The Orthodox Paschalion and the Modern Pilates

Archimandrite Makarios Palaiologos

This year marks the completion of 1,700 years since the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council (325-2025) in Nicaea of Bithynia, a Council that constitutes an event of utmost significance for the Church and for the Orthodox Faith and Theology. Apart from the Divinity of Christ (Christological dogma), with which the Council was occupied and issued the Nicene Creed, it also dealt with the controversy concerning the celebration of Pascha in the Church. On the occasion, therefore, of this event—the completion of 1,700 years—conferences are being held in various cities of Greece and abroad, which refer to the importance and significance of the First Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, the “Patriarch” Bartholomew chose this moment in time to express his desire for a common celebration of Pascha between the Orthodox and the heretical Papists, Protestants, and Anglicans, but not on the basis of the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, rather on the basis of the Gregorian Calendar.

<…>

In his official statements and positions, the “Patriarch” Bartholomew states that he desires a common celebration of Pascha with the Franks and that he will establish it, to the detriment and corruption of truth. With empty and false words, he speaks of unity in the celebration of Pascha between the Orthodox and the heretical Papists, abolishing the Tradition of the Church, since they do not wish to be handed down something that leads to the true mystery of the Economy of Christ and His Resurrection.

And despite the fact that the Holy Fathers of the Church constitute the living voice and testimony of the Faith and experience of the Church, and as such the Ecumenical Councils were based on the Patristic teaching, which they received, formulated with the greatest possible precision and care, and established as the official teaching of the Church of Christ, today post-patristic, anti-patristic, and pseudo-theologians wish to alter and falsify the faith in the Resurrection of Christ and to insult the Holy Fathers, being driven by passions, ambitions, and interests.

Just as in the times of the Holy Fathers, so also today the Church faces many problems. Among the greatest of these problems was the appearance of self-ordained “saints” and “theologians,” who infiltrated the ranks of theologians and the faithful for various reasons—either out of ignorance of the seriousness and importance of theology, or because theological discussions were then very intense, of great interest to many people, and thus offered opportunities for prominence and leadership. This occurred either because they wanted to theologically justify their passions and ambitions; but the worst of all, which is also observed today, is that—like Trojan horses in secret, or like wild beasts, according to the image of Saint Gregory the Theologian—they infiltrate, dwell among, and hide themselves within the company of theologians or of those who sincerely wish to theologize, and with malice and wickedness they await the chance to seize the teachings and the sound dogmas and to tear them apart. [1] They are the innovators then and now, the “progressives,” the novel and the vacuous ones, those who delight in innovating, in allegedly opening new paths—the new type of “theologians,” whose interests bear very little relation to the Orthodox theological and spiritual tradition, which has been solidified through the ages, distilled through struggles and conflicts, and established by the wise choices of wise, holy, and great figures.

Concerning these modernist theologians of all eras, Saint Basil the Great says the following: “The doctrines of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set at nought; the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; now men are rather contrivers of cunning systems than theologians; the wisdom of this world wins the highest prizes and has rejected the glory of the Cross.” [2]

We must be very careful when we wish to use the term “originality” to characterize theological works. Originality in the theological field is not the unrestrained and boundless intellectual wandering of the mind into the doubtful, unstable, and passion-clouded regions of the human mind and heart, but the voluntary renunciation of the impoverished world of reason and the joining of the mind to the rich, manifold, and inexhaustible in originality world of divine light, of the divine Spirit, where the mind, unhindered and safely, communes, participates, and comes to know the divine. [3] After all, the purpose of Theology, says Saint Maximus the Confessor, is communion with God and theosis. [4]

One, therefore, of the prerequisites for theologizing is to follow the Holy Fathers, since only “those who have advanced in theoria and have purified both soul and body” [5] have the privilege of divine experience and communion and see God. We too may theologize, but at other, lower stages—primarily by following the true theologians, those who, from the time of the Lord, declare what they have seen and heard: “what we have seen, what we have heard, and what our hands have touched.” [6] Orthodox Theology is not based on speculations and human inventions and contrivances, but as Saint Gregory Palamas writes: “We have been enriched in the confession of the faith not by following speculations, but by divinely inspired words.” [7] To follow the Fathers is a sign of wisdom, says Saint Gennadios Scholarios: “But for those who have understanding, it would be fitting to observe the definitions of the Fathers,” and “We are convinced that there is nothing holier, nothing wiser than the Patristic tradition, and by adhering to it, we hope to run the course of the faith under trustworthy guides.” [8] The Orthodox Church possesses an inexhaustible treasure, and as the Patrologist Professor Fr. Theodoros Zisis says, “a basic condition for theologizing correctly is to know the existence of this treasure at least in its general outlines, so that on the basis of this treasure we may judge new problems and new needs. It very often happens that problems and situations which have been successfully addressed by the Church and by Theology are once again addressed from the beginning in an infantile manner, without, we might say, the biological memory of the Church and Theology functioning. If we wished to give a concise definition of Orthodox Theology, we would say that theology is the spiritual memory of the Church—that which has remained and continues to remain within the life and thought and worship of the Church throughout the struggle and effort toward theosis, through many other choices, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; it is the trace of the presence of the Holy Spirit in all areas, after the removal of the many other foreign spirits and philosophies and speculations and human reasonings and reminiscences. It is the straight line that connects the first theologian, the incarnate Lord, with all subsequent theologians and teachers in wondrous unity.” [9]

Yet in our present age, in the year 2025 A.D. (101 years after) the change of the Orthodox Calendar by pseudo-shepherds such as Meletios Metaxakis and Chrysostomos Papadopoulos in Constantinople and in Greece respectively, a new reformer, the “Patriarch” Bartholomew Archontonis, reopens the discussion concerning the adoption of a common celebration of Pascha with the heterodox West. What is the need for this proposal, if not rapprochement and ultimately union with the Latins? They know very well that only if they “abolish” the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council regarding Pascha, will the path be opened for other reforms as well—for in this way, they will offend the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Fathers. Of course, even though Bartholomew Archontonis holds a degree in Canon Law, he did not hesitate to compose a Doctoral Dissertation on the Codification of the Holy Canons—that is, on the revision of the Canons of the Church. An “Orthodox” Patriarch, officially, that is, post-patristic, anti-patristic, and a pseudo-theologian. [10]

The Gospel of the Apostle John, as well as those of the others, preserve for us that the Lord celebrated the Mystical Supper on the eve of the Jewish Pascha, and on the Friday of the 14th of the month Nisan, He was sacrificed upon the Cross for our salvation. That is, He was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday. He did not rise on Saturday, which was the Jewish Pascha, but one day later, on Sunday. And this was because He wished to contrast the Jewish Pascha with His Resurrection, which was the event of the true and eternal salvation of mankind. This event was experienced by the eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses of the Resurrection, the Holy Apostles, who recorded it in Holy Scripture, and also defined it with their 7th holy canon: that the feast of the Resurrection is to be celebrated after the Jewish Pascha and the vernal equinox.

This most radiant and significant feast of our Faith was established by the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, after examining the matter and resolving the controversy concerning Pascha that had arisen, and they decreed that it be celebrated only on a Sunday and after the Jewish Pascha. [11] The answer to the question of why the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council established it in this way is:

1. Because this is how the mystery of the Economy of Christ unfolded, and this is what He handed down to the disciples, since in this manner true salvation came forth (a fundamental difference from the Jewish Pascha!).

2. Because he who celebrates the Resurrection together with the Jewish Pascha alters the meaning of the Resurrection and becomes the cause of great harm and distortion, according to the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council. The meaning of the two feasts is not the same, and the reintroduction of this discussion causes harm to the body of the Church.

3. As Saint Constantine the Great writes in his Encyclical Letter to the bishops absent from the First Ecumenical Council, we have nothing in common with the Jews, since they stained their hands with the immaculate blood of the Lord and did not remain faithful to the God-man Christ.

4. This truth of the Resurrection was celebrated in this manner by the One, Holy, Catholic Church from the very first day of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and thus it must remain through the ages.

5. All Christians must celebrate the saving Resurrection of Christ on the same day, since from it we have our hope, and the faithful therefore must have common worship and honor for the saving events, and their lives must be given meaning by this Feast, for this is the will of God.

This is also the reason for which the divine and sacred Canon of the First Ecumenical Council emphasizes that those who transgress the canon become causes of corruption and distortion. [12] That is, they corrupt the meaning of the Resurrection of Christ and pervert it.

But also Saint Constantine, in his Encyclical Letter, writes that it is “outrageous and improper” [13] to celebrate together with the Jews, and that this piety of the Resurrection of Christ should not be expressed without a common worship—while some are fasting on that Saving Feast and others are breaking the fast. Therefore, the “Patriarch” Bartholomew and all those who desire the alteration of the Resurrection are corrupting theologians!

We conclude, therefore, that the holy canons are closely related to the dogmatic teaching of the Church. They are the practical application of its dogmas. It could not be otherwise, as noted by Dionysios “of Servia and Kozani,” since “in the Church there are not separate theoretical and practical issues, as we have learned to say in the modern and contemporary era. The matters of the Church are matters of life, in which theory is not separated from practice. The separation of the matters of the Church into so-called theoretical and practical leads to the fragmentation of the ecclesiastical organism and to antinomy in life… Undoubtedly, one of the greatest sins committed in our time within the Church is that life is separated from dogma, love from faith, the Church from Theology.” [14]

The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, since they are fruits of the Holy Spirit, [15] and were established by God-bearing men, whom God appointed in the Church—just as He appointed the Apostles, just as the Prophets—so also did He appoint these as teachers, and thus the Holy Spirit enlightened them, and they established these sacred canons for us to have as we have the Holy Gospels (since the sacred canons are in agreement with them), as lamps that illumine in comfortless places. [16]

Besides, as is well known, canon means a wooden rod (ruler), which one uses to draw a straight line or to check the straightness of a line. Metaphorically, canon also refers to anything that serves as a standard for the correct execution of an act, as a guide or as its criterion. And so, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils provide what is right, the truth—they offer the standard by which every believer is obliged to conduct himself, or by which he can examine the correctness of his actions. [17]

And while we ought to follow the correct line of the Holy Fathers, in our present time, “Patriarch” Bartholomew Archontonis studies the dogmas of God “with human reasonings,” [18] as Saint John Chrysostom says, and not with theological criteria, and he clearly declares his intention to modify the Paschal Canon, essentially abolishing Christ, who is the Self-Truth, and who delivered to the Apostles and to His Church the saving Feast of the Resurrection, in order to approach the heretics who have nullified the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council concerning Pascha.

But if it is possible to modify the canon, according to the reasoning of the “Patriarch,” then why does the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council forbid its alteration, and indeed with the severest penalties for transgressors? Has Bartholomew, after 2,000 years, come to legislate contrary to what Christ Himself and the Holy Fathers have ordained, and to establish his own Definitions? Can he do this? And if he dares to commit this act, does he not fear the anathemas of all the Holy Fathers? From his actions, however, he does not appear to fear them!

However, the Feast of the Resurrection of Christ is a theological matter of the Early Church, which traces back to the Holy Apostles, has as its foundation solely the Biblical Teaching, and its nature is therefore festal and historical. For this reason, the First Ecumenical Council comes and establishes irrevocably the manner of the Feast, grounding its decisions in Holy Scripture!

Do this Patriarch in question and those with him truly care about the significance of theological criteria when they seek to falsify even this sacred canon? I believe this has been demonstrated by the course of the “Patriarch.” Saints also went and studied in Frankish schools, such as Saint Maximos the Greek, Meletios Pigas, and many others, but they did not sell out their convictions, as the “Patriarch” Bartholomew and those with him have done. Saint Athanasios of Paros condemns those who go to the West and return Latin-minded, [19] but now we have reached the ultimate point—some go to the West and are ready to betray the deposit of the Faith even before they arrive.

Our reference to the Resurrection of Christ constitutes a dogma of our Faith, as Saint John Chrysostom also states, [20] since it pertains to the Truth-speaking Word.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, the events are recorded that took place involving Christ’s crucifiers—the Pharisees and the Scribes—as well as Pilate: “Now on the next day, which is after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was still alive, “After three days I will rise again.” Command, therefore, that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, “He has risen from the dead.” So the last deception will be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.’ So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard.” [21] We could parallel those former deniers of Christ—the Barabbites and Pilate—with today’s corrupters of the truth: the Latins, Bartholomew, and others who labor toward the alteration of the Paschalion.

Pilate takes measures, along with the temple guard, the chief priests, and the Pharisees, to guard and seal the tomb of Christ, with the purpose of preventing the spread of the news of the Resurrection. And today, the religious and political rulers wish to modify the Feast of the Resurrection, to change the time and the theological meaning of the Resurrection of Christ, to draw near to the Papists and to resemble the Jews. And not only that, but just as Christ’s crucifiers did then, so now do the religious and worldly rulers present Christ as a “deceiver” by altering the tradition of our Faith. Instead of obeying the Lawgiver Christ, Bartholomew and those with him abolish Him. Instead of reverently venerating the Resurrection of Christ like the Myrrh-bearing Women and spreading it, they fight against it. Why does this happen? Because they are power-hungry, have sinful aims, and because they want to establish a different “Church”—the church of the Latin-minded. This is the bribery of today’s religious rulers, just like the bribery of the soldiers by the chief priests and Pharisees back then. But Christ is beyond the reach of authority; He is the Sovereign, and His Resurrection cannot be hidden and cannot be altered.

At this Holy First Ecumenical Council took part bishops, “some of whom excelled in wisdom, others distinguished themselves by the steadfastness of their life and their patient endurance, others were honored with old age, others shone with youth and spiritual vigor, and some were recently ordained. Yet these were not their only characteristics. Leontius of Caesarea was considered equal to the angels in faith and life; Jacob of Nisibis was the ascetic who was elected bishop and continued to dwell in the desert, known for his countless miracles, which included even the raising of the dead. The simple and humble shepherd Spyridon, bishop of Trimythous, who conversed with the dead, during the pre-conciliar discussions silenced the philosopher-defender of Arius with the purity of his faith and led him to repentance. The rule of meekness and generous in spirit, Nicholas of Myra in Lycia; Alexander of Alexandria with his deacon and future successor Athanasius, who bore the responsibility of preserving intact the conciliar faith of Nicaea; the great deacon Alexander, later Patriarch of Constantinople, whose prayer was linked with the death of Arius.

“And it was not only they, but also a multitude of confessor bishops who, during the recent persecutions of Licinius, had maintained a courageous stance and bore on their bodies the marks of Christ, as the historian Eusebius of Caesarea characteristically mentions. Some had severed limbs, others various bodily mutilations—such as Paul of Neocaesarea in Euphratesia—on others the burns were visible, on others the paralysis of limbs due to the nature of the tortures they had suffered, while many had had their eyes gouged out. Among them was the wonderworker of the Thebaid, Paphnutius, whose lower limbs had also been amputated.” [22]

They had become so identified with the Faith that they were led to various martyrdoms and tortures, and the moment is deeply moving when Emperor Constantine the Great, passing before the Fathers, would stop before the Martyrs and Confessors—leaders of the Church—and touch with his imperial mantle the mutilations, the burns, the scars, the marks of the witness of the Faith, seeking to receive the power of the grace that poured forth from them. The moment is deeply moving, and the heart is constrained when Emperor Constantine the Great would stop and cast his eyes upon the empty sockets of Paphnutius’s gouged-out eyes, seeking the true vision of the spirit. Equally moving is the moment when the political authority knelt before the Church of the martyrs and confessors—and that very moment becomes a point of reflection and of questions for our own time. [23]

In concluding my present address, Your Beatitude, I would like to mention something about Saint Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Mark of Ephesus, whom we honor during today’s Festal Divine Liturgy—we, the Hierarchs, the presbyters, and the deacons—as our patrons. These three Saints were men who were free from every passion. They had distanced themselves from all worldly things, and thus they did not fear exile, they did not yield to hunger or thirst, they did not shrink before the sword, they were not afraid of imprisonment. They lived for Christ, and for Christ they regarded death as a blessing. For this reason, I consider your proposal—and ultimately the Synod’s approval—of the proclamation of these three Pillars of Orthodoxy as patrons of our Holy Synod to be very wise. These Saints are the greatest guides in the Faith, both in theory and in practice! I pray that through their intercessions we may resemble them as much as possible and receive a small portion of their divine wisdom, so that we may succeed in enduring the difficult and confessional times in which we live.

 

NOTES

1. Discourse 28, Theological 2.2, P.G. 36, 28: “If anyone is a wicked and savage beast, entirely incapable of receiving words of contemplation and theology, let him not lurk in the woods in a criminal and malicious manner, in order to seize upon some dogma or statement, pouncing suddenly to tear apart the sound words with his attacks; but let him rather stand far off and withdraw from the mountain—lest he be stoned and crushed and perish wretchedly in his wickedness. For to those who are beast-like, the true and firm words are as stones.”

2. Epistle 90, P.G. 32, 473.

3. “Following the Divine Fathers, Principles and Criteria of Patristic Theology,” Fr. Theodoros Zisis, p. 42.

4. “Let not what is said trouble you. For I do not say that the abolition of free will is taking place, but rather a placement of that which is according to nature, firm and unchangeable—namely, a voluntary surrender, so that from where our being and movement originates, we may desire to receive it, as the image ascends to the archetype and, like a seal, is well-fitted to the archetype and is no longer able or permitted to be moved elsewhere; or to put it more clearly and more truthfully, is no longer even able to will otherwise, having been seized by divine energy, or rather, having become God through theosis.”—Saint Maximus the Confessor, On Various Questions.

5. Gregory the Theologian, Discourse 27, Theological 1.3, P.G. 36, 13e.

6. 1 John 1:1.

7. Gregory Palamas, Writings, ed. P. Christou, vol. 1.

8. Gennadios Scholarios, Collected Works 2, 15 and 2, 44.

9. “Following the Divine Fathers, Principles and Criteria of Patristic Theology,” Fr. Theodoros Zisis, p. 44.

10. And we shall see further below why he is a pseudo-theologian, as well as a theologian of corruption.

11. Constitution of the Divine and Sacred Canons, G. Ralles and M. Potles, Athens 1853, Canon 1 of the Council of Antioch, which preserves the Definition of the First Ecumenical Council.

12. “All who dare to abolish the Definition of the holy and great council convened in Nicaea in the presence of the piety of the most God-loving Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy feast of the saving Pascha, are to be cut off from communion and cast out of the Church, if they persist contentiously in opposing what has been rightly and properly decreed—and let this be said concerning the laity. But if any of the leaders of the Church—a bishop, presbyter, or deacon—after this Definition should dare, for the distortion of the people and the disturbance of the churches, to act independently and celebrate Pascha with the Jews, this Holy Synod from this moment has already judged him to be alien to the Church, as one who not only heaps sin upon himself, but becomes a cause of corruption and perversion for many. And not only does it depose such persons from the ministry, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Those deposed are to be deprived also of the external honor which the holy canon and the priesthood of God have imparted.”

13. BEPES 24, Eusebius, Life of Emperor Constantine, Book III, pp. 152–153; and also Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.9, P.G. 82, 932–937.

14. Dionysios Psarianos, Metropolitan of Servia and Kozani, Gracious Ode, Athens 1969, pp. 16–17.

15. First canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Also, Saint Athanasius says to the bishops in Africa: “But the word of the Lord given through the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea remains unto the ages,” P.G. 26, 1032B. And he refers only to the First Ecumenical Council, since only that one had been convened.

16. Responses of the Eastern Orthodox to those sent from Britain concerning union and concord with the Eastern Church (1716/25), in Ioannis Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. II, 1968, pp. 808/[888].

17. P. Boumis, The Authority and Validity of the Holy Canons, Athens, 4th ed., 1989.

18. John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on the Second Epistle to Timothy, P.G. 62, 607A.

19. Saint Athanasios of Paros, Antiphonesis, Grigoris Publications, 2018 edition.

20. “And they command that the tomb be secured for three days, as if contending for dogmas, and wishing to show that He was a deceiver even before this, and they extend their wickedness even to the grave.” — John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, P.G. 58, 783.

21. Matthew, Chapter 27, verses 62–66.

22. Marina Kolovopoulou, “The Theologian Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council,” address for publication, pp. 3–4.

23. The same, loc. cit., pp. 9–10.

Translated from the original Greek.