Sub specie aeternitatis (“In the perspective of eternity”)

Archimandrite Seraphim (Ivanov)

[Later Archbishop of Chicago, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia]

Source: Православная Русь, No. 24, 1941, p. 1.

Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:28).

This is certainly not a Christmas topic, the reader might say.

What can one do — we are living through such mad times that everything is turned upside down. At the end, God willing, there will be something Christmas-related.

We have written much about the need to establish a strict hierarchy of values. And how many of our readers are still unable to do this to this day!?

Spiritual destruction is more terrifying than physical death. This axiom holds true not only for an individual person, but also for an entire people. It is better to lose national independence than to allow the soul of the people to be destroyed.

This is how Metropolitan Anthony wrote about this back in 1918:

"If one had to choose between the two, then let Russia perish, but let Rus’ be preserved; let Petrograd perish, but not the Monastery of St. Sergius; let the Russian capital perish, but not the Russian village; let the Russian universities perish and be replaced by English or Japanese ones, but let not Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Vasnetsov, and Seraphim of Sarov perish from the memory of the people..." (Dictionary to the Works of Dostoevsky, p. 29).

And a bit above (p. 28) the hierarch wrote: "Rus’ existed, grew, and shone even when it was not an independent state"... referring to the time of the Tatar yoke.

Therefore, even in our time, as sad as it may be for us to read in German newspapers about suggestions to annex Russian territory up to the Dnieper or even further to the German Reich — if this be the price of liberating the rest of Russia from godless Bolshevism — then this is not so terrible.

Let us firmly remember that for Rus’, there can be nothing worse than the satanic Judeo-Bolshevik regime. If it remains in power for even another decade, the face of the Russian people will be irreversibly changed.

Even now, through the mass extermination of the best representatives of the older generation and the re-education of the youth, the Bolsheviks have succeeded in achieving that the majority of the peoples inhabiting Russia have accepted the Soviet godless regime as their own, Stalin-Dzhugashvili as their leader and father — and this despite the fact that the Kremlin rulers have not retreated one iota from their political program, as is testified daily by Soviet radio itself.

It is not only that they have accepted it — Russian soldiers shed their blood and fight desperately to the sounds of the Internationale for the “great Stalin” and the “Soviet Fatherland.”

This is already such a psychological shift that it threatens to become ultimately fatal for the Russian people.

Let no one say that Soviet patriotism is the same as Russian patriotism, that Russian soldiers are now inspired by the examples of Peter the Great, Suvorov, and Kutuzov. All of this is vile falsification. The foundation of Suvorov’s Science of Victory was a bright and steadfast faith in God. Suvorov’s wonder-warriors were a truly Christ-loving host, and they went to conquer and to die for the House of the Most Holy Theotokos, for Holy Rus’.

Suvorov’s favorite words were: “God have mercy — we are Russians!”

All this is hidden from Stalin’s “hawk-lings,” as the Moscow spokeswoman tenderly calls Soviet pilots. They gaze indifferently at the sacred centuries-old walls of churches turned into Red Army clubs, and at times amuse themselves by shooting at the most pure image of the Mother of God.

That which was sacred to the Russian people throughout their thousand-year history is, according to all testimonies coming from there, already incomprehensible to the broad masses of contemporary Soviet youth and speaks almost nothing to their hearts.

Let us not close our eyes to the dreadful truth. Oh, of course, not everything is lost yet. The remnants of the older generation are still alive, have not yet turned into ramoliks [French ramolli — “softened,” “weakened”], and the émigrés remain. There are still those who can cleanse the minds of the new Soviet generation from godless Communist filth, and even among the latter not all have been stripped of God. But if another ten or twenty years of this dreadful satanic regime pass, the spiritual destruction of the Russian people will become irredeemable and final.

Therefore, according to our deep conviction, whoever considers himself an Russian Orthodox Christian must not and cannot desire the victory of the faithful servants of the godless: of Timoshenko, Zhukov, and Merezhkov and the like, for from over their left shoulders peeks out the demonic, vile mug of the Judeo-Communist.

Yes, it is tragic that, apparently, a significant part of the Russian people will not be able to breathe freely, and life under foreign rule may become difficult. But the Russian people were under the Tatars for 250 years and did not perish; the Serbs and Bulgarians were under the Turks for 450 years… and preserved their national identity. Though the body was stricken, the soul of the people remained alive. And so it is arranged in this world that the soul of a people can only be killed from within; from without this is impossible, unless by the complete physical extermination of the given people.

Let us therefore remember all this firmly, beloved in the Lord Russian brothers and sisters. And let us especially reflect well upon it in these days of the Nativity of Christ the Savior. For He came to plant the true faith on earth, and through it to unite the human race to eternal life.

He, and only He, accomplished the greatest good, by granting us the opportunity to transform our brief earthly life — less than eighty years — into an eternal, infinitely joyful existence.

For it was He Himself, with His divine lips, who said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6), and in another place:

“He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30).

Shall we be indifferent to these words of the Lord?! Shall we sell our spiritual birthright for a mess of lentils — for illusory values, even if so dear to us in human terms — national ones?

Are we Christ’s, or are we not Christ’s? Let us resolve this question once and for all with all seriousness, brethren. And if we are granted the blessing to answer it in the affirmative, then nothing will frighten us. Then the triumphant Christmas hymn will resound anew for us:

“God is with us, understand this, O ye nations, and submit yourselves, for God is with us!”

“But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33).

 

Online Russian source:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/istoriya/rptsz/arkhiv-rptsz/sub-specie-aeter-nitatis

 

The Teaching on Invalid and Non-Existent Mysteries, whether from the Healthy or the Sick Part of the Church

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 30, 2025

 

 

Introduction

This section examines the view that the mysteries (such as Holy Communion or Baptism) may be devoid of divine grace and considered invalid.

The analysis focuses on how this teaching affects both sides:

The "sick" part: That is, those faithful and clergy who remain in communion with bishops who are considered to be preaching delusions/errors.

The "healthy" part: That is, those who have broken ecclesiastical communion (walled themselves off) for reasons of purity of faith.

The text argues that if either side begins to consider the mysteries of the other side as "invalid" prior to an official synodal decision, it leads to serious theological and ecclesiological errors.

Fr. D.A.

***

The Teaching on Invalid Mysteries and Its Consequences

This section examines two cases concerning the view that the mysteries may be invalid or non-existent.

The First Case (A):

We examine what happens when the "sick" part of the Church (that is, those faithful who have not broken communion with heretical bishops) supports the view that the "healthy" part (those who have walled themselves off) is outside the Church. If the "sick" part considers that the walled-off are not being saved and that their mysteries are invalid, then the following problems arise:

1. The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is nullified: This canon praises those who break communion with a bishop who preaches heresy, even before he is officially condemned by a Council. If we consider that those who apply this canon are placed “outside the Church,” then this canon is useless, and the Church was wrong to include it among her sacred canons.

2. An extreme “Episcopocentrism” is imposed: According to this logic, the faithful are obliged to commemorate their bishop even if he is a heretic, in order not to lose their salvation.

3. Similarity with Papism: If a bishop openly preaches a heresy (e.g., the Filioque) and the flock is forced to follow and commemorate him for the validity of their mysteries to be maintained, then the validity of the Divine Eucharist depends solely on the name of the bishop and not on the truth of the faith.

The Conclusion

If the above are valid, then anyone who ceases to commemorate the name of the bishop (even for reasons of protecting the faith) is automatically considered to lose the grace of the mysteries. If the view prevails that whoever does not commemorate the bishop loses his salvation, then we are led to extreme positions, such as those of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. He maintains that:

• Whoever does not commemorate his bishop in the Divine Eucharist erases himself from the living faithful.

• The Divine Eucharist has no salvific value if it is not celebrated in the name of the local bishop.

• We cannot pray directly to Christ, but the bishop must always mediate as His “image.”

These positions coincide with Papism, where everything depends on communion with the Pope. Moreover, if we accept this logic, the notion of "shared defilement" [συμμολυσμού] is abolished—namely, that Orthodox are defiled when they commune with uncondemned heretics—something taught by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the patristic tradition.

***

The Second Case (B):

What happens when the "healthy" part (the walled-off) adopts the teaching that the mysteries of the "sick" part (those who have not walled themselves off) are invalid? The consequences are as follows:

The schism deepens: Instead of this teaching helping to unite the two sides, it deepens the chasm and renders the healing of the Church impossible.

Arbitrary exercise of authority: The "healthy" part behaves as if it is the entire Church and decides on its own that someone else has been deprived of Divine Grace.

Bypassing the synodal process: In order for a cleric (and much more so a bishop or an entire local Church) to be declared an unrepentant heretic, an official ecclesiastical trial is necessary. He must be summoned three times to give an account, and if he persists in his delusion, only then is he deposed and cut off from the body of the Orthodox Church.

When a group of faithful proceeds on its own with such a bold action without having the authority, it usurps powers and rights that belong solely to the official Church. This group has the duty to break communion with the heretic (to wall itself off), but it is not permitted to overstep the boundaries defined by the holy Canons. If it does so, it violates the Canons and Ecclesiastical Law.

Moreover, one of the primary aims of those who wall themselves off is to press for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. The purpose of the Council is to restore Orthodoxy by expelling the unrepentant heretical bishops and placing Orthodox ones in their stead.

However, when a group of clergy and laity has already issued a condemnatory decision on its own before the Council, the meaning and aim of its struggle are entirely altered. According to this logic, there is no longer any need for a Council, since the group believes that the judgment has already been rendered by itself. It considers the episcopal sees to be already vacant, even though the bishops remain in place without having been tried or called to account. This group hastens to find and appoint its own bishops by any means.

Ultimately, in this way, a group that began as a simple part of the Church is arbitrarily transformed into a separate “Church” of its own.

Moreover, what is even worse is the way it treats the other part. Instead of showing love and helping the brethren of the “sick” part (those who have not walled themselves off) to return to the truth, it shows indifference and abandons them, on the grounds that they no longer constitute the Church. Thus, these faithful are left unprotected among the heretics, who appear as sheep but are wolves, and who now exploit them freely and lead them to spiritual destruction.

For example, what Orthodox has ever truly cared about what the Protestants are doing or about the fate of their faithful? Apart from a few rare exceptions, no one. But how would this community be treated if it were truly considered a Church and a part of Her, even a “sick” one?

If this teaching (concerning invalid mysteries) is accepted, we are led to another absurdity: it leaves the part that has broken ecclesiastical communion in a suspended state. For, as much as it may appear to function as a separate Church, establishing its own altar, in reality, the part that has walled itself off continues to be part of the Church from which it was separated, and from there it derives its canonical existence. However, when in its own conscience this Church ceases to exist (because it is considered invalid), then from where will it draw its legitimacy? It is thus forced to self-identify as a “Church” in a manner reminiscent of the Protestants—something which is an evident illegality and violation of the canons.

Consequently, if the “healthy” part of the Church accepts the teaching that the mysteries of the “sick” part are invalid and non-existent, it is led into many errors. Then it too ceases to be the healthy part of the Church and is likewise transformed into the “sick” part.

In conclusion, the teaching that the mysteries are invalid or non-existent—wherever it may come from, whether from one part of the Church or the other—is to be condemned and creates immense responsibilities.

(Source: The book by Hieromonk Eugenios, The Concept of Defilement; the text is linguistically adapted)

***

Summary Conclusions

The key points, summarized in simple language, are the following:

1. The invalidity of the mysteries is a dangerous theory: arguing in favor of the view that the mysteries are “invalid” (i.e., without divine grace) causes serious problems, whether it is adopted by the official Church or by the walled-off.

2. Criticism of the official Church (the “sick” part):  

• If the official Church considers the mysteries of those who have walled themselves off to be invalid, then it nullifies the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which praises the breaking of communion with heretics.

• This stance leads to a kind of “Papism,” where salvation blindly depends on the commemoration of the bishop, even if he teaches delusions.

3. Criticism of the walled-off (the “healthy” part):

• If the walled-off consider the mysteries of the official Church to be invalid, then they usurp the authority of a Synod. Only an official ecclesiastical court can depose someone and declare his mysteries invalid.

• If they consider the official Church to be “invalid,” then there is no meaning in seeking a Council (since they have already made the decision on their own) and they end up behaving like an autonomous “Protestant” group.

4. The abandonment of the faithful: The theory of “invalidity” leads the walled-off to disregard the faithful who remained behind, leaving them unprotected among the heretics, instead of striving with love to bring them back to the truth.

Conclusion: The teaching that the mysteries are invalid before a synodal decision is an error for both sides. The “healthy” part ceases to be healthy if it adopts such extreme and uncanonical views.

 

Greek source (slightly edited): https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_30.html

Questions of Hieromartyr Nikolai (Prozorov) and Answers by Hieromartyr Joseph (Petrovykh) of Petrograd in 1929

 

Your Eminence,

Our Most Reverend and dear Hierarch!

With the blessing of His Eminence Vladyka Dimitry, I venture to ask you to give us an answer to the questions put forward by the pastors of the Penza diocese from the parishes that have joined us. These answers will serve as guidance for us also for the future:

1) The Orthodox parishes are now surrounded either by the Zhivtsy [“Living Church”] and the Renovationists, or by the Sergianists. But the population of neighboring parishes has mutual family ties, and therefore they often bring into Orthodox churches infants baptized by the Renovationists and the Sergianists. Is it necessary to anoint them with Holy Chrism, and how should one deal with those baptized by the Sergianists?

Answer: Those baptized by the Renovationists — yes, they should be anointed with Holy Chrism; but those of the Sergianists — not yet! For they — the Sergianists — are such due to a misunderstanding, and the resolution of this matter is still in progress.

2) Three months ago, a certain chanter Panov was ordained to the priesthood by Metropolitan Kirill of Penza, in the same parish where he had been a chanter. Now both the parish and he are considering joining us. What should be done with Panov? In what manner should he be received?

The zealous among the parishioners do not want to recognize his ordination. Our clergy there are confused and are inquiring of us. The question is serious, and therefore we are turning to Your Eminence for clarification.

Answer: He must be received after an explicit and public confession of the truth by the one joining. For the calming of the “zealous,” it can be recommended that the priest humbly accept a certain epitimia — in the form of temporary abstention from priestly ministry (2–3 weeks, up to a month).

With regard to ordination, one must be guided by the practice established under the Patriarch for the reception of those ordained by the Renovationists: those who received ordination from bishops of the old teaching (who had deviated into Renovationism) were received through repentance and epitimia (such as the one mentioned above). By the same procedure it was permitted to receive those who had received ordination even from new bishops, provided they had themselves received their consecration from the old ones and without violation of church rules (unmarried, etc.). Only those who received ordination from married bishops and with violation of church rules were completely rejected and regarded as unordained.

3) Civil marriages, that is, open fornication and vile blasphemy, are gaining ground in the provinces. The priests are asking for a blessing to deprive of Christian burial those who were in these sins and died without having cleansed themselves through repentance. Or should they be buried at home, and not in churches? These are the measures proposed by the pastors to combat depravity.

And you, dear Vladyka, what is your view?

Answer: That is correct, but in particular cases some condescension is possible. For example, someone among the unwed may have been constantly aware of his sin and did not manage to correct it properly or was unable to. Such persons, though at home, may fittingly be buried with a funeral service for the sake of lessening the sorrow of their relatives. To bury manifest and hardened blasphemers would be a scandal. Let them be buried in a godless manner. The same applies to those who were unwed out of malice and estrangement from the Holy Church, without any awareness of the sinfulness of their life.

I leave space here for a reply, so as not to burden you with unnecessary writing. In all other matters, we have peace and well-being. Only Your Holiness is lacking — will we see you? (Little hope. I am waiting for you here.)

May the Lord God preserve and strengthen you. For we live by you (and it is probably not easy, is it?). I ask for your prayers and your hierarchal blessing.

Your humble and devoted obedient servant,
the sinful priest Nikolai Prozorov

Dear Father!
Greetings and blessing. And thank you for helping the Vladyka. Take care of him!

9/22 February 1929

Original source:

http://www.eshatologia.org/273-voprosi-svyashenika-nikolaya-prozorova-i-otveti-na-nih-mitropolita-iosifa-petrogradskogo.html (deleted, unarchived)

 

Hieromartyr Nikolai (Nikolai Fyodorovich Prozorov) was born in the village of Pokrovskoye, Penza Governorate. At the age of 18, in 1915, he left the seminary and volunteered to defend the Fatherland on the German front after training at the Mikhailov Artillery School. At the front, he commanded a battalion. The Revolution found him as a second lieutenant. In 1918 — inspector of Vsevobuch.

After returning from the front to Penza in 1918, he was accused by the Chekists of an “officers’ conspiracy” and sentenced to execution. The young officer, full of life and courage, vowed to become a priest if the Lord would preserve his life. While among those condemned to death in a shared cell, he suggested reading aloud the akathist to St. Nicholas, the defender of the unjustly condemned. Some officers agreed and sang the akathist, while others refused. All who read the akathist were spared execution and received prison sentences, while their fellow inmates were executed. Once freed, Nikolai accepted the priesthood in 1919. He was ordained by Archbishop Ioann (Pommer).

From 1919 to 1927, he served in rural churches near Penza. He was arrested in 1924 and soon released. From the beginning of 1927, he lived in Leningrad, studied at the Theological-Pastoral School, and then at the Higher Theological Courses (until July 1928). He served in the church of the Lavra Kinovia. In 1928–1929, he was rector of the Church of St. Alexander of Oshevensk at Piskaryovka. A Josephite, he was secretary to Bishop Dimitry (Lyubimov).

On November 28, 1929, the priest was arrested along with a group of Josephite clergy who did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius’s “Declaration,” and by the decision of the OGPU dated August 3, 1930, he was sentenced to the highest measure of punishment. Bidding farewell to his cellmates, the priest joyfully said: “The Lord is calling me to Himself, and now I will be with Him!”

He was executed by shooting on August 21, 1930.

In 1981, Priest Nikolai Prozorov was glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and numbered among the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. His commemoration is on August 6/19.

 

Russian source:

http://www.internetsobor.org/index.php/sobytiya/sergianstvo/svyashchennomuchenik-nikolaj-prozorov-i-ego-perepiska-s-mitropolitom-iosifom-petrovykh

 

Testimonies from Councils and Fathers concerning the Division of the one Church into two Flocks (“Healthy” and “Sick”) due to Heresy and an Uncondemned Heretic.

[With a brief commentary on so-called “Cyprianism”]

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 29, 2025

[An anti-Ecumenist priest walled-off from the Official Church of Greece.]

 

 

Introduction

From the book of Hieromonk Eugenios, The Concept of Defilement, we publish from pages 549–555 a text bearing the above title. The text is composed in plain, comprehensible language. At the end of the text, there are concise conclusions.

The main points of the text are the following:

“The Church is one, but in critical periods it appears divided into two flocks due to heresies or delusion:

• The ‘healthy’ flock consists of those who preserve the correct faith.

• The ‘sick’ flock includes those who have been led astray by false teachings, without having been officially condemned.

Despite the division, both flocks perform mysteries, while the Church remains one. The aim of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils was the unity of the Church, the restoration of the divided flocks, and the removal of delusion. The ‘illness’ of the second flock refers to the spiritual harm caused by heresy, and its removal protects the healthy flock and allows for its spiritual growth.

Overall, the distinction between ‘healthy’ and ‘sick’ flock is temporary and therapeutic, with the purpose of returning all to the unity of the One Church.”

Among the groups of the G.O.C., this is called Cyprianism and is even considered by many to be a heresy.

Opinion of the author [Fr. Dimitrios]

The term Cyprianism does not correspond to a historically recognized heresy, nor does it describe a structured dogmatic system that introduces an innovation of faith or alters the ecclesiological mindset of Orthodoxy.

The positions attributed to the so-called “Cyprianism” — especially that the heretic is mystically severed from the Body of Christ prior to synodal condemnation, while remaining canonically within the visible ecclesiastical structure until judged by a synod — do not constitute heresy, but rather a patristic distinction clearly attested in the writings of the Holy Fathers. The distinction between the mystical and the visible body of the Church is established in Orthodox ecclesiology and is presupposed both by the Holy Canons and by the synodal practice of the Church.

The accusation that this position nullifies the competence of Local Synods is a distorted generalization. Tradition fully acknowledges the authority of bishops and local synods to condemn heresies and those inclined toward heresy; at the same time, however, it teaches that when a heresy acquires a universal or pan-Orthodox dimension, a corresponding synodal judgment is required. This gradation is not “ecclesiological relativism,” but an expression of canonical exactness.

The argument concerning the “inability of the Church to expel heretics in the absence of an Ecumenical Council” is based on hypothetical reasoning and not on patristic ecclesiology. The Church acknowledges a second manner of severance from itself: apostasy and self-severance, when someone publicly and persistently accepts or preaches heresy.

The argument that the Church cannot expel heretics without the convocation of an Ecumenical Council comes into conflict with the long tradition of the Fathers and with Canon Law. Orthodox ecclesiology recognizes two primary ways by which a member ceases to belong to the Body of Christ:

1. The Synodal Condemnation

This constitutes the “judicial path,” whereby the official Church, through Local or Ecumenical Councils, identifies the delusion and pronounces the penalty of excommunication or deposition. However, the Council does not “create” the heresy, but ascertains and confirms an already existing spiritual condition.

2. Self-Severance (Apostasy)

According to patristic theology, heresy is not merely a legal offense, but a spiritual condition that severs a person from the Life of the Church. Saint Maximus the Confessor maintained that heretics, even before synodal condemnation, have been alienated from the Church due to the corruption of the faith. He himself broke communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople when it fell into Monothelitism, even before the convocation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council acknowledges the obligation of the faithful to cease commemorating a bishop who preaches heresy “with bared head” (publicly and openly), which has already been condemned by Councils, even before there is a specific synodal judgment concerning the individual. The Church exists where the word of truth is rightly divided. As Saint Gregory Palamas emphasizes, those who belong to the Church of Christ are those who belong to the Truth. Those who reject the Truth exclude themselves from sacramental and spiritual communion, regardless of whether an institutional body has had time to convene. Therefore, the expectation of an Ecumenical Council as the exclusive prerequisite for the identification of a heretic is often a pretext to avoid confession of the faith, for it transforms the Church from “the pillar and ground of the truth” into a bureaucratic institution that remains inert in the face of doctrinal distortion.

The application of the concepts of “Cyprianism” primarily concerns the heretics within the visible Church (the “Ecumenists”) who remain “sick members” until synodal condemnation or secession.

The Papists, on the other hand, are generally considered to be outside the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church, since the Schism of 1054 and the subsequent Councils (such as the Hesychast Councils of the 14th century) have condemned and anathematized them. As such, the teaching concerning “sick members” applies to Orthodox who align themselves with Ecumenism, and not to Roman Catholics who have already seceded.

***

Testimonies from Councils and Fathers concerning the division of the one Church into two flocks (“healthy” and “sick”) due to heresy and an uncondemned heretic:

 

Testimony of Saint Basil the Great (concerning the Arians):

“In such a critical time, great effort and much care are needed to assist the Churches. And the greatest benefit is for those parts which have until now been divided to be united.”

In another letter (the 92nd):

“For this purpose we especially need your help [of the Westerners]: so that those who confess the apostolic faith, having dissolved the schisms they devised, may henceforth submit to the authority of the Church. Thus, the Body of Christ will once again be whole, and all its members will return to fullness...”

Note: In this letter, Saint Basil the Great beseeches the bishops of the West to assist synodally in uniting the Churches of the East.

Testimony of Saint Cyril of Alexandria (to John of Antioch after their reconciliation):

“…and [I pray that God] may unite the divided parts and, having removed the scandals that came between us, may crown with concord and peace both our Churches and yours.”

Testimony of the same Saint (to Patriarch Maximian of Constantinople):

“Behold, look! The divided members of the body of the Church have been united once again with one another.”

Introductory Address of the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council:

“What other offering of gifts to God could be more precious from you than the fervent proof of your love and faith toward Him, and the peaceful state of the holy Churches which you have achieved? For this purpose, you have exerted very great efforts, beyond your other duties, striving for concord among those who had been divided. For you reign justly with the help of Christ, and Christ through you desires to grant peace to His Churches.

God Himself has now moved your serene authority and stirred you with zeal for Orthodoxy, so that you might convene this Ecumenical Council. The purpose was to overturn the criminal deed of heresy which had recently arisen and to confirm the preaching of the truth; thus, as this proceeds, the structure of the Church may be firm and without divisions.

For you did not consider it tolerable, most wise king, that we should agree and find common ground in other matters, yet be cut off and divided in the very subject of our life (the faith); and this, while we are members of one another and constitute the one Body of Christ, through our common faith in Him and with one another.

[…] Since, therefore, things stood thus, it was necessary that your Christ-loving benevolence should gather together this most holy and numerous assembly, deeming it right to achieve both: to remove the cause of the division of the Churches, and to restore to unity those things which had been separated. For you did not endure, God-honored sovereign, to see much longer the invention of false teaching recently woven, tearing the garment of Orthodoxy. But, as an instrument of the Holy Spirit —if we may dare to say so— together with us and through us, you rewove the torn portion and restored it to its wholeness.”

Testimony of Saint Tarasius (from the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council):

“For I observe and see that the Church of our Christ and God, which is founded upon the rock [of faith], is now divided and fragmented…”

Testimony of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (from a letter to Emperors Constantine and Irene):

“…so that, having driven away the division of the Churches, we may restore to unity those parts which have been severed…”

Testimony from the Feast of the Sunday of Orthodoxy (referring to the end of Iconoclasm):

“Beholding this greatest benefaction, let us applaud with joy that the divided members of Christ [the faithful and the churches] have been gathered again into unity, and let us glorify God who has granted us peace.” (Third troparion of the First Ode of the Canon)

It should further be noted that, just as occurred in the periods prior to the convocation of the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, as well as in the time of Saint Basil the Great, so also in other historical moments the Church appears divided in two (that is, into two flocks). This happened due to heresies and the activity of heretics who had not yet been officially condemned. The same phenomenon is observed also in the periods preceding the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Eighth Ecumenical (due to schism), and the Ninth Ecumenical Council.

According to the above, then, the Church is divided into two flocks: one is the “healthy” (those who uphold the correct faith), and the other is the “sick” (those who have been led astray by delusion or heresy).

As Saint Basil the Great calls them [the documentation is found at the end of this section], into the second flock has entered the illness and defilement of impiety, resulting in its transformation from a healthy part into a sick one. In contrast, the first part remained healthy precisely because it kept its distance from the second. But take heed of this: two Churches are not created; the Church is one. What happens is that the flock is divided in two, or that the local Churches are in a state of separation from one another.

To make this more understandable, let us look to Holy Scripture. The Lord says: “And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18). The Apostle Paul says: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). These two passages refer to the One Church that we confess in the Symbol of Faith.

In other places, the Apostle Paul says: “Then had the Churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), and elsewhere: “Greet one another with a holy kiss; the Churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16). Here, the reference is to the local Churches, which all together constitute the One Catholic Church of Christ, yet each one of them is also the Catholic Church. Ultimately, this is a mystery, but the phrase “the Churches” refers to the individual local Christian communities.

Now coming to the passages under examination: Saint Basil the Great speaks of “uniting the Churches which until now were divided.” Saint Cyril refers to “our Churches and yours.” The Sixth Ecumenical Council seeks “to remove the division of the Churches and to restore to unity those parts that have been separated.” Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council says, “so that [we may cast off the division of the Churches]” … “driving away the disagreement among the Churches, let us restore to unity those parts that have been separated.” And from the Sunday of Orthodoxy: “the separated members of Christ have again been gathered into unity.” In these texts, the meaning is that the local Churches must be united—or have been united—that is, their flocks are to become one again, ceasing to be in separation and without ecclesiastical communion. The phrase of Saint Tarasius (“I see the Church… torn and fragmented”) means that the Church of God appears as divided into two flocks or into two local Churches that are not in communion with each other.

Both of these parts perform mysteries as members of the Church. Saint Basil the Great and all the Orthodox held that the Arians had valid (substantial) priesthood. The same was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council concerning the “Council of Apostasy,” by the Sixth Ecumenical Council regarding Macarius and others, by the Seventh Ecumenical Council regarding the Iconoclasts, as well as by the Council of 843 concerning the Iconoclasts after the Seventh Ecumenical. The same occurred with the Fifth Ecumenical Council concerning the Nestorians of the West, the Eighth Ecumenical concerning the schismatic Ignatians, and the Ninth Ecumenical concerning the followers of Barlaam and Akindynos (see also regarding Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Gregory Palamas).

The question is: what does the “sickness” (morbid state) of one part mean, and why must we distance ourselves from it, even though it performs mysteries? The answer to this very delicate issue is given throughout the entire book, but concisely in Chapter VII: “Final Conclusions.”

The designation of the two flocks of the Church as “healthy” and “sick” (diseased), according to Saint Basil the Great, is based on the following:

“These describe the image of those who distort the teachings of the Lord and do not genuinely learn from His word, but have been corrupted by the teaching of the evil one. These mingle with the healthy body of the Church [i.e., the Orthodox], with the intention of secretly transmitting their own spiritual harm to the more well-intentioned and simple-minded faithful.

“For the healthy part here [the portion of the Orthodox], which defends the piety of the Fathers, has suffered greatly, as the devil strives in many and varied ways to shake it. But may it be, through your prayers, that the evil heresy of Arius which misleads the people be extinguished, and that the good teaching of our Fathers gathered in Nicaea may shine again, so that the doxology to the Holy Trinity may be in harmony with the saving baptism.

“The most pitiable of all is that even the part which appears to be healthy [the Orthodox] has become internally divided... To us, in addition to the open war of the heretics, has been added the conflict with those who appear to believe the same as we do, a fact which has brought the Churches into a state of utmost weakness.

“We remain steadfast in the same position, while others are those who continually change [he refers to Eustathius of Sebasteia], and now openly join the camp of the opponents. You yourself know how highly we valued communion with them, so long as they still belonged to the healthy portion [the Orthodox].

“But you, our beloved and much-desired brothers, become physicians for the wounded and trainers for the healthy. Heal the sick [diseased] part [the Arians], and prepare the healthy part [the Orthodox] for the practice of piety.

“Remain steadfast in the faith; look around you throughout the whole world and see that this sick part [referring to the Pneumatomachians] is small. The entire rest of the Church, from one end of the world to the other, which received the Gospel, remains faithful to this sound and correct teaching.”

1. The Unity of the Church and the Division of the Flocks

The text highlights that the Church remains one, but in critical periods it appears divided into two flocks:

• The “healthy” flock: the faithful who preserve the correct faith and follow the teachings of the Fathers.
• The “sick” flock: the faithful who have been led astray by heresies or false teachings, without having yet been officially condemned.

This division does not create two Churches; the Church remains one, while the local Churches may be in a state of separation or have interrupted ecclesiastical relations with one another. Saint Basil the Great uses the metaphor of “illness” to describe the spiritual damage caused by heresy and delusion.

2. Aim of the Fathers and the Councils

All the cited texts emphasize that the aim of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils was the unity of the Church:

• Saint Basil the Great: seeks the union of the Churches that had been divided due to the Arians.
• Saint Cyril of Alexandria: prays for the union of the divided parts and the removal of scandals.
• Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils: explicitly state that the goal is the removal of division and the restoration of the flocks to unity.
• Sunday of Orthodoxy: celebrates the reunification of the “separated members of Christ.”

Overall, this line of thought shows that faith and unity are interlinked, and that the correction of heretics does not mean the dissolution of the Church, but the restoration of unity.

3. The Meaning of “Sickness”

The “sickness” or “morbid condition” of the second flock does not refer to an inability to perform the mysteries; the mysteries are celebrated properly and remain valid, even in a flock that has deviated in doctrine. On the contrary, the “sickness” is spiritual:

• It is the distortion of the truth of the Gospel and the spread of delusion.
• It poses a threat of transmission to the Orthodox faithful.
• Separation from the “sick” part protects the healthy flock and allows for its spiritual growth.
• Saint Basil the Great likens the work of the Fathers to that of physicians caring for the ill, with the goal of restoring the “sick” and preserving the “healthy.”

4. The Ecclesiological Perspective

The text emphasizes the unity of the One Church and the distinction between the local Churches and the Body of the Church:

• The One Church exists universally, while the local Churches are parts of the One Church.
• The Fathers and the Councils observe that division can occur among the local flocks without the unity of the Church being lost.
• Ecclesiastical divisions are temporary and can be healed through councils and the conciliar effort toward unity.

5. Conclusion

The main message of the text is:

• The Church is one, but it may appear divided due to heresies or delusion.
• The divided flocks are called “healthy” and “sick,” depending on their adherence to the truth of the faith.
• Despite the division, both flocks perform mysteries; however, spiritual guidance requires distancing from the sickness for protection and healing.
• The Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers always pursued unity and the restoration of the divided Churches.
• In other words, the division into two flocks is a temporary and therapeutic distinction, not a schism; the goal is the return of all to the unified body of the Church.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_40.html

St. Gregory the Theologian: “I’m staying away from every convention of bishops…”

 

Epistle 130 (Summer 382 A.D.)

To Procopius,

If I must write the truth, here’s how I’m doing: I’m staying away from every convention of bishops because I don’t see any happy ending to a synod that leans toward an increase in vices rather than a decrease. Yes, the contentious and power hungry will always be around, along with – don’t assume I’m being petulant when I write like this! – those who are [supposedly] superior to reasonable discourse. Anyone who passes judgment on vice in others is prosecuted for it no sooner than he puts an end to theirs. Therefore, I’ve contracted into myself and come to think of tranquility of soul as the only sure thing. And now I have an illness that protects my decision; I’m nearly always breathing my last and unable to make myself of any use. Therefore, let Your Magnanimity agree with me, and let the most pious emperor be persuaded by you not to condemn me as indifferent but to recognize the infirmity for which I need retreat before any other benefaction – something which he knew and conceded to me.

Source: Gregory of Nazianzus’s Letter Collection: The Complete Translation, Bradley K. Storin (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), pp. 159-160.

How a monk ought to flee from women and bishops.

 

In this context [“The Spirit of Vainglory”], here is an old saying of the fathers that is still current and that I, who could not avoid my own sister or escape the bishop’s hand, am unable to utter without embarrassment: A monk must by all means flee from women and bishops. For neither permit him, when once they have bent him to familiarity with themselves, to devote himself any longer to the quiet of his cell or to cling with most pure eyes, through insight into spiritual matters, to divine theoria.

- Saint John Cassian, Institutes, bk. 11, par. 18.

The Validity of Orthodox Mysteries and Spiritual Defilement through the Commemoration of a Heretical Bishop.

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 28, 2025

 

 

To examine the subject, which concerns baptized Orthodox Christians, we must consider the following:

A. What constitutes a valid Mystery, and what are the conditions for participation in a valid Mystery by Orthodox Christians.

B. When the Mystery acquires salvific dimensions.

C. What spiritual defilement means and how it arises.

***

A. The fundamental theological principle is that the true celebrant of the Mysteries is Jesus Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. The priest merely lends his hands and voice (“Thou Who offerest and art offered…”).

A Mystery is considered valid if the following conditions are met:

1. The officiating clergyman has a canonical ordination.

2. The rite established by the Church is observed.

3. The spiritual purity of both the celebrant and the participant.

The Fathers emphasize that the valid celebration of the Mysteries is connected not only with ritual correctness, but also with the spiritual purity of the celebrant (that there be no impediments to the priesthood) and of the participant. For example, Saint John Chrysostom writes that Holy Communion is a union with Christ, and no one should commune as a sinner or heretic without repentance.

***

B. In Orthodox theology, the Mystery acquires soteriological dimensions (that is, it contributes to the salvation and deification of man) when it is not merely a ceremonial act, but a true encounter between God and man that transforms existence.

The basic conditions for a Mystery to possess a salvific character are the following:

1. Synergy (Divine Grace and Human Will)

The Mystery does not act “magically.” What is required is synergy — that is, the offering of the uncreated Divine Grace by God and the free acceptance and Orthodox faith of man. Without repentance and the sincere disposition of the believer, the Mystery remains ineffective for his salvation.

2. Faith as a Bond with the Mystery

Orthodox faith is not merely an intellectual assent, but a confession that incorporates man into the Church. Without it, participation in the Mysteries — especially in the Holy Eucharist — is not permitted, as the Mystery is the seal of already existing Orthodox faith and not a means for its attainment.

3. Active Spiritual Life: Faith must be accompanied by works and repentance in order to be “salvific.”

4. In Orthodox ecclesiology, the commemoration of the Orthodox bishop by the priest during the celebration of the Mysteries is not a mere formal procedure, but a fundamental condition for their validity and salvific dimension.

***

C. The Mystery is considered “defiled” when it is performed outside the boundaries of Truth (heresy) or outside the boundaries of Order (schism/deposition), as well as when the believer participates in it with a conscience opposed to the will of God.

The commemoration of a bishop who preaches heresy “with bared head” (openly and publicly) is considered by many Fathers to be communion with delusion/error [πλάνη, pláni].  The believer who consciously follows a heretical bishop is in danger of corrupting his Orthodox mindset. Commemoration signifies unity of faith. If the bishop is a heretic, commemoration creates an ecclesiological illusion. It presents heresy as a part of the Church. This, according to Saint Theodore the Studite, constitutes “communion with darkness,” because the Divine Eucharist cannot conceal doctrinal deviation.

Participation in Mysteries where a heretical bishop is commemorated may remain “institutionally” valid (until synodal condemnation), but becomes spiritually dangerous. The believer is called to preserve the “Orthodox discernment” and to place faith above administrative conformity, since the Church is constituted by Confession and not merely by institution.

***

D. There are two kinds of heretical bishops: those who have been judged by Orthodox Synods and deposed, and those who are heretical but have not been judged by an Orthodox Synod. Both cases are referred to ecclesiastically as excommunicated. When a bishop preaches doctrine contrary to the dogmas of the Church, and according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, if the heresy has already been condemned by previous Synods, that bishop is essentially considered “excommunicated” by the very truth of things, even prior to the formal synodal act.

***

E. Within the framework of Orthodox Ecclesiology (as it is also analyzed in contemporary theological studies), a heretical bishop is considered to “defile” — not in a magical sense of the word, but in an ecclesiological and soteriological manner.

This “defilement” is manifested on three levels:

1. Defilement of Confession (False Witness)

The greatest “defilement” is the distortion of the Truth. Since the Church is constituted upon right faith, the bishop who preaches heresy introduces a “foreign body” into the teaching.

• When a priest commemorates such a bishop, he falsely affirms that this bishop “rightly divides the word of truth.”

• This false confession defiles the spiritual integrity of the local church, as the Divine Eucharist is celebrated upon falsehood and not upon Truth.

2. Spiritual Defilement of the Faithful (Communion with Delusion)

According to the Fathers (such as Saint Theodore the Studite), communion with a heretical bishop is not a mere administrative act, but a spiritual participation in his delusion. The believer who consciously follows the heretic is “defiled” because he accepts as true something that is false. This alters his Orthodox discernment (the sensibility of faith). While the grace of the Mystery may remain institutionally valid (until synodal condemnation), the believer who accepts the heresy ceases to cooperate with the grace, resulting in the Mystery not acting salvifically for him.

***

F. According to the strict patristic line, defilement is transmitted through commemoration and communion (participation in the Mysteries):

1. From the Bishop to the Priest: Through the commemoration of the name of the heretical bishop.

2. From the Priest to the Faithful: Through the participation of the faithful in the Liturgy where the heretic is commemorated, and through the acceptance of his teaching.

To avoid this defilement, the Church provides for walling-off (15th Canon of the First-Second Council). The breaking of communion with the heretical bishop is not schism, but spiritual disinfection: the faithful and the clergy cut off contact with the disease (heresy) in order to remain healthy members of the Body of Christ.

Summary: The heretical bishop defiles because he transforms the Mystery from a “manifestation of truth” into an “act of blind obedience” to delusion, thereby endangering the salvation of those who consciously follow him.

He who communes with the excommunicated is himself excommunicated.

In summary:

Those who accepted that the meaning of “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” applies also to a heretic not yet condemned by a synod are the following:

Saint Athanasius the Great, the monks of Tabennisi (and behind them all the monks and ascetics of Egypt, such as Venerable Theodore the Sanctified), Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Melania the Roman, Venerable Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem, Saint Nicephorus the Confessor Patriarch of Constantinople, Venerable Theodore the Studite, Saint Joseph Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod that signed the relevant text, Venerable Meletius of Galesion, Saint Athanasius Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph Bryennios, Saint Mark of Ephesus, and the Holy Dositheus Patriarch of Jerusalem. Finally, all the Saints, according to Venerable Theodore the Studite and Holy Dositheus.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council explains why the heretic must not be regarded as being in communion with the Orthodox: because the Mysteries are defiled through communion (commemoration) with the heretic. The term “defilement” here does not mean the removal of the essence of the priesthood nor the non-existence of the Mysteries. From the interpretation of the Fifth Council, it follows that the principle “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” applies also to a non-deposed (“not yet condemned”) heretic.

This principle must not be interpreted as applying only after excommunication, as the official interpreters claim, but also before it, as is evident from the apostolic and patristic testimonies that have been presented.

First Millennium:

This commandment was observed by the flock of the Orthodox during the periods of: Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint Basil the Great, and Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. During this era also lived Venerable Theodore the Studite, for whom the matter likewise concerned the Holy Hierarchs Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. Notable too was the contribution of Saint Melania the Roman, who confirms the observance of the principle even in regard to uncondemned heretics. According to Venerable Theodore, this commandment pertains to all the Saints up to his time, and its observance by all constitutes a consensus Patrum — a common acceptance by the Fathers.

Second Millennium:

Leaders of this period were Saint Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph Bryennios, Mark of Ephesus, and Meletius of Galesion.

The principle “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” remained in force during this period as well, not only regarding communion with the Papists but also with uncondemned heretics, as is evident from the acceptance of the letter of Saint Basil the Great to the “Monastics” and from the application of the principle by Saint Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

In sum, this principle constitutes an ancient and patristic tradition, that is, a consensus Patrum, and it is a commandment that originates from great figures of holiness and has remained unchanged throughout the centuries, even to our own time.

 

[Further information can be found in the book (in Greek) by Hieromonk Eugenios, “The Concept of Defilement”…]

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_28.html