The cornerstone or central argument in any apology for the old style is the reference to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council to celebrate Easter. The reference to this decision is almost always accompanied by an author’s interpretation, which in any case should reinforce in readers the suggestion that the new style grossly violates this rule and even this fact alone is enough to put us outside the Church. To this summary many apologists of the old style allow themselves to add additional arguments and interpretations, namely that the decree was created primarily to prohibit the celebration of Easter with non-believers, and the purpose of the new style was to join us with them. But is that really the case?

Perhaps many who were interested in the question were impressed that all the apologies of the old style refer to the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, but they never quote this decision, but rely on the 7th Apostolic Rule! However, the rules of the Holy Apostles, although they reflect the aspirations of the age and some debates of the First Ecumenical Council, are not rules of the Council, but something completely different! It is too manipulative to put a sign of identity between the two, as many do in bad faith. Rule number 7 of the First Ecumenical Council treats a completely different problem from rule 7 of St. Apostles. It is worth clarifying here that the so-called “Apostolic Rules” are not the work of the apostles themselves, but they are seen as the bearer of the early tradition of the Church and from the first centuries they had great authority, which, of course, helped and the First Ecumenical Council. And if we are to be completely accurate, and in order to avoid further speculation about the canons of this council, it is necessary to say clearly that the First Ecumenical Council did not leave a single canon about the celebration of Easter! That is, every time apologists of the old style refer in their texts to some rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which obviously tries to clothe their accusations of the new style with the authority of this highest forum of the Church, they definitely lie to us. . What was discussed and decided at the council, but without being formulated in a rule or canon, is about the celebration of Easter by all churches in one day, and not, as was the practice until then, different churches to use their own calculations and to celebrate on different days. This is clear from the message that Emperor Constantine the Great sent to the bishops who were not present at the First Ecumenical Council.

The seventh rule of the Holy Apostles states: “A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who celebrates the holy day of the Passover before the vernal equinox with the Jews must be deposed.”

It is obvious that this rule has to do with the debates during the First Ecumenical Council, but to claim that it is a rule of the Ecumenical Council itself is, to put it mildly, incorrect. But the apologists of the old style are not at all ashamed to do so, moreover, referring to this rule, they try to interpret it in a way that is beneficial to their thesis, but far from the truth. Relying on Zonara’s definite misinterpretation: “.. The whole commandment of this rule boils down to the following: Christians should not celebrate the Passover with the Jews, ie. not on the same day with them; as their non-holiday celebration must precede and then celebrate our Easter.

A priest who fails to do so must be overthrown. The same is defined by the Council of Antioch in its first rule, mentioning that the definition of the Passover is the definition of the First Council of Nicaea. ” If we make a brief historical overview, we will be able to see for ourselves the wrong rubbing of Zonara and again the complete unfoundedness of the accusations of canonical violations of the so-called new style.

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself took part in the Jewish celebrations during His earthly life, as evidenced in the Gospel (John 2: 13-25; 5: 1-47). His example after the Ascension was followed by the apostles (Acts 2: 1; 20:16). This example was adopted by the early Church, so the first Christians celebrated Easter on Nisan 14, the same day that the Jews celebrated their Passover. This practice has long existed in the Roman province of Asia, and for this reason Christians were called the Fourteenth. Many of the other churches underwent the first Passover reform, and they began celebrating on the first Sunday after Nisan 14. This reform was not a theological interpretation of the feast, but rather a precision of the historical fact of the Resurrection, since Christ is resurrected on the “first day after the Sabbath” (Matt. 28: 1), that is, on Sunday.

It is interesting to note that the difference became the subject of discussion between St. Polycarp of Smyrna and Bishop Anicet of Rome during St. Polycarp’s visit to Rome in 155. your own understanding of the holiday. However, this difference did not lead to a rift between the two churches (as some of the apostates are hasty today), but on the contrary, taking into account their differences, the two hierarchs celebrate the Holy Eucharist together, confirming their unity in Christ. With this joint celebration of the Holy Liturgy, the two church leaders clearly showed that the question of the date of the celebration of Easter is not dogmatic and cannot be a reason for church division!

Unfortunately, people from the height of the epic did not always stand on the Roman throne. Anyket. During his reign, Bishop Victor of Rome (189-198) threatened to excommunicate the people of Asia Minor if they did not harmonize their Easter practice with Rome. Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus, who headed the bishops of Asia Minor, wrote a letter to Ep. Victor, in which he explained that the Asia Minor tradition follows the apostolic practice and for them the practice of Rome is an innovation, but they do not judge them, nor do they want to abandon it. Ep. However, Victor was adamant and excommunicated the people of Asia Minor from the Eucharistic communion. This harsh reaction of the Roman bishop Victor provoked a protest reaction even among such supporters of the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday after Nisan 14 as St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus sent a message to Ep. Victor, urging him to remain at peace with those celebrating Easter on Nisan 14. In it, among other things, St. Irenaeus of Lyons says that the termination of the Eucharistic communion on ceremonial matters is inadmissible.

Here is the time to emphasize a very important point in church history, namely that in the beginning the Church did not perform its own calculation of the Passover. She closely followed the Jewish calculation, and the only differences were whether to celebrate Nisan 14 or Nisan 14. But in the II-IV century, the Jews reformed their calendar. Because their calendar is lunar, compared to the solar calendar, an error accumulates that needs to be corrected periodically (in the lunar calendar, the days are 29 and 30 days, with 364 days a year, so Jews often had to add one leap year. – instead of 12 it contained 13 months and thus equated their year with that of the solar calendar). As a result of the Jewish reform of the calendar, it so happened that when calculating the holidays according to the new calendar, it happened to the Jews that Easter sometimes began to fall before the beginning of the vernal equinox. In the ancient world, the vernal equinox was considered by many to be the beginning (unofficially) of the new year. As a result of this reform, Christians also had to celebrate once before the vernal equinox, once after it, which forced Christians to compile their own Easter tables for the calculation of Easter so that they could always celebrate after the vernal equinox – thus began the Christian Easter. The creation of such an independent Passover meant that Christians would no longer comply with the Jewish date of Nisan 14, which ceased to properly reflect the day of Passover after the Jewish calendar reform. In Rome and Alexandria they began to create their own Easter tables. We will not dwell in detail on the principle underlying the creation of these Easter calculations, we will only note that there were churches such as Asia Minor, for example, which continued to celebrate according to the established practice of Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar. As a result of the changed church practice, when the Alexandrian and Roman churches established their own Passover, independent of the Jewish one, it sometimes came to the point that the difference in the celebration of Easter between Asia Minor and other churches reached 5 weeks.

It is precisely this difference that the First Ecumenical Council seeks to eliminate, and it is precisely this that is reflected in the 7 Apostolic Rule and Rule 1 of the Antioch Council. To unify the celebration of Passover throughout the Church and to make this celebration based on one’s own calculation of the Passover, which does not depend on the calculations of the Jews. Exactly and clearly, no prohibitions on joint celebration with the Jews, as the old-fashioned defenders try to convince us. And since there is no ban on celebrating Easter with the Jews, it is in vain that we are banned from celebrating with non-Orthodox people, especially since a canon containing the term non-Orthodox people does not exist anywhere. It’s all a matter of manipulation, math and a well-chosen audience. But in order not to be unfounded in our assertion that this rule does not forbid the celebration of Passover with the Jews, but only forbids it to be calculated according to their Passover tables, it is necessary to give a few examples.

the 7 Apostolic Rule in question appeared immediately or shortly after the First Ecumenical Council, but in any case before 341, because it is referred to in Rule 1 of the Council of Antioch. That is, in any case, according to the interpretation of the apologists of the old style, the Church forbade the joint celebration with non-Orthodox and Jews before 341. Yes, but convincing proof that the rule says what we say is the fact that Christian Easter continues to coincide many times with the Jewish and after 341. For example, the Christian Passover coincides with the Jewish Passover only two years after the Council of Antioch in 343. Subsequently, we celebrated the Passover with the Jews in 347, 367, 370, 374 and 394. In the next fifth century, we celebrated with the Jews nine more times, and so on. Christians and Jews last celebrated Easter together in 783, after which date, due to inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and new reforms in the Jewish Passover, joint celebration became impossible. Furthermore, since the rule in question forbids, according to the apologists of the old style, the celebration of Easter together with non-Orthodox, why were they silent when in 2007 Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants celebrated Easter together? According to them, the new style was created for this blasphemous purpose – to get closer to non-believers, while the old, perfect, enlightened style would never allow such a thing? It is good to keep in mind that the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Easter will coincide again in the next 2010, will coincide in 2011 and in 2014 and in 2017, etc. Who is to blame for this? The new style? He cannot be, because pouring out their accusations against the New Style churches, the Old Style apologists somehow forget that the New Style churches remain faithful to this precept of Apostolic Rule 7, to celebrate Easter with the other sister churches. The calculation and celebration of Easter, as well as all movable holidays that depend on Easter in the new-style churches, remain unchanged and are calculated and celebrated in the same way and on the same day as the old-style churches. That is, in both the old and the new style, the Paschal is calculated as it was set in the ancient Church after the First Ecumenical Council. Then? Then there is only the possibility to agree with the only correct interpretation of rule 7 of the Holy Apostles and rule 1 of the Council of Antioch, namely that the words “who celebrates the holy day of Passover before the vernal equinox with the Jews” cannot in no way should they be understood as a prohibition on celebrating with Jews or anyone else, but only as an indication to break the long-standing ancient practice of making the Passover conditional on the Jewish calculation of the Passover.

So, why do you turn away from what is pleasing to the Most High?

ten, a hundred or a thousand years,

– in hell there is no search for the time of life.

(Sirach 41: 6-7)

In the first part of our article, we looked at one of the main arguments of the defenders of the old style, namely that the new style violates the canon of the First Ecumenical Council. However, the truth, as we have seen, is that the First Ecumenical Council did not draw up a canon for the celebration of Easter. As one of the most erudite defenders of the old style, the great Russian scientist Prof. VV Bolotov, is forced to admit, “no definite decisions (concerning Easter) have been issued by the First Ecumenical Council … What they at the council) could do is to reach an oral, unformed, friendly agreement decree that Easter should be celebrated according to the custom established in the Church of Alexandria. Perhaps it impresses readers that our article pays too much attention to the issue of what happened during the First Ecumenical Council. This is because it is the backbone of all apologies that dogmatize the calendar, which leads to numerous conclusions, which, although they have no canonical basis, have gained great popularity.

I am convinced that most of the defenders of the calendar mechanically repeat what they read here and there, but objectivity requires that the facts be always checked and verified. One of these hasty conclusions is that the Julian calendar satisfies all the requirements for Easter and the holidays associated with it, which is why it has become part of the Tradition! This statement is in itself absurd – the calendar cannot be part of the Tradition, it does not and cannot have a sotirological function. The calendar has an official function – it gives an indication of what to remember from the Church and what should be the internal logic of the annual service, but it does not sacred days and dates! By this logic we can declare the use of parchment as part of the Tradition, as it was used in the age of the councils. That is why these hierarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church are completely right, who repeatedly respond to the accusations of the old calendarists that the Church celebrates events, not dates. This is the opinion of all canonical church pastors, whether they belong to a new-style or old-style local Church.

What does the Church actually celebrate – events or dates?

The most eloquent example of the fact that the Church has always celebrated events, not dates, is the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. In the brief historical retrospective made in the first part of the article, we saw that the early Church even until the fourth century celebrated the day of the Resurrection in different ways and on different days. Subsequently, the Church prescribed that this be done independently of the Jewish Passover and necessarily after the vernal equinox. The latter, because after the Jewish reform of the lunar calendar, the Passover for the Jews began to fall sometimes before the vernal equinox. What is important to note in this case is that the Resurrection was never associated with a celebration on a specific calendar day, but depended first on the Jewish Paschal calculations, and then on the calculations of the Alexandrian Church, which has been famous since ancient times. his skilled astronomers. Translated into plain language, the Resurrection of Christ could have fallen and falls both in March and in April, and sometimes even in May! Then we should ask, what does the Church celebrate – the event of the Resurrection of Christ or some specific date?

The situation is similar with all the moving holidays, which change in accordance with Easter the day on which they are celebrated, but, of course, the celebrated event cannot be changed. Here is the place to note that the generally accepted dates for the celebration of the events of the earthly life of Christ, the Mother of God, and most of the saints are very arbitrary. For example, the date of Christmas December 25 – January 7 (old style) is not historical. We do not know exactly when Christ was born, in the first years the Church did not even celebrate this holiday. Subsequently, the celebration took place in a very wide range. For example, churches in Africa believed that Christ was born on March 28, according to Clement of Alexandria (+215) it happened on April 18, in the East it was accepted on January 6, while in the West it was accepted on December 25. Subsequently, all churches adopted the practice of the Western Church to celebrate on December 25. However, this did not happen immediately, but in a rather long historical period. By the way, another argument against the unfounded claims of the old-fashioned apologists that the First Ecumenical Council somehow constituted the Julian calendar as something “sacred” and obligatory for the Ecumenical Church is the fact that the churches of Caesarea and Antioch agree to celebrate Christmas on the 25th. December only after 376, half a century after the First Ecumenical Council. The Church of Jerusalem did this more than a hundred years after the First Ecumenical Council, in the period 430-431. Interestingly, the Armenian Church, which until the end of the V century was an integral part of the Ecumenical Church, retains its ancient practice and continues to celebrate the Nativity of Christ on January 6 in the civil style, reciprocally on January 19 in the old style.

The holidays associated with the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary were formed in the period V-VI century, as a strong impetus for this gives the Fourth Ecumenical Council (431), which confirms the correctness of its veneration. All dates in the calendar on which we celebrate the events of the earthly life of the Blessed Virgin are also conditional. What clearer evidence is that the Church celebrates events that have been arbitrarily (astronomically) fixed on certain dates, following not the historicity of events but the internal logic of church preaching.

The situation with fixed holidays is no different. It is too late to fix them on certain dates. The synaxar cycle was formed in Byzantium only in the period of the IX-XII century, long after the last Ecumenical Council (787). However, even today in the various Local Orthodox Churches, which are one calendar, there is a discrepancy in the dates of celebration. We will not go into too much detail, but for clarity we will allow ourselves to give a few examples.

The Slavic churches celebrate the memory of St. Catherine on November 24, while the other churches follow the Sinai tradition and celebrate on November 25. The reason for the discrepancy in the celebration is no less curious and very indicative that the idea of ​​a metaphysical calendar is foreign to the Church. According to the life of the saint, her memory should be celebrated on November 24, the day of her martyrdom. In the Sinai Monastery “St. Ekaterina ”, however, the feast of the saint was united with the Tradition of the Introduction of the Mother of God (November 25), because according to the Tradition on that day her relics were discovered. This practice was adopted throughout the Church. However, the Russian Empress Catherine the Great did not want the feast of her saint to coincide or rather to be in the shadow of the larger feast of the Presentation of the Mother of God, so she returned it a day earlier. The change affected all Slavic churches, and the rest continue to celebrate the saint on November 25, and the divergence continues to this day, without disturbing anyone.

Often in the arsenal of arguments of the defenders of the old style can be found the statement that “the old calendar has been illuminated by its centuries-old use in the Church”, that is, it has become something sacred from prolonged sacred use! Such an argument also does not stand up to criticism. It is identical to the one once used by the defenders of the “trilingual heresy.” By this logic, we must reject the language reform of St. Patriarch Euthymius only because he undertook to edit liturgical books, “sanctified by several centuries of use.” In Russia, the Nikon reform marked the beginning of the schism of the Old Believers, who to this day continue to hold on to the two fingers (the two fingers) – enclosing the body with the sign of the cross, filled not with three but with two fingers. By the logic of those who use this argument, we should declare the Old Believers a canonical church and the Russian Orthodox Church a schismatic one, just because Christians crossed themselves with two fingers until the 5th-6th centuries. Moreover, the argument for the two fingers is much stronger, because the cross actually sanctifies and blesses, unlike the calendar, and that is how the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council were baptized. But we must repeat once again that the sacrament of the Church has nothing to do with human logic, no matter how true it may sound.

Beloved brothers and sisters in Christ,

I thank God for these days, which He gave us according to His great mercy and which, in addition to affirming the warm ties between us over the years, allowed us to experience the sharing of His Word in this extraordinary place of high spirituality, such as the monastery. St. Ivan Rilski ”. Our very presence here, I am sure, is in itself a blessing for which we are duly thanked and which has exceeded our expectations.

The resurrection of Christ, our hope! The Apostle Paul understood this very well and therefore calls us to share in Christ’s death, to share his sufferings, to know him and the power of his resurrection (cf. Phil. 3:10), presenting ourselves to God as living from the dead (cf. Rom. 6:13).

Resurrection applies to all people. A more careful reading of 2 Cor. 5:15 – “And Christ died for all, that the living should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” – offers us a clear picture of this. This verse, it seems to me, does not mean that the death of Christ has miraculously changed people’s lives and condition, nor that they are passively bound to this death. In other words, if we study the text in more depth, we will notice that it refers not only to the death and resurrection of Christ Himself, but is also an allusion to the death and resurrection of the baptized in Christ. All who believe and are baptized into Christ are also crucified with Christ. From that moment on, they live a new reality in faith in Christ the Savior (Gal. 2:20), because if anyone is in Christ, he is already a new creation. The old things are past; behold, all things are become new (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17 – “the old has passed away; behold, all things are become new”).

Christ gave us His life to make us righteous through God through Him (2 Cor. 5:21), but for our part, humanity must be careful not to receive God’s grace in vain (2 Cor. 6: 1). Those who are Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts (Gal. 5:24).

Thus we enter with the Resurrection into a new, even revolutionary, dimension: the day of Easter is not simply a mere reminder of a historical event; it transcends historical time because it belongs to the Time inherent in Christ, in which everything is present; where past and future intertwine in one moment, which is why the Resurrection manages to change everything in a single moment in which everything was real. In this way, Good Friday and Easter form a whole in the eternity of the divine life of Christ, although historically the Passion of Christ precedes the Resurrection. It is through suffering that God triumphs over suffering; through death He conquers death.

The pain of Christ is not opposed to His glory or His bliss. It is the substance from which He draws His eternal victory. The suffering of Christ, always suffering with man, overcome by His own Resurrection, soothes our suffering and, even if we do not see it, builds an answer to our own death. In this confidence of the mother, who has just lost her only son, of the young woman, who has lost her husband, will we dare to say: “Jesus himself, who died and rose for you, is suffering in the same moment as you, and the cross you bear is the cross of your Lord. And since Jesus Christ wears it at the same time as you, know – this carrying of your cross by both of you already means victory. But the day will come when your eyes will be opened and you will understand! ”?

But is it true, asks the late Olivier Clement, that Christ is risen, or are we just liars who are content with their lies? He adds: if Christ has really risen at least a little in us, we can be sure that no matter how great the difficulties, love and knowledge will invariably come. For one who expects to see a demonstration in order to be obliged to believe, the answer is clear: there is no such evidence. But in the life of the Church, throughout human history to the present day, there are many “signs of the Resurrection.”

The kingdom of God will not come as a fact that can be observed, Christ declared in Luke 17:20. It will come in all its power, in all its light and in its victory – every time we do not selfishly try to keep it for ourselves only within our churches; every time we do not lock it in the tombs of our own psyche, imagination, thoughts and emotions in which we think it is present. The secret place of our society, in so far as it is inhabited by the risen Jesus Christ, knows no bounds; it carries the universe into the vastness and depth of the love of its Lord.

Let us recall the wonderful Easter sermon bequeathed to us by St. John Chrysostom, which Orthodox Christians read at the end of Easter morning. The saint does not distinguish between the workers of the first hour and those of the ninth; Christ invites both to the feast, both those who are prepared and those who are not ready. He does the same to us. We are far away, writes one of our Orthodox clergy of the last century, or at least most of us, from drinking the cup of Suffering. We have not helped Christ carry His cross. We did not die with Him, but we fell asleep during His agony; we have forsaken Him; we have rejected Him through our many sins. And yet, though poorly prepared, though so unclean, Christ has invited us to share in the joy of Easter. Christ is no longer separated from anything or anyone. Victory over death is victory over division. Life in Christ becomes our life. Baptism introduces us to the dynamics of the Resurrection. The Eucharist becomes for us, says St. Cyril of Alexandria, the “body of Life.”

That is why the Apostle Paul calls us to become like Christ in death, to suffer His sufferings, to know Himself and the power of His resurrection (cf. Philippians 3:10), to offer ourselves to the Lord as living, who are returned from the dead. The resurrection is in us, from this moment. Our greatest sufferings, even our agony, if met with the most humble devotion, with the most humble childlike trust, will be identified with the sufferings and agonies of Christ and will lead us to a life much stronger than death. “It seemed to us that we were dying and now death no longer exists. We mourned our dead and here they are not dead, but in Christ they are very close to us. The resurrection made possible the joy of the martyrs by allowing them to pray for their executioners. The resurrection allows us to shelter and love unselfishly: I no longer need to turn the other goat into the remission of my fear, because death has been defeated and my fear has become faith. Holiness is nothing but a reflection of this amazing life-giving power. In the ancient Church they told of a saint resurrected from hell ”(Bishop Meletius, Metropolitan of France, Easter Message of April 26, 1981).

In our eyes, the Resurrection of Christ is not only a strong assurance of the immortality of souls, of people: it envelops the whole earth, all beings, all things, all moments, all images, all bodies, from the smallest grass to space. Everything will find its place in the glorious Body of the Risen One.

Reaching the essence of my subject and in order to shed more light on it, it seems to me right to undertake a pilgrimage through the Holy and Great Passion Week, as taught by the Orthodox Church to the faithful.

In the mornings of the first three days there is talk of the Bridegroom, who arrives in the middle of the night; blessed is the servant that is found awake; unhappy is he who will be found asleep. What is unique about Christ is that He did not come only to exceptional people, but for sinners. Jesus, who loved His people in the world, will love them to the end (cf. John 13: 1). Not only has God loved people, no matter who they are, until the last moment of His earthly existence, but He has loved them to the utmost. Those who have sinned in this world, who are covered with shame, who are torn by doubt, all desperate and hopeless … How generations of Christians could have become so meaningless as to turn the Church into a kind of sect of the righteous, one wonders. a monk of the Eastern Church in one of his works.

Here is the Bridegroom; He comes in the middle of the night. God is not far from me. He is where I am. He reveals to me that I am better than my sin. Only the true God can understand man. Only the true God can put such a peak of His love in His Suffering, accepting our sin and our condemnation on the cross. Jesus belongs to the same human nature as us. He has experienced each of our own personal stories. He ate the same bread as us. On the cross he was exposed to the same death as ours. He is one of ours. That is why He not only removed sin, but took it upon His shoulders. Carry it and carry it.

The groom came in the middle of the night. Here we are in front of the harsh reality of our lives, in which no change is possible: true freedom is associated with conversion. Christ comes to ask us about our deepest and most secret wounds; he comes to put his finger in the wounds of our soul. He comes not only to bring to light our sin, but to speak to us of repentance and forgiveness. Nothing can stop Him – no prostitutes, nobles, no criminals. He calls on all of them. He draws closer to everyone where he is most lonely, in the depths of his sin. And if someone is found to protest, He answers him with a question: Why is your eye bad, because I am good?

We do not need to look far. God is not here or there. He is in us. God is our daily existence. He accompanies us to our home, as in all our works. Shares our problems, brings our difficulties. He lives with us all our days and sleeps with us all our nights. He listens to both our conversations and our silence. He inhabits our loneliness. He is the One who deals with our secret. There are no secrets with Him. The Bridegroom Jesus is the shortest way to reach the farthest corner of the human heart.

The first three days of Holy Week culminate in a troparion called Cassian, named after the nun who composed it, which is sung at the celebration of Holy Wednesday morning. This is the piercing cry of a woman who has fallen into many sins.

Obsessed with the love of sin, offering rivers of tears, this great sinner decides, in spite of her despair, to turn to the Lord’s unceasing presence and mercy. In the very commission of her transgressions, and not having the courage to stop committing them, she knows that she is able to at least shout; to raise a cry of discontent, of fear, even of terror. She complains that night is coming and takes her into the bosom of pleasures, and begins to kiss the Lord’s feet – those feet that Eve hears in Paradise approaching and from which she is hiding. Lord, who will investigate my many sins? Who will reveal the depths of your justice, God the Redeemer and Savior of our souls?

The fulcrum here is the word of grace without a word of condemnation. Man’s past and present, no matter how guilty he may be, are covered by grace, because every human destiny is connected with the Providence of God’s grace.

Here is the greatness of what happened on Golgotha ​​between the sinner and his God. Man sins and Christ dies. Man sins, and the Godman is rejected and cursed. Golgotha: not just a need for justice, but also a requirement for love, and perfect love. At the foot of the Cross we find the plyroma (fullness) of death and hopelessness of the whole world from the beginning to the end of history, which fullness falls on the crucified Christ. He endures every sin, every death, every suffering that awaits everyone who comes into the white world. The cross is a judgment of justice, a condemnation of condemnation, says St. Maximus the Confessor (PG 90, 408D). In the Syrian liturgy, says Olivier Clement, we hear the words of St. Peter, who stops one of the two robbers from entering Paradise: “Indeed, you have done much, the doors will remain closed.” The other, pointing to the cross he carries on his shoulder, displaces St. Peter with the words: “Here is the key. He will let me in. ” (cf. Olivier Clement, “Christ est ressusite”, – DDB, 2000, p. 43). Christ personally opened Paradise for him, because He Himself is Paradise, i.e. The presence of God. By transforming the cross, He planted the new Tree of Life in the heart of the bleeding earth (Olivier Clement, ibid., P. 42). There is much more we can reverence for this mystery.

But instead of stubbornly discussing the topic, instead of looking for its explanation in many words, which will be just sad chatter, let us be content in humility with the words of St. Augustine: “Give me someone who loves and he will feel what I mean. ”.

The service of reading the 12 Gospels on Good Friday morning examines the eternal relevance of the Savior’s Passion. The Saints have always felt that the sufferings of Christ are not an ordinary event in the historical past. They directly concern our time.

It has already been said that the suffering as well as the resurrection of God are a mystery to us, which is why we cannot speak of them in any other way than by analogy and likeness. Indeed, on the cross Christ is us, me and you, “transformed in His image.” Not only to soothe our suffering, but to bear it on Himself, which in turn will bear the fruit of life, the fruit of love.

To today’s man, who is trying to overcome death through biological immortality, this may seem insane. But what kind of life is this? The wisdom of the Cross is the source of divine life in us, in every moment – but only if we are able to contemplate the One who has penetrated us; if we can cling to Him and persevere as long as He fights for us.

“Were you there when my Lord was crucified?” Is sung in a Negro spiritual. There, on Golgotha, where Jesus embraced our suffering, at the center of our sins? There, on Golgotha, where today Christ is being tortured and crucified again – everywhere in the world and at any time? What is this need for Incarnation and divine death? In Christ man restores obedience and love, because the death of Christ is the supreme proof of His love for the will of the Father, for the obedience of the Son to the Father; through Christ, man overcomes sin and evil. It is essential that death is not only destroyed by God, but defeated in human nature itself, through man and in man. “For as death came through man, so also the resurrection from the dead came through man; As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive ”(1 Cor. 15: 21-22).

In the tomb, darkness descends over the Crucified One. For a moment, the forces of evil seem to triumph. But at the same moment, the true meaning of His death is revealed. “He who dies on the cross, Christ, has life in Himself; He has life not as an external gift – something that can be taken away from Him – but it is in nature, in His substance. He is the life and the source of all life. As a man He could really die; but in Him God Himself enters the realm of death. The man who dies is God or, more precisely, God-man. Only with this union, without contradiction, without change, without separation or separation from God and from man in Christ, is it possible for man’s death to be accepted by God and to be conquered and destroyed from within ”(Le mystere pascal), Spiritualite Orientale, No. 16, edition Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1975, pp. 47-48).

The ultimate goal of the Incarnation is the destruction of death. The encounter with death is the hour of Christ; the hour for which He came (cf. John 12:27). In the grave He does not wait passively. The Holy Fathers see at this moment a kind of duel between Christ and death, between Christ and Satan, because this death was the last triumph of Satan – and his ultimate defeat. This is the meaning of Christ’s descent into hell; His death became His victory.

His grave became a dwelling place: in death how did our Life descend? To destroy forever the realm of death and to save the dead from hell by raising them (Good Friday Mass, Song 1). The tomb, this place of rest, which is nothing but our own abyss, in which death arises and which represents our sin. There he asked Christ to be laid to rest, buried with us, to bring us the fruit of His resurrection.

“Let the creation be a joy! Let the inhabitants of the earth rejoice, because the hostile hell has been destroyed! ” (cf. Canon of Holy Saturday).

Thus the tomb, once opened, is filled with the Spirit of the Resurrection. As Hans Urs von Balthazar writes: “Hell itself has become a Church.” The Church, in fact, because in the Church the humanity of Christ, which is one humanity crucified and resurrected at the same time and which is also ours, becomes for us a source of Life. Therefore, the hymnographer tells us, hell is filled with bitterness: Because You were placed in a new tomb, Savior of the universe, hell was frightened, the gates were broken; then the tombs were opened and the dead were raised, the grateful Adam cried out with joy: “Glory to Your descent, Lord, Friend of the people, glory to You!” (Apostich from Good Friday evening). The death of Christ is a saving death, because it destroys the source of death – evil; because it shows the ultimate and complete defeat of evil.

“Of course, death always reigns, reminding us of its presence: division, sorrow, separation from our loved ones, often cruel historical tragedies, hatred of oneself, of others. But always these states, if overcome by faith in the Risen One, can become paths to the Resurrection “(Olivier Clement, Ibid., pp., 48-49), because Christ descended to the depths of hell to share fully the state of death – not only those who have experienced it before. and after Him, but also for each of us who are in this moment between life and death. “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). His presence opens a place for light.

“Yesterday, with You, O Christ, I was buried, with You I awaken today, taking part in Your Resurrection after the sufferings of Your Crucifixion…” (cf. Easter Matins, song 3). , God forgives us, all and everything comes alive forever with the resurrection of Christ and the final victory over spiritual death, which is “the torn veil of love.” In the light of Easter, Christ is there – every time a human being is broken by pain and cut down. Behold, saith the LORD, I will open your graves, and bring you out, my people, out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, bring forth, my people (Ezek. 37: 12-13) The resurrection begins today and now, the Risen One stopped to each man and each woman individually, to all men and all women together and transformed them into His light.

“Come, take light from the Light without blemish, and glorify Christ the Risen One among the dead” (beginning of Easter Matins). The light shines in the darkness and this time the darkness is absorbed by it. Suddenly the earth is sown with new fire, the fire of the Holy Spirit. Christ is risen from the dead; Christ raises the dead. Christ the Risen One comes to inhabit the most secret place in our hearts, so that the latter may bear the whole universe in the depths of God’s infinite love, because there really is no greater love in human life than the proclaimed Resurrection of Christ.

Is the resurrection of Christ our hope? Undoubtedly, because the Resurrection for us Christians is not the only sympathy and consolation for later, but our vocation today.

Author: Stefan, Metropolitan of Tallinn and all of Estonia

Authorized translation from French: Petar Gramatikov

Note: Report presented at the 33rd session of the Encuentros Interconfesionales e Internacionales de Religiosos/as (E.I.I.R.), Rila Holy Monastery (Bulgaria), July 16, 2010 [published with the consent of the author].