“The More Deeply It Is Buried, the More Brilliantly the Truth Will Rise Again”

An Interview of Bishop Xenophon with the American Serb newspaper Sloboda (Part 1)

Source: Слобода, no. 2273, July 10, 2026, p. 12.

Interview conducted by Dobrana Komnenić and Jelena Tasić.

 

 

In the following lines, we present the first part of the interview given by His Grace Xenophon, Bishop of Raška and Prizren in Exile, to the newspaper of the American Serbs Sloboda. The interview was published on July 10, 2026.

The Editorial Board

 

In June, sixteen years passed since the establishment of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile, which arose from a portion of the monastic community that, following the expulsion of the late Bishop Artemije (Radosavljević) from Kosovo and Metohija, left the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren. Today, the Eparchy in Exile has more than forty catacomb institutions, around 150 monks and nuns, fifteen non-monastic priests, and a large number of faithful. Bishop Xenophon (Tomašević) of Raška and Prizren in Exile speaks to Sloboda about the reasons for the establishment of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile, the life of its catacomb monasteries, and the state of affairs in the Serbian Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy, Serbia, and its southern province. We are publishing the interview in two installments.

* * *

How well informed is the public today about the expulsion of the late Bishop Artemije from the see of the Bishop of Raška and Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija in 2010, and how did the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile come into being?

It was precisely in June of this year that sixteen full years had passed since that tear which Bishop Artemije shed as he bade farewell to the faithful people and monastic community in the refectory of Gračanica Monastery on June 8, 2010, and since his moving homily in which he said that one day we would gather at Gračanica Monastery and bury him in the monastery cemetery, as was fitting and proper. But the providence, will, and permission of God ordained otherwise.

Neither our Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church nor our Elder had any plans as to what would come next after he was assigned exile to northern Serbia, to Šišatovac Monastery. This persecution was unjust, unsupported by any evidence, and carried out contrary to all the canons and the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He was uncanonically retired and relieved of the administration of the eparchy. He was not even permitted to remain and live in one of the monasteries of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, which he had governed.

To those who possessed even a modicum of sound reason and who were not bound to Christ and His Church by any day-to-day political, ecclesio-political, or ecclesio-economic interests, it was clear from the very beginning that this was a religious persecution as well, and not merely a politically motivated one.

The late Bishop held clear, well-argued, and concrete positions, which he put into practice through decisive actions that our Elder carried out with foresight and courage from the very moment he ascended the throne of the Bishop of Raška and Prizren in 1991, and especially after the occupation of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999. His struggle against the outrages committed by the Šiptars against the Serbian people, under the lethargic and approving gaze of the international community and the purported peacekeeping forces sent to Kosovo and Metohija to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which remains internationally valid and legally binding, was widely noted. His religious and national work was closely monitored not only by domestic powerbrokers but also by foreign ones. Thus, in 2010, the then U.S. Ambassador Mary Warlick drew the attention of the then Patriarch Irinej to the “harmful” work of Bishop Artemije. Patriarch Irinej soon carried out this important intelligence and logistical assignment.

What was he reproached for?

In addition to his efforts to preserve Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia and to ensure the survival of the Serbian people, Bishop Artemije and his clergy were waging another great battle: the preservation of the faith and the holy things of the Orthodox Church from the heresy of Ecumenism. I would say with the utmost certainty that the struggle against Ecumenism was the principal factor behind Bishop Artemije’s being so brutally removed from his episcopal throne and, following his removal, a more “cooperative” and “peaceable” bishop being placed upon the throne of the eparchy—one who would not constitute a disruptive factor in establishing the rosy fairy tale of an independent Kosovo, if we are speaking of the national and state-political aspect, and of the Ecumenist heresy, if we are speaking of the spiritual and ecclesiastical aspect.

The Serbian people have largely seen and understood this, for otherwise the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile would not, throughout all these years, have led an ever more active liturgical and spiritual life, preaching in a missionary manner the Gospel of the Church of God and of Saint Sava’s “Serbian Christ.” This is also confirmed by the large number of faithful in each of our approximately forty holy places—catacombs, monasteries, and parish places of worship—which today are found not only in Serbia and Europe.

The truth cannot be hidden and buried. For, as our holy Elder often said, the more deeply it is buried, the more brilliantly it will rise again.

After sixteen years, are the political and ecclesiastical motives behind the persecution of Bishop Artemije clearer, motives also attested by documents from WikiLeaks, even though he was officially punished by the Church for the alleged misuse of eparchial finances, for which he was also tried before a secular court, while after his repose his associates were sentenced to prison terms and fines, which were subsequently upheld?

From the very beginning of those tragicomic proceedings conducted before the Belgrade court, we requested that the trial be open to the public, and many of us monks and faithful attended every hearing. We did not want our Elder and his associates to be tried in secret and behind closed doors in that joint proceeding. None of those who attended as observers could escape the impression that the entire farce had been rigged through collusion between the regime and the ecclesiastical leadership—by “the regime,” I should note, I mean not only the present one, but also the previous one, Tadić’s—with such clumsy and wretched arguments and such enormous procedural failings, concerning which legal experts could speak in greater detail and, I am certain, will speak; experts who, I believe, will one day study and explain that tragic legal mockery. I say “mockery” because that is what the trial looked like: incompetent judges; scandalous police failures in losing the seized registers—the so-called evidence, which could no longer be traced; prosecution witnesses who did not indicate, by a single word or even the most elementary piece of evidence, that any misuse had occurred; and the transparent and obvious collusion between the prosecutors and the judge…

It was moving to watch our eighty-five-year-old Elder, our spiritual father, answer every question put to him calmly and with well-founded arguments. One day, it will be very useful to read and publish those court records, provided that they are not somehow mislaid and disappear, like those notorious registers that could not be traced throughout the entire trial.

With the Bishop’s death, that tragicomic proceeding was brought to an end—to the great relief, I would say, of both the prosecutors and the judges. Of course, sentences had to be imposed upon the remaining defendants, so that at least some semblance of legality might be displayed before the public. Particularly shameful was the sentence imposed upon Jelena Šubarević, who, in her professional capacity as an architect, took part in the restoration of and work on Serbian holy sites within the territory of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren—a wonderful Serbian woman and a zealous Orthodox Christian—who was sentenced, though entirely innocent, to house arrest, which she is still serving. We wish her, trusting in Christ, the dishonored Founder of the spiritual contest, to endure all that injustice and the humiliation and persecution inflicted upon her on earth; and we remind all the unjust persecutors, prosecutors, and judges of the innocent that no one will escape the justice of God and the righteous right hand of Saint Sava.

The case of Bishop Artemije marked the beginning of canonically questionable removals of bishops in the Serbian Orthodox Church. The most recent removal took place at this year’s May Assembly, at which Metropolitan Justin was removed from the Eparchy of Žiča. He is Bishop Artemije’s longest-standing spiritual child. How do you comment on the fact that these indictments concern only financial matters, even though in the case of Bishop Justin, as in that of Bishop Artemije, there are clear elements of political persecution?

You see, stories about money, abuses, and stealing from innocent people are the easiest to promote and justify before our tormented, long-suffering, and impoverished people. It is much more difficult to promote a narrative or an indictment concerning the faith, the canons, the dogmas, and the truths of Orthodoxy, because in these stories about the misuse of money you can always find something and present it in whatever way suits you, especially in this insane age of an enormous quantity of all manner of information and disinformation.

Thus, on one occasion, an unfortunate metropolitan, a fellow hierarch and persecutor of Bishop Artemije, declared amid sobs that “Artemije is building villas throughout Serbia with money he took from the slaughtered people of Kosovo and Metohija.” Some unworthy ecclesiastical powerbrokers who, regrettably, for several decades have governed the Serbian Orthodox Church not pastorally in the name of Christ, but in the name of those from whom they received pectoral crosses, episcopal rings, and other comforts and privileges of life—some of those ecclesiastical powerbrokers of ours—have “gone before God to answer for the truth.” Bishop Irinej (Bulović) of Bačka still remains, known for his “charism” that no one who has ever crossed him will go unpunished.

I would by no means equate the persecution and removal of Bishop Justin of Žiča, certainly uncanonical and, in all likelihood, based on false accusations, with the relentless persecution of Bishop Artemije. Unlike the perpetual “swimmer against the current” that Bishop Artemije was—a defender of the Kosovo Covenant and of the truth of the Orthodox Church—Bishop Justin, apart from his venture of receiving and supporting Serbian students and farmers during the protests, did not enrich his life’s record with any particular ascetic struggles in opposing Serbian ecclesiastical innovators and Ecumenists. On the contrary, he very much swam downstream together with the others at the heretical robber council of Crete in 2016 as a member of the Serbian delegation: he demonstrated his agreement and cooperation, participated in prayer services with the heterodox, and abandoned his spiritual father Artemije to be carried away by the turbulent sea into which they had thrown him from the synodal deck in 2010.

Of course, the Bishop of Bačka could not forgive Justin for being the first monastic tonsure of Crna Reka, for having sprung from the nursery of Serbian monasticism established by Bishop Artemije, the restorer of that monasticism, for which Elder Justin of Ćelije blessed and commended him shortly before his death. This, it appears, was decisive in the persecution of Bishop Justin, for the powerbroker of Bačka will exert every effort to eradicate any mention whatsoever of Bishop Artemije from the Serbian Church. If this is so—and I believe that it is—then let the other spiritual children of Bishop Artemije, who beat their breasts declaring that they would “not obey Artemije, but the Church,” prepare themselves as well. Are they now next on the agenda?

Despite the depositions and excommunications pronounced against Bishop Artemije and the monastic community that followed him out of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in 2010, how are we to understand your words that the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile is “the purest and healthiest part of the Serbian Orthodox Church”? Are there examples in the history of Orthodoxy of one man or a smaller religious group, such as yours, succeeding in preserving and strengthening the faith?

Persecutions, anathemas, and depositions inflicted upon the right-believing by heretics never have any effect or grace-bearing efficacy before God and the Church of God, regardless of how much power those heretics possess within the Church and regardless of the support they receive from state authorities and foreign powerbrokers. This is what the history of the Church teaches us, for it is replete with such examples.

Let us mention only a few Saints and God-pleasers who found themselves in similarly difficult circumstances at various times and in various places: Saint John Chrysostom, one of the most beloved Fathers of the Church, was twice exiled and unjustly deposed, although he was Bishop of Constantinople. Employing various intrigues, they accused him of causing a schism, which he did not acknowledge, and he asked his followers not to recognize his deposition.

Then there was Saint Maximus the Confessor, a Byzantine theologian who upheld the teaching upon which the Orthodox Church rests today: that Christ has a human and a Divine nature. Because of this teaching, the Byzantine emperor and patriarch banished him into exile, where he died. The Sixth Ecumenical Council accepted Maximus’s teaching and proclaimed him a Saint.

Let us also mention Saint Theodore the Studite, who was twice exiled because he opposed the uncanonical decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. He was tortured and exiled for a third time because of Iconoclasm—his struggle against those who were destroying the icons. Today, all Orthodox churches are adorned with icons. And then there was Saint Mark of Ephesus, who fought against the decision to unite with the Latins.

There are many other inspiring examples from sacred Church history, down to the most recent example of the Russian Church Abroad, which brought forth Saints after separating itself from communion with the Sergianist, state-subservient, and Ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate.

Therefore, to answer your question directly: the Orthodox Church has many individuals who preserved our holy Orthodox faith. Our example is neither unique nor isolated, but is simply a following of the holy and sacred examples of the Fathers of the Church, the confessors of the Orthodox faith.

Such faith and such a sacred disposition are, glory be to God, seen and recognized by a multitude of Orthodox people, both in Serbia and throughout the inhabited world, who joyfully place themselves beneath this sacred banner, which was raised so high and held so firmly by our predecessor upon the confessional throne of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, our Father and Elder of blessed and eternal memory, Bishop Artemije. We, his spiritual children, strive to continue confessing that Truth and steadfastly serving God and His Church according to our strength and by the grace of God, by which, in the words of the Apostle Paul, we are what we are. We pray to God and Saint Sava that He may strengthen and bless this path of ours, to the glory of God and the triumph of Orthodoxy and the Saint-Sava tradition.

More than one-third of the monastic community left the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in 2010. What is the structure of the Eparchy in Exile today: how many catacomb monasteries are there in Serbia and outside it, how many monks and priests does it have, and how is the Eparchy in Exile governed, having, in addition to you as Bishop Artemije’s successor, three chorepiscopi?

A large number of monastics left the nursery of monasticism, the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren—that is, the territory of the eparchy as it had existed until then—when Bishop Artemije was persecuted, because they neither consented to nor agreed with the uncanonical decisions concerning his persecution. The Bishop himself, warning against the unscrupulous and unjust members of the Synod, the usurpers of ecclesiastical authority, commented in these words: “You have dropped an atomic bomb on the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren!”

We followed the Bishop without any plan or program whatsoever, with only the awareness that we did not wish to consent to those uncanonical and unecclesiastical decisions concerning our Elder, whom they not only uncanonically deposed but also forbade to be our spiritual father, parent, and guide.

The uncanonical decisions did not cease even after the Elder’s exile to Šišatovac Monastery. There too, after several months, in September 2010, they forbade him to conduct any divine service whatsoever. And why did they forbid him? Only because the people had begun coming in great numbers to the Divine Liturgies at the monastery where our blessed Elder served. Realizing that there would be no end to the uncanonical measures, that he could no longer submit to any uncanonical decisions—to which, as he said, he had until then submitted solely for the sake of peace in the Church—and seeing that he would not be summoned to the autumn session of the Assembly that year, the Bishop returned to the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and celebrated the well-known Divine Liturgy at Duboki Potok Monastery. Thereafter followed events familiar to many: for the first time in Serbian history, through a joint operation of the Šiptar and Serbian police in Kosovo and Metohija, the monks and the Bishop were forcibly expelled from Duboki Potok Monastery and driven from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. In fact, it was from that time, from the Feast of the Holy Archangel Michael in 2010, that the exile began.

The construction of so many catacombs and monasteries is truly a miracle of God. The Eparchy in Exile is a highly functional eparchy, with its own missionary and publishing activities. We have more than forty catacombs, around 150 monks and nuns, fifteen non-monastic priests, and thousands upon thousands of faithful, through whose selfless assistance, sacrifice, effort, and labor we have accomplished what we have accomplished, with the blessing of God and through the prayers of Saint Sava and the other Serbian Saints and Saints of all Orthodoxy.

 

 

Serbian source online:

https://www.eparhija-prizren.org/sto-se-dublje-zakopava-istina-ce-sjajnije-vaskrsnuti-intervju-episkopa-ksenofonta-listu-americkih-srba-sloboda-i-deo/

 

One Non-Commemorator’s Opinion: “Comments on a post about Synodal Walling-off”

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | July 14, 2026

 

 

At the link https://katakomviki-ecclesia.blogspot.com/2026/07/1000_0625701760.html, a short article was published under the title: “They themselves admit that they are falsely walled off. Furthermore, although they invalidate their own beliefs, they nevertheless vindicate the G.O.C.”

[Translation of the original article: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/07/concerning-errors-of-old-calendarists.html]

Regarding the views of Fr. Th. Z[isis] published in the article, we note the following:

A. On the one hand, Fr. Th. Z. says, “we will not make bishops of our own,” but on the other hand, he expresses the hope “that Orthodox Bishops may be found who will wall themselves off” (A GLARING CONTRADICTION). If the latter were to occur—if active bishops were to wall themselves off—then, from the perspective of those who have walled themselves off, this would not constitute the “founding of a new church” (as the G.O.C. are accused of doing), but rather the “healthy portion” of the already existing hierarchy reacting. In practice, however, the administrative outcome would be exactly the same: the creation of a separate, outside-of-communion synod.

B. The case of Artemije (formerly of Raška and Prizren).

Since Fr. Theodore and those with him wanted a bishop to lead the walling off, why did they not recognize Metropolitan Artemije, who had been deposed by the Serbian Patriarchate and who did exactly that? Fr. Theodore and other walled-off theologians maintain that Artemije proceeded with “uncanonical ordinations” (he ordained “chorepiscopi” without the approval of a synod), thereby creating de facto his own parallel hierarchy (a schism) in Serbia. The reality, however, is otherwise. Their refusal to “bow their heads” to Artemije demonstrates the impasse of their theory. Fearing that they might be characterized as schismatics by the official Church, they isolate themselves even from those bishops who took the very step that they themselves proclaim. IN THE END, WHO IS CAUSING THE SCHISM? THOSE WHO HAVE WALLED THEMSELVES OFF, or the [Ecumenist] PSEUDO-BISHOPS?

C. How can a “Church” exist without a Bishop? In Orthodox ecclesiology, the Bishop is the head of the local Church (“wherever the bishop is, there let the multitude also be,” Saint Ignatius the God-bearer). If the priests who have walled themselves off do not have a bishop of their own to ordain new priests, their movement is condemned to die out naturally with the death of the present priests. Consequently, their position—“we are within the Church, but we are not in communion with its bishops”—appears ecclesiologically untenable.

D. The view that a mere protest can move or convert a hierarchy whom those who have walled themselves off accuse of “Ecumenism, Freemasonry, sodomy, etc.” strains the bounds of realism: Historically, no governing Church has retreated or changed course because a small group of priests and laypeople ceased commemoration. On the contrary, the official Church usually proceeds with depositions, marginalizing the protesters. The heresy must be officially diagnosed and condemned by a Synod.

If, from the perspective of those who have walled themselves off, the leadership of the Church has fallen so deeply into heresy and moral disrepute, the hope that “they will repent because of a protest” seems utopian.

Fr. Theodore’s attempt to maintain a middle position (“both walled off, and without bishops of our own, and within the Church”) lacks practical viability and any historical precedent that would vindicate its effectiveness.

E. A walling off that remains “in limbo” (without a bishop) has an expiration date.

From a purely practical and structural standpoint, joining Artemije’s Synod (the so-called Administration of the “Diocese of Raska-Prizren in Exile”) would be the only consistent way forward for anyone who wishes to remain walled off without “returning” to the Patriarchate, for the following reasons:

1. It provides bishops for the ordination of new priests, ensuring that the Holy Mysteries will continue in future generations as well.

2. Both the Greek clergy who have walled themselves off and Artemije’s Serbs began from the same point of departure: the rejection of Ecumenism and of the decisions of the Council of Crete (2016).

3. They would no longer be isolated “islands” of priests, but members of an organized ecclesiastical structure.

F. From the standpoint of those who have walled themselves off, the answer is clear: the schism is caused by the heretical bishops. According to the Holy Fathers (such as Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Theodore the Studite), whoever preaches heresy “with bared head” (publicly and officially) places himself outside the Church, even if he retains his throne. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council expressly states that those who cease the commemoration of a bishop who publicly preaches heresy before a synodal determination:

“not only are they not subject to the canonical penalty... but they are worthy of the honor befitting the Orthodox, because they condemned not a bishop, but a pseudo-bishop and pseudo-teacher, and they did not rend the unity of the Church by schism, but hastened to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”

The bishops who accept Ecumenism, pray together with heretics, or signed the decisions of the Council of Crete (2016) have fallen away from the Faith. Consequently, it is they who have cut themselves off from the Body of Christ, regardless of whether they retain the administrative reins and the buildings. The faithful people and the clergy who wall themselves off merely safeguard Orthodoxy.

G. If we approach the issue in terms of absolute theological and practical consistency, it becomes clear that the only realistic and honorable way forward for those who have walled themselves off is their full incorporation into the Synod of Artemije and his successors. Every other intermediate solution merely prolongs their ecclesiological state of suspension. This choice of incorporation, despite the undoubtedly enormous personal and social cost that it entails, offers three decisive advantages that establish the viability of their struggle.

1. Ecclesiological Fullness. The Orthodox Church cannot exist as a “headless” body of faithful and priests, since the presence of the Bishop is an organic and inseparable element of ecclesiastical life. Incorporation into this particular Synod fully restores the necessary hierarchical structure (Bishop–Presbyters–Deacons) and guarantees the continuity of Apostolic Succession through future ordinations, preventing spiritual decline and a biological impasse.

2. This choice puts an end to the internal contradiction that afflicts the walling off movement in Greece. If someone truly believes and preaches that the bishops of the official Church are “pseudo-bishops” because of their acceptance of Ecumenism, then, by precisely the same logic, he is obliged to regard the depositions imposed by them as invalid, null and void, and devoid of divine grace. The refusal of communion with Artemije because of the “official” sanctions imposed upon him constitutes a glaring inconsistency. Incorporation into his Synod is the only position that brings actions into complete alignment with their professed beliefs.

3. Instead of a formless, isolated, and geographically dispersed group of priests that will inevitably slide into withdrawal into private life, discouragement, or, ultimately, tacit capitulation and return, incorporation creates a clear, cohesive, and organized ecclesiastical structure. This structure can withstand the pressure of time, organize parishes, catechize the faithful, and bequeath the anti-Ecumenist witness to future generations.

The theory of the “middle way” has exhausted its limits. For anyone who rejects a compromising return, joining forces with an existing anti-Ecumenist hierarchy, such as that of Artemije, is not merely an option, but the only path that preserves dogmatic and ecclesiological consistency in practice.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_65.html

Concerning the “Errors” of the Old Calendarists and the “Non-Errors” of Those Who Have Walled Themselves Off

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | July 14, 2026

 

 

I was sent a video in which the speakers are Fr. Theodore Zisis and his son [Monk Seraphim].

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMzZyd8j9do]

Honestly, it is completely unacceptable for people who supposedly possess academic knowledge to appear so ignorant of history in ecclesiastical matters that have not only been answered, but analyzed hundreds of times. They truly disappointed me. I understand that they wish to support their own position. But when this is attempted through historical inaccuracies, then the well-known saying applies: “What is good is not good unless it be done well.”

Fr. Theodore states:

“From the beginning of the walling off, we said that we would not make the mistake made by the Old Calendarists: having bishops of our own.”

And a little further on, note the complete contradiction:

“Unless Orthodox bishops are found who will undertake it. If some Orthodox bishops were found who would undertake the walling off and wall themselves off, the matter would be different.”

But excuse me, what did the Orthodox Bishops who led the struggle of the Old Calendarists do differently? Is it possible that Fr. Theodore is unaware that in 1935, a full eleven years after the unilateral and uncanonical change of the festal calendar in 1924, Orthodox Bishops undertook the struggle of the Old Calendarists?

For a full eleven years, the Old Calendarists had no Bishops. Subsequently, when, with the passage of time, they were once again left without Bishops—some reposed, some lost courage, and others were indeed led into schism—the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) proceeded to ordain new Bishops for them.

Do they perhaps not accept the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? Of course they do.

What, after all, does Fr. Seraphim Zisis state in the same video?

“They [the New Calendarists] even regarded ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, as a schism. My professors at the university taught me that ROCOR, the Russians of the diaspora, was a schism. And from there came Saint John Maximovitch, Elder Seraphim Rose, and Saint Philaret, whose body was found incorrupt. According to them, it is a schism.”

Fr. Theodore continues:

“But now, as presbyters, we do not have the ability to have bishops of our own. We will therefore not make Bishops of our own, so that they may characterize us as a schism. We will remain within the Church and protest, resist, react, and struggle for the Church to return to Orthodoxy.”

But that is self-evident. What presbyter can ordain Bishops?

Either Orthodox bishops will wall themselves off and undertake the struggle, exactly as occurred in the case of the Old Calendarists, or, once they have undertaken it, they themselves will proceed to ordain new Bishops.

I assume, of course, that what Fr. Theodore wishes to say here is that he considers only the first case to be the correct solution, namely, that an already existing Orthodox bishop should wall himself off and lead the struggle. It would be well, however, for him not to be so absolute. For precisely what he now considers self-evident—that Orthodox bishops should wall themselves off and undertake the struggle—was something that, several years ago, they would not even discuss. Today, however, they accept it. Therefore, let them not be so certain and so categorical concerning the next step of history as well.

And he concludes with the celebrated statement:

“We are in Orthodoxy and in the Church; they are outside the Church.”

Who exactly are the “we”? All those who have walled themselves off, or only this particular group?

If he means all those who have walled themselves off, then why is there no ecclesiastical communion with the other groups that have walled themselves off?

Yet another question arises here. Were they not the very ones who, for years, wrote that they did not wish to resemble the Old Calendarists, invoking the existence of factions as their argument?

How, then, is it possible that those who have walled themselves off now have various groups, which moreover are not in ecclesiastical communion with one another—and all this in an era when they have neither the rifle butts (batons) of the gendarmes to face, as the Old Calendarists did, nor the violent persecutions which, as they themselves acknowledge in the video above, the Old Calendarists suffered?

We shall conclude with a well-known saying of our own.

The more they try to prove that they are not “Old Calendarists,” the more they will receive the very same characterizations that for decades were applied to the Old Calendarists, namely, “schismatics,” “outside the Church,” and so many others. And in this, the existence or non-existence of bishops is not to blame......

God does not bless struggles founded upon mutual accusations.

The same, of course, also applies to the Old Calendarists themselves, who have paid dearly for it to this day, reaching the point where churches of different factions stand side by side on the same street. And if one asks each of them separately why this is so, one will almost always receive the same answer:

“It is not our fault; it is the others...”

Let us all therefore take heed, for the history of the Church teaches that when a struggle is accompanied by humility and discernment, it is blessed. But when it is accompanied by mutual accusations, characterizations from both sides, and intransigent attitudes, the outcome rarely vindicates those who believe that they possess the truth exclusively.

P.S. Let our brethren who have walled themselves off study the following article continually:

[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/06/disciples-at-infallible-school-of-holy.html]

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_14.html

Interview in English: Elder Savvas Lavriotis

The three most significant factions of Neo-Zealot non-commemorators in Greece, which have emerged since the Pseudo-Synod of Crete, are led by Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Hieromonk Euthymios Trikaminas, and Elder Savvas of Great Lavra (“Lavriotis”).

Attached is a 2024 interview with Elder Savvas conducted in English. He is the author of the foreword to the classic text on Orthodox ecclesiology in times of heresy, “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics,” written by Hieromonk Eugenios and published in 2023.

The Light of Bulgaria: An Orthodox Christian Documentary

 

The Apostle Against Ecumenism

A pastoral reflection on the eve of the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul — on the Holy Apostle Saint Paul, the original anti-ecumenist, and on what he taught the Church in his own words.

Fr. Athanasios Lampropoulos | July 10, 2026

 

 

Many have been asking me about this.

On the 24th of June, 2026, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem received Sarah Mullally, the first woman to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury, at the Patriarchate in Jerusalem. Together they visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Photographs of the visit have circulated widely. Good Orthodox people, on every calendar, have been troubled by them and have come to me, and to other priests, asking what to make of it.

Already the explanations are circulating. It was hospitality, we are told. A courtesy between neighbours. No prayer was shared. But there is no need for anyone to argue the point, because the visitors have settled it themselves. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem, published on her own website, thanks the Patriarch for the welcome at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and calls what took place there “a profound gift” — to have prayed together in that holy place. And the World Council of Churches, the body whose vocation for the better part of a century has been to make such scenes seem ordinary, described the visit in its own reporting as a “joint pilgrimage of prayer and solidarity.” On this one point I am content to take the ecumenical movement entirely at its word. They prayed together. They have said so themselves, in print, with photographs.

As we head into the weekend of the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul, my thoughts have gone to Saint Paul in particular. Not to what the Fathers wrote about him. Not to what modern theologians say about him. But to what he himself wrote to the young Church, in his own words, in the epistles we still read at Divine Liturgy — because Saint Paul, brothers and sisters in Christ, is the original anti-ecumenist. And what he wrote on this specific question, he wrote plainly, and he wrote often, and it has not been repealed by any council of the Church in the twenty centuries since.

It is no secret that I am a strong Orthodox traditionalist. Anyone who knows me knows where I stand. But I write this reflection not as a partisan, and not from my own opinion. I write it as a priest handing back to his brothers and sisters in Christ what Saint Paul himself taught the Church.

As Saint Ieronymos of Aegina used to say, I am without quarrels. I do not write against persons. I write about what Saint Paul wrote about the specific situation in which teaching contrary to what was received begins to circulate among the faithful — and about what he told the Church, in that situation, to do.

Let us go to the Apostle himself.

To the Christians at Rome, at the close of the epistle in which he laid out the fullest exposition of the gospel we possess, Saint Paul wrote:

Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

He does not tell the Church to discuss with them. He does not tell her to invite them into fellowship. He does not tell her to co-sign joint declarations with them. He tells her to mark them, and to avoid them.

To the young priest Titus, whom Saint Paul had left in Crete to organise the Church there, the Apostle wrote:

Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

First warning. Second warning. Then reject. The Apostle does not counsel his priest to enter into a fifty-year theological dialogue. He counsels him to warn twice, and then to break fellowship.

To the Christians at Galatia, who were being visited by teachers proposing a modified gospel, the Apostle wrote what is the most solemn formula in his entire corpus:

Even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

He says it twice. In adjacent sentences. Because he wants it heard. The word is anathema. Not welcomed. Not engaged as a partner in dialogue. Not received as a sister Church. Anathema. And the anathema stands even against an angel from heaven who would bring such a message. There is no earthly hierarch, however exalted his office, who ranks above an angel from heaven.

To the Christians at Thessalonica, Saint Paul wrote in the name of the Lord:

We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

The tradition. What was received. Not what is being newly negotiated with those outside the Church. Not what is being drafted at joint theological commissions. What was received. And the command, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, is to withdraw from every brother who does not walk according to it.

To the Christians at Corinth, Saint Paul wrote what is perhaps the clearest text in the whole New Testament on the question of shared prayer and shared witness with those outside the received faith:

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?... Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.

What fellowship. What communion. What accord. Saint Paul asks the questions because he wants the reader to answer them. There is no fellowship between righteousness and lawlessness. There is no communion between light and darkness. There is no accord between Christ and Belial. And in the voice of the Lord Himself, the Apostle delivers the command: come out from among them. Be separate.

To the Christians at Ephesus, the Apostle wrote:

Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Two commands. First, no fellowship. Second, expose them. It is not enough for the faithful to withhold their own participation. They are commanded to bring into the light what has been done in shadow. What has been done at the Holy Sepulchre is not being exposed by those who did it. It falls to the ordinary priests of the Church, and to the faithful, to bring it into the light.

And to his beloved son Timothy, whom he had ordained to the episcopate, Saint Paul wrote twice, in two separate epistles, the same pastoral counsel:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing... from such withdraw thyself.

Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

From such withdraw thyself. From such turn away. The Apostle repeats himself, in adjacent epistles, to a young bishop, on this exact point. A bishop who does not withdraw from those who teach otherwise cannot preserve for his flock the deposit of faith he was ordained to preserve.

These are not obscure passages. They are not scattered pastoral asides that must be balanced against warmer texts. They are the consistent, repeated, urgent counsel of Saint Paul on how the Church is to respond when teaching contrary to what was received begins to circulate among the faithful. He wrote about it to Rome, to Corinth, to Galatia, to Thessalonica, to Ephesus, to Titus, and to Timothy. He wrote about it in almost every epistle we possess. He said the same thing every time.

Mark them. Warn them once. Warn them a second time. Then withdraw. Be separate. Have no fellowship with the works of darkness, but expose them. Do not receive into your house one who does not bring the received teaching. Turn away.

Saint Paul is the original anti-ecumenist. He wrote against the very posture that dominates the ecclesiastical diplomacy of our day. Shared prayer with those teaching contrary doctrines. Joint declarations of unity across the boundary of the received faith. Mutual recognition between bodies holding incompatible teachings. Saint Paul taught the opposite. Not because he did not love the persons on the other side of the boundary. He wept over them. He prayed for their salvation. But because he understood that shared prayer is a confession of shared faith, and that a Church which blurs the boundary of what she has received will not long possess what she has received.

What Saint Paul warned the Church about is what the ordinary Orthodox reader is now watching happen in his news feed.

And the Church heard him. What Saint Paul wrote in his epistles, the Church wrote into her law. Among the canons of the Holy Apostles, received by the whole Church at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, stands Canon 45:

Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.

Who has only prayed. The canon does not wait for concelebration, or intercommunion, or a signed declaration of union. Prayer alone is the threshold. And the Council of Laodicea says the same thing in a single sentence, in its thirty-third canon:

One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics.

These canons are not the private severity of zealots. They are the Apostle’s epistles translated into the discipline of the Church, written down by men who had read Galatians and Corinthians and believed that Saint Paul meant what he said. When the ecumenical movement describes shared prayer at the Holy Sepulchre as a gift, the canons of the Church describe it as a matter for excommunication. Both descriptions cannot be true.

This is not only the Apostle’s teaching. It is the teaching the Church has continued to know, even in the most compromised eras of her recent history. Only forty-eight years ago, in July of 1978, the eleven New Calendar Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches sent delegates to a Joint Doctrinal Commission with the Anglicans at Pendeli Monastery near Athens. The Orthodox delegates unanimously signed a document declaring the ordination of women to be, in their own words, “a violation of the apostolic faith and order of the Church.” They declared further that the Orthodox “cannot regard the Anglican proposals to ordain women as a purely internal matter, in which the Orthodox are not concerned.” The document is preserved at prounione.it/dialogues/a-o. What was signed at Pendeli in 1978 was what the Apostle had written to Galatia in the first century. What is now being done at the Holy Sepulchre in 2026 is what the Apostle told the Church, in the same epistle, to anathematise.

Saint Mark of Ephesus, in the fifteenth century, stood alone against a compromising union between his own Ecumenical Patriarchate and Rome at the Council of Ferrara–Florence. Every other Orthodox bishop present signed the union. Mark refused. He is the reason the Church did not lose her identity in that generation. He was doing what Saint Paul had commanded a thousand years before. Mark those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine you have learned, and avoid them. Even if it be the Emperor. Even if it be the Pope. Even if it be your own Patriarch. Even if it be an angel from heaven.

So when the brothers and sisters in Christ who have been troubled by the recent photographs come to me and ask what to do, I answer as best I know how. I answer from what Saint Paul wrote in seven separate epistles, from what he said twice in Galatians because he wanted it heard, and from what he told Timothy, Titus, and every Church he founded.

Do not panic. Do not shrug. Be vigilant. Hold what was received. Mark those who bring another teaching. Warn them. After the second admonition, turn away. Not with hatred. Not with contempt for persons. But with the calm confidence that the Apostle knew what he was writing about — and that the Church is not free, on any calendar or in any generation, to negotiate away what he handed down to her.

This weekend, as we keep the feast of the Holy Chief Apostles, I ask you to remember whose feast we are keeping. Pray for me. Pray for every priest of every jurisdiction. Pray for the hierarchs of the Church, that God may return to them the courage of the Apostle whose feast they are about to serve. And may Saint Paul, who paid for his fidelity with his life at Rome under Nero, pray for us who are trying, imperfectly, in our own day, to teach what he taught.

Holy Apostle Paul, pray to God for us.

 

Source: https://patristicwitness.com/ArticleDetail?id=6a5165bd4cb733d6cb7731a7

 

The Controversies and Accusations Against Saint Nicodemus

 

The orthodoxy of Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749–1809), one of the most important figures of the Kollyvades revival movement, was vigorously challenged both during his lifetime and afterward. The accusations against him came chiefly from two quarters: from the anti-Kollyvades (the opponents of the Kollyvades movement on the Holy Mountain) and from ecclesiastical circles that accused him of Western/Roman Catholic influence because of the books he translated and adapted.

The first and most immediate challenge came from the monks of the Holy Mountain who opposed the movement. Representatives of this side, such as Theodoret of Ioannina (former Prohegumen of Esphigmenou Monastery), supported the celebration of memorial services on Sunday rather than Saturday. They accused Saint Nicodemus, Saint Makarios Notaras, and Christophoros Papoulakos of being “innovators,” “schismatics,” and “heretics” because they insisted upon the strict observance of tradition (the celebration of memorial services only on Saturdays) and upon frequent Holy Communion. Indeed, Saint Nicodemus’s book Concerning Frequent Communion provoked a storm of reactions, with his opponents accusing him of diminishing the Mystery of Confession.

The Accusation of “Latin-mindedness” and Western Influence

This was perhaps the most serious theological accusation leveled against him, since Saint Nicodemus used Western spiritual writings as the basis for some of his most popular works. The works in question were Unseen Warfare (based on the Combattimento spirituale of the Roman Catholic priest Lorenzo Scupoli) and the Spiritual Exercises (based on the work of the same name by Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits).

His critics accused him of introducing “Western, papal spirituality” into the Orthodox Church. They considered the method of “imagination” and meditation described in the Spiritual Exercises to be foreign to the hesychastic tradition of Orthodoxy, which explicitly rejects the use of the imagination in prayer. Because of these denunciations, Saint Nicodemus suffered persecution. Under pressure from his opponents, the Ecumenical Patriarchate examined his works, and in 1807 Saint Nicodemus was even compelled to write apologetic texts and make corrections in order to demonstrate his Orthodox faith.

The Case of The Rudder and Theodoret

Another major focus of controversy concerned The Rudder (the collection of the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church), which Saint Nicodemus compiled together with the monk Agapios. The manuscript was sent to Leipzig for printing, with the monk Theodoret responsible for its publication. Theodoret, however, proceeded to make arbitrary alterations and falsifications, adding notes of his own that expressed extreme positions, such as the complete rejection of the baptism of Roman Catholics [sic], to such a degree that they conflicted with the official position of the Church.

When the book was circulated in its falsified form, Saint Nicodemus was accused both by the Patriarchate (because of the extreme positions that appeared under his name) and by Theodoret himself, who accused him of “innovations” when the Saint attempted to restore the authentic text. Despite the slanders, persecutions, and temporary condemnations he endured during his lifetime, the Orthodox Church fully recognized his work. His official canonization by the Ecumenical Patriarchate took place in 1955, definitively confirming the orthodoxy of his teaching and establishing him as one of the greatest Fathers of the modern Church.

Theology between East and West: The Method of the “Transference” and “Grafting” of Ideas

Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite’s adaptation of Western spiritual writings constitutes a unique chapter in theological literature. Saint Nicodemus did not produce a simple translation, but carried out a profound theological “transfusion” (filtering), cleansing the texts of the scholastic and legalistic influences of the West and grafting onto them the hesychastic and patristic tradition of the East. This process was termed by later theologians the “ecclesiastical grafting” or “expatriation” of the texts, which he accomplished through very specific axes of transformation.

First, he proceeded to replace “Imagination” with “Watchfulness.” In Western spirituality (especially in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola), the imagination is used as a fundamental instrument of prayer, whereby the faithful person is called to represent mentally and in detail scenes from the life of Christ, Hell, or Paradise, stimulating his senses. In the Orthodox hesychastic tradition (as expressed in the Philokalia), the imagination is regarded as the principal “bridge” through which temptations and delusions enter the mind. Thus, Saint Nicodemus removed all instructions that encouraged fictitious mental representations. In their place, he introduced watchfulness (spiritual vigilance), pure prayer (without forms or images), and the monologistic prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me”).

From Legal Justification to the Healing of the Soul and the Life of the Mysteries

Second, Saint Nicodemus shifted the focus from legal justification to the healing of the soul. The Roman Catholic theology of the period viewed salvation in a rather juridical manner (satisfaction of divine justice, guilt, punishments). Saint Nicodemus transferred the center of gravity from the judicial/legal level to the therapeutic. He presented Christ not as an angry judge who must be appeased, but as the “Physician of souls.” In his books, the spiritual life is not described as an effort to accumulate “merits” (as was the case in the West), but as a path of purification of the heart from the passions, illumination of the nous, and, ultimately, theosis.

Third, he proceeded to introduce Patristic passages and material from the Philokalia. In order to ground these texts in Orthodoxy, he provided extremely extensive commentary. He enriched the texts with hundreds of footnotes, citations, and references to Holy Scripture and, above all, to the Eastern Fathers of the Church (such as Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Symeon the New Theologian, and Saint Gregory Palamas). In this way, even when the structure or subject matter of a chapter remained Western, its interpretation and spirit became entirely Patristic and Orthodox.

Fourth, he led the reader from “Individualism” to Ecclesiology and the Holy Mysteries. Western manuals of the spiritual life often possessed a strongly individual-centered character, focusing on the believer’s personal relationship with God in relative isolation from liturgical life. Saint Nicodemus inseparably connected the inward spiritual struggle with the life of the Holy Mysteries of the Church. He emphasized that the “unseen warfare” is not won through individual techniques, but through frequent participation in the Holy Mysteries of Confession and the Divine Eucharist.

The Motive and Cultural Necessity of the Undertaking

Saint Nicodemus consciously chose this method because he saw that, during the period of Ottoman rule, there was an enormous lack of accessible, practical spiritual guides for Orthodox laypeople living in the world. The classical ascetical texts (such as, for example, The Ladder of Saint John) had been written primarily for monks and in language that was particularly difficult for the broader public of that period.

Finding in Western books an excellent, methodical, and practical structure, he chose to “capture” their methodology, cleanse it of doctrinal errors, and offer it to the suffering Orthodox people as a powerful spiritual weapon. As he himself characteristically wrote, he did what the ancient Israelites had done: they took the golden vessels of the Egyptians, cleansed them of foreign admixtures, and used them for the worship of the true God.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_14.html

Which Councils Are Not Listed in "The Rudder" of Saint Nicodemus, and Why?

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | July 14, 2026

 

 

The Omission of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880) from The Rudder

The omission of the Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Council of 879–880 under Photios the Great) from The Rudder of Saint Nicodemus constitutes an exceptionally interesting historical and canonical question, since this omission was not due to ignorance or an undervaluing of the Council on the part of Saint Nicodemus—who had boundless respect for Photios the Great—but to specific historical, editorial, and strategic considerations of his time, at the end of the eighteenth century.

1. The Official Ecclesiastical Numbering of the Period

During the period of Ottoman rule, reference to Seven Ecumenical Councils had become established in the Orthodox East (the last being the Seventh, held at Nicaea in 787). Although the Council of 879–880 possessed all the characteristics and authority of an Ecumenical Council (representatives of all the Patriarchates and of Pope John VIII participated in it, while it also confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Council), the Orthodox Church had not, at that time, proceeded to an official and solemn proclamation of it as the “Eighth” by any subsequent general council. Consequently, Saint Nicodemus, following the traditional structure of the Byzantine Nomocanons upon which he based his work, retained the classical numbering of the Seven Ecumenical Councils so as not to cause confusion or accusations of innovation.

2. The Fear of Western Reaction and Censorship

The Rudder was printed in Leipzig, Germany, in 1800, at a time when the Orthodox Church was under the Ottoman yoke and did not possess its own free printing presses capable of producing such voluminous works. This meant that the explicit proclamation and analysis of an “Orthodox Eighth Ecumenical Council”—which condemned the Filioque and annulled the decisions of the anti-Photian Council of 869–870 (which the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as its own Eighth Ecumenical Council)—in a book printed in the heart of Europe would have provoked a storm of reactions from the Roman Curia and the Western authorities, placing the publication in immediate danger of confiscation, prohibition of circulation, or even refusal to print it.

3. The Indirect Strategy of Saint Nicodemus

Saint Nicodemus chose a more indirect yet substantive course, for instead of provoking controversy by numbering it the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” (something that would have given the enemies of the Church a pretext to block the work), he included and interpreted the three Sacred Canons of this Council (which convened “in the Church of Hagia Sophia”) and indirectly attributed ecumenical authority to it [in the English edition, under the name “Temple of the Holy Wisdom – trans. note], extolling its authority in his interpretations and referring to Photios the Great with the most laudatory titles, thereby implicitly recognizing that its decisions possess the force of an Ecumenical Council, since they were accepted by the entire Church in both East and West.

4. Summary Concerning the Council of 879-880.

The omission of any reference to the Council of 879–880 as the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” in The Rudder was a necessary historical and editorial concession (economy) of the period, so that this monumental work might succeed in being printed in the West and reach safely the hands of the subjugated Orthodox, without, however, diminishing in the slightest the dogmatic and canonical value of the decisions of Photios the Great.

Which Other Councils are Not Included, and Why

In order to understand why many important Councils are absent (such as, for example, the Hesychast/Palamite Councils of the fourteenth century or other local councils), we must clarify that The Rudder is neither a historical book nor a collection of theological decisions, but the “Nomocanonical” book of the Church. Consequently, its contents were selected according to strict criteria concerning the distinction between “Canons” (which regulate administration and order) and “Dogmas” (which define the Faith), since dogmatic decisions (such as those of the Councils of 1341 and 1351 under Saint Gregory Palamas concerning the Uncreated Light) did not produce canonical legislation and therefore had no place in a practical guide.

The Practical Purpose and Consolidation of the Canons

Saint Nicodemus compiled The Rudder as a functional handbook for practical use by spiritual fathers and clergy, avoiding turning it into a vast and difficult-to-understand historical encyclopedia. He based it on the principle that the canonical tradition of the Church had been crystallized in the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the important Local Councils of the first millennium, while later councils merely repeated or applied the already existing Canons. He therefore selected the “classical” Canons, which cover 99% of everyday cases.

Why Only Certain Local Councils Were Included

The reason why Local Councils such as those of Carthage or Gangra were included is that they produced very specific and practical Canons (e.g., concerning marriage, monks, and fasting) that were absent from the other texts. This means that the Councils which are absent were not omitted because they are less important, but because they were purely dogmatic, did not produce new Canons governing daily life, and the practical character of the book had to be preserved—as the “Penal Code” of the Church, regulating life, rather than as a historical archive of theological discussions.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_916.html

The Principal Differences Between Orthodox Church Law and the Law of the Roman Catholic Church

Milan Petrović,

Faculty of Law, University of Niš, Serbia

 

 

Abstract. When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure. The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws.

The point of departure between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws. The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy. It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance. The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter.

 

When discussing church law one must first bear in mind its complex structure.

The central, fundamental part of church law is canon law, which regulates the internal life of the Church, and this primarily means the organization of the Church as a community of priests and laypersons, their mutual rights and obligations, and the activity of the Church within this community: the clerical work; teaching; government and trial. Let us mention that church dogmas, also a subject matter of dogmatics as a philosophy of Christianity, represent a constituent part of canon law, since their breach means a particularly serious guilt according to church law. Due to such an important position of canon law, the discipline dealing with it is called canonistics.

Ecclesiastical law is also a part of church law, and it regulates matters of common interest to the Church and the state. For instance, marriage is a holy sacrament for the church, but marriage and the family also provide the basis for the life of a community – a state or a nation. The church funeral is a holy act, however the legal organization of cemeteries is today inevitably in the jurisdiction of the state and the local government – for cultural, hygienic, and reasons of town planning. Religious education in state schools in particular requires the coordination of Church and state. The temple is a holy place, but it can also be a historic cultural monument protected by the state. And so forth. The view that the Church holds, that the relations between state and Church should be harmonious, is reflected in the position that matters of ecclesiastical law should be ordered through a mutual agreement of the two. This agreement is called a concordat. To be sure, a concordat is usually a formal agreement that the state and the Church conclude as two equal parties, a contract, therefore, made after the model of international treaties. However, this form is not obligatory. There is a concordat also if the state orders the matter single-sidedly, by a legal act, after it has obtained the positive opinion, i.e. consent of the Church.

Finally, there is also the so-called law of religious communities. These are regulations by means of which, in the regime of the separation of Church and state, the state imposes its will on the Church in those matters that the Church believes should be defined by the agreement of the two parties. These regulations, viewed as hostile by the Church, are not a source of church law. However, the science of church law still studies them as they regulate the relations between Church and state.

The fundamental source of church law in general and canon law in particular is found in divine laws. Divine laws are proclaimed mostly in the New Testament. Divine laws from the Old Testament pertaining to the Jewish church and nation are not valid for the Church as a "New Israel". However, divine laws from the Old Testament which are general in nature, primarily the Ten Commandments that God declared to Moses, still hold for the Church.

The point of difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic church law is found precisely in the different interpretation of divine laws.

In the Orthodox view, the New Testament laid foundations for the episcopal-conciliary governance of the Church. According to the Gospel of Matthew (18, 18), the Lord Jesus, speaking about the Church, said to his students – the apostles: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Later on, the apostles would transfer their right and duty of supreme governance of the church to their successors, bishops, through ordination, and these would then ordain new bishops; this gave rise to the so-called apostolic succession (successio apostolica), the first principle of legitimate exercise of full church authority. Today this principle is not accepted only by the majority of Protestant Churches: for them, a bishop is not heir to the apostles, but rather a mere church or civil servant. The apostles are, however, equal in rights, and they resolve all issues related to the Church as a whole, the Christian Ecumene, together, in a conciliary way. And this is the second principle of legitimate exercise of full church of authority, the conciliarity principle. As it may be, the Lord Jesus explicitly condemned any idea of a possible hierarchy among the apostles, i.e. of apostolic supremacy. This is what the Gospel says (Matthew, 18, 1-4): "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, verily I say unto you, except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Again, the mother of the apostles Jacob and John, sons of Zebedee, asked Him to allow them to sit with him in the Kingdom of Heaven, one to the right, the other to the left; having heard this, all the other apostles became angry with these two brothers. The Gospel continues (Matthew, 20, 25-27): "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Finally, the same question was posed during the Last Supper (Luke, 22, 24-27): "And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."

In the narrower sense, the conciliarity principle was first expressed at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, probably held in AD 49. The jurisdiction and decisions of this Council became part of the regulations of the Scriptures, and thus have the power of divine laws. The Apostolic Council resolved that Christian Gentiles were exempted from the duties imposed by the law of Moses, except that they had to abstain from meats offered as a sacrifice to the idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from fornication – "from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well." (Acts, 15, 29). It was also allowed that the apostle Paul and Barnabas should continue preaching the Gospels to Gentile brothers. As for the Jews, the Council found that their evangelization should still be carried out by the Church of Jerusalem, primarily by the apostle Peter (Gal, 2, 7-8). The Council still had to pay its debt to the historical situation, prescribing that the Christian Jews, Judeo-Christians, were still to adhere to the Law of Moses (Acts, 15, 21): "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church are legitimate successors of the Apostolic Council, and are therefore also the institution of divine law. It is desirable, but not necessary, that all hierarchical Churches should be present at the Ecumenical Council. However, it is important that the Council's decisions be accepted by all the Churches, both those whose representatives participated in the Council, and those who had no representatives, nor provided their position on issues to be discussed in the Council in specific epistles. "There have been heretical councils", Nikodim Milaš says (Orthodox Church Law, 3rd Ed, Belgrade 1926, 309), "like the one where the semi-Arian symbol was added, or such, whose acts were signed by numerous bishops, more of them than at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and also such whose resolutions were signed by both patriarchs and emperors. However, all these councils have not been recognized as ecumenical for the simple fact that the faithful people could not accept those decisions as the true voice of the church." The Orthodox Church recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils, held in the period 325 – 787.

The supreme authority of all Church, the Ecumenical Council decides on its own competences. It thus defines the dogmas of faith and presents them in the form of symbols and religious positions (Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council). It judges on teachings prominent in the Church and specifically condemns heresy (Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council). It clarifies and defines rules (canons) adopted at the previous Councils (Canon 1 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). It regularizes the governance of the Church in general and hierarchical Churches in particular, and also deals with the rights of the Churches in governance (Canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council). It orders the ranks and rights of bishops (Canons 4 and 6 of the First Ecumenical Council). Based on the Scriptures, the holy tradition and Christian morality, it exercises judicial power over the bishops, including autocephalous bishops, and also over hierarchical Churches themselves (Canons 12, 13, 32, 33, 55, 56, and 81 of the Fifth and Sixth, Trullan Ecumenical Council).

The conciliarity principle is valid for hierarchical Orthodox churches, too – their supreme bodies are regional councils. However, in the old times, when all metropolitan Churches were autocephalous, according to the Canons 34 and 37 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the archbishop always had to act with the knowledge of all other bishops from his archibishopry, and there was a council of bishops twice a year, where the bishops discussed with one another the dogmas and resolved church disputes. Jevsevije Popović comments on this (General Church History, I, Srem. Karlovci 1912, 2nd phototype edition, Novi Sad 1995, 293): "The archbishop was merely an individual preserving unity among the bishops. To be true, in his province he had not only a honorary, but also a jurisdictive primacy, however not with monarchic, but only with presidential powers, and not according to divine law, coming from Christ, but according to human law, made by the church after the apostles."

The bishops of Rome, the popes, turned this principle upside down, having established an unlimited, monarchic power over their Church and having expressed thereby their claim to such power over the entire ecumenical Church, i.e. to their sole autocephality. The climax of such apostasy from the fundamental legal principles of original Christianity is found in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility, declared in the constitution "Pastor Aeternus" by Pius IX on 18 June 1870. This dogma ruined any remnants of a national Roman Catholic Church and introduced a total centralism, a precursor to contemporary globalism.

The Roman popes found legitimacy for this outrageous abuse of law in the statement of the Lord Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew (16, 18-19): "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

However, as we have stated before, Jesus gave this same power to other apostles, too. According to the teaching of Protestant Churches, Jesus gave this so-called "Power of the Keys" (potestas clavium) not to Peter in person, but to the Church as a whole. Moreover, a notable Roman Catholic exegete, bishop of Avila Alphonsus Tostatus (died in 1455), claimed the same, and was never considered a heretic for this. History has showed that the latter interpretation is correct. (See: Richter/Dove/Kahl, Lehrbuch des katholischen und evangelischen Kirchenrechts, I, Neudruck Aalen 1975, 309 sqq.).

Starting from the "power of the keys" proclamation, the Roman popes have constructed the following theories: First, the apostle Peter was the first of the apostles, and thus the head of the Church as a whole. Second, the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died in Rome, crucified head down, in the time of Nero's persecution of Christians, in AD 64 or 67. Therefore, the Roman popes are heirs to the apostle Peter and thus heads of the entire Church. The popes have not only considered themselves Peter's successors, but have also identified with him. They often declare themselves: "I am Peter" (Ego sum Petrus).

A critical examination of the sources reveals that such theories are untenable.

We have already shown that the Lord Jesus did not allow that any supremacy among the apostles should be established; the hierarchy that emerged among the bishops later is an institution of human, and not divine law. However, was there not a factual, indirect supremacy of Peter over other apostles? Not at all. Peter was the oldest and the most eloquent of the apostles. As such, he often mediated their positions, opinions, and feelings to the Lord. However, he also fell into profound weakness. It is at him that the Lord directed, just after the praise ("You are Peter..."), a strict expostulation: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew, 16, 23). He renounced the Lord with an oath, for which he repented bitterly (Matthew, 26, 69-75). It was only the resurrected Lord that forgave him and prepared him for missionary work (John, 21, 15-18). Peter did not chair the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, even though he was present and spoke there. Additionally, he had to justify his appearance with the baptism of the centurion Cornelius (Acts, 11, 1-18). The apostle Paul criticized him in his presence for being double-faced in spreading the Gospel in Antioch (Gal, 2, 14): "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." Decisive to the appreciation of Peter's position in the Church of Jerusalem is the testimony of the apostle Paul, who put him to the second position, behind Jacob (Gal, 2, 9): "And when James, Cephas (which means Peter in Aramaic), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

The Protestant Churches hold the position that the apostle Peter was never in Rome. To be true, the Orthodox Church accepts the traditional view that he perished in Rome, but not that he was a Roman bishop. That is to say, the Orthodox Church does not accept the position that the Roman popes are his successors. Even further, more recent Orthodox Church historians question the position that the apostle Paul ever visited Rome; (see, for instance, Jevsevije Popović, op. cit., 195 sqq., 225 sqq.; M. E. Posnov, The History of the Christian Church [История Христианской Церкви], 2002). As it may be, Acts of the Apostles, which the apostle and gospel writer Luke wrote quite some time after Peter's death, perhaps around AD 80, although providing elaborate details on the activities of the apostle Peter, say nothing about his stay in Rome. This text would have to talk about this when describing the arrival of the apostle Paul in Rome (around AD 61), when he was welcomed there by Christian brothers (Acts, 28, 14): "And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and the three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage." However, Peter was not among the brethren. It remains unknown who founded the Roman church. However, this was certainly not the apostle Peter. In his epistles from Rome, the apostle Paul also failed to report that he had met Peter there, although in the Epistle to Galatians he described in detail his encounters with Peter in Jerusalem and Antioch. An exquisite contemporary scholar, the theologian Heussi (Die römische Petrustradition in kritischer Sicht, Tübingen 1955, 1 sqq.), based on the analysis of Paul's Epistle to Galatians (2, 6-9) concluded that, in the time in which it was written, around AD 57, the apostle Peter was no longer alive, i.e. that he had died long before Nero's persecution.

It would be useful here to mention a comment by the world-renowned papal historian, Kühner, even though, as a Roman Catholic believer, he stands on the position of the official tradition of his Church (H. Kühner, Lexikon der Päpste, Wiesbaden 1991, 23): "Peter was the first archbishop of Antioch and, as the first head of the Roman Christian municipality, he may be taken for the first Roman bishop. However, one can discuss papal dignity only beginning with the third decade of the 4th century."

Among numerous forgeries that the Roman popes have used to prove a right of theirs, "The Donation of Constantine" (Constitutum Constantini Imperatoris – Donatio Constantini) was given global historical importance. It is contained in a legal collection, which is otherwise packed with forgeries, "Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals" (Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae), from which, around 1140, it was taken over and incorporated into Gratian's Decretum, the first part of the Body of Canon Law (Corpus iuris canonici), which would remain the principal source of the canon law of the Roman church, even though as early as in the 15th century cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and universal humanist scholar Lorenzo Valla had empirically proved that it was forged. "The Donation of Constantine" is older than Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals; it originated in the forger's workshop of pope Symmacus (ruled from 22 November 498 to 19 July 514), who is also a Roman Catholic saint; (see: Кühner, op. cit., 54 sq.). According to the false "Donation of Constantine", pope Sylvester the First, who in reality never met Constantine the Great, cured this alleged major persecutor of Christians from leprosy and baptized him. In return, having decided to move to the East of the Empire, Constantine granted the popes dominion over Rome and all of Italy with the western provinces, and gave them the imperial insignia, so that, from that point on, the popes were legitimate rulers of the Western Roman Empire. "The Donation of Constantine" was efficiently used by pope Stephen the Second in winter 753/54, who showed it to the King of the Franks Pepin the Third, otherwise a usurper of the throne. Pepin "believed" and granted papal rule over the city of Rome and Central Italy – through this, a church state was made which endured until 20 September 1870. Pepin was rewarded by being recognized as a legitimate ruler and a Patrician of the Romans (Patricius Romanorum), and also "the adopted son" of St. Peter.

However, having proclaimed the dogma of their own infallibility, the Roman popes exceeded the legitimacy of Peter – since the apostle Peter was a man who made mistakes. This is why with this dogma the popes proclaimed themselves gods. Accordingly, this new papal legitimacy can be founded only on apostle Paul's Second Epistle to Thessalonians, which says (2, 4): "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." It is also suggestive that the Code of Canon Law (Codex iuris canonici) promulgated by Benedict XV in 1917, whose slightly revised 1983 version remains the principal source of law in the Roman Catholic Church, fully cancels the difference between the rules of the Ecumenical Church and later papal legislative additions, so that today's Roman Catholic canon law is only and exclusively papal law. Undoubtedly, signs are present that the end of the Christian eon, and therefore the arrival of Antichrist, is near. However, in the same Second Epistle to Thessalonians, the apostle Paul says that this end, or coming, will not happen until there is the "one who restrains", the "katechon" (2, 6-7). Today, after almost twenty centuries, we know that only the Orthodox Church can be this katechon. For it is only this Church that preserves and maintains as pure the sources of the Christian river, including the memory of the Christian Empire, "The Byzantine Commonwealth". This preservation and memory are also reflected in the resolution of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church of 12/25 May 1939 – standing in sharp contrast to the motorised legislation of the Roman popes and their incessant production of new false miracles and false saints: "That the Krmchya [1] shall remain our official canonical Code until it is replaced by a new one."

 

1. Krmčija, Krmchya (Constitution) – St. Sava's translation of Byzantine Church Code, 13th century (translator's remark).

 

Source: Facta Universitatis, Series: Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1-7.