Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna: “Official Orthodoxy” (1991)

The move toward apostasy among many Orthodox in our day grows out of an incorrect understanding of the Church. Political ecumenism itself, the clearest expression of this misunderstanding, rests on the ignorance of our modernist theologians of the nature of the Church. This ignorance is not an academic one alone—an ignorance of the Fathers; it is also the result of a decline in spirituality. For to understand the Church, one must first understand the spiritual life which the Church serves.

Many of today's modernists have covered over their ignorance of Orthodox ecclesiology by the creation of an "official" Orthodoxy. The idea of an official Orthodoxy is especially popular in America, where Greek Catholics returning to Orthodoxy have brought with them a neo-Papal view of the Church, which they adopted from the Latins. Many of the Protestant fundamentalists who have joined the modernist Antiochian Church also seek a definition of the Church which rests on "officialdom," partly in reaction to their correct misgivings about the self-styled church organization which they created in the name of Orthodoxy, the so-called Evangelical Orthodox Church.

In reality, officialdom has no place in Christianity or Orthodoxy. The Church of Christ did not become valid because it was recognized by the Roman Empire. Nor is an Orthodox Christian authentic because he belongs to a "Patriarch." We are not a Church built on political principles or on papal assumptions. Officialdom in Orthodoxy is based on Apostolic Succession and on an adherence to Holy Tradition. It is a spiritual and charismatic thing, since Apostolic Succession and Holy Tradition describe the passing on of charismatic and spiritual power from Christ to the Apostles to the Church's Hierarchs. Officialdom is not simply a statement of an historical and legal dimension.

In America, where adherence to Holy Tradition is practically non-existent and where spiritual maturity is indeed lacking, there is a frantic attempt by modernists to be official. Thus the old Metropolia, now the Orthodox Church in America, rushed off to the communist-dominated Patriarchate of Russia several decades ago to remove from itself the accusation of being uncanonical. The Evangelical Orthodox Church, a purely bogus Protestant sect, likewise entered into the Antiochian Church several years ago, also hoping to make itself an official Orthodox Church.

In the case of the old Metropolia, it was before these moves an Orthodox Church, and its clergy were clearly in Apostolic Succession. It had a number of traditional communities, spiritual leaders with solid experience, and a tie to authentic Church tradition. When it joined Moscow, somehow thinking it was then official, the Church was besieged by modernism. The calendar was changed. Innovation became the order of the day. A Church which I can remember as having old Priests who honored their cassocks and who took seriously their roles as imitators of the Patriarchs suddenly became a Church with clergy who can hardly be distinguished in appearance, and often in belief, from Roman Catholic clergy. This Church gained so-called officialdom at the cost of much of its Orthodoxy.

The Evangelical Orthodox Church was accepted by the Antiochian Archdiocese—an excessively modernist jurisdiction—by every innovation, even reaching to the irregular ordination of the EOC clergy. Its Faithful are largely uncatechized. Many of the clergy and Faithful have had no exposure to Orthodox traditions and have been taught to revile them as "ethnic" or "foreign." In the name of officialdom, the body of Orthodoxy has absorbed a foreign element which still accepts and teaches ideas which are wholly inconsistent with the experience of the Church. Officialdom has created a kind of Protestant Orthodoxy. And the sad victims of this false creation are the sincere EOC clergy and Faithful.

The official Churches here in America use their officialdom to try to silence us traditionalists, who stand in protest to the innovation, apostasy, and political ecumenism which assault the Orthodox Church. In a country where an "official" religion is non-existent, they even use the media to attack us True Orthodox as "not part of an official Patriarchate" or "separated from the official Church."

Let us examine this phenomenon for what it is. Recently I read a publication by "Orthodox People Together," a group which promotes unity among Orthodox. This is an admirable thing. But the publication reads like a Bible tract from a fundamentalist Church. It is filled with talk about pastors, ministry, social concerns, and the like, but is rather short on references to traditional monasticism, fasting, the ascetic traditions of the Church, self-transformation, and the like. An editorial letter about the female diaconate, in fact, makes a strong and very important plea for the restoration of this vital service for women in the Church. But in so doing, it suggests that a liturgical role for the female deacon is not an important issue, as long as hospital calls and service to the Faithful are made her official duties. Can we imagine an Orthodoxy in which service to the Church relegates the liturgical life to a secondary position and social service to a primary one?

There are modernist monasteries in this country where monastic traditions are almost wholly unknown—though made-up practices are touted as "ancient" and "Athonite." Indeed, one monastery in the OCA is so marked by innovation that it even mocks many traditional Orthodox practices. While True Orthodox monastics spend their days in services, refrain from ever eating meat, have no personal money or bank accounts, practice strict obedience, and pray for the world, many of the modernists seek to create the kind of social monasticism in Orthodoxy which has destroyed this institution in the Latin Church. One wonders how official this modernist monasticism is.

As Old Calendarist resisters, we are constantly assaulted as "uncanonical" and unofficial by the errant Mother Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Exarchates in the diaspora. Shaved Bishops, dressed like Roman Catholic clerics, sitting down to meals of steak and wine on fast days, turn to us and accuse us of being uncanonical. Embracing the heterodox with ecumenical love and violating the Church's canons by praying and even communing with them, they turn to us and spit, calling us people without love.

Indeed, can these people be canonical just because the Greek State recognizes them? Or because the White House door is open to the representatives of the Greek Archdiocese in North and South America? Certainly not. Officialdom comes from a spiritual commitment to the Church. And in this sense, it is we True Orthodox who are the official believers. Were this not so, moreover, who would cover the sins of these New Calendarists and modernists? Who would provide them refuge when they come to their senses and seek Christianity, and not the world? Who would add to their rightful claims to Apostolic Succession the complement which accrues to that state: spiritual achievement?

The goal of Orthodoxy is not unity in officialdom or recognition by the power of this world. It is the union of man with God. And where this is the one goal of Christians, they are by nature united. They come together in their strict adherence to the path towards salvation which has been set before us by Holy Tradition. They need no worldly gimmicks such as tracts, organizations, and public recognition to know who they are. They are known by their deeds. And they need no redefinitions of their Faith or of spiritual life, since they maintain communion with the myriad of Saints who have walked the tried and true path of Holy Tradition to sanctity.

The official Orthodox whom we see in this country look like the heterodox and are fast coming to believe what the heterodox believe. They are becoming part of a world religion which will one day demand that they reject True Orthodoxy. We traditionalists have tasted of the first step towards that rejection in the unbelievable hatred that these preachers of ecumenical love have for us. Their own actions are a sign to us.

True Orthodoxy is official. It is official because it contains spiritual authenticity. All one need do is walk in our Churches, visit our monasteries, or live with our people to know that, despite our imperfections, the spirit of authenticity rests with us. All one need do is visit the Churches and monasteries of the modernists—the few that have any monasteries— and see the compromise, violations and ignorance of tradition, innovation, and priorities of the social Gospel to know their spiritual state. The lack of authenticity bursts forth clearly, cutting through even the sincerity that underlies some of this ignorance of and deviation from Orthodox practice.

Once one of our monks, a convert, recited from memory Small Compline in Greek. A visiting modernist monk, who had earlier expressed his admiration for us traditionalists but his misgivings about our separation from the official Church, was then asked to say the service in English. He was silent. He did not know the service. Nor could he properly bless a meal. Nor did he know the proper way to fast. Nor did he know any of the many unwritten practices of monastic tradition. I always remember this young man when I think of officialdom and wonder if he knew how loudly his silence spoke.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VIII (1991), No. 2, p. 7.

Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle (+2013): “We Will Turn Over the Keys…”

 

“We hold firmly to the Old Calendar and the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church. But we do not consider ourselves another Church, aside from the Mother Church of Greece. When the Mother Church returns to the Calendar of the Fathers and ceases in innovation and ecumenical compromise, our task will have been finished. We will end our resistance within the Church. I promise you, on behalf of our Synod, that we will turn over to the Archbishop of Athens, whoever he may then be, the keys to all of our monasteries, convents, and parishes. I and the other Bishops will retire to our monasteries, our work having been done. But in the meantime, we will continue our missions, which, in Italy especially, are the remnants of rich missionary efforts destroyed by ecumenical concordats that forbid us Orthodox to proselytize, while we see our own Orthodox populations in the Mid-East taken in ever greater numbers each year by the See of Rome. When converts are abandoned by their former Orthodox Prelates at the request of the heterodox, some even finding themselves forced to seek refuge among the vagante Bishops who are to be found throughout Europe and America, we will reach out and help these disenfranchised Orthodox, acting as the conscience of those Orthodox whose hands have been tied by the political machinations of modern ecumenism. We will help such people until the Mother Church is once again well and until other Orthodox Churches, themselves ailing, have been made whole.”

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Volume IV (1987), No. 1, pp. 12-13.

"Evangelicals": the Challenge and the Danger (1990)

by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna

 

 

The following comments are taken from a transcribed text of the recording of an informal but timely talk given to Orthodox college students last year by Bishop Chrysostomos in Portland, Oregon, sponsored by the St. Demetrios of Thessaloniki Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Mission.

 

A number of years ago, when I was Abbot of the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, a modernist Orthodox Priest contacted our monastery (then located in Ohio). A devout believer, he had converted to Orthodoxy without fully understanding its tenets and traditions. As he read more about the Church and studied the Fathers from an Orthodox perspective, he found that his involvement in the Orthodox charismatic movement, various quasi-Orthodox evangelical groups, and a reductionist sort of spiritual life was not consistent with the traditional spirituality of the Orthodox Church. He came to see that the modernist innovations in the jurisdiction to which he had converted, moreover, were not differences in style or the method of approaching Orthodoxy, but deviations from Orthodox belief.

Father X, as I shall call him, eventually decided to embrace the Old Calendar and the fullness of Orthodox tradition and to work among his former associates as a "missionary to his own," as it were. He went to Greece with his wife, was received by our Synod as a Priest, and returned to America.

On their return to America, his wife was counselled by clergy and friends in their former jurisdiction not to support further her husband's entry into the Old Calendar movement. In her confusion, she contacted one of the extremist Old Calendarist groups. Its representatives also encouraged her not to follow her husband, on account of their opposition to our Synod's ecclesiological moderation. She was treated to a barrage of unedifying personal slander in support of this advice.

The tragic end to this story is that Father X chose to remain an Old Calendarist and his wife divorced him. He decided, thereupon, to spend several years in the novitiate under my direction and requested to be—and was—tonsured a monk. He later agreed to leave the brotherhood, at my request, and pursue a spiritual life elsewhere.

I still remember this individual with affection. As a victim of circumstances for which he was not wholly responsible, he will no doubt be judged with leniency for his "failures" and shortcomings. I can also tell this story with anonymity, since so many years have passed since it took place.

From Father X I learned much about the evangelical movement in the Orthodox Church in America. Many of those recruited by the movement, he pointed out, are modernist Orthodox desperately looking for a spiritual path not available in their innovative jurisdictions. Seeking correct belief expressed in a correct way of life—ironically enough, a traditional definition of Orthodoxy itself—, they find themselves attracted to the pietistic language and religious fervor that Orthodox evangelicals have borrowed from Christian fundamentalism and its various sects.

I thus came to understand the challenge of evangelical elements in the Orthodox Church. We true Orthodox must provide those who hunger for a deeper spiritual life with a vision of Orthodoxy as it is lived in full fidelity to Holy Tradition. Fasting, a rich monasticism, and a life built around the Mysteries of the Church—these we must restore as a witness to those who have been lured away by an "evangelical zeal" that appeals to souls who do not know the fullness of their Faith. Herein, to be sure, lies the challenge of evangelical Orthodoxy for us traditionalists.

I also learned from this Father X much about the dangers of evangelical Orthodoxy. He told me how he and others had learned to "speak in tongues" through a process of imitating various sounds. This "accomplishment" earned him recognition as someone of "spiritual stature." He admitted that he had "healed" individuals. Despite knowing that these were not true healings, he justified them as something that was harmless. Nonetheless, he admitted that his charismatic stunts also brought about feelings of a demonic kind.

I was told by Father X that not a few of the leaders of the evangelical groups with whom he associated —some of them subsequently received into at least one modernist Orthodox jurisdiction—used mind control techniques and even subtle physical threats to manipulate the lives of their followers. Marriages were at times broken up, household spending was controlled by the clergy, and tithing was enforced with absolute strictness. Seizing on certain Orthodox Patristic teachings appropriate for monks and not laymen, many clergymen, styling themselves as "spiritual Fathers," would require cult-like obedience from their parishioners, issuing their "blessings" for commonplace activities and decisions wholly within the domain of a layman's privileges and free choice.

Much of what this Priest told me has been confirmed by other sources. A chilling article about the cult-like practices attributed to the Evangelical Orthodox Church, for example, appeared in the student newspaper at the Santa Barbara campus of the University of California, near what were then the sect's headquarters. Professor Ronald M. Enroth has also authored an objective, though equally chilling, account of the controversies which beset the EOC for Christianity Today (August 7, 1981). Though this sect—established by former members of the Campus Crusade for Christ—is now part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, allegations of rather un-Orthodox practices in some of their parishes still circulate. Innovative, non-Orthodox services, charismatic practices, a widespread rejection of many Orthodox doctrines, and an overemphasis on money matters are among these allegations.

We should note here that the dangers posed by the evangelical invasion of the Orthodox Church are not confined to a single modernist jurisdiction. Charismatic activities are part of the daily life of many modernist parishes, at times disguised as attempts to bring believers into a "relevant" encounter with the Church. Moreover, some Greek Pentecostal sects have developed entire programs for the infiltration of the Greek Archdiocese with "lay ministers." These individuals often take an active part in parishes, even to the point of communing frequently. (One such individual boldly told me: "It's just a symbol, so it can't hurt me. By showing everyone a piety they can understand, I help my witness.") In their attempts to "return the Holy Spirit to the Orthodox Church," many of these evangelical Orthodox are not so much interested in the traditional teachings of Orthodoxy as they are in using her claims to historical primacy to legitimate their non- Orthodox beliefs and practices.

The traditionalist Orthodox jurisdictions are also not untouched by the evangelical movement within the Orthodox Church. On the one hand, at least one traditionalist Church in America has several active charismatics among its clergy. While these clergy avoid attracting attention to their activities, they are nonetheless a force to be reckoned with, if only because they operate surreptitiously.

On the other hand, the more unsavory evangelical Orthodox leaders understand that Orthodox traditionalism, with its witness to genuine Orthodox piety, is a threat to the artificial, often hypocritical, and very lucrative spiritual life of the "born again" Orthodox. They thus use the most unscrupulous tactics to discredit Orthodox traditionalists— everything from declaring us legalists and Pharisees to accusing us, in a rather dishonest application of these same standards, of being "uncanonical" by virtue of our resistance to the erosion of Orthodox tradition so decidedly characterized by the phenomenon of "evangelical Orthodoxy."

Indeed, because of my open opposition to the evangelical Orthodox movement, a group of evangelical clergy in several different jurisdictions has attempted to discredit me by the circulation of a false rumor. Misrepresenting the case history with which I opened my present comments, they have accused me of recruiting a modernist Priest, breaking up his marriage, denying his Priesthood, and forcing him to become a monk. Needless to say, this is not an honest portrayal of the true circumstances.

Various other slanderous things have been said about me and Metropolitan Cyprian, and several unscrupulous evangelical spokesmen have told others that our Synod and the Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad do not recognize the validity of the Mysteries of the New Calendar Churches. Spreading misinformation and untruths, these unhealthy advocates of evangelical Orthodoxy simply distort our moderate traditionalist witness at a time when the Church so badly needs a conservative response to some unfortunate modernist excesses. They thus expose to us yet another dimension of the dangers posed by their movement.

There is, finally, an even greater danger in evangelical Orthodoxy, a danger which accrues to any movement or group that claims its primacy by the exclusion of others (the "saved" as opposed to the "unsaved," the "elect" over and against the "lost," etc.). Such claims breed division and dissent. They foster the kind of hatred, competition, name-calling, character assassination, and slander to which I have referred above.

We Old Calendarists have seen the effects of exclusivity in the extremist elements in our movement—among those who have made the responsibility of resistance to errors in our Mother Churches an opportunity to declare everyone except their little sectarian groups un-Orthodox. They have attacked us moderate Old Calendarists with the same tactics—indeed with the same rumors, at times!— employed by the evangelical Orthodox extremists. They have caused division, discord, and confusion.

The personal attacks against me and others by these extremist Orthodox elements—whether fanatic Old Calendarists or evangelical Orthodox—are of little significance. I do not imagine myself or the very tiny missions which I oversee in this country to be important to the Church. I do not pretend that any such thing is true. Nor are very many single individuals, save for an elect few, or individual jurisdictions really pivotal to the Church's witness. However, the danger which the misguided fervor of those who attack us poses for the Church at large is not insignificant.

We must at every moment be on the look-out for this danger, since it eats away at the core of the Church's teachings about humility. It frustrates those who wish to transcend persons and the mundane and to serve the Church in a spiritual way. It interrupts the peace in which the Church must ultimately lie, that we might come to that passionlessness that leads to sanctity: the very goal of Christian living. Indeed it makes of the positive struggle and peaceful warfare of the spirit something akin to the negative and dark warfare of the flesh and all that is earthly.

The initial challenge of the evangelical movement we can no doubt clearly see, for if we are not blinded by the pride which besets the movement itself, we will feel great empathy for the simple believers who seek after Orthodoxy within these misguided circles. We will even find it in our hearts to seek after the misguided leaders of this movement, that they might see the errors of their ways and drink of the truly refreshing water of genuine Orthodoxy.

The deeper challenge, that of confronting the dangerous forces that hold these simple believers in bondage, is not an easy one to face. The few older Priests who initially warned their modernist Hierarchs about receiving the evangelical Orthodox courted the displeasure of their superiors. We moderate traditionalists, or Old Calendarists, who have been relegated to the backwaters of Orthodoxy, are a good example of what happens when one speaks the truth. Anyone who speaks out will eventually suffer what we suffer. This challenge we must meet, regardless of the consequences.

But we are also evidence of something else. Disenfranchised, attacked from all sides, spat upon, and despised, our influence, our voices, and the truth which we speak have a power wholly out of keeping with our circumstances and numbers. We are proof that the truth, even if it is spoken by a few people among millions, ultimately threatens and thus drowns out the loud voices of the millions who speak a lie. Let all of us, then, meet the challenge of the evangelical Orthodox directly and with the truth.

TV evangelists. What do they bring to mind? The hucksters who constitute the unsavory side of evangelical Christianity. Those who loudly proclaim themselves saved and who offer glib generalizations about the subtle truths of Christianity are not evangelists, bearers of the good news, but misguided individuals who have distorted the nature of Christianity.

Orthodox evangelicals are no different. Many of them, perhaps even some of the more dangerous leaders, may be sincere; however, they are preaching an Orthodoxy of innovation and convenience, an Orthodoxy of opinion, rather than tradition. The inevitable outcome of this process is pride, the sin and passions which come with pride, and an ultimate downfall.

Without doubt, many of the evangelical Orthodox who are operating "churches" within the Church will eventually break away from their Orthodox jurisdictions, taking with them a claim to "historical" Christianity and the authenticity of the Church where "Christians were first called Christians," as they are fond of noting. But they will leave with nothing. For we are not simply the Church of the place where Christians first called themselves Christians. We are the Church in which the first Christians still live and breathe, living through our preservation of Holy Tradition and breathing the immortal spirit of the Mysteries of Orthodox worship. We are the Church of that Place which lies beyond earthly places. And therein alone lies our authenticity. No artificial claim to historical legitimacy will survive the test of that authentic Christian spirit, any more than high-sounding pietistic language can ever ring more loudly than the silence of genuine inner spirituality.

I realize that my very personal words are controversial. However, I offer them not for the sake of controversy, but the truth.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII (1990), No. 3, pp. 4, 8.

On Iconoclasm

 

In the 8th and 9th centuries, the Iconoclasts put forward a much subtler argument rather than a simple reference to the biblical commandment forbidding images of God. They proceeded from the Chalcedonian creed that recognized two natures in Jesus Christ, human and divine, united within themselves unconfused, indivisible, inseparable, and unchangeable. “If that’s the case,” said the iconoclastic theologians, “then the icon image of Jesus Christ is indeed impossible because no image can represent both of His natures (His divine nature cannot be made out of any material - paint, mosaic, marble, gypsum, etc). Separating the two natures is the Nestorian heresy,” concluded the iconoclastic theologians.

The iconoclastic argument seemed to be logical. That is why the anti-icon movement lasted for so long (about 150 years), swallowing up many outstanding people of that time. Nevertheless, that argument had a fundamental theological error, and specifically a Christological one, which finally became fatal to the iconoclastic theory. The Orthodox defenders of images of Christ found out that the iconoclastic theologians kept passing in silence the other major category of this dogma: the category of person of Jesus Christ - the hypostasis!

The category of hypostasis is the basis for the iconography of Christ. The icon of Christ portrays neither His divinity nor His humanity but His hypostasis, marvelous and mysterious to human wit - it is the hypostasis that unites together both natures (human and divine) unconfused, indivisible, inseparable, and unchangeable according to the confession of Chalcedon.

The icon of Christ served as the basis for Christian iconography. On this basis, it was easy enough to prove the legitimacy of other icons: the icon of the Mother of God, the New Testament Saints, the Old Testament prophets and Righteous men. The veneration of holy relics of Saints and the veneration of the Cross were also proved by this icon. On the contrary, starting from the denial of the icon of Christ, Iconoclasts would inevitably, though sometimes not at once, deny all the icons, deny the Holy Relics and the Cross.

One of the major definitions of the Seventh [Ecumenical] Council of Nicaea (met in 787) is that the iconic images of the Savior, Mother of God, saints and also relics of the holy martyrs and the image of the Cross must always be venerated in the Orthodox Church.

- Fr. Vladimir Mustafin, Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

 

Source (typos corrected): https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1001B&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&F=&S=&P=1007 (since deleted).

Mainstream critique of the EP: “The clouds are gathering”

Alexandros Remoundos | May 19, 2026

 

 

The clouds are gathering over the patriarchate of Patriarch Bartholomew, which is approaching its natural completion despite the efforts of the Greek State to prolong it with “artificial” support… This is the conclusion suggested by diaspora and other publications, which have been increasing lately. In them, often indirectly, but many times also without mincing words, it is emphasized that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, if it is to survive after the present Patriarch, needs a “change of course.” Necessary for this purpose — as is stressed — is a well-intentioned but also unbiased evaluation of the last thirty-five-year patriarchate, so that whatever positive aspects it may have may be identified and, at the same time, its many or few negative effects on the life of the Orthodox Church may be noted. Only if the indicated objective conclusions are drawn — the press notes — will it become possible to chart the needed new line of navigation, so that the Patriarchate may rise to the occasion, responding to the manifold challenges, religious and international, of the new era.

Of the various assessments that the media are making regarding the present leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, some are more or less known, while others, more severe, are now being expressed for the first time, raising new questions.

Until now, criticism usually focused chiefly on journalistic descriptions connected with the “satrapism” that generally characterizes the decisions and actions of the leadership of the Phanar.

Among the specific issues with which print or online journalism has dealt from time to time are the diminished role of the patriarchal synod, the election and frequent dismissal of hierarchs, the conflicts with other Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches, the frequency of the patriarchal trips, the “gaping wounds” in the Archdiocese of America, the Patriarchate’s relations with the Turkish authorities, and the failure of the latest patriarchal visit to the White House.

There follows a brief analytical presentation of the issues with which the journalistic pen has dealt up to the present:

a) Downgrading of the Synod

The press has repeatedly pointed out the “vertical” downgrading of the role of the patriarchal synod over the last thirty years, since the collective handling of matters has essentially been abolished and dialogue within the synodal framework has disappeared. Although the decisions of the Patriarchate, for reasons of formal ecclesiastical legality, bear the seal of the synod, in reality they are dictated by the president of the synod, that is, the Patriarch, and are adopted without discussion by the rest of the hierarchs. The role of the synod today has been limited to a mere formal ratification of the Patriarch’s apt or inept preferences.

The above downgrading depends directly on the manner in which the synod is composed. Today the synod is composed of hierarchs who are called to serve as “synod members” not on the basis of an established list (syntagmation), as happened in the past, but by the Patriarch himself, who determines who will participate in the work of the synod for a certain period. Thus the members of the synod are selected according to purely personal criteria. In the event that some synodal hierarch happens to disagree with the Patriarch during the discussion of some matter, he is usually dismissed immediately and without discussion, for example, the cases of Adrianople, Chicago, and others.

b) Authoritarianism in the election or dismissal of archbishops and metropolitans

The present Patriarch is often criticized by the press for imposing his purely personal preferences in the election of clergymen to episcopal positions of every rank, and he is likewise censured for the dismissal or compulsory resignation of a multitude of hierarchs — most recently: Evangelos of New Jersey, Athenagoras of Mexico, of Lambis and Sfakia, and others — without the prescribed procedure of “defense.”

The press also does not fail frequently to recall the “Homeric” conflict between Patriarch Bartholomew and the then Archbishop Iakovos of America, which ended up taking the form of a public dispute on Greek television, giving rise to a series of negative comments against the Patriarch himself and the Patriarchate.

c) A confrontational stance on pan-Orthodox issues — Relations with the other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches

In this connection, the press usually recalls the “violent” handling of the case of Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens, which, without the intervention of the Greek State, would have ended in a new schism within Greek Orthodoxy.

According to the relevant publications, the problems with the Church of Russia were dealt with by Patr. Bartholomew in a confrontational spirit and ultimately led to the effective cancellation of the work of the pan-Orthodox council of Crete. At this point, critical reference is also made to the haste and lack of foresight with which the issue of Ukrainian Autocephaly was handled, which ultimately led to the present “Russian schism” and to a historically unprecedented division among the Orthodox Churches: Greek-speaking, Slavic-speaking, Arabic-speaking, and others.

The fragmentation — it is emphasized — has reached such a point that the Orthodox Church throughout the world not only “appears” but also “is literally a sad scattered village,” while “the concept of the one and indivisible Orthodox Church now seems like an illusion.” It is reasonably observed that the Slavic-speaking, Arabic-speaking, and even Greek-speaking Churches, such as Jerusalem, are moving farther and farther away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, aligning themselves with Moscow, with the result that “the Ecumenical Patriarch has become visibly isolated.”

The diaspora newspaper Ethnikos Kyrix (The National Herald), in a related comment, characteristically notes:

“And then we here in America, as well as many others throughout the world, live under illusions, expecting Patr. Bartholomew to unite the Orthodox Church, at the very moment when he contributed to its becoming a scattered village. Yes, a scattered village — a fact which hierarchs, even among those most ‘his own’ in the Phanar and elsewhere, admit in sacred secrecy, yet they do not dare tell him so, because they fear his wrath, bearing in mind his abusive behavior toward a great many hierarchs. The wounds he has opened here in our own Archdiocese are gaping: Evangelos, Methodios, Nathanael. It is nightmarish to think calmly and objectively about the legacy he is leaving behind after thirty-five years in the Patriarchate.”

The journalists also recall that the tone of certain public statements by Patr. Bartholomew, especially toward the aggressive Russians, “is not fitting for a Patriarch, and indeed for the First of Orthodoxy.” They emphasize in this regard that, “when the Patriarch uses expressions (‘we couldn’t care less,’ ‘I am not afraid of them’…) which are not in keeping with the tone of the institution, he does not silence his critics, but on the contrary gives them occasion for new attacks.”

d) Excessive public-relations activity

According to the journalistic comments, “the excessive frequency of Patriarch Bartholomew’s trips — especially to Greece, but also more generally — gradually creates a sense of ease, almost of everyday routine, which is not in keeping with the weight of the office. When the Patriarch appears constantly ‘on the move,’ the institution inevitably loses its radiance and certainly something of its uniqueness. His presence ceases to constitute an important event and becomes routine.”

For this reason, the faithful now observe with “discomfort” that the churches are half-full, noting limited, “not mass, participation of the people in the Patriarch’s visits and appearances.”

The concluding journalistic comment is usually that “a person’s reputation is not formed while on the fly”…

e) The continual ferment in the Archdiocese of America

The position of the press specializing in ecclesiastical affairs is almost unanimous: the “gaping wounds” in the Patriarchate’s largest province, the Archdiocese of America, are due to the present Patriarch’s continual “vertical interventions” in the archdiocesan administration. In particular, the following are attributed to Patriarch Bartholomew:

– the fragmentation of the Archdiocese into dioceses thirty years ago, which ultimately accelerated the de-Hellenization of the Greek diaspora.

– the “painful” changes of archbishops for the Church of America, and the creation within it of the unofficial status of a “second archbishop” — a Patriarchal Legate acting in parallel with the elected official Archbishop — which, according to journalistic reports, fall within a broader framework of a financial plan based on “the long-standing thought and desire of the Phanar for the complete ‘capture’ of the Church and the Greek diaspora of America.”

– the appointment of an archbishop with pro-Turkish views and with particular activity in the buying and selling of ecclesiastical property assets.

The press also does not fail to recall that all the above led to the noticeable reduction in the number of registered members of the Archdiocese, which over the last thirty years fell from 650,000 to only 120,000.

By way of conclusion, the press emphasizes “the grim and paralyzing reality, for which Patr. Bartholomew is chiefly responsible, because the one here — the Archbishop — is merely an agent carrying out orders.”

f) The patriarchal stance toward the Turkish authorities — International issues

In this connection, the press recalls the patriarchal blessing of Turkish arms in Erdoğan’s military operation “Olive Branch” in Afrin, northwestern Syria, in 2018. The media also highlight the lack of any patriarchal reaction to the issue of the conversion of Hagia Sophia and the Monastery of Chora into mosques, stressing that “silence is not a neutral stance — it is a loss of witness.” On the issue of the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, it is pointed out that, although no substantive progress has been achieved, “inaccurate and misleading” statements to the contrary are nevertheless being made. Finally, journalism also touches on the patriarchal silence concerning the U.S.–Iran war, while at the same time praising the courageous stance of the Pope of Rome.

g) The “shipwreck” of his patriarchal visit to the White House

According to ecclesiastical observers, the “glaring” failure of the visit was due to inadequate organizational preparation. They considered it a “fatal” mistake on the part of Patr. Bartholomew to entrust the organization of the visit to the “second archbishop,” Fr. Alex Karloutsos, at a time when the latter’s relations with those governing in Washington were strained, due to his involvement, as co-organizer of the diaspora event for the celebration of March 25, 2025, at the White House, in an issue concerning the sale of tickets to the “guests.” The matter had taken on such proportions that the U.S. government spokesman was forced to issue an official statement, rejecting any relevant involvement by the White House. Therefore, responsibility for organizing the patriarchal visit was assigned to an unsuitable person, since he was in disfavor with the White House.

In the journalistic effort to evaluate the visit, reference was also made to “enormous diplomatic blunders” that occurred during the meeting with President Trump and that are attributed exclusively to Patr. Bartholomew.

h) Uncontrolled financial management

To the above list, journalistic criticism now comes to add the delicate issue of the management of the Patriarchate’s finances — an issue about which, for years, the synodal hierarchs were kept in “pitch darkness.” However, the empty coffers of the Patriarchate and the absence of any financial accounting for the “flood of millions of dollars” which, for thirty-five years, has been flowing into the Phanar, are tending to make the issue “explosive,” since it directly concerns Patr. Bartholomew on a personal level.

In this connection, the press recalls that the only person who ineffectively asked Patr. Bartholomew for a financial accounting — even an elementary one, and limited only to the amount of the Greek subsidy to the Patriarchate — was Theodoros Pangalos as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

As is known, the Greek media, both in Greece and in the diaspora, kept Patr. Bartholomew beyond criticism for decades, presumably for “national” reasons. The Athens News Agency (ANA), that is, the official state body which gathers, processes, and distributes news in Greece and abroad, as a rule censors and blocks every text considered critical of Patriarch Bartholomew. For decades, journalistic criticism appeared only in a very few marginal Athenian newspapers, in certain purely ecclesiastical publications, or in spaces on the internet.

The same situation prevails today as well, since the Greek Government, because of international circumstances, continues to avoid the “diplomatic headache” that a possible patriarchal resignation and election of a new Patriarch would create. However, independent journalism — trying to overcome the “fences” of the state ANA, especially in the sphere of the Greek-American diaspora, chiefly Kalami, Helleniscope, and lately also The National Herald — is making interesting revelations of financial data that are creating a different situation, with perhaps new prospects. At the same time, indicative of the gradual formation of a new Phanariot scene is the already apparent activity of the candidates who aspire to succeed Patr. Bartholomew. For the moment, two groups of hierarchs have been formed in Constantinople: the first includes Metropolitans Demetrios of the Princes’ Islands and Meliton of Philadelphia; the second, Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon and his friends. The press, of course, also takes for granted the involvement of Elpidophoros of America, who, although far from the Phanar, maintains — as is rumored — excellent relations with the Erdoğan regime and has never concealed his ambition to be the next Ecumenical Patriarch.

For observers of ecclesiastical developments, it is evident that the clouds are gathering ever more densely over the waning patriarchate of Patr. Bartholomew, who is now called upon to cope with 1) the new, serious criticisms of the press on extremely sensitive matters of a financial nature, and 2) the seemingly guileless yet clearly undermining initiatives of the ever more impatient would-be successors. Will Patr. Bartholomew’s tendency to present himself as ever-active and indefatigable suffice this time to offset the clearly visible effects of his advanced age? From the columns of the press, the view is being expressed — always with some reservation — that only Patr. Bartholomew’s characteristic unorthodox machinations can serve as an effective means for dispersing the dark clouds that have once again accumulated over his setting patriarchate.

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%cf%80%cf%85%ce%ba%ce%bd%cf%8e%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bd-%cf%84%ce%ac-%cf%83%cf%8d%ce%bd%ce%bd%ce%b5%cf%86%ce%b1/

Schema-Bishop Peter (Ladygin): An Unshakable Pillar of the Catacomb Church

by S. V. Shumilo and V. V. Shumilo

 

 

The editorial board of Church News continues to acquaint readers with the life and struggles of outstanding ascetics and confessors of the Catacomb Church. Today we offer the opportunity to touch upon pages from the autobiographical memoirs of the Hieroconfessor Schema-Bishop Peter (Ladygin, +1957), the last canonical bishop of the TOC and, in fact, its First Hierarch until the end of the 1950s. Vladika Peter dictated these memoirs to his spiritual children in portions, when he was already half-blind. Their various parts, under conditions of strict secrecy, were written down from Vladika Peter’s dictation by different people and at different times. Some parts of these manuscripts, alas, have already been lost forever. But even what has survived is a priceless source, opening up the blank pages of the life of this outstanding Orthodox Hierarch-Confessor of the persecuted Catacomb True Orthodox Church.

Hieroconfessor Schema-Bishop Peter was born in the village of Bolshoy Seleg, Krasnogorsky District, not far from the city of Glazov (Udmurtia), on December 1 (Old Style), 1866. He was baptized as Potapy Trofimovich Ladygin. In his youth, during his service in the imperial army in the city of Kiev, he became the spiritual child of Elder Jonah (in schema Peter), who in turn had been the spiritual child and obedient disciple of St. Seraphim of Sarov. When P. Ladygin, upon completing his military service, asked Elder Jonah for a blessing to enter the Kiev Caves Lavra, Fr. Jonah, instead of Kiev, sent him in obedience to Jerusalem and to Athos (Greece), where in 1880 he was tonsured a monk with the name Pitirim. From 1889 he was a hieromonk. From 1910 he was the superior of the St. Andrew’s metochion of the Athonite monasteries in Odessa.

As early as 1901, the future Hierarch Peter was shown, in a subtle dream, his own future and that of the Russian Church. This is how the Confessor recalled it:

“At the Athonite metochion in Saint Petersburg, in the month of May, 1901, I saw a dream:

Two men of extraordinary beauty came to the metochion. And they said:

‘Get ready, come with us.’

I asked:

‘Where?’

They replied:

‘The Queen has appointed you to steer a ship; you must go out to sea.’

I said that I had never been a sailor and could not steer; I would sink the ship and drown myself. They said:

‘We cannot leave you, since the Queen has sent us; you must go.’

I went. We came to the Winter Palace. At the landing-stage on the Neva River there stood a beautiful sailing vessel, and we boarded this vessel. And suddenly the Queen, the Mother of God, came out and said to me:

‘You must bring this ship to the other side of the ocean. And all these people whom I entrust to you.’

I began to weep. I fell at the feet of the Mother of God and said:

‘I cannot.’

She said: ‘Do not fear; I Myself will be here with you,’ and immediately said to me:

‘Give the command for the vessel to go out to sea.’

And at once we sailed away from the shore, and the vessel quickly went along the Neva River. We came out into the sea. And a terrible storm arose on the sea. Our vessel was moving swiftly, and the storm had no effect on it. In the sea we encountered two enormous ships, and on them a multitude of people, full vessels, and these ships were being tossed with all their might by the waves in different directions. Terrible waves were coming from every side. You think, now they will plunge them into the abyss of the sea. We quickly passed by them; they remained in the midst of the sea, and soon after this we arrived at the shore. On the shore there was such beauty that it is impossible to describe: various trees, fruits. We all climbed out of the ship onto the shore, and the Mother of God said to me:

‘And now we have crossed the terrible abyss.’

With that I woke up. I told Father Hieroschemamonk Ambrose about this. He said to me:

‘Write all this down, and for the time being say nothing to anyone. In a grievous hour the Mother of God will entrust you with governing Her flock.’”

This prophetic vision came to pass in the years of the godless persecutions, when after the 1950s Vladika Peter (Ladygin) remained the only canonical bishop of the True Orthodox Church of Russia and its de facto First Hierarch.

In 1918, Archimandrite Pitirim (Ladygin) took part in the enthronement of St. Patriarch Tikhon. With the blessing and by special commission of the Patriarch, in 1918 he traveled to Constantinople for an audience with the Ecumenical Patriarch, during which he delivered St. Tikhon’s Epistle concerning the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian Church. Having received in Constantinople the reply epistle of the Ecumenical Patriarch, he delivered it personally to Patriarch Tikhon.

In 1923, the Holy St. Andrew Athonite metochion in Odessa was closed, and Fr. Pitirim was arrested by the Bolsheviks. After spending some time in prison, Father Pitirim and the brethren of the monastery were forced to move to the farmstead of Yeremeyevka, where they cultivated the land, engaging in agricultural work. Soon Fr. Pitirim was again arrested and sent by prisoner convoy into exile in the Ufa region. On the way he stopped in Moscow, where he managed to see St. Patriarch Tikhon and other Orthodox hierarchs. As Schema-Bishop Peter later recalled: “I visited St. Patriarch Tikhon; he asked me, under holy obedience, to become Bishop of Yeram, but I was very weak, and I asked His Holiness to allow me to stay in my homeland and recover my health; but I was detained there, and His Holiness departed to the Lord in March 1925.” While already in exile, in the Ufa region, he founded a secret skete in the forest. For his steadfastness in true Orthodoxy, his loyalty, and his invaluable assistance to the Patriarch and the Russian Church, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon nevertheless issued a decree elevating him to the episcopal rank, sending it by letter to Archbishop Andrei (Prince Ukhtomsky) of Ufa, and in the Urals the exiled Fr. Pitirim became a bishop. By the will of St. Tikhon and at the insistence of the church people, on June 8, 1925, he was consecrated Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod (the Ufa district) and Urzhum by Archbishop Andrei (Prince Ukhtomsky) of Ufa and Bishop Leo (Cherepanov) of Nizhny Tagil. This took place secretly, at Tedzhen Station (Tajikistan), the place of exile of Vladika Pitirim. But already in 1926 Vladika Pitirim was under investigation in the case of the Ufa clergy. On April 21, 1927, he was tonsured into the schema with the name Peter. He did not recognize the apostate Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) and his uncanonical Synod.

For his faithfulness to True Orthodoxy and his refusal to recognize the Soviet church, he was repeatedly subjected to arrests, imprisonments, and threats of execution. In December 1928, he was again arrested in connection with the case of the “branch of the TOC.” He was sentenced to three years in a corrective labor camp. From 1931 to 1933 he was imprisoned. After his release, from 1934 to 1937 he hid in Glazov. From 1937 to 1940 he lived illegally in Kaluga, and from 1940 to 1945 in Beloretsk (Bashkiria). In 1945 he was arrested in Ufa. For belonging to the TOC, he was sentenced to five years’ exile in Central Asia. There he escaped and hid in the mountains. From 1949 to 1951 he hid in Belarus and in the Kuban.

Hieroconfessor Schema-Bishop Peter (Ladygin) remained to the end of his days a faithful hierarch of the persecuted Catacomb Church. Vladika Peter united various groups of catacomb believers on the territory of the USSR, for whom he ordained many clergy in secret. This outstanding hierarch of the Catacomb Church ended his much-suffering life in complete isolation and under covert KGB surveillance, as a very old man, and moreover blind, at the age of 91 — on February 6 (Old Style), 1957 (according to other information, June 2, 1957), in the city of Glazov (Udmurtia). He was buried in the city cemetery. On the grave there was left only a brief inscription: “Here rests the servant of God Peter.” The catacomb believers who care for the grave of Hieroconfessor Peter testify to cases of healing from illnesses after prayers at the grave of the Schema-Bishop.

 

Translated from the original Russian.

Why do we turn to the saints if God hears us directly?

Mykyta Rakytnianskyi | May 13, 2026

 

 

Prayer to the saints is a plea for a hand in the darkness, when we ourselves can no longer rise toward God.

To many, it seems that Heaven is arranged like a government office. God cannot be reached directly, so one has to file a petition with the relevant ministry – to St. Nicholas for travel matters, to St. Tatiana for student concerns, to Blessed Matrona or the Great Martyr Panteleimon for health.

If God is all-powerful and hears every word, why do we need intermediaries, long lists of names, troparia, akathists? Why not simply tell God everything without witnesses? The answer to this question is not found in canons; it lies in the realm of our spiritual life.

God is not a president

The habit of projecting earthly bureaucracy onto Heaven is remarkably stubborn. The state has taught us: you cannot get through to the head of state; first comes the office, then the clerk, then the deputy minister, while the president himself is far away and unreachable. And so a person leaves the passport office and enters a church – and inside, the same mechanism is already at work. “I will never get through to God; He is too busy. I’ll pray to St. Nicholas – he handles these matters.”

But God is not busy with detached management of galaxies.

Any clerk at a district clinic is obliged to accept our paperwork – while God attends to each of us continuously, with a fullness of attention that not even any mother possesses.

He has no queue and no office hours. His door is always open. So why, then, do we need the saints?

The lesson of Cana of Galilee

The answer comes in the scene of a village wedding in Cana of Galilee. A poor family. In the middle of the feast, the hosts run out of wine, and a simple human shame appears: there is nothing left to pour for the guests. And then the Mother of God says to Her Son: “They have no wine” (John 2:3).

What follows is strange. Christ replies: “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). In other words, this miracle was not part of His messianic plans. And yet He performs it. Why? Because His Mother asked Him.

Not because God did not know – He knows all things. But because the love of a righteous heart for people caught in embarrassment, according to the experience of the Church, is able to enter into God’s plans and draw a miracle after it.

God responds to the compassion of the Mother of God and does what, it seems, He had not intended to do.

This is the simple key. It matters to God that love should flow between people. And He is ready to work miracles in response to that current of love.

The faith of friends

The house in Capernaum where Christ was teaching was packed full – there was no way in, neither through the door nor through a window. Four men brought their paralyzed friend on a stretcher and saw that they could not enter. Then they did something astonishing: they climbed onto the roof, tore it open, and lowered the stretcher right down before the Teacher.

“And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you’” (Mark 2:5). Not “seeing his faith.” Seeing their faith – the faith of the four men who carried their friend in their arms and tore open someone else’s roof.

The paralyzed man could not believe – most likely, he lay there in despair. His friends believed. And Christ healed him because they did not give up.

The saints are those very friends who hold our stretcher when we ourselves lie paralyzed.

We have no strength to rise toward God; perhaps we do not even have faith. But they believe for us. And their faith often has greater weight precisely when we are powerless.

The antimension and relics

In the first centuries, Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome. They celebrated the Liturgy underground, in corridors where niches had been carved into the walls for the bodies of murdered martyrs. And here is the astonishing thing: the first Christians consciously chose the stone tomb of a martyr for the Eucharist. They served on it, turning the burial slab into an altar.

The first Christians did this because they believed that the martyr beneath the altar was there beside them and shared in the Table. The wall between the world of the living and the world of the departed, which seems impenetrable to us, was for them as permeable as vapor.

This tradition is alive today. Every Orthodox antimension – the rectangular cloth on which the Liturgy is celebrated – contains a sewn-in particle of a martyr’s relics. Without it, the Eucharist cannot be served.

In every church where a service is taking place, beside the Holy Table lies a tiny fragment of bone from a person who gave his life for Christ. It is there as a sign of the holy martyr’s presence at that service and of his spiritual communion with us.

This is called koinonia – communion, fellowship, participation. It is the word the New Testament uses to describe the Church as a living organism with one circulatory system. And in that system there is no boundary between the living and the departed.

The icon as a window into Heaven

In the iconographic tradition, saints are always depicted facing forward or slightly turned – so that their eyes can meet the eyes of the one praying. Demons, executioners, and Judas are painted in profile, with only one eye and half the face visible. The refusal to look into the eyes in iconography is a refusal of communion. The saint is always turned toward us. An icon is, from the beginning, made as a window for a two-way conversation.

As St. Silouan the Athonite said, in Heaven everything lives and moves by the Holy Spirit. But on earth, too, there is that same Holy Spirit: He lives in our Church, in the Sacraments, in Scripture, in the souls of believers. The Holy Spirit unites everyone – and therefore the saints are close to us. According to the elder’s testimony, when we pray to them, they hear our prayers in the Holy Spirit, and our souls feel that they are praying for us.

This is the experience of St. Silouan, who spent years praying at night in his Athonite cell. And it is the experience of anyone who, even once, has asked with childlike simplicity a departed, God-loving grandmother: “Grandma, pray for us” – and then received in response an inexplicable warmth in the heart, as though one had spoken with a beloved person face to face.

A hand in the darkness

Psychologists observe that modern people have thousands of “friends” on social media, instant access to any corner of the world – and yet an unprecedented loneliness. When things become truly frightening, it turns out there is no one to call.

Christianity insists: the closest, most empathetic, and most unfailing friends are those who died centuries ago. They prove more real and nearer than the contacts in a smartphone, and they have no connection problems.

When you are sitting in a cold basement during an air raid alert, there are things others do for us: air defense protects the sky, rescuers are ready to go out at any moment, neighbors are anxious nearby. But in those moments, you need something else as well: for someone on the bench simply to take your hand. Simply to place a warm palm over yours, giving you hope.

When we pray to the saints, we ask for the support of family. God is already with us. But God has made us, together with the saints, one great family. And in a family, when one person is suffering, the others come near, place a hand on the shoulder, and stand beside them. Silently. Simply so that we know: we are not orphans.

 

Source:

https://spzh.eu/en/chelovek-i-cerkovy/93096-why-do-we-turn-to-the-saints-if-god-hears-us-directly

Elder Porphyrios on the Heterodox

 

“I was told that your Elder [St. Justin Popović] was a zealous man, a fighter, with a fiery nature. He gave his all for Christ. He was fearless towards everyone and towards the Communists also. Some of his spiritual children and admirers strive to emulate him in confrontations there [in Serbia]. They voice their opinions with very caustic words. But I would like to say the following.  He was a holy man, and as such, could act that way. But not the others, who albeit zealous, are inclined to confront their opposition and say “Let them cut off my head – I will remain steadfast and will not budge.”  It is easy to say “let them cut off my head” – it is a good thing – but that is not how Christ’s labours should be undertaken.  Fr. Justin was something else. He had that Outspokenness; he could say things like that, but I don’t think that you should. I would advise you, Fr. Irinej [Bulović], to follow a somewhat different course. For Christ’s work to be achieved, so that even atheists, communists and others may be saved, you should not be confrontational with them. Do not stand up to them and do not provoke them.”

Well, you can imagine at my age at the time, and with my youthful euphoria, how those words sounded to me!  You see, we had that simple, black-and-white image of the prevailing situation: there are persecutors here – persecutors of the Church – and we are here to defend Her is what we believed. And now, all of a sudden, the Elder was reminding us that Christ also wants the salvation of those persecutors and enemies, as much as He wants ours and the others.

“Don’t say too many things”, he continued to advise me. “Don’t infuriate them, don’t make them your enemies, because that way, they will isolate you and you will not be able to do anything thereafter. Many will come there; they will create various problems for you, and they will say all sorts of things to you.  Do not reciprocate, do not try to defend yourself and give explanations about our faith. For as long as they are attacking you, you should remain silent and pray.  Pray secretly. Even if someone spits on the icon of Christ in front of you, you should remain silent.  Do not defend Christ. Christ does not need you to defend Him.  What do you think about all this?  Does Christ want atheists and communists to be saved also, or not?”

“Of course He does, Elder” I replied.

“Well, that is what Christ wants: for those who also deny Him to become acquainted with Him, so that they too might be saved.”

(…)

That atheist who spat on Christ’s image, may very well think to himself on his way home: “Imagine, I said all those things to that priest; I even spat on something so sacred to him, and yet, he never said a word; he never retaliated, even though he could have.” And it is not improbable that he might come and find you, and say:  “I need you, for my soul”.  That way, it is quite possible that you might win him for Christ, and that is far more important than displaying heroism and outspokenness.  You should work secretly, noiselessly, and not become involved in politics.  Preach Christ. Speak only about Him.  That is the only way you will be of benefit to others – by saving people; even when you find yourself in the company of Christians who might be talking about different matters and expressing their own opinions, which you may not agree with or have another position, another opinion – and it may well be a better one. You should not seek to voice your opinion however. You can give your opinion, humbly, without imposing it on others, but only when asked for it. That is how people are best benefited. They will then say: “Did you notice how well he spoke? And if we hadn’t asked him, he would have kept silent.”

(…)

“Over there”, he said, “you also have heterodox and other religions. You must behave to everyone with subtlety, with love. Do not offend anyone. You must perceive and address all of them as brethren – even those who belong to other religions.  We are all children of the same Father.  Do not comment on the beliefs of those who belong to other religions.”

 

- Elder Porphyrios Kafsokalyvitis, How Should We Behave Towards Atheists or Heterodox?, The Sacred Monastery of Chrysopigi, Chania, Crete, 2008, pages 286-287 & 297.

 

 

Translation (slightly corrected): http://www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/behaviour2atheists.htm

The Romanian Patriarchate actively collaborates with the WCC for the promotion of the heretical theory of the “visible unity of the Church.”

Hieromonk Lavrentie | May 18, 2026

 

 

The most important media channels of the Patriarchate reported on the visit of the “Faith and Order” Commission to Romania, to Sibiu and Bucharest, for the promotion and implementation of the ecumenist program among us. Thus, both the Basilica agency

(see: https://basilica.ro/ips-nifon-palatul-patriarhiei-vizita-delegatiei-comisiei-credinta-si-constitutie-cmb/)

and Ziarul Lumina,

(see https://ziarullumina.ro/actualitate-religioasa/stiri/delegatie-a-consiliului-mondial-al-bisericilor-in-vizita-la-patriarhia-romana-206150.html)

as well as the Trinitas media trust,

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhwKDxBz_tU)

presented in laudatory terms the itinerary of the aforementioned WCC commission.

The Heresy of the Incomplete Church

Unfortunately, the poisoned apple is explicitly displayed by Metropolitan Nifon in the words: “The ecumenical movement has the purpose of promoting dialogue among the various churches that make up the World Council of Churches in various fields, all of which must lead to the realization of the visible unity of the Church of Christ the Savior. Orthodoxy strongly affirms its values.” As though the Church had lost her unity and were fragmented into several divided parts. In other words, all the heresies and sects of today are viewed as members of the Church of Christ in a rift which we are called to overcome, that is, to absorb it and to pursue a dissipated, illusory unity.

This conception is in flagrant contradiction with the Orthodox Creed in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” Church, identified only with the Orthodox Church. The right-glorifying faith is holy and unshaken, preserved pure from heresies within Orthodoxy. The amalgam of a confused religion in which the truth is possessed by the various confessions in a syncretistic manner, in an undifferentiated fusion, is an attack against the revealed and clear truth, and a renunciation of the revelation of the Lord and of the Gospel.

But statements of this sort by Metropolitan Nifon are already no longer anything new after the one at Busan in 2013, for which there was not even a retraction. We must beware of this leaven of teaching, even if it is officially promoted and encouraged as the abomination of desolation in the holy place.

This branch theory, which asserts in various ways that the Church of Christ is divided within itself into several factions, contradicts true ecclesiastical history, namely, that the heretics and the heresies promoted by them were excluded from the bosom of the Church through official anathematization within the Ecumenical Councils, or the Local Councils in the first centuries. They did not remain in her after excommunication, but are entirely broken off.

Dialogue with them makes sense even without initially requiring them to recognize us as the only authentic Church, because we cannot impose the right teaching on someone from the beginning, but only later through convincing arguments. However, it is absurd for us ourselves to deny from the outset the fact that we are the Church of Christ fully, unitedly, and exclusively, and to conduct a dialogue from this already apostate position.

The Trojan Horse of the WCC: The Influencing of Orthodoxy by Heretics

Metropolitan Job of the Ecumenical Patriarchate emphasized the important role played by the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 in laying the foundations for the later World Council of Churches (1948). Moreover, Metropolitan Germanos composed that text at the time under the influence of Swedish religious and political leaders who had laid the foundations of the first ecumenist associations in 1910.

Unfortunately, even some Saints were initially drawn into these dialogues and searches for unity, such as Nikolai Velimirovich, who sent a written paper to the Lausanne Conference in 1927 without being present,

(see https://www.livingorthodoxtradition.org/sacraments)

and, later, Dumitru Stăniloae or Fr. Georges Florovsky. Nevertheless, the subject of the ecumenical movement was clarified by many other contemporary Holy Fathers, such as Paisios the Athonite, Justin Popović, Seraphim Rose, John Maximovitch, and even by those whom I named previously and who dissociated themselves from it.

The appearance of dialogue can, and indeed sometimes does, deceive even those who are experienced, as can be seen. But precisely for this reason, the subject of ecumenism must be treated and resolved in an Orthodox manner, without compromises, in the spirit of the right faith, not of Christian and even religious syncretism. And the harmfulness of this so-called dialogue consists in the fact that it begins from false premises, namely from the renunciation of declaring ourselves to be the only Church of Christ in the midst of wolves, that is, of the so-called heretical “Churches.” This departure means that it is no longer a matter of dialogue, but of negotiating the faith, or rather of outright selling it and betraying it.

For a sound approach to the subject of ecumenism, I recall the Romanian Orthodox position, and not only that, when the question of dialogue and union with heretics was first raised in 1902: The Response of the Local Orthodox Churches to the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

(see https://theodosie.ro/2022/05/16/enciclica-patriarhala-din-1902-zorii-ecumenismului-in-ortodoxie-raspunsul-bisericilor-ortodoxe-de-atunci-inclusiv-al-celei-romane/)

[Romanian response to the Encyclical of 1902, translated from the above Romanian link: The Church is obliged to guard the truth of the faith, but also all the secondary teachings. She also guides those who have gone astray to return to the true path. Their return is proof that the Church grows and is strengthened only on the foundation that has been laid, which is Christ. “Therefore, where the true Shepherd is, there also is and will be His flock; and where the Head is, there, and not elsewhere, will the body also be.” Those who did not listen to the Shepherd’s voice in order to remain in His flock have lost the right judgment of the gentle Master and have a share in many misfortunes; but the Church calls them back, since she is the guardian of the true teaching. The history up to the division between the Church of the East and that of the West, provoked by the latter, is known. Likewise, the phases through which the “Roman Catholic Church” passed are also known, until the Protestants split off and each laid another foundation for himself, different from the Orthodox one. Since then, each of these has sought to dominate the Church of the Lord, the Orthodox Church. Consequently, we cannot overlook even a single syllable of the teaching of the faith, nor do we have any point of meeting with them. “The path of the Holy Orthodox Church is very smooth and without any obstruction. There is no need for anyone to make it cleaner than it is.” If anyone wishes to come onto this path, we show it to them, but “we do not accept proposals as regards the manner of entry, because it is the sincere faith” received from the Lord Jesus through His disciples and dogmatized in the seven Councils. If the heterodox set conditions as to how they are to be received, then we must defend our faith, knowing that the Lord is powerful to bring others into the kingdom in place of the sons unworthy of the table of the heavenly Bridegroom, and then to open their minds and hearts as well, so that they may be received with humility into the flock of the Shepherd.

The Old Catholics cannot be received through concessions, but through repentance. After their separation from the Church of Rome, they introduced unacceptable reforms, such as the abolition of confession and of the fasts. They also made all sorts of agreements with the Anglicans at Bonn in 1874 and 1875, and at Lucerne in 1892, and they negotiate the faith. Orthodoxy recognizes no changeable confession apart from the one that contains her dogmatic and moral truth.

The calendar should remain unchanged, because it is impossible for the canonical ordinances not to be affected. If God wills something else, He will enlighten us through the Holy Spirit as to what we should desire and what we should do.]

Those who believe that there is no real danger threatening us from the side of the heresies should also look at these official receptions of the members of the WCC and at the un-Orthodox theological framework in which they are carried out.

 

Romanian source:

https://theodosie.ro/2026/05/18/patriarhia-romana-colaboreaza-activ-cu-cmb-pentru-promovarea-scopului-eretic-al-unitatii-vazute-a-bisericii-vizite-oficiale/