NEW YORK: December 12, 2025.
The final session of the year of
the Council of Bishops took place, timed to the patronal feast of the Sign
Cathedral.
…
The Council of Bishops
established a commission to study the life, legacy, and veneration of Hieromonk
Seraphim (Rose), headed by Bishop James of Sonora, vicar of the Western
American Diocese.
…
Russian
source: https://synod.com/synod/2025/20251211_synodfeast.html
December 11, 2025
Your Holiness,
With feelings of respect toward the throne of Ancient Rome,
which for nearly ten centuries was a source of spiritual irradiation
(mentioning indicatively the Most Holy Popes Clement I, Leo the Great, Gregory
the Great, Martin I, Leo III), I address you with the desire to sincerely
express all that some Orthodox Primates should have communicated to you if they
were truly Orthodox and not followers of the heresy of Ecumenism. [1]
Your recent actions toward the Orthodox, and especially your
decision to recite the Creed at Nicea without the addition of the Filioque,
have been interpreted in two ways among the Orthodox regarding your purpose.
One group considers it an act of impression for purposes of gain (sacrificing
something small—the recitation without the Filioque—to obtain the
maximum, that which intensely concerned all the Popes of the second millennium:
to be recognized as Head of the universal Church). The other group considers
that in your person, finally, a Pope has been found willing to fight with
humility and a spirit of repentance for the return of Ancient Rome to the
Church of the first millennium.
Of course, I am not a knower of hearts to know your
intentions and deep motivations. But I know that if your purpose coincides with
that of the other Ecumenists (that is, to achieve a “Unity” in which the
revealed Truth is sacrificed on the altar of politics), or if you insist on the
objective of your predecessors of the second millennium (to achieve a “Unity”
with the Pope of Rome as visible Head), then we beg you to ignore this Letter,
declaring your intentions with your silence, in the same way that I openly
declare the intention of thousands of Orthodox to fight to the death (ours, not
that of others) to prevent that evil “Unity.” [2]
But if your purpose is noble and you truly desire a Unity
based on the Truth, then I fervently urge you to make a public declaration in
accordance with Pope Gregory the Great (+604) that the Head of the entire
Church (earthly and heavenly) is solely Jesus Christ and that every Bishop who
seeks primacy and worldwide authority over the other Archpastors becomes an
imitator of Lucifer and a precursor of the Antichrist. [3]
As is evident, after a declaration of such magnitude—cause
of immense joy for us Orthodox—all the other innovations introduced by your
predecessors in the second millennium (Filioque, unleavened bread,
purgatorial fire, etc.) must be examined before an Ecumenical Council [4], the
only one competent to resolve what divides us and proclaim Unity according to
God and in the Truth.
In such a case, rest assured that a great multitude of
Orthodox will stand humbly and gratefully at your side. Furthermore, we would
be delighted by a declaration of forgiveness for all the victims produced by
the religious violence of your Church against our ancestors, remembering
especially the Great Martyr of the True Faith, the Patriarch of Constantinople
Cyril Lukaris (+1638).
This open letter should be understood as an appeal of
genuine interest, with the hope that you understand that accepting the previous
exhortation from a humble believer will in no way constitute a humiliating
concession, but a courageous Return to the common foundation that unites us—an
act for which your name will be exalted above all your predecessors, according
to the infallible words of the Lord: “Whoever humbles himself will be exalted”
[5].
I desire from the depths of my heart that the Head of the
Church, our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, may enlighten you to do
what is necessary for the joy of all Christians.
With the love due to all in Christ and with special honor,
Nikolaos Mannis
Educator and ecclesiastical writer
[1] By
“Ecumenism” here is meant the ecclesiological heresy according to which the
“Unity of the Churches” is considered superior to the revealed Truth.
[2]
“Therefore, it is possible to divide in a good way, and it is possible to be
united in a bad way.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 57 on the Gospel of John, PG
59, 314).
[3] Gregory
the Great, Epistolary, Book V (Letters 18, 20, 21, and 43), Book VII (Letter
33), Book VIII (Letter 30).
[4] In
which, however, the participating Fathers must be able to express their opinion
freely and not under pressure from external factors, as happened, for example,
in Ferrara/Florence.
[5] Luke
14:11.
[Written c. 1998. Translated from the original Russian.]
It is gradually becoming a tradition to assume that the Soviet government, from the beginning of its rule, aimed to subjugate the Church and that it persistently pressured its hierarchs into cooperation for that very purpose. However, this is not quite so—in fact, not so at all. Over time, we forget the original nature of this regime, and in our minds begins to form an image of it that is quite far from reality. In reality, the Soviet government, proceeding from its very essence as a God-fighting power, had no desire whatsoever to cooperate with the Church, and until 1943—and then again from the late 1950s until the early 1990s—it had only one goal: the complete destruction of the Church.
To carry out its
intentions, in the very first days of Vladimir Ulyanov’s rule, a decree “On the
Separation of Church and State” was drafted and adopted by him together with
several associates. Even today, its content is outrageous—not to mention how it
was received by the faithful in 1918. According to this decree, all Church
property was taken away and declared by a group of “people’s commissars” to be “some
sort of so-called national property.” The Church's relations with the state
authorities were terminated, and it was deprived of the opportunity to educate
the people in Orthodoxy and to conduct ecclesiastical activities.
Simultaneously, instructions were sent to local authorities on how this decree
should be implemented. As is evident from the documents, in localities, the
directives were carried out with such zeal that the “center” sometimes had to
restrain the enthusiasm of its own appointees. The next stage of the assault on
the Church after the Decree was the appropriation of the Church’s so-called movable
property (since all immovable property had already been confiscated by the
Decree) under the pretext of a famine—strikingly skillfully exploited by the
Soviet authorities to deprive the people of all material means and to suppress
them completely and finally. This is the well-known grand “campaign for the
confiscation of Church valuables in favor of the starving.” What followed was
the closure of monasteries, the desecration of holy relics, and so on and so
forth.
As if in response
to these actions—unambiguously directed toward the destruction of the
Church—came the anathema pronounced by Patriarch St. Tikhon against the Soviet
authorities, whose representatives were called “monsters of the human race.”
This anathema has not been lifted to this day and remains an active testimony
of the Orthodox Church regarding its stance toward the government of V.
Ulyanov, his successors, and his present-day followers.
II
The “monsters of
the human race,” who seized power in October 1917, strove with all their
might to establish an absolute dictatorship over the state,
destroying—literally uprooting—all their potential competitors and rivals. In
order to stay in power, this group went so far as to sign the so-called Treaty
of Brest-Litovsk, which turned the Russian Empire into a pitiful scrap of land
and marked them as traitors to their allied duty and military honor. They were
ready for any similar actions. As one of the leaders of this group, Trotsky,
stated at the time: they needed either everything—i.e., absolute power—or
nothing. They were not prepared to accept any compromises, deals, or agreements
that would limit them in any way. The struggle against the Church was part of
the global plan of the God-fighters to establish in our state a new type of
slave-owning system.* According to the plan of these individuals—as we all know
well—Russia was to have “neither rich nor poor,” and all were to become equally
destitute (or more precisely, people whose life and death would be entirely in
the hands of the new state), receiving an equal ration for the maintenance of
life and work capacity (among the people this was called “equalization”). To
achieve this, it was of course necessary to destroy the “rich” (i.e., those
independent of the authorities) and make the state as a whole—more precisely, a
group of administrators—the sole possessor of all the values existing in the
country without exception. Thus, just a few years after coming to power,
according to their plan, the Bolshevik state was to emerge as a unified,
all-powerful monopolist slaveholder of all the people and nations artificially
driven into destitution, who populated the former Russian Empire. Such a power,
naturally, had no use for people who thought differently from the way it was
profitable for the newly emerged dictators. Even the mere thought of God was
unacceptable to it, since even God was regarded as a “competitor.”
III
The Russian
Orthodox Church was very wealthy and independent from external influences.
Therefore, in order to implement the plans for establishing “universal
equality,” the Orthodox Church had to be destroyed—first by suppressing,
breaking, and robbing it, depriving it of all its property, and physically
eliminating its representatives who expressed active dissent. To crush the
Church through a “cavalry attack” and at “Bolshevik speed” did not succeed.
Therefore, it was decided that after establishing control (i.e., once a noose
had been thrown around its “neck”), the Church would be gradually pushed toward
death through the use of special “organs” created for this purpose. This, or
something close to it, was the Bolsheviks’ plan at the time.
The organs tasked
with implementing this plan were, on the one hand, the Secret Department of the
GPU for the destruction of the Church, and on the other (to give an appearance
of legality to this destruction), the Commission for the Implementation of the
Decree on the Separation of Church and State under the Central Committee of the
Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Both departments, during the most
difficult and decisive times, were headed by E. A. Tuchkov. Judging by his
actions, Tuchkov saw his main task as neutralizing the functioning of the
administration of the Russian Orthodox Church by removing from it
uncompromising bishops, breaking it into fragments, and setting these fragments
against one another. Thus, according to the Bolsheviks’ plan, the Church was to
be transformed from a wealthy, numerous, and united body standing unanimously
in the truth into a multitude of small groups, moreover, at odds with each
other. Tragically, they succeeded in doing this. Their goal was achieved
through pressure, deceit, intimidation, repressions, intrigue, bribery, and
other such provocative actions. As a result of Tuchkov’s active operations, a
whole scattering of renovationist movements arose: the “Living Church,” “Church
Revival,” “Union of Communities of the Ancient Apostolic Church,” and others.
As can be seen from the documents, Tuchkov rushed from one bishop to another,
at first offering nearly each of them the primacy of the Russian Church from
the hands of the Soviet authorities in exchange for certain kinds of
concessions, while at the same time making every effort to stir up discord
among the bishops.
IV
In the second
volume of the book Martyrs, Confessors, and Ascetics of Piety of the Russian
Orthodox Church of the 20th Century by Hieromonk Damascene (Orlovsky),
documents from the Central Party Archive are presented, leaving no doubt as to
the methods and tactics of the God-fighters in their war against Christ.
However, being a continuator of the work of Sergius (Stragorodsky), Hieromonk
Damascene halts his publication at the year 1926 and resumes it only in 1937,
wishing to pass over in silence the facts of betrayal and apostasy by
Metropolitan Sergius. Nevertheless, even what he has made public is sufficient
to speak, with documentary evidence, of the great crime committed by Sergius
(Stragorodsky) before God and the Church.
In our days, it is
already possible to assume with full certainty the nature of the “organs’”
interaction with this man. On page 477 of his book, Hieromonk Damascene quotes:
“For the arrest
and ‘case’ of Metropolitan Peter, the creation of turmoil connected with
Metropolitan Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), the final formation of the schismatic
group of Archbishop Gregory (Yatskovsky), and the publication of the
‘Declaration’ of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Tuchkov was awarded in
1927 with a certificate of commendation and a gold watch.”
An interesting
situation arises: Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) issued the Declaration,
but it was Tuchkov who was rewarded for it—that is, this document clearly
indicates that it was Tuchkov who in fact issued it, not Metropolitan Sergius,
who by that time no longer represented an independent figure in Russian
Orthodoxy.
Let us also quote
from the petition of the head of the OGPU Secret Political Department, Y. S.
Agranov, dated September 1, 1931, requesting that Tuchkov be awarded the Order
of the Red Banner, in which his principal achievements are listed:
“Under the
leadership of Comrade TUCHKOV and with his direct participation, enormous work
was carried out in the splitting of the Orthodox Church (into Renovationists,
Tikhonites, and a number of other currents). In this work he achieved brilliant
success.
In 1923–25 he
conducted two Church Councils (All-Union Congresses of Churchmen), at which
Patriarch Tikhon was deposed and a resolution was passed on the abolition of
monasteries, relics, as well as on the Church’s loyal attitude toward Soviet
power.
For a number of
years Comrade TUCHKOV carried out serious work to split the Russian Orthodox
Church abroad.”
These are not empty
words; they are backed by facts. From the available documents it is clearly
evident that all the forces of the Bolsheviks were directed precisely toward
the creation of schisms in the Orthodox Church.
Moreover, the
Jesuitism of the God-fighters extended to such a degree that, as we see from
Protocol №55 dated September 3, 1924, Tuchkov was instructed “to take
measures to strengthen the right-wing current opposing Tikhon, and to try to
separate it into an independent anti-Tikhonite hierarchy.” That is, for the
sake of expanding the schism, the Bolsheviks even went so far as to attempt to
form, with their own hands, a group of right-wing clergy who would criticize
Patriarch Tikhon for his diplomacy toward the Soviet authorities!
V
Let us not, for the
sake of saving space and time, cite the numerous other confirmations available
regarding what has been said. The task assigned by the Party to this
"liquidator" is entirely clear. Whom did Tuchkov find as his
accomplices and assistants within the Russian Orthodox Church? The main ones
were: Bishops Gregory (Yatskovsky), Antonin (Granovsky), Protopriests Vvedensky
and Krasnitsky, and others like them—and the most important of all, of course,
was Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Such a schism in the Russian Orthodox
Church, as Tuchkov managed to effect through the hands of Metropolitan Sergius,
our land had not seen since the time of Patriarch Nikon. Tuchkov’s discovery of
such a venerable "collaborator" for his undertakings was undoubtedly
the greatest success of the Soviet authorities in their campaign to destroy the
Church.
Metropolitan
Sergius approached the opportunity given to him by the God-fighters to head the
Russian Church with such a measure of filial devotion that, to please the
Soviet authorities, he seriously began to demand of the faithful to serve them “not
out of fear, but out of conscience.” Now it can be stated with complete
certainty that he deliberately and resolutely moved toward the creation of a
church schism, suspending from ministry numerous hierarchs who disagreed
with him and praising the God-fighting government—though he perfectly
understood that such actions could not benefit the Church, but only bring
turmoil and division into it. He did what Tuchkov suggested to him, completely
disregarding the interests of the Church and the will of the senior bishops. He
even had to intentionally reject their will, having but one desire: to retain,
by any means, the power that had come into his hands. In doing so, Sergius
(Stragorodsky) labored much to justify his actions and to give an appearance of
canonicity to the lawlessness he was committing, by which he also confused many
and caused great harm to the Church.
Let us emphasize
once more: during that period, the Soviet government had no intention
whatsoever of cooperating with Metropolitan Sergius or with any other hierarch
in any form. The objective of that regime was to divide the Russian Church so
as to destroy it as quickly as possible. It clearly understood that such
actions as the issuance of the Declaration by Metropolitan Sergius, his
statement of loyalty to the Bolsheviks, and so forth, would deepen the schism
that had been instigated and would facilitate the God-fighters’ task of
“liquidating” the Church. The Soviet authorities entered into “negotiations”
with representatives of the Church solely for one purpose—to hasten its
destruction. It is precisely the church schism, carried out by the
Soviet government through the hands of Metropolitan Sergius, that may in fact
be the gravest sin of this man, placing him under the necessity of
ecclesiastical excommunication. Our shared tragedy, however, is that in those
circumstances, the Lord did not allow a pan-Orthodox Council to convene and
issue an impartial judgment regarding the actions undertaken by Metropolitan
Sergius. But there was a clear and unambiguous verdict of the spiritual
Council—the rejection of Metropolitan Sergius’ actions by a multitude of
Orthodox hierarchs, expressed by them in letters, epistles, and instructions to
their spiritual children. As we know, Church Councils have condemned not only
the actions of their contemporaries but also events that occurred several
centuries earlier (e.g., Origen, who died in 253, was anathematized at the
Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553); therefore, only a future lawful and free
Council of the Orthodox Church can issue a final decision on this long-delayed
question.
In light of the
above, it is incorrect to call Metropolitan Sergius the progenitor of
Sergianism and of the Moscow Patriarchate, as is often done. To say so is to
vastly overstate his personal role. The originator of these evils is the devil,
who, through the God-fighting government and its faithful servant Tuchkov,
lured this unfortunate man with temptations and, having broken his conscience,
made him a loyal lackey. The hierarchy of that authority at the time looked
like this: over Metropolitan Sergius stood Tuchkov (not Metropolitan Peter,
whose will was not considered at all); over Tuchkov stood the God-fighting
government; and the head of the God-fighting power is the devil. Thus,
Metropolitan Sergius is not the progenitor—he is the voluntary executor of the
devil’s plan to destroy Orthodoxy in our land and his faithful servant. And
such a servant, moreover, whom they intended simply to throw into the garbage
(“to be disposed of”) once used. However, this of course in no way removes the
guilt of his crime against the Church, but only vividly demonstrates the
worthlessness of his soul and the depth of his fall.
A significant flaw
in many works on Sergianism is the exaggerated overestimation of Metropolitan
Sergius’ personality and the near-total neglect of the evil will of the
God-fighters, which replaced within the Church’s enclosure the will of the
Orthodox Emperor who once restrained lawlessness. Great is the sin of those in
whose hearts this evil will has found rest.
VI
The intrigue
successfully carried out by Tuchkov allowed the God-fighters, in addition to
provoking a truly grandiose schism, to obtain a “legal pretext” for yet another
attack on the Church—an assault far stronger than the repressions during the
confiscation of church valuables. It is well known that the first question
asked by an investigator during the interrogation of a believer was how that
person regarded the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius. And if the “suspect”
responded negatively, he was immediately classified as a counterrevolutionary,
because—as the investigator would explain—one can be a believer and still be
loyal to the God-fighting regime, just as Metropolitan Sergius and those with
him are. But if one does not accept the Declaration, this is already a
political crime, supposedly having nothing to do with faith or the Church (for
“Sergianists,” after all, are believers—and loyal). Thus, allegedly not for
faith, but for political opposition, for counterrevolution, such a confessor
would be judged with the full severity of that lawless time.
Nevertheless,
despite this, solely for the purpose of maintaining the Church in a state of
schism, the Soviet regime still permitted, even into the 1930s, services in
certain churches conducted by those who did not commemorate Metropolitan
Sergius.
VII
However, the
Declaration was merely a ruse for the Soviet authorities; naturally, they had
no intention of indulging even the Sergianists, applying repressions to them as
well—albeit not with the same severity as against the “non-commemorators” and
the Catacomb faithful—while still maintaining, for appearances’ sake, a certain
number of Sergianist churches, which were gradually closed down, the regime
fearing to provoke mass protest through excessively abrupt actions against
Orthodoxy. Under these conditions, Metropolitan Sergius attempted by all means
to preserve only the shell, the outward appearance of the Church (this was his
only argument, his sole justification before the believing people), at the cost
of the complete collapse of its inner essence. On the eve of the Great
Patriotic War (1941), there remained only about a hundred functioning
Sergianist churches in all of Russia, while secret, Catacomb, and Tikhonite
churches numbered in the thousands—a vivid illustration of the result of
“saving the Church” by the method of Judas’ betrayal. The Renovationist church
also suffered repressions; its last printed organ was shut down in 1928,
although its parishes existed until 1943 (once again, to maintain the state of
schism), until Stalin issued the order to merge them into the administration of
Metropolitan Sergius. But neither the Sergianists nor the Renovationists can be
considered martyrs or confessors—even in light of the fact that they were
persecuted—for the simple reason that they had no need of martyrs or confessors at that time, and immediately
renounced those whom the Soviet regime condemned, repressed, and executed.
Throughout that entire period, they continued, regardless of circumstances, to
sing praises to the persecutors of the Church. Moreover, they had learned to
renounce the martyrs “not out of fear, but out of conscience.”**
VIII
The position taken
by Sergius (Stragorodsky) appears especially shameful in our days, when in the
light of newly revealed documents it is clearly evident that, in the
fundamental questions of the Church’s existence, he sided with the God-fighting
regime and, with its support, consciously opposed the senior hierarchs of the
Russian Orthodox Church: Metropolitans Peter (Polyansky), Cyril (Smirnov),
Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), and Anthony (Khrapovitsky). As a result, the
God-fighters, with the help of Metropolitan Sergius, succeeded in preserving
the outward appearance of the canonical Church while removing from it all true
confessors of Christ and replacing them with traitors—Judases.
However, neither
the betrayal of the Church nor the filial loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius was
able to induce the Soviet regime to change its core principle—Metropolitan
Sergius never managed to earn from it even the right for the Church to exist in
such a form in the communist future (at least, this remained the case until
1943). All manipulations carried out by the Soviet authorities with Sergius
(Stragorodsky) were simply tactical maneuvers in the broader process of
destroying religion. From the perspective of that regime, Metropolitan Sergius
was the most convenient hierarch among those it could tolerate—for a time: he
instantly and uncomplainingly fulfilled any of its directives; he shamelessly
lied to the entire world about the condition of the Church in the USSR; he
suspended from service any hierarchs and clergy undesirable to the regime; and,
most importantly, he firmly kept the Russian Church in a state of schism.
IX
To our great
sorrow, even to this day, parts of the Church continue to dispute “canonical”
questions among themselves, while the true culprits—conscious heirs and
continuators of the work of Lenin, Stalin, and Stragorodsky—remain “on the
sidelines,” and even from time to time assume the role of advisors or arbiters:
those they deem acceptable they praise, and those they choose they criticize.
In the Moscow Patriarchate, such individuals are once again attempting to set
the tone in the formation of the doctrine of that organization. God grant that
this situation may gradually begin to improve over time. However, it will not
change fundamentally until Orthodox Christians clearly and precisely identify
the true source of evil. That source—the very concentration of evil for the
Orthodox Church—is undoubtedly God-fighting [богоборчество]. It is with
God-fighting that Christians must make a complete and total separation.
It was God-fighting that was anathematized by Patriarch St. Tikhon. And it is
in this sin—cooperation with the God-fighters, participation with them in their
plans—that our national repentance must take place. Yet, paradoxically, even
now within the Moscow Patriarchate there are such “Christians” who, arm in arm
with the God-fighters, plan to build a “bright future” for the Russian Church.
Do they truly have no eyes, no ears, no conscience, not to see and recognize
the results of the God-fighting captivity of our country? It is simply
incredible. It is impossible to believe with sound mind. What is happening is
that within Orthodox circles, heretics and provocateurs are once again
attempting to raise their voice—those who continue the work of Sergius
(Stragorodsky), his secret and open collaborators and leaders. Things have
reached the point that even openly declared communists like General Makashov
have been recorded among the “Orthodox Stalinists.” Where else can it go? It is
known that in his time, Trotsky was almost on friendly terms with Fr. Pavel
Florensky. We all know how that “friendship” ended. The same will happen to
today’s “Orthodox patriots” (or rather, to those whom they deceive), once they
are no longer needed—exactly according to the laws of Marxist dialectics, by
which the Godless live.
I am certain that
every sound-minded person, reading these lines, will not believe it possible:
can it really be that the Orthodox Church would unite with God-fighters—or, as
they themselves call themselves, atheists? Of course not! The fact of such a union
is only further confirmation that the movement of today’s “Orthodox patriots”
and “zealots of piety” within the Moscow Patriarchate has no relation
whatsoever to the Orthodox Church of Christ, for an Orthodox person simply
cannot descend to such a level of delusion.
Be ye not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with
darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14).
X
We, perhaps, ought
not to condemn the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves—they did and continue
to do their own work and are in no need of our condemnation. These are forces
external to the Church, condemned by the Lord Himself. Between us lies a chasm,
and their Judge is God. But we must denounce the actions of those who call
themselves Orthodox, who have taken the path of collaboration with the
God-fighters in their work of destroying the Church. We must protect the
faithful from the temptation that draws them outside the bounds of the Church.
The guilt of
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in relation to the Orthodox Church, in my
view, can be defined as follows: the deliberate destruction of the conciliar
structure of the Orthodox Church; the trampling of the will of senior
hierarchs; and the implementation, together with the God-fighters, of a schism
within the Orthodox Church, followed by the subordination of the breakaway part
under his control to the power of global evil; the prideful defense of his
false thoughts and actions; and his complicity in the persecution of the
martyrs and confessors of Orthodoxy.
The subjugation of
the fallen part of the Church to the power of global evil led to the
irreversible and irreparable destruction of the administration of that part of
the Church, expressed in the fact that people were appointed to hierarchical
positions who, by their very qualities, were incapable of occupying them. These
formed a powerful faction opposed to every positive principle in the Church and
found themselves in total submission to the power of global evil. For this
reason, no negotiations, no persuasion or exhortation can be applied to them.
Still less can there be any talk whatsoever of unification with them. These
individuals neither can nor desire to repent and likewise train their flock
accordingly.
The heresy of
Sergianism is an apostasy from the Symbol of Faith
(its 9th article)—a rejection of the God-established conciliar structure of
the Orthodox Church and a setting of oneself in opposition to the Holy
Tradition that formed this structure, which Metropolitan Sergius himself
referred to as a “New Church Order.” This “New Church Order” established, in
the part of the Church subordinate to the Sergianists, dictatorship in place of
conciliarity—specifically, the dictatorship of God-fighting and the “New World
Order.” Under no circumstances can a single person or a group of people
administratively decide the fate of the Church contrary to the will of its
other members, without ultimately submitting the matter to conciliar judgment,
or by directly trampling upon the Church’s conciliar opinion (as Metropolitan
Sergius did).
To our great
regret, even to this day, many Christians are tempted and disturbed by this
“troubled” period of our Church history. The time has come to make a clear and
unequivocal assessment of our recent past. It is undeniable that the actions of
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) will, sooner or later, be condemned by a
Council of the Orthodox Church, and that this schism-leader and heresiarch will
receive a just pan-Orthodox judgment.
*It is appropriate to note here that not only the fate
of the Church, but also the fate of any independent association of citizens—and
even the fate of any individual who disagreed with the dictatorship, or simply
held differing thoughts—was predetermined in the minds of those hotheads who
had seized power.
**Even in our own very recent time, Patriarch Alexy II
of the Moscow Patriarchate made the rehabilitation of the new martyrs by the
Soviet authorities a mandatory condition for their canonization by his
structure.
Monk Zachariah
Source: Православная
Русь [Orthodox Russia], No. 10, 1947.
I heard in childhood:
“In very ancient times, in some
country, a gang of robbers raged, striking terror into the surrounding
population. The leader of this gang had lost all human feelings and committed
unheard‑of crimes, indescribable in words.
One day this gang attacked the
house of a good, peaceful man. They killed the master of the house, violated
and then brutally killed his wife, and plundered the property. They also
intended to kill the master’s son, a small child, who was helplessly crying in
a corner. However, the leader of the gang, noticing the extraordinary beauty of
the boy, decided that large money could be obtained for him and ordered that he
be taken along.
The little one was brought to the
cave where the gang lived. The leader entrusted the care of the boy to his
‘friend,’ worthy of him, and forgot about him…
After some time, once returning
from a raid, the robber happened to meet this child and barely recognized him:
he had changed so, had grown thin, and had a sickly appearance.
The leader’s ‘friend,’ asked
about the reason for such a change, explained that the child was grieving
greatly for his mother, would not go to anyone, avoided everyone, ate little,
and would probably soon die.
In the evening, sorting through
old plunder, the leader found the clothes, ornaments, and shoes of the child’s
murdered mother.
‘Listen,’ he said to his
‘friend,’ ‘you say that the boy grieves for his mother. Well then, put all this
on, go to him, caress him; perhaps he will take you for his mother and recover.
Otherwise, it is a pity: he will perish, and good money could be made for him…’
The woman of the leader put on
the dress of the deceased, adorned herself with her brooches and necklaces,
assumed, as best she could, a gentle appearance, and went to the child. In
fear, he recoiled from her and screamed.
‘Come to me, my little one,’ said
the robber woman, ‘for it is I, your mother. Look: here is the dress, here is
the necklace… Do you not recognize me?’
‘No, no!’ the child cried,
trembling with horror. ‘Mama’s dress, Mama’s necklace — but you… are not
Mama…’”
***
The present situation in
Orthodoxy reminds me of this touching story I heard in childhood.
With their characteristic ability
to maneuver concepts, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate is trying to
convince everyone that there, in Moscow, in her garments and jewelry, is our
very real Mother.
Of course, all this is not aimed
at members of the Catacomb Church, who know well the deceitful eyes of the
"companion of the murderers." They cannot be deceived!
This is said to the children who
lost their mother in infancy and therefore do not remember her face. These who
do not remember their mother look at her dress, her jewelry, and—though their
heart aches—they begin to doubt: what if it is she? After all, everyone has
longed for her so much.
It is for such ones that the
flattery of the hierarchs of the MP may be fatal. It is for them that my
warning voice is directed. The voice of a Christian who has been in the
Catacomb Church for almost 30 years.
— What are you looking at!
What are you doubting! This is not her, this is not our Mother!
I pray to the One who gives power
to the word, may He place in my mouth a strength that will open eyes and awaken
the conscience of those who doubt. Yea, O Lord, accomplish this!
Listen, you who long for the
Mother Church! This wanton companion of the dreadful robber chieftain in Moscow
is not only not the Russian Local Church, but is not Orthodox, and even not
Christian at all.
What are the signs of any
Orthodox autocephalous Church? They are four:
In addition, each local Church
has its own unique structure, its own spiritual-mystical worldview, found in no
other local Church, belonging to her alone.
Only the totality of all these
signs characterizes that a given church at the present time is the same as it
was from the beginning of its existence. Taken separately, neither territory,
nor people, nor hierarchy, nor preservation of dogmas, nor structure and
worldview constitute proof of the continued life of the Church and its identity
with the original one. After all, even today, all the names of the seven
churches mentioned in the Apocalypse still exist. But who would say that these
are still the same churches? And is the Alexandrian or the Roman Church really
the same as in the time of Athanasius the Great or Leo, Bishop of Rome? Even
retaining apostolic succession, how little do these daughter churches resemble
their Mother.
And the one which has taken in
Moscow the house of our Church-Mother — imprisoned and tormented — has put on
her garments, adorned herself with jewelry given to her by the robbers, and
sings her songs as if they were hers — in what else does she resemble our own?
In nothing!
Of all the signs she possesses
truly only one: the house — the territory. The people she has betrayed, having
blessed her master — the chieftain of the gang of murderers — to exterminate
all who do not recognize him as "father and benefactor."
Hierarchy?... We know where it
is. We know well where and how the faithful bishops and priests of the true
Mother Church perished or are suffering. With our own ears we heard what the
adulterous companion of the robber chieftain said about them.
The Spirit of Christ?... Open at
random any issue of the journals of the Moscow Patriarchate, where priests and
even bishops of this organization call their flock to vengeance, blood,
pogroms, and hatred of dissenters. And then you will see for yourselves —
instead of the meek face and loving eyes of the Mother Church — the animal grin
of the harlot who has sold herself to the robbers.
So then, perhaps she is at least
a fallen sinner — but Orthodox?..
No! For Orthodoxy is
unconditionally defined by the acknowledgment of the dogma of original sin and
its consequences. We believe that human nature, corrupted by original sin, is
in itself inclined toward evil. No economic or political systems can, by themselves
and without the grace of God given in the sacrament of holy Baptism, free man
from his inclination toward evil and set him on the path of good. Man left to
himself, having rejected God and all that is holy, inevitably slides into the
abyss of evil. No “paradise” on earth can be built; on the contrary, evil will
continue to progress, developing by the end of time to terrifying proportions,
so that scarcely will faith be found on the earth (Luke 18:8). Any teaching
that man is good by nature, that it is enough for him merely to establish
proper economic and political conditions and he will become an angel of light —
is unorthodox. Any organization that blesses the building of an earthly
paradise — and that by a God-fighting state — that rejoices with the joys and
grieves with the griefs of open godless Satanists, thereby rejects the dogma of
original sin, the dogma of the Church as the guardian of God’s Truth on earth,
as well as many other dogmas. And therefore — anathema be upon it!
Some of the lukewarm will finally
say: “But still, it is a church.”
How few words there are in human
language! Many directly opposite concepts are sometimes denoted by the same
term. Even the prophet David found no word to designate that which is contrary
to the Church. “I have hated the congregation of evildoers,” he said — as if
even the evildoers still had a church.
“I will build My Church,” said
our Savior to us. And from that time on, with the name “Church” we have
connected the concept of salvation. Everything that does not save is not the
Church; everything that lies is not the Church; everything that helps the God-fighters
to destroy the soul of our tormented people is not the Church — or is the
church of evildoers. If the name of God is forbidden to be used in vain, then
likewise the name of the Church of Christ is inapplicable to the slave of the
slave of Satan — the Moscow Patriarchate...
***
The true children of the Church
of Christ will not be deceived by the garments and adornments taken from Her —
our outraged Mother.
We firmly believe that soon, very
soon, we shall meet Her — the true one, who gave birth to us by water and the
Spirit, the real, the dear one, who has come forth from prisons, concentration
camps, secret dens and the depths of the earth. God’s Truth shall yet triumph.
And then She — our much-suffering
Mother, the Russian Church — will set before the Face of the Lord all her
faithful children who remained true to the end, and will say:
— Behold, I and the children whom
Thou hast given me.
And those who endured to the end
will joyfully cry out:
— Glory to Thee, our Savior, who
art coming again! Soon!..
Yea, come, Lord Jesus!
The wrath of God has overtaken the Church for many decades. Papism and Ecumenism are triumphant. At that time, St. Athanasius the Great and the other Fathers understood the danger, which was described in the vision of St. Anthony the Great. Now we see the temples and the altars being defiled by common prayers and concelebrations with the “unbridled” heretics, and we reinforce the defilement and praise it, trampling ourselves also within the Holy of Holies. If one observes ecumenist concelebrations and common prayers, like the one that took place in Canberra, at the 7th General Assembly of the World Council of so-called Churches, and like those that often occur with the participation of homosexual priests who dare to hold the Holy Chalice and of women bishops and priestesses, the image surpasses even the vision of St. Anthony the Great. The only hope for the Church to regain her beauty is the establishment and counsel of St. Anthony the Great: “Only do not defile yourselves with the Arians.” Only let us not be defiled by our communion with Papism and Ecumenism, with the philopapist and ecumenist Orthodox. Because we have not yet acted forcefully and decisively, God prolongs for years His wrath, the captivity of the Orthodox in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Until when shall bishops, priests, monks, and laypeople allow the irrational beasts, the heretics, to trample upon and defile the Holy and Sacred things of Orthodoxy? As long as we remain inactive and find various spiritual-sounding excuses, the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place.
- Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis
Greek source: https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2025/10/n.html
Excerpt from the book Orthodoxy and Papism
From an Orthodox theological
standpoint, the Patriarch’s initiative to lift the anathema is considered an
unacceptable audacity and a contradiction to the authority of the Ecumenical
Councils, even though it was presented as a triumph of love by theologians who
lacked full theological formation and by non-theological circles. Based on the
tradition of the God-bearing Fathers, we believe that the kind of love which
forgives delusion and undermines the Orthodox faith has nothing to do with the
true commandment of love proclaimed by the Lord, who said that He is “the
way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
With the lifting of the anathema
against Rome, it was implicitly suggested that the anathema issued by [Ecumenical
Patriarch] Michael Cerularius against the deluded Papists was unjust.
The patriarchal explanation
regarding the meaning of the lifting of the Anathemas of 1054 adds that this
event “was also an act of realization of the injustice that had been done nine
centuries earlier to the detriment of the unity of the Church.”
If Rome had understood the crime
of the papal envoys in 1054 against the unity of the Church, it should long ago
have renounced the anathema against the Orthodox Church. But what wrongdoing
was the Orthodox Eastern Church supposed to recognize through the lifting of
the anathema against the Papal Church—something Patriarch Athenagoras proceeded
to do with such ease and haste?
The Latin anathema against the
Orthodox Church, judged by its substance, never weighed upon the Orthodox
conscience, since Michael Cerularius, against whom the anathema was primarily
hurled, was a wholly Orthodox Patriarch. Orthodoxy, preserving intact the faith
in Christ, was never harmed by the papal anathema. The “sword” of the Roman
anathema proved powerless to wound the Orthodox Church of Christ, which always
sets forth “the breastplate of faith” (1 Thess. 5:8).
Patriarch Germanus II of
Constantinople (1222–1240) rightly observes in his address to Pope Gregory IX:
“We Greeks are
unstruck and untouched by the sword of the anathema; whereas the Italians and
Latins are severely afflicted…”
P. Trembelas, characterizing the
Latin anathema of 1054 as worthy of contempt, asks:
“What would it
mean, then, for our Church if that ridiculous, powerless, and baseless
anathema—which was arbitrarily issued by some cardinal—had not been completely
lifted?”
On the contrary, what benefit
would Rome derive from the lifting of the anathema against the Latin Church?
Would Rome come to its senses, or would it become more entrenched in the
conviction that it possesses the whole truth and lose the hope of returning to
the right faith, from which it had fundamentally strayed?
P. Trembelas observes in this
regard:
“For whose
benefit does this lifting truly—or rather fancifully—create advantages? For the
Roman Catholic Church?… The lifting of the anathema, at a time when the Western
Church stubbornly persists in its delusions, constitutes an indirect
acknowledgment on our part that these delusions are not worthy of severe
condemnation. Have we not gone too far in displays of supposed love toward the
Western Church? And is it not now time to stop, awaiting from its side an equal
manifestation of love?”
Patriarch Athenagoras proceeded
with the lifting of the excommunication of 1054 on his own initiative, limiting
himself merely to the intention of the lifting (December 6, 1965), and
announced his decision to the individual Orthodox Churches by means of a
telegraphic encyclical, which concluded: “This act of the lifting of the
excommunications will take place both here and in Rome…”
The Patriarch did not await, as
he was obliged to, the consent of the other autocephalous Churches, but instead
announced the decision of the lifting, which had already been formally
scheduled jointly between Constantinople and Rome. Athenagoras based his bold
initiative on the decision of the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes,
which stated: “Each of the local Orthodox Churches is free to continue, on its
own and not in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy, to cultivate friendly
relations with the Roman Catholic Church.”
Judging the decision of Rhodes,
the late Archbishop Chrysostomos II [Hatzistavrou] of Athens writes:
“We know of no
provision in the Holy Canons that permits an Autocephalous Orthodox Church to
have communion on its own and not in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy with
any heterodox Church… This institution is, in terms of the canons, unknown, and
not even the Church of Constantinople—which by custom holds a primacy of
honor—has the right to act in the name of the whole of Orthodoxy. It is
canonically forbidden for any Autocephalous Orthodox Church to act alone and to
maintain relations with the heterodox. We greatly fear that this decision of
the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference may lead to the creation of a schism within
the Orthodox Church of Christ, because it separates Orthodoxy as a whole from
each local Church. There is one Orthodox Christian Faith and one Church that
performs its worship—the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ.”
Woe unto us if the spirit of the
decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council favors the undertaking of uncanonical
initiatives by any Orthodox Church, which may come into conflict with the
decisions of Ecumenical Councils, as happened with the Patriarch’s decision to
lift the excommunications of 1054!
Moreover, the decision of Rhodes
was taken hastily, without broad discussion, even though serious reservations
had been expressed. Professor Ioannis Karmiris, who was present at the Council,
writes:
“We had
reservations and wished for clarifications to be made regarding the entire
wording of the text, but it was no longer possible to initiate a general
discussion due to the lateness of the hour and the prevailing tension. Serious
decisions should not be taken hastily and in the manner in which this one was
taken—without extended free discussion by all the delegates and without the
texts having been distributed in due time for study and correction.”
Metropolitan Philaret, president
of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, points
out the danger of a rupture in the unity of the Orthodox Churches caused by the
lifting of the excommunications of 1054, in a letter to Patriarch Athenagoras:
“If the schism
with Rome began primarily in Constantinople, it was afterward accepted by the
entire Orthodox Church and became an issue for the whole Orthodox world. No
Local Church—even the Church of Constantinople, honored by all, from which the
Russian Church received the treasure of Orthodoxy—can decide on its own without
the consent of all. Much more so, we, the currently governing bishops, cannot
make decisions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, especially when
the matter concerns the West, such as Saints Photius of Constantinople and Mark
of Ephesus.
Based on these
principles, we consider it our duty to protest decisively against the act of
Your Holiness regarding the joint declaration with the Pope of Rome for the
lifting of the excommunication. This act does not agree with the position of
our entire Church toward Roman Catholicism. This is not a matter of personal
differences with the Pope or Cardinal Humbert. The issue concerns the
deviations from Orthodoxy that took root in the Roman Church over the
centuries. Your joint declaration with the Pope correctly acknowledges that
‘mutual forgiveness’ is not sufficient for resolving the old and recent
disagreements. But even this is not enough: this act equates falsehood with
truth.
Throughout the
course of the centuries, the Orthodox Church has rightly believed that it did
not deviate from the teaching of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, whereas the
Roman Church introduced innovations contrary to Orthodoxy. And the more
innovations it introduced, the greater became the schism between East and
West.”
And Metropolitan Philaret
concludes:
“We earnestly
entreat Your Holiness to put an end to the scandal, for the path you have
chosen—even if it were to lead to reconciliation with the Roman Catholics—will
cause the division of the Orthodox world, since many of your spiritual children
will choose either the faith of Orthodoxy or the ecumenical idea of a
compromise union with the heterodox without full agreement in the truth.”
Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_83.html
Stylianos Bouris, Brotherhood Testimonianza Ortodossa
December 7, 2025
(In light of the recent
commemoration of Pope Leo XIV in Constantinople.)
The issue of liturgical
commemoration (commemoration) is central in the Orthodox Tradition. According
to the practice of the Holy Canons, commemoration presupposes: entire Orthodox
faith, true ecclesiastical communion, and the absence of heresy or schism.
For this reason, as Balsamon and
Syropoulos write, he who is outside of communion cannot be commemorated
“together with the members of the Orthodox Church.”
Michael Balsamon, Great
Chartophylax, and Sylvester Syropoulos, Great Ecclesiarch, were eyewitnesses of
the events of the Council of Ferrara–Florence (1438–1439); deeply faithful to
the Orthodox Tradition; unwavering opponents of union with the Latins; in a
state of walling off from Patriarch Metrophanes, the unionist.
Their position was not
“political,” but canonical and dogmatic. They affirmed that it is not possible
for a heretic or a non-Orthodox person to be commemorated in church, because
such commemoration is itself an act of communion.
Therefore, their statement
becomes: “How shall he who is out of communion be commemorated together with
those in communion?”
Saint Theodore the Studite is
entirely clear: “It is not permitted to commemorate a bishop who preaches
heresy.”
The cessation of commemoration is
not only permitted, but also becomes necessary when the faith is in danger.
Saint Photios the Great, in his
struggle against the Latin heresy, defines that communion cannot be maintained
when the right faith has been wounded; liturgical commemoration is a dogmatic
act, not a diplomatic one.
Saint Mark of Ephesus, at the
Council of Florence, says: “We are not able to accept even a single innovation
from the Roman Church.”
And after the council, remaining
alone but unshaken, he says: “Those who signed have alienated themselves from
the Church.”
According to the Patristic and
canonical Orthodox Tradition, the Pope—having altered the faith (Filioque,
universal juridical primacy, infallibility, created grace, purgatory fire,
etc.)—is not in communion with the Orthodox Church, and therefore cannot be
commemorated liturgically.
Can we see communion with those
who inappropriately commemorate a heretic?
According to Orthodox Patristic
teaching, if a bishop commemorates a heretic, he too falls into the forbidden communio
in sacris; and the faithful are obliged to examine seriously their
communion with him.
Saint Theodore the Studite, Saint
Mark of Ephesus, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and many others teach that when a
bishop publicly proclaims union or communion with heretics, walling off is not
only permitted, but also required, in order that the Orthodox faith may be
preserved undefiled. He who deviates from the faith cannot be commemorated.
Saint Mark of Ephesus said: “No other judgment is needed; their condemnation is
their very union with the delusion.”
According to the Tradition of the
Holy Canons and the testimony of the Fathers, liturgical commemoration is not a
symbolic act, but a dogmatic union; those out of communion are not
commemorated, that is, those who are not in Orthodoxy; and the Pope, being
outside of Orthodox communion, cannot be commemorated; and he who openly
commemorates the Pope or other heretics severs his union with the faith of the
Saints; the faithful, just as the Fathers at Florence, are obliged to preserve
the purity of communion.
And now the question is posed:
since the Pope is not in communion with Bartholomew, who nevertheless
unhesitatingly commemorates him, can we seek communion? Do we wish to be in
communion with the Saints or with Bartholomew and the Papists?
Greek source:
by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna
Source: Orthodox
Tradition, Vol. VIII (1991), No. 3, pp. 4, 15.
Readers can learn elsewhere in
this issue of Orthodox Tradition of the unbecoming threats by New
Calendarist Church authorities against Father Ephraim, former Abbot of the
Monastery of Philotheou. This man, whom they not long ago called a clairvoyant
Elder (a perhaps unwise or careless attribution), many New Calendarists are now
calling a charlatan. Along with this slander, a renewed polemic against the Old
Calendarists has surfaced, a vituperative attack centered, oddly enough, on us
moderates and Metropolitan Cyprian.
Several New Calendarist Priests
are claiming that Metropolitan Cyprian returned to the Old Calendar without the
blessing of his spiritual Father, the Elder Philotheos (Zervakos). It is
further claimed that, after his punishment by the State Church for "Old
Calendarism," the Metropolitan had no right to call Father Philotheos his
spiritual Father. Others assert that Father Philotheos did not, in fact, follow
the Old Calendar and never advised New Calendarists to leave the New Calendar
Church. The New Calendar Church of Greece is now quite healthy, they contend,
having produced numerous holy men, none of whom has advocated that New
Calendarists return to the Old Calendar. Cited among these holy people are, in
addition to Father Philotheos, Father Gervasios of Patras, Father Amphilochios
of Patmos, and the Athonite Elders Joseph and Paisios.
We question, indeed, the
spiritual sobriety and stability of this new breed of polemical New
Calendarists, who, without even knowing us personally, would suggest that we
are liars. But in the interest of fairness, we will respond to this unseemly
and shocking rumor-mongering with facts and details that tell the truth.
In the 1960s, Metropolitan
Cyprian was advised by his spiritual Father, Elder Philotheos, to join the Old
Calendar movement. In a letter dated 14 February 1969, Father Philotheos
congratulated the Metropolitan for finally doing so, calling his official statement
to that effect "good and suitable" and advising him to "...take
courage and prepare for the temptations which will come your way and for
tribulations." (See Ή Διακοπή τής Εκκλησιαστικής Επικοινωνίας τής Μονής
μας Μετά των Νεοημερολογιτών [Athens, 1979], ρ. 23.) He greeted the then
Abbot Cyprian, in this same letter, as an Archimandrite and his
"...Spiritual Child in the Lord" (Ibid.).
With regard to the Metropolitan's
deposition by the State Church for "Old Calendarism," Father
Philotheos writes to a New Calendar clergyman (in a letter dated May 16, 1973,
and reproduced in Παπα-δημήτρης Γκαγκαστάθης [Thessaloniki, 1990], p.
239-240) that, if Metropolitan (then Father) Cyprian was punished only because
he became an Old Calendarist, then his deposition "has no validity unless
the State Church of Greece condemns all Old Calendarists" and the Old
Calendar as a heresy. He goes on to point out that this is impossible, since
the New Calendar was introduced uncanonically and since it violates Holy
Tradition and the pronouncements of numerous Church Synods. He thus did not
recognize the punishment imposed on the Metropolitan by the New Calendarists
for his act of conscience.
Furthermore, Father Philotheos
certainly did follow the Old Calendar within the State Church. He wrote thus of
his conviction: "Two days before the April 21 [1967] coup, when I visited
Archbishop Chrysostomos [the New Calendar Greek Prelate], he playfully told me:
'Chrysostomos introduced the New Calendar, and Chrysostomos will uproot
it.'...He died without having time to do it. In order that the same not befall
me, ...from the day of the Feast of All Saints, ...I have followed the calendar
given to us by the Fathers and I will follow it to my death." He did. (See
Orthodox Tradition, VII, 3 [1990], p. 2.)
As does our Synod of Bishops, the
Elder Philotheos flatly condemned the extremist Old Calendarists. Nonetheless,
he advised many of his spiritual children to return to the Old Calendar. After
seeing him briefly in Thessaloniki in 1968, I wrote Father Philotheos for
advice myself. (I did not then even know Metropolitan Cyprian). Though he
rightly chastised me for my unfortunate fanaticism at the time, he also advised
me to stay loyal to the Old Calendarist movement and to avoid even communion in
the New Calendar Greek Church in America.
Father Philotheos was wise and
admittedly cautious in his advice to the Faithful with regard to the New
Calendar Church of Greece. He knew that not everyone could face the challenge
of resistance against the Mother Church—to some extent even himself, since his
resistance was limited. Especially in the case of parish Priests, he advised
great deliberation in decisions to join the Old Calendar movement. But he was
unequivocal in his conviction, both in print and in personal communications,
that the State Church of Greece was in error and that unity would come to it
only when it returned to the Church Calendar. If his actions were less
unequivocal, one need only look at the measures taken by the New Calendarists
against those who act in good conscience to understand that hesitancy.
Finally, the State Church has
indeed produced holy men and women under the New Calendar. However, as the
spiritual state of the New Calendar Church of Greece gets worse—and it getting
far worse, not better—, these people are fast disappearing. Moreover, we do not
attribute their holiness to the New Calendar, but to their love of Holy
Tradition. And all of these individuals were deep admirers of the Old Calendar.
Father Amphilochios, a spiritual brother of Metropolitan Cyprian, was hardly a
supporter of the New Calendar innovation. The Elder Joseph, whose niece is the
Abbess of one of our convents, would have been appalled at where the Calendar
innovation has gone, and certainly he never supported it in any way whatever.
A New Calendar polemic against us
True Orthodox based on misrepresentations, false accusations, and distortions
of the truth is not seemly. If it is meant to justify extremist modernists, it
does just the opposite. It sounds an alarm to the prudent.
Hieromonk Lavrentie | December 2, 2025
Although the
reception of the Pope and the honoring of the First Ecumenical Council (325)
were intended to be held in the month of May, the events took place with delay,
in recent days, to the indignation of the right-believing and sober Orthodox.
It was a renewal of the betrayal of the faith as 60 years ago, when the then
Patriarch Athenagoras received Pope Paul VI in order to lift the anathemas
mutually. We hope that the echo is weaker, but not to be ignored.
Participants
As an important
backstage maneuver, it should be noted that at the arrival of the Pope an
important absence was that of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Patriarch Theophilos
did not honor with his presence the invitation made a month ago in imperative
terms: “It is unimaginable that the successor of James, the brother of the
Lord, should be absent” from the “historic responsibility” of the “uniting of
all.” The aim of bringing together the leaders of the five ancient
Patriarchates (the former Pentarchy) — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem — was not achieved. Fortunately, only Patriarch Theodore
of Alexandria came, and unfortunately the other two important Churches
nevertheless sent delegates.
In fact, the old
Pentarchy today is composed of Churches that have either even lost the right
faith (Rome), or the impressiveness given by the number of the faithful and by
their place in society. Moreover, the Greek world (the Phanar and Alexandria)
is in an open and harmful conflict with Moscow over the issue of the Ukrainian
schism. Fortunately, Jerusalem, although also composed of Greeks, does not
align itself with the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In this way, a
massive involvement of Orthodoxy through numerous Local Churches in unionist
actions with the Catholics is avoided. Unfortunately, we do not have the
benefit of a reaction of opposition from them either, but of a complicit
powerlessness.
The Joint
Pope–Patriarch Declaration
On the eve of the
feast of St. Apostle Andrew, in a festive setting, Patriarch Bartholomew and
Pope Leo signed a joint declaration, in which certain points were addressed: a
common Pascha, the desire for church union and ecumenical dialogue, the
commemoration of 1,700 years since the First Ecumenical Council, the “common”
Creed inherited by Orthodox and Catholics, following in the footsteps of their
predecessors (Athenagoras and Paul VI), and the indispensable mention of the
biblical quote “that all may be one.”
Although the
previous Pope, Francis, had already decided that Pascha would be celebrated by
the Catholics according to the uncorrected Julian calendar together with the
Orthodox, the still ongoing exploration of solutions for celebrating together
represents, in fact, a step backward on the part of Pope Leo.
The dialogue in the
terms proposed is a false one because it seeks to bury the differences in order
to arrive at a forced, external reconciliation. A sign of this coercion is also
the mutual naming of Orthodox and Catholics as “sister Churches” in this document.
In essence, dialogue must not be degraded to the level of a bargaining of the
faith, because it is not to be haggled over.
The example of the
predecessors who so-called lifted the anathemas in 1965 is given in order to be
turned into a false benchmark and to consign authentic tradition to oblivion.
As recently as the year 1868, the Ecumenical Patriarch of that time, Gregory VI,
refused the invitation of the papists to participate in Vatican Council I. It
was only Patriarch Athenagoras who was a transgressor of canons and tradition
and the initiator of new customs when he participated in Vatican Council II
more than a century later.
Perhaps the most
important thing is that the Creed established at Nicaea and at the rest of the
Ecumenical Councils is not an example of union and harmony with heretics, but
precisely the opposite. The true unity of the Church is obtained through
Orthodox confession and the expulsion of those who sow division against the
right faith.
The service at
which the Pope was also mentioned in the litany
Within a service
for the reception of the Pope in the church of the patriarchal residence, a
service was held and many remarked on the fact that the Pope was mentioned in
the litany by the deacon together with the Patriarch. As far as I could
understand from the video fragment, it is a prayer for both that their steps
may be directed toward every good work, not a commemoration as Primates.
Although this gesture is not permitted by the canonical and liturgical norms,
like the entire visit of the Pope, this fact does not seem to be much more
serious in comparison with the rest of the events.
The Pope’s visit
– a new scandal
Although I
personally hope that the Pope’s visit to Constantinople will not have very
serious repercussions, as was taking shape with the ecumenist anniversary of
the Council of Nicaea, the event is an unfortunate one and establishes as
custom and accustoms us to the evil of the violation of the canons that forbid
friendly and liturgical relations with heretics. Participation in the Liturgy
and the kiss of peace no longer astonish anyone.
Although visits by
the Pope have also taken place in other Local Churches, it seems that in
Constantinople the audacity toward acts of betrayal of the faith is greater
than anywhere else. It is sad to observe that it is the people who still put a
brake on the selling-out of the faith carried out by the hierarchy, among whom
the Phanariots are the most lacking in faithful and the most without
restraints.
Romanian source:
OPEN LETTER OF THE
FATHERS
Once again, the Holy Monastery of
Esphigmenou is vindicated...
At a moment of high symbolism for
the global movement of the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism, the “green patriarch” Mr.
Bartholomew and Pope Leo XIV signed a disgraceful Common Declaration in the
“Throne Hall of the Patriarchal House” at the Phanar, on November 29 (new
calendar). In this declaration, among other things, the two men stated verbatim
the following: “we must acknowledge that what unites us is the faith
expressed in the Nicene Creed.”
Even this declaration alone is
sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of the hypocrisy staged on a global
scale, with the heads of modern ecumenism as protagonists, and the victims
being the naïve and ignorant lukewarm, who, being deceived and deceiving
others, indifferent to the truth, will in the end even worship the Beast.
The papal parasynagogue—and not
the papal “church” as it is deliberately called—true to its principles of
innovation, progressivism, arrogance, and lust for power, remains firmly
attached to a multitude of heretical doctrinal distortions: the Filioque,
the Primacy of the Pope, the rejection of Uncreated Grace, sprinkling
instead of Baptism, the introduction of unleavened bread (i.e., the host
in their “liturgy”), compulsory celibacy for all clergy, the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception of the Theotokos (that she was born without original sin), Purgatory,
and many others, all constitute indicative proofs of the conceited papal
“muddled-ology” and not theology, through which the Pope and his followers
remain unrepentantly attached to their heresies. What relation, then, can there
possibly be between the above blasphemous dogmas of this pseudo-church and the
faith expressed in the Nicene Creed?
On the other hand, what relation
can the “green,” unionist, Latin-minded Bartholomew have with the Fathers of
the First Ecumenical Council, or with the Orthodox Fathers in general? He calls
the pan-heretical Pope the “most holy bishop,” recognizing him as having
grace and apostolic succession. In violation of a host of Holy Canons, such as
the 10th, the 45th, the 65th, and those of Laodicea, he prays together with
heretics, receives their “blessings” (which are absurdities), and allows them
to enter and pray within holy churches. He opposes all the saints of our faith:
Saint Mark of Ephesus, who at Florence declared, “we have nothing in common
with the Latins”; Saint Theodore the Studite, who warned, “whoever
commemorates a heretical one becomes a participant in his delusion”; and
Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, who said, “curse the Pope.” What relation,
then, can there possibly be between the above blasphemies of the “green” man
and the immaculate faith expressed in the Nicene Creed?
Yes, for the umpteenth time, the
struggle of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou is vindicated. Since 1974, our
brotherhood has unanimously ceased to commemorate heretical—ecumenist
pseudo-patriarchs, who unworthily bear the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” while
in reality they are Latin-minded and papolaters. Our guides are the Holy Canons
and their exponents, namely the holy teachings of the God-bearing Fathers of
our Orthodox Church. We obey Saint Mark of Ephesus, who teaches: “Therefore
I beseech you, avoid the Papists as one flees from a serpent or from the face
of fire, and likewise [avoid] the ‘Orthodox’ who associate with Papists. The
further away one flees from these ‘Orthodox,’ the closer one comes to the Holy
Fathers. And the closer one comes to them, the further he departs from our
Saints. There is no room for condescension in anything that concerns our
Orthodox Faith.” We obey Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, who instructs us: “One
Antichrist is the Pope...” and “Curse the Pope, for he will be the cause
of the evil” (90th Prophecy).
But we shall close with the most
beloved Saint, the Great Basil (it should be noted that he is also honored as a
saint by the Catholics), who, with the following few but weighty words, puts an
end to the drivel—the foolish talk—of the modern ecumenists regarding the
Latins. Thus says the Saint: “If the wrath of God against us continues, what
help can Western arrogance and haughtiness offer us? They neither know the
truth nor do they want or tolerate to learn it, but being prejudiced by
baseless suspicions... they fought against those who told them the truth and
supported heresy by their stance. I myself am even thinking of writing to their
chief (Pope Damasus of Rome) and foremost among them... that they neither know
the truth nor condescend to follow the path by which they could come to know it...
and that they should not consider pride a virtue, which is a sin sufficient in
itself to create enmity toward God.” (St. Basil the Great, EPE 1,
304) Therefore, St. Basil the Great clearly stresses that the Latins neither
desire nor tolerate to follow the path of truth. Now consider the extent and
depth of the hypocrisy and deception that took place before the television
cameras, on the hallowed ground of Nicaea the other day. We therefore have our
Saints, who show us the way to Paradise—and not the antics of the tragic
wolf-shepherds, who seize souls in order to deliver them to eternal anathema.
Since 1969, the Holy Monastery of
Esphigmenou, together with 10 other Monasteries of the Holy Mountain
(Dionysiou, Karakallou, Simonos Petra, Grigoriou, Saint Paul, Xenophontos,
Stavronikita, Koutloumousiou, Konstamonitou, and Great Lavra) and many Cell-dwelling
Athonite Fathers, based on the 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Holy Canon of
the First-Second Council, ceased the commemoration of the great ecumenist and
Freemason “patriarch” Athenagoras for reasons of faith (his uncanonical lifting
of the anathemas in 1965, pro-papal overtures, heretical mindsets, etc.). On
November 13, 1971 (new calendar), the Extraordinary Double Assembly of the Holy
Community stated in an official document that “it is left to the conscience of
each Monastery whether or not to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical
Patriarch.”
Of interest are the responses of
the Holy Monasteries to the above-mentioned document, excerpts of which we
present below:
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita (October 7, 1970):
“We have ceased
the commemoration, having felt that every margin of tolerance or deadline for
waiting has been exhausted.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Karakallou (no. 117/September 21, 1972):
“We wish to
reiterate our confident and irrevocable decision to continue the cessation of
the Patriarchal commemoration as a sign of protest, for as long as the new
Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Demetrios I continues the line maintained by the Holy
Synod which had been laid down by Athenagoras. We will be obedient to the new
Patriarch when we ascertain that he will reconsider the heretical declarations
of his predecessor and will not continue the pro-papal trajectory.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of St. Paul (no. 624/September 25, 1972):
“Concerning the
matter of the commemoration of the name of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical
Patriarch Mr. Demetrios, our decision is that we are not able to proceed to
discussion unless His All-Holiness declares publicly through the Press that he
will not follow the course of his predecessor.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Xenophontos (no. 188/September 22, 1972):
“Our Holy
Monastery remains firm in the faithful application of the decision of the
Extraordinary Double Holy Assembly under ref. no. NB’, 18.11.71, given that the
causes which led us to the cessation of the commemoration of the Ecumenical
Patriarch have not been removed, as we had hoped and awaited.”
At this point, it is worth noting
that the cessation of commemoration of Athenagoras by the majority of Mount
Athos was the principal reason for the postponement of the pseudo-union in
practice between Orthodoxy and Papism, which already earlier, in 1964, had been
theoretically agreed upon. Such was the power of the cessation of communion and
commemoration that it delayed the pseudo-union! And now the very reasonable
question arises: for what reasons does only the Monastery of Esphigmenou
continue today to refrain from commemorating the “patriarch,” while all the
other Monasteries have returned normally to the commemoration of the respective
“Ecumenical Patriarch”?
The question becomes all the more
reasonable when the objective observer notes that the formerly stated demands
of the Monasteries—that there be no dogmatic deviations by Athenagoras and
Demetrios, as cited above—have in the end not only gone unaddressed, but have
been all the more demonstrably scorned by Bartholomew, who has surpassed them
in ecumenistic leaps.
The answer is astonishing... Two
factors broke the resistance of the other monasteries. The first is the famous
Phanariot diplomacy. It is the proverbial dexterity and skill of the clergy of
the Phanar to persuade others that all is going well, that the watchmen are
vigilant, and that under the sleepless gaze of the “guardians of Orthodoxy,”
even interfaith dialogues or various ecumenist practices do no harm—because, as
they argue, “at the end of the day, everyone wants to be saved and no one wants
to be damned.”
The second factor, for those not
convinced by the above deceptive words, is Warfare. It is multifaceted,
gradual, and multidimensional. At first, it appears in letters containing
insinuations in a threatening tone, in patriarchal writings that warn of possible
ecclesiastical sanctions, deposition from ecclesiastical offices, or even
excommunication! Thus, the conditions of a Cold War are created. If someone
survives even this, a frontal assault follows: deprivation of material goods,
violation of human rights, seizure of monastic property, selective enforcement
of the articles of the Charter of Mount Athos, restriction of the freedoms of
individuals, denial of the right to medical care, seizure of all financial
resources of the monastery to which the dissenters belong, endless and repeated
lawsuits for any cause or pretext the human mind can invent—and the list has no
end...
The conclusions are yours to
draw. You have just been informed of the levels of “temptations” that every
monastery on Mount Athos which does not wish to commemorate ecumenists is
obliged to endure. The results are well known!
As the struggle of our Monastery
is revealed through the events as a steadfast confession of truth, it becomes
entirely evident that nothing of what is happening arose suddenly. All that now
emerges as wounds on the Body of the Church, our brotherhood had discerned with
spiritual discernment and prayer. Our voice was never one of reaction or
egotism, but a paternal reminder of the path of the Fathers. Thus, the
Monastery stood firm—not to resist men, but to preserve the truth that saves.
It did not begin from momentary reactions nor from human animosity. It was the
fruit of many years of discernment, prayer, and deep conscience. The decision
to cease the commemoration of a “patriarch” who distorts the faith and prays
together with heretics was not an act of isolation, but a movement of obedience
to the Holy Canons, to the tradition of the Fathers, and to the Holy Spirit who
dwells in the Church.
For decades, our Monastery
insisted that the day would come when heresy would be called dialogue and
falsification would be covered under the cloak of diplomacy. It saw the
distortion approaching, saw the joint prayers multiplying, saw the oaths of
unity with Papism being prepared as something natural. That is why it stood
firm when most remained silent. That is why it spoke when many preferred not to
confront their responsibility. All that today constitutes a public wound in the
Body of the Church, the Monastery had prophetically pointed out. And when the
hour of confession came, it did not retreat. It did not make deals, did not
calculate subsidies, did not bow to authorities, but preserved the mindset
handed down by the Fathers of the Holy Mountain—not out of pride, but from a
sense of duty. Not to cause division, but to preserve.
The cessation of commemoration
was never an end in itself—it was an act of salvation. It was a deed that cried
out to the people that the faith is not negotiable, that the truth does not
conform to balances, that Orthodoxy does not compromise with heresy. Our
Monastery, with persistent and unwavering speech, prepared souls to remember
the ancestral piety, to hear again the voices of the Fathers, to distinguish
the love that saves from the anti-patristic and hypocritical love that betrays.
And now that joint prayer has
become a public spectacle, now that adulteration is presented as unity, now
that papal ecclesiology is promoted as a fraternal relationship, the stance of
Esphigmenou no longer appears as exaggeration, but as a confession that has
been vindicated. The history of the Holy Mountain will record that there were
once some who spoke when no one else dared to speak. And how this voice was not
extinguished, because it was not supported by human strength, but by patristic
truth. Where the faith is being falsified, confession is a duty. And where
silence becomes complicity, the truth raises her voice through those who do not
submit. The Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou stood and still stands in this
position—not as an arbitrary reaction, but as a guardian of ancestral piety.
Our humble and poor coenobium
continues to live and to struggle against the raging forces of darkness and of
the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism—the worst heresy that has ever passed through the
history of mankind. Our strength, although humanly limited, is nonetheless
inexhaustible, for we have beside us the Lord of Glory, who encourages us with
those sweetest of words: “Fear not, little flock” (Luke 12:32). We have
the Lady Theotokos, who aided the Zographou monks by appearing to the ascetic
Elder dwelling outside the Monastery and saying to him: “Go quickly to the
Monastery and announce to the brethren and to the Abbot that the enemies of Me
and of My Son have drawn near”—referring to the Latin-minded ones during
the “patriarchate” of John Bekkos, like-minded with the present “patriarch”
Bartholomew, who were approaching the Monastery, and who would soon after
render 26 Zographou monks holy martyrs. We have so many Athonite holy Fathers
who were martyred for refusing to bow to Papism—such as the holy martyr Kosmas
the Protos (1279), the 12 holy martyrs of Koutloumousiou (1280), the 14 holy
martyrs of Iveron (1279), the 13 holy martyrs of Vatopedi (1279), and many
others who refused to venerate Latin-minded and unionist “patriarchs.”
Justification is not a matter of
triumph—it is a matter of mourning for what has occurred, and a matter of
responsibility for what is to come. The Monastery does not rejoice in being
proven right; it grieves that the Church has been wounded so deeply as to bring
about that confirmation. Yet it also knows that truth is never left without
witnesses—and that its confessional struggle was not in vain, but became a
light for souls seeking the path of salvation.
As Esphigmenite monks, as
Athonites, but above all as Orthodox Christians, we confess, we affirm, and we
proclaim that our motto—“Orthodoxy or Death”—which we have displayed on black
banners hanging from the towers of our Monastery since 1974, is for us not a
mere slogan, but a living dogmatic ideal, a conscious way of life, and the
highest vow of our monastic state—one which we are ready to serve and defend
with the last drop of our blood.
ORTHODOXY OR DEATH, then,
and:
“If God be for us, who can be
against us?”
We shall not deny thee, beloved Orthodoxy;
we shall not lie against thy ancestral reverence;
in thee were we born, and in thee do we live, and in thee shall we fall asleep;
and if the time shall call us, a myriad times for thee shall we die.
—(Bryennios Joseph)
A supplicant before the Lord,
THE ABBOT OF THE HOLY MONASTERY
OF ESPHIGMENOU
Archimandrite Methodios
Greek source: https://esfigmenou.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post.html
NEW YORK: December 12, 2025. The final session of the year of the Council of Bishops took place, timed to the patronal feast of the Sign C...
