretics:
“The
Church of Greece, if it should be faced with a proposal concerning a common
celebration of Pascha or of any other feast with the heterodox, ought even to
refuse discussion of the matter. Such discussion must be excluded with all
strength and at every cost, because it constitutes an overthrow from the
foundations of Orthodox Dogmatics and especially of Ecclesiology. Either we
believe that we are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or we do not
believe. The Orthodox Church, being convinced that She alone is the Body of
Christ, the pillar and ground of the Truth, the Treasury of Grace, the Workshop
of Salvation, is indeed deeply concerned for the return to Her of those who
have gone astray, yet remains entirely indifferent to their internal affairs so
long as they remain in error.
The
First Ecumenical Council desired to establish a common celebration, but for the
members of the Church, not for those outside Her. It did not deliberate with
the Gnostics, nor with the Marcionites, nor with the Manichaeans, nor with the
Montanists, nor with the Donatists, in order to find a basis of agreement
concerning common celebrations. And when later the Arians, the Nestorians, the
Monophysites, the Iconoclasts, etc., etc., were cut off from the Body of the
Church, the Church never conceived of entering into negotiations with them for
the establishment of a common celebration either of Pascha or of any other
feast.
The
Church regulates Her matters, taking into consideration exclusively and only
the interest of Her members, and not the desires of those outside Her. If the
celebrations of the heretics coincide with those of the Church, let them
coincide. If they do not coincide, let them not coincide. The Church does not
deliberate on equal terms with heretics. She indeed engages in dialogue with
them, but in order to show them the way of return.
That
‘Ecumenical Symposia’ or other types of conferences should be convened between
the Orthodox and the whole multitude of heretics, and that in them
deliberations should take place concerning the determination of common
celebrations, while both sides (Orthodox and heretics) remain within their
respective dogmatic frameworks — this, being unknown and inconceivable in the
history of the Church, bearing the odor of horrible religious syncretism and
tending toward the establishment of a harmonious and undisturbed coexistence of
truth and error, light and darkness, can be interpreted only as a ‘sign of the
times.’” [36]
***
It therefore
becomes entirely evident that we Orthodox face absolutely no related dilemma:
“A
common celebration of Pascha cannot exist unless the Vatican renounces its
errors and its heresies, and unless the Pope renounces his claims that he is
the vicar of Christ on earth, infallible and therefore a demigod, etc. If the
Vatican and its Papism do not renounce all their heresies, it would be as
though the Orthodox were legitimizing them and accepting heresy within the
bosom of the Church.” [37]
***
H.
Two timely reminders
In conclusion, we
consider it necessary to recall two things, as most timely.
First, the opinion
of Saint John Chrysostom on the matter of ecclesiastical unity through the Paschalion
of the Holy Fathers.
The Holy Fathers
are the genuine expressers of our uninnovated Orthodox self-consciousness, as
Professor Mr. Demetrios Tselengidis writes very characteristically:
“The
great Fathers of the Church expressed infallibly the Apostolic Tradition in
their time, having first lived it in a hesychastic–ascetical manner and
preeminently in a sacramental way. Saint Gregory the Theologian, — Saint Basil
the Great, — Saint Maximos the Confessor, — Saint Symeon the New Theologian, —
and Saint Gregory Palamas, to mention only these indicatively, actualized the
Apostolic and Patristic Tradition, expressing in theological language precisely
that which they experienced uncreatedly and ‘in every perception,’ as did also
the other holy Fathers, as well as the scarcely educated bearers of grace and
the simple God-bearing faithful of their time. The charismatic experience of
God creates the primary theology of the Church, independently of its simple or
refined and learned expression. This theology constitutes a created expression
and interpretation of the living and uncreated revelation of God within the
concrete historical reality of the life of its deified exponents. ‘Men spoke
from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit,’ assures us the foremost among the
eyewitnesses of the divine Majesty.” [38]
There were also
then, in the time of the Holy Chrysostom, those who set aside the Canon /
Definition of the Holy First Ecumenical Council, to whom the Saint said:
“Three
hundred Fathers, or even more, having assembled in the land of Bithynia,
legislated these things; and do you dishonor them all? … And you not only
condemn them, but also the whole inhabited world, which approved their
judgment… Everywhere let us follow the Church with exactness, preferring love
and peace above all things. For even if the Church had erred, the achievement
from the accuracy of times would not have been so great as the crime arising
from this division and schism… For the Church does not concern herself with
chronological exactness; but since from the beginning it seemed good to all the
Fathers, though gathered from different places, to assemble together and
determine this day, honoring agreement everywhere and loving concord, she established
what had been commanded.” [39]
***
Second, a Miracle
of the Theotokos, through her Icon “Surety of Sinners,” which occurred in
September of 1925 and concerns precisely the matter of the change of the
Calendar.
It happened to the
virtuous Russian monk Boris, Nicholas in the Great Schema († 7 May 1969), of
the Holy Monastery of Valaam, who recorded in his autobiography the Revelation
of the Mother of God given for the resolution of his perplexity concerning the observance
of the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar.
“In
September of 1925 there arose a division among the people at Valaam into ‘Old
Calendarists’ and ‘New Calendarists.’
They
began to pressure us to adopt the new calendar. Many of the Brethren remained
faithful to the Old Calendar.
Legal
proceedings began. The ecclesiastical administration arrived. A tribunal was
established under the supervision of Abbot Pavlinos. They began gathering the
Brethren one by one, and many were expelled from the Monastery.
My
turn also came. I entered the room, and there sat Abbot Pavlinos together with
others of the ecclesiastical administration.
The
Abbot said: “Here is a servant of God; question him.” One of them said that he
would speak and that everything should be recorded.
They
asked: “Do you accept Fr. Pavlinos as Abbot? Will you attend the ecclesiastical
Services according to the new calendar?”
I
did not answer this question; it was as though my tongue had been paralyzed.
They waited and said: “Well then, why do you not answer?” I could say nothing.
Then they said: “Very well, go, servant of God, and reflect upon this.”
I
began to pray to the Mother of God, my “Surety,” from my heart: “Tell me and
show me the path of my life: with which side should I go, with the new or the
old calendar? Should I go to the Katholikon or somewhere else?” And I, the
sinner, prayed to the Mother of God during the course of my obedience in the
kitchen.
When
I finished my evening obedience, I went to my cell and thought with the
simplicity of my heart: “Why do you not answer me, Mother of God?” But the
Grace of God did not abandon me, the sinner. God desires the salvation of all.
Suddenly,
the Katholikon appeared before me, exactly as it is: the same height, width,
and length. I was astonished by this wondrous appearance — how had it entered
my small cell? But my inner voice said to me: “All things are possible with
God. Nothing is impossible for Him.”
“Well
then,” I thought, “should one go to the Katholikon according to the new
calendar?”
Then,
while I was thinking about this, a dark curtain descended from above, in the
middle of which there was a golden cross.
The
Katholikon remained behind the veil. I remained on the other side. The Katholikon
became invisible to me, and my inner voice said to me: “Go with the old
calendar and keep it.”
And
I heard a woman’s voice coming from above, from the corner: “If you desire to
be saved, keep faithfully the Traditions of the Holy Apostles and of the Holy
Fathers.”
And
then the same voice was repeated a second time, and the third time the voice
said: “If you desire to be saved, keep faithfully the Tradition of the Holy
Apostles and of the Holy Fathers, and not that of these ‘wise’ men.”
After
this miracle, everything disappeared and I remained alone in my cell. My heart
began to rejoice that the Lord had shown me the path of salvation, through the
prayers of the Mother of God. And from that time until now, I remember this
great miracle for the salvation of man.” [40]
References
1. It varies between the 22nd of March and the 25th of
April, according to the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar.
“At the end of the 3rd century … all the Churches,
both of the East and of the West, celebrated Pascha on a Sunday. This Sunday,
after the Council of Nicaea, was the one following the 14th day of the Moon
after the 21st of March, when, according to the Egyptians, the Equinox occurs.
This dependence of the date of Pascha, in relation to the equinoctial XIV
Lunae, causes it to vary each year, according to a range reaching 35 days, from
the 22nd of March to the 25th of April.”
(Grumel V., “Ecclesiastical Year,” in “T.H.E.” vol. 5,
cols. 957–958).
2. See the Sacred Canons: Apostolic Canon VII and
Canon I of Antioch.
3. According to Orthodox Tradition, for the
determination of Pascha, the following necessary “Determinations” are required,
something which is achieved only through the “Paschal Canon” of the Holy
Fathers, based upon the Julian (“Old”) Calendar:
a) Holy Pascha must be celebrated after the Vernal
Equinox, which was conventionally fixed in antiquity on the 21st of March;
b) it must not coincide on the same day with the
Jewish Legal Passover;
c) it must be celebrated after the first Full Moon
which follows the Vernal Equinox; and
d) it must be celebrated on the first Sunday which
follows the first Full Moon of the Vernal Equinox. See A. D. Delimbasis, Pascha
of the Lord…, pp. 412–447, “The Determinations of the Definition of
Pascha,” Athens 1985.
As regards the first Determination and in relation to
the Vernal Equinox, the following are particularly noteworthy: The Holy “First
Ecumenical Council determined, in divine and human wisdom, the 21st of March as
the day of the vernal equinox. The ‘Holy Spirit through the God-bearing Fathers
taught’ that the vernal equinox be calculated ‘on the twenty-first (21st) of
the month of March according to the Romans,’ that is, according to the Julian
calendar. On this ‘first and twenty-first day of the month of March’ the sun
then ‘arrived’ at ‘the point of the equinox.’
From that time, the year calculated on the basis of
the vernal equinox begins ‘from the twenty-first (21st) of the month of March
according to the Romans.’ The 21st day of March, as an established
chronological point, belongs to the human Julian calendar. The First Ecumenical
Council determined the vernal equinox calendrically, since the Julian calendar
ensured calendrical stability for centuries, and consequently an eternal festal
order in the Church. For this reason, it remained in force for approximately
two millennia.” (p. 418)
4. The Julian Calendar was established by the Roman
emperor Julius (101/100–44 B.C.) in 46 B.C., replacing the Calendar of Numa
(715–673 B.C.), which had been in force from 700 B.C. onward, the king of Rome
after Romulus. The reform of the Calendar of Numa into the Julian Calendar was
carried out by the Greek–Alexandrian mathematician and astronomer Sosigenes
(1st century B.C.).
4. Metropolitan Christopher of Leontopolis wrote in
1925:
“Indeed, the Julian Calendar became so interwoven with
the life of the Orthodox Eastern Church that it is by no means easy for it to
be touched without a strong shaking of this ecclesiastical edifice. The Julian
Calendar, through such use within the Church, was also sanctified, so that for
this reason as well it cannot easily be set aside.”
(Christopher of Leontopolis, Calendrical Matters,
pp. 19–20, Athens 1925).
5a. “Since, in general, worship is both the expression
and the confirmation of faith, it is evident that the observance of the same
worship, insofar as it is founded upon dogmatic bases, is likewise another
characteristic and element of the unity of the faith.”
(Chrestos Androutsos, Dogmatics…, p. 274,
Athens 1907).
6. Stratos Theodosiou – Manos Danezis, The Odyssey
of the Calendars, vol. B, Astronomy and Tradition, pp. 59–60,
“Diavlos” Publications, Athens 1995. “Long before the Gregorian reform [1582],
250 years earlier, the Greeks of Byzantium were the first to point out the
imperfections of the Julian calendar, then in force in the Empire, and they
proposed its replacement by another more perfect one. In 1324, Nikephoros
Gregoras, one of the eminent Greek scholars, wrote that ‘to the three hundred
and sixty-five day-nights we add also an entire fourth part of one day-night,
not rightly so,’ and he proposed to Emperor Andronikos his own correction,
which unfortunately was not accepted because of fear of confusion among the
unlearned and division within the Church.” (Demetrios N. Katses, entry
“Calendar,” in T.H.E., vol. 6, cols. 44–45). But also “in 1371 the monk
Isaakios Argyros wrote concerning a correction of the Paschal Canon, yet his
contemporary Matthew Blastares feared lest such an innovation would not only
fail to correct the deficiencies of the calendar, ‘but would also become the
cause of no small disturbance in the Church.’” (Archimandrite Chrysostomos
Papadopoulos, “The Gregorian Calendar in the East,” journal Ecclesiastikos
Keryx of Athens, no. 145 / 31.3.1918, pp. 127–128, § A).
7. Of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, The Rudder
(Pedalion), p. 9, footnote (Commentary on the Seventh Holy Canon of the
Holy Apostles).
8. Syncretism, to syncretize: The phenomenon and the
tendencies toward reconciliation, mixture, unification, and fusion of
languages, philosophical ideas, cultures, and religions. In this process, “any
differences are overlooked and significant similarities or even coincidences
are emphasized” among the parties which stand in relation or interaction with
one another. (N. Makris, entry “Syncretism,” in Introductory Dictionary of
Political Terms and Philosophy, pp. 372–373, Athens 1990).
9. See The Genuine Orthodox Church in the Face of
the Heresy of Ecumenism, Dogmatic and Canonical Topics, B΄ §§ 9 and 10.
See
https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2014/03/22/20140322aCommonEcclesiology15%20Folder/20140322aCommonEcclesiologyPROTOTYPOTELIKO.pdf
and journal Orthodoxos Paremvasis, vol. 1,
March–May 2014.
(https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/Periodicals/OrthodoxosParemvasis/OrthodoxosParemvasis-01/OrthodoxosParemvasis-01.pdf).
10. Monk Nicodemus (Bilalis) the Hagiorite (†), Ecumenism
and the Change of the Paschalion, in Ecumenism:
Genesis–Expectations–Disappointments, vol. B΄, p. 926, Theodromia
Publications, Thessaloniki 2008.
11. See indicatively: [Protopresbyter] Fr. George D.
Metallinos (†), Roman (Romaic) and Anti-Roman Terminology, in Confusion–Challenge–Awakening
/ Fanaticism or Self-Knowledge?, pp. 73–76, Athens 1991.
12. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem says that the Church is
called “Catholic” “both because it teaches universally and without omission all
the doctrines which ought to come to the knowledge of men, concerning both
visible and invisible things, heavenly and earthly,” and “because it
universally heals and cures every kind of sins committed through soul and body,
and possesses within It every form of virtue that is named, in deeds and words,
and in all spiritual gifts.” (PG vol. 33, cols. 1044AB, Catechesis XVIII
of the Illumined, §23).
13. The communities which have fallen away from the
Catholicity of the Church, in order to be distinguished from the One and Unique
Church, are designated in various ways:
“Some of the heresies are named from a person [the
heresiarch],” “others from a place,” “others from a nation,” “others from
particular doctrines,” “others from suppositions,” and “others from those
things which they unlawfully practiced and dared.” (Clement of Alexandria, PG
vol. 9, cols. 552BC–553A / Stromata, Book Seven, Chapter XVIII).
14. The First Vatican Council, under Pope Pius IX,
defined, among other things, the following: “If anyone shall say that the
blessed Peter was not appointed by Christ the Lord Himself as prince of all the
Apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that he received
from our Lord Jesus Christ only a primacy of honor and not a primacy of true
and proper jurisdiction directly and immediately — let him be anathema.” “And
if anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself
or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the
primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the
successor of the blessed Peter in this primacy — let him be anathema.”
“We teach and define as a dogma divinely revealed”
that “the decisions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the
consent of the Church, irreformable. And if anyone should dare to contradict
this our definition — which God forbid — let him be anathema.” (According to P.
Trembelas, Our Obligations after the Work of the Vatican Council, pp.
30–32, Athens 1967).
15. The provisions of the Second Vatican Council which
refer to the Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope are chiefly those contained
in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church / Lumen Gentium (“The
Light of the Nations”).
See especially: Chapter III, The Hierarchical
Structure of the Church and in particular the College of Bishops, §§ 18,
22, 25 — indicatively: “This doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman
Pontiff and the infallibility of his teaching office the holy Council again
sets forth before all the faithful as an object of firm faith”; “the Roman
Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and Shepherd of the whole
Church, possesses over the Church full, supreme, and universal authority, which
he may always exercise freely”; “the decisions which he pronounces [the Roman
Pontiff] have rightly been called irreformable of themselves and not by reason
of the consent of the Church,” “inasmuch as, with regard to the universal
Church, he is the supreme teacher, in whom there resides [‘even when he does
not speak ex cathedra’] in a unique degree the charism of infallibility, which
is the very infallibility of the Church.”
(See Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen
Gentium) of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, publication of the
“Office of Good Press,” vol. 1, pp. 36–62.
The rendering into simplified Katharevousa has
been preferred from another source.)
16. Archimandrite Spyridon Sp. Bilalis (†), Orthodoxy
and Papism, vol. I, Critique of Papism, p. 147, “Orthodoxos Typos”
Publications, Athens 1969.
17. Archimandrite Justin Popovich (†), Man and the
God-Man, p. 159, “Aster” Publications, Athens 1969.
18. Holy Monastery of Parakletos, Papism Yesterday
and Today, pp. 1–2, Preface, 7th edition, Oropos, Attica, December 2021.
(See: https://imparaklitou.gr/index.php/el/psifiaka-keimena/fylladia/opapismos)
19. Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, Letter
to the Doge of Venice Mr. Nikolaos Da Ponte. See K. N. Sathas, Biographical
Sketch concerning Patriarch Jeremias II, 1572–1594, p. 28, Athens 1870.
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) persecuted the
Protestants as heretics and, according to certain testimonies, “celebrated a
thanksgiving service as soon as he was informed of the massacre of the
Huguenots [French Protestants] on the night of Saint Bartholomew in 1572”; “the
massacre began at dawn on August 24 [in Paris]… More than 3,000 Huguenots were
murdered… The massacre spread” also to other cities. “This atrocious crime
intensified the hatred between the two confessions, provoked the indignation of
the Protestant countries of Europe, rekindled the civil war in France, and
became a symbol of religious intolerance, acquiring proverbial dimensions.”
20. Monk Nikodemos (Bilalis) the Hagiorite (†), op.
cit., p. 933. See also A. D. Delimpasis, Pascha of the Lord…, pp.
571–576, “Synodal Condemnations of the Innovation,” Athens 1985.
21. Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, “The
Gregorian Calendar in the East,” journal Ecclesiastical Herald of
Athens, no. 148/21.4.1918, p. 189, § B.
22. Archimandrite Basil K. Stephanides, Ecclesiastical
History…, p. 699, 6th edition, Papadimitriou Publications, Athens 1998.
23. See Ioannis Karmiris, DSM, vol. B, pp.
920[1000] and 922[1002], concerning the Synod of 1848; p. 942[1028], concerning
the Synod of 1895, 2nd enlarged edition, Graz-Austria 1968.
24. Monk Nikodemos (Bilalis) the Hagiorite (†), op.
cit., p. 928.
“Certainly, the modification of the calendar [of 1582]
did not have a proselytizing purpose, but it was used for such a purpose by the
Pope of Rome, who labored most actively in order to proselytize the Orthodox
East.”
(Archimandrite Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, op. cit., no. 145/31.3.1918,
p. 133, § A).
Concerning the proselytizing activity of Papism in the
East among the Orthodox, chiefly through the Unia and the Jesuits, see: a.
Archimandrite (Sp.) Spyridon (Bilalis), op. cit., vol. B, pp. 265–329;
b. Fr. G. D. Metallinos – D. Gones– Dr. E. Phatsea – Dr. Evg. Moraru, Bishop of
Banat Athanasios (Jevtich), The Unia — Yesterday and Today, Harmos
Publications, Athens 1992, p. 172.
25. “Changed and altered”; “different is their Pascha
[that of the Papists].”
Concerning the meaning of these expressions, strict at
first sight, see Niketas Aliprantis, “Has the Resurrection of Christ Been
Overlooked? — Indications from West and East,” in Pascha the Delightful
(Collective Volume), pp. 39–47, especially pp. 46–47: “Marginalization of
the Resurrection in Western Christianity,” Akritas Publications, 1st ed.,
February 2008.
N. A. writes very aptly:
In the West, “the Resurrection of Christ, as the
decisive event of the liberation of man, is inevitably set aside, since
atonement is centered on participation in the crucifixion and Passion of
Christ. Tangible indications of this marginalization appear in the liturgical
life and especially in the hymnography of the Western churches (in contrast to
that of the Orthodox Churches, which is permeated from beginning to end by
resurrectional glorification)”; in papal “theology there exists a more general
characteristic that prevents it from realizing the meaning of the Resurrection.
And this is due to the fact that it understands the salvation brought by Christ
as the satisfaction of God who had been offended by man’s sin, that is, in an
anthropopathic, static, and juridical manner. With this starting point, it is
unable to understand the Orthodox conception of salvation, which is connected
with the Resurrection of Christ as the overcoming of death, tragedy, and sin”;
whereas “in the West, man’s relationship with the Resurrection of Christ has
been marginalized and the experience of its meaning has also been set aside
within the church, while in the Orthodox East, despite certain derivative
Western influences, the existential significance of the Resurrection largely
remains authentic and living.”
We consider the concluding statement of this text to
be very important and also very timely: “…I consider it self-evident that these
differences must be placed on the table in dialogues with the heterodox,
because they do not constitute simple theories, but shape the content of faith
and the lived experience of the faithful.”
26. Monk Nikodemos (Bilalis) the Hagiorite (†), ibid.,
pp. 929–931.
27. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, “The Church of
Constantinople Continues Its Schismatic Actions,” § 6.
(See: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post_162.html)
28. Monk Nikodemos (Bilalis) the Hagiorite (†), ibid.,
pp. 934–935.
29. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, ibid., § 5.
30. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus — Office on Heresies
and Religions, “Announcement of a Common Celebration of Pascha with the
Heretics in 2025,” 9.5.2022.
(See: https://imp.gr/προαναγγελια-κοινου-εορτασμου-του-πα)
31. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus — Office on Heresies
and Religions, “The Dark Machinations of Ecumenism Are Revealed,”
8.5.2023.
(See:
https://orthodoxostypos.gr/οἱ-σκοτεινές-μεθοδεύσεις-τοῦ-οἰκουμ)
32. Le Figaro, 22.4.2023.
33. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus — Office on Heresies
and Religions, ibid.
See also Georgios N. Papathanassopoulos, “The
Intentions of the Phanar and the Vatican on Two Serious Issues,” 27.4.2023.
34. Dimitrios K. Anagnostou, Theologian: “The
Patriarchate of Constantinople Is Preparing a New Worldwide Scandal Against
Ecclesiastical Unity and Orthodox Tradition,” 31.3.2024.
(See: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2024/04/blog-post_4.html)
35. Ibid.
See the Press Release of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
(1.4.2024).
(See: https://ec-patr.org/οικουμενικός-πατριάρχης-αποτελεί-σκ/)
See Vasiliki Chrysostomidou, “Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew: Reintroduces the Need for a Common Pascha of Orthodox – Catholics”
(01.04.2024).
(See: https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/1482960/oikoumenikospatriarhis-vartholomaios-epanaferei-tin-anagi-gia-koino-pashaorthodoxon-katholikon/).
“Decided definitively and irrevocably.” Indeed, the
determination of the Feast of Pascha, on the basis of March 21 as the day of
the Vernal Equinox, by the Holy First Ecumenical Council possessed an eternal
character.
“Writing on its behalf [that is, of the Council], the
Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great states that ‘for the present it has
been decided that the most holy feast of Pascha be celebrated on one and the
same day (that it be celebrated).’ That is, from now on — namely, from the
First Ecumenical Council — ‘also unto the ages to come,’ that is, forever.” (A.
D. Delimbasis, Pascha of the Lord…, p. 691, Athens 1985. See also
Constantine the Great, BEPES, vol. 24, pp. 152–153.)
36. Journal Enoria, no. 549/10.5.1974. See
also: “Let it be noted that the First Ecumenical Council, when regulating
matters concerning the common celebration of Pascha, addressed the ancient
local Churches of the undivided Church, the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church.’ No Ecumenical Council would ever have concerned itself with the common
celebration of Pascha by the Orthodox together with the heretical and
schismatic communities of Papism and Protestantism.” (Archimandrite Spyridon
Sp. Bilalis (†), Orthodoxy and Papism, vol. II, The Union of the
Churches, p. 579, editions “Orthodoxos Typos,” Athens 1969.)
37. Protopresbyter Angelos Angelakopoulos, “Toward
a Common Celebration of Pascha by the Orthodox and the Heretical Papists?”,
in Piraeus, 15.4.2013.
(See: https://www.impantokratoros.gr/2DCD94B2.el.aspx).
See also the very strong and lucid positions of
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus (of the Innovation): “Regarding the
possibility of a joint celebration of Holy Pascha with condemned heretics, by
the Holy Ecumenical Councils, this constitutes a denial of the canonical
framework of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and consequently of
the All-Holy Spirit dwelling within Her, according to the prescriptions of the
aforementioned Seventh Canon of the Holy Apostles, which, under penalty of
deposition, forbids joint celebration with the Jews and, by extension, with
condemned heretics, with whom even joint prayer brings excommunication and
separation from the Church, according to the provisions of the Forty-Fifth Holy
Apostolic Canon:
‘A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who has only prayed
together with heretics, let him be excommunicated; but if he has permitted them
to perform anything as clergy, let him be deposed’;
and of the Forty-Sixth:
‘We command that a bishop or presbyter who has
accepted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be deposed. For what agreement
has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?’—
these having been definitively ratified by the Second
Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
It is superfluous to mention that the so-called
Anti-Chalcedonians were condemned as heretics by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Catholics by the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical
Councils, and the conglomeration of Protestants by the Third and Seventh
Ecumenical Councils...
…Accordingly, the Paschal Canon can never be changed,
because this would constitute blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Who guided the
God-bearing Fathers to the eternal regulation in question, and against the
divine inspiration of the Church, which dogmatizes that the All-Holy Spirit
dwells within Her; and joint celebration with condemned heretics—remaining in
heresy and false doctrine, such as the contemporary Anti-Chalcedonians, Roman
Catholics, and Protestants—is canonically impossible, since any such transgression
brings tragic canonical consequences, alters Orthodox self-consciousness, and
adulterates the uninnovated revelation of the Eternal God through the Holy
Apostles, the God-bearing Fathers, and the Holy Nine Ecumenical Councils. For
the greatest duty of all, clergy and laity alike, is the preservation of the
immaculate deposit of the faith, so that to the Lord’s question, ‘Nevertheless,
when the Son of Man comes, will He indeed find faith on the earth?’ (Luke
18:8), we may be able to answer in truth.”
(Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, “On the Paschal
Canon. Can It Be Changed?”, Announcement, 15.4.2024.
See: https://imp.gr/ανακοινωθεν-ιερασ-μητροπολεωσ-πειρα).
But the ever-memorable Fr. Spyridon Bilalis
essentially repeated the same in 1969: “The true union of the Churches is not
achieved through the servile adaptation of the Orthodox Paschalion to the Latin
innovation in this matter, but through the return of the schismatic and
heretical Papal Church into the bosom of the ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church,’ of which only the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church constitutes the
organic and uninterrupted continuation.” (Archimandrite Spyridon Sp. Bilalis (†),
ibid., p. 579).
38. Newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, no. 2,499 /
14.6.2024, p. 2, “Events and Comments.” 2 Peter 1:21.
39. St. John Chrysostom, PG vol. 48, cols. 865;
870–871; 871–872, Homilies Against the Jews — Homily III, “To Those
Fasting at the First Pascha”, §§ 3 and 6.
40. Journal Saint Cyprian, no. 252 /
January–February 1993, pp. 102–103.
Translation from the journal Orthodox Word, no.
5–6 / 160–161 / September–October 1991.
Greek source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2024/07/19/20240719a1924-2024-omiliaB.pdf
