Christodoulos “Spawned” Bartholomew’s Deviations

The Dark Legacy of Christodoulos: Spiritual Withering and Servility Brought Forth the Schism and Three Robber Councils

Panagiotis Kosmidis | July 10, 2026

 

 

BOW DOWN, SERVANTS, BEFORE THE MASTER

“Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees” (Heb. 12:12)

An Anniversary Remembrance of Three Decades

In the issues of the Orthodox Christian newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, nos. 2593 of June 12, 2026, and 2594 of June 19, 2026, something of substance was published in the caption of the photograph on the front page. This caused consternation in the circles of the pious; it also aroused the anger, astonishment, and spiritual vigilance of many clergy and monks.

Specifically, at that time we published the following caption: “Papal prostration: Archbishop Christodoulos at the Phanar (July 13, 1998). All the clergy and laity, except for the Bishops, prostrated themselves before Patriarch Bartholomew.” This was an utter degradation. And Archbishop Christodoulos was later “excommunicated” (cessation of communion), ludicrously, by Patriarch Bartholomew (April 30, 2004). Only barbarians prostrate themselves before their king, never free Greeks.”

Those who were present at that disgraceful scene and are still alive today have never reacted. They conceal the sacrilege in the depths of their hearts, covering it with the mantle of the offices bestowed upon them today. Bishops and high priests remain here silent in their “prison” of authority. They recall that humiliation with pain and have imposed the “Omertà.”

Exactly twenty-eight dark years have since passed, and the same tyrannical, destructive, and schismatic practice of the extinguished “Phanar” is being repeated.

And before the coffin of a certain cassocked cleric, one of his spiritual brothers confided, with bitterness and shame: “Let us elect someone who smells of incense, because this man believed absolutely nothing, being a living dead man, an unholy priest and a shepherd who never shepherded.”

The Insignificant Thing of Enormous Significance

The builder of the magnificent Parthenon, the great Pericles, formulates an unshakable principle of freedom: “The insignificant thing conceals within itself the entire trial and proof of our resolve. If we yield in the insignificant matter, they will immediately afterward demand from us something greater, thinking that we yielded in the former case out of fear. If, however, we resist, we shall make them understand that they must deal with us as equals with equals.”

“There are not very many whose minds have been corrupted in our Fatherland; nevertheless, they have the means to make a commotion and to be presented by the mass media as prudent and humble, while in mind they are darkened and in outward appearance ostentatious. And, according to the common saying, ‘the lame man has taken the downhill road and has no intention whatsoever of stopping his course.’ Among the many absurdities, there is also this one. Patriarch Bartholomew, in an act of the greatest arbitrariness, forbade the late Christodoulos to have the city of Athens officially celebrate its patronal feast and the commemoration of the Apostle Paul. Empty conceit overflowed, and the cup of arrogance was filled: ‘I am the Church, and you are not.’”

Christodoulos Returned Angry from the Phanar

For who does not know the hidden snares? And how did the shepherd fall among the “wolves”? We record, by way of disclosure, that Christodoulos received strict recommendations that he should not proceed immediately to the Phanar; or, if he did, that a strict framework and inviolable conditions should be established. He, however, behaving arrogantly, disregarded the grave ecclesiological improprieties. We further reveal that, during this journey, besides the imposed act of prostration, he suffered another grievous insult, even worse and more deceitful, which, however, we pass over for the present. Thus, when he returned, he was deeply wounded and angry, attempting in many ways to justify the humiliation which he himself, and above all the delegation of the Church of Greece, had suffered.

He cried out: “We acted very badly in submitting to this humiliating public degradation. You are to blame, because you did not warn me as forcefully as you should have; therefore, the failure is a common one. I wanted to leave in the middle of the visit, which would have been tragic,” only to receive the firm reply: “Of your own free will you fell into this impropriety, and you yourselves are now suffering its tragic consequences. And now you know that further stages will follow from this abhorrent beginning.” And so it happened, to an excessive degree.

Bartholomew Never Revoked the Excommunication of Christodoulos

Furthermore, we reveal that during the funeral service of Archbishop Christodoulos (2008), the Patriarch mobilized every influential intermediary in order to attend in person. He demanded that he alone should bear the pastoral staff and the omophorion; however, he ended up embroiled in humiliation. He was merely one insignificant figure among fifty bishops, without any honorary distinction or elevated platform.

It is unnecessary to denounce the fact that the Patriarch never asked forgiveness, either for the servile prostration of the Greek clergy or for the uncanonical and ludicrous severance of communion (excommunication) imposed upon Christodoulos, which indeed took place during a live worldwide television broadcast (April 30, 2004), with candles, lamps, omophoria, and lantern-like engolpia, while forty-two Bishops assented and countersigned, devoid of episcopal conscience. It should be noted that, officially and in the same manner, the act in question was never revoked. Should we perhaps still expect this? Probably not. In any case, after that ceremony of shame, the then Minister of Education sent a certain distinguished shipowner, who confronted the Patriarch in very severe language, saying: “You are not going to destroy Hellenism through your blunders…”

Christodoulos Bears Full Responsibility

If we wish to draw a conclusion on a deeper level, and not a superficial one, then we must arrive at the transcendent conclusion that Archbishop Christodoulos bears the entire responsibility for these grievous events recorded here, because throughout worldwide Orthodoxy, even to this day, so many years later, the consequences of that servile submission continue to manifest themselves—that submission which took place at the very height of the power of the Archbishop of Greece. For he tolerated an anti-evangelical and tyrannical act against our clergy, from which, subsequently, arrogance brought about devastating storms and pan-Orthodox calamities.

We further point out that those tragic events which were shamelessly carried out—namely, the prostration of the clergy and the severance of communion with Christodoulos (2004)—constituted the preludes to extremely grave wounds and internal wars within Orthodoxy. We enumerate the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari in the year 2016, as well as the twofold pseudo-synod of Kyiv-Constantinople, through which an illegitimate, Ukrainian-Nazi ecclesiastical structure was recognized. This brought about, in essence, an active schism with the great Slavic Group of Orthodox Churches, and above all with the Church of Russia. And as the culmination of all these things, there recently occurred also the beheading of His Eminence Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos by the innovating Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus, George, under the seal and protection of the Patriarch, who bears no responsibility in this matter.

We Inform the Younger and Reprove the Older

It is our intention to republish this particular concise note from time to time, so that the younger may be informed and learn, while the older may recall with bitterness the calamities of Hellenic Orthodoxy, arising from the powerful men within who have brought about this arrogant decline.

This updating and republication contains no element whatsoever of vindictiveness, but expresses painful reflection over our ill-fated fatherland, for the awakening of those who flatter this dreadful system and for the mobilization of those who are prudent, yet remain complacent.

Perjuries have roots. The newspaper Typos tis Kyriakis (Sunday Press) of January 31, 1993, published an interview with Metropolitan Theologos of Larissa, one of the Twelve, who reveals how Archbishop Ieronymos I once rebuked his successor, Seraphim Tikas: “Do you believe in God, Seraphim?”

We cite another recent dramatic exchange, which demonstrates the spiritual apathy of certain Bishops: A certain modernist Metropolitan, seated beside an Archbishop, reproached him most severely: “How can you do such things? Do you not fear God?” The latter, with complete unbelief, apathy, and indifference, looked around to the right and left, above and below, and replied: “Where is He? Where is He? I do not see Him!”

“The fool hath said in his heart, // There is no God” (Ps. 13:1).

“He is not the God of the dead, // but the God of the living: // ye therefore do greatly err” (Mark 12:27).

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bd%81-%cf%87%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%cf%8c%ce%b4%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%bf%cf%82-%e1%bc%80%cf%80%ce%b5%ce%ba%cf%8d%ce%b7%cf%83%ce%b5-%cf%84%ce%ac%cf%82-%e1%bc%90%ce%ba%cf%84%cf%81%ce%bf%cf%80/

The Boundaries of the Church — A Necessary Comment on the Parish Bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ (2010)

Fr. Anders Åkerström | October 25, 2010 (O.S.)

 

 

In the October 2010–January 2011 issue of the parish bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ [in Stockholm], there is an article entitled “A Clarification — On Canonicity and the Calendar Question,” to which we unfortunately feel compelled to respond, since the article, among other things, singles out our church in Sweden.

The priest Father Angel [Velichkov] writes that “today it is especially important to examine... certain schismatics on Orthodox grounds,” and continues by commenting that these are some whom we “must shun like fire.” He explains that “schismatics are Orthodox persons and communities that break Eucharistic communion with the local canonical Churches of the worldwide Orthodox Church.” He explains that “the rupture takes place immediately” and that “the communication of grace” among them has ceased.

One might perhaps illustrate his argument by means of a light switch with “on” and “off,” “light” or “darkness.” Either one is in communion with the worldwide Orthodox Church, the “on switch,” or one is not, the “off switch.” If the “off switch” is pressed, there is no grace. Father Angel explains that the schismatics’ “sacraments become ineffectual... graceless acts. The bread is not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, sins are not forgiven, the covenant of marriage is not sealed, and grace is not conveyed in ordinations.”

Father Angel then gives the following illustrative example: “if schismatics have blessed chrism, it differs hardly at all from any ordinary scented oil.”

Here, then, a simple and clear ecclesiology is presented concerning where the boundaries of the Orthodox Church lie and where the grace of God is to be found. The Church exists among those who have preserved Eucharistic communion among the local Orthodox Churches. Put simply, one usually means the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople. And the grace of God through the sacraments is efficacious only there. Father Angel notes “that outside the Church [i.e., outside the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople], neither fasts, lengthy prayers, abstinence, nor any other ascetic practice has any saving power.”

The argument may seem very simple and appealing. An “off” and “on” switch, outside and inside, all or nothing, black or white. What is remarkable is that one seldom hears this kind of reasoning from an Orthodox priest who actively participates in the so-called ecumenical movement. We clearly recognize the argument from the “fanatical” Old Calendarists, who have a fondness for simple models. For them, most things are either “black” or “white.” Either you are Orthodox within their “group,” or you are condemned. “Orthodoxy or Death” is the text that one group has on its flags. The difference here is that it is the ecclesiastical communion to which Father Angel belongs that is declared to be without grace, where the wine and bread of the Eucharist remain wine and bread, and chrism is no more than any scented oil. Anyone who wishes to delve more deeply into this “black-and-white” mentality can read the writings of Bishop Matthaios of Vresthena (1861–1959), which make for depressing reading, much like what Father Angel presents.

Imagine an Orthodox priest from the World Council of Churches using Father Angel’s rhetoric at an ecumenical meeting where ecclesiology is to be discussed with the Roman Catholic Church! What would this sound like? The Pope is an unordained office-holder who does not possess the grace of God. Catholic “churches” have no efficacious sacraments, and their chrism is merely ordinary scented oil like that from a perfumery. Does anyone believe that the Roman Catholic delegates would continue the dialogue?

In any case, Father Angel’s ecclesiastical representatives do not say this in such contexts. Instead, they eagerly speak of the Roman Catholic Church as a “sister church.” The “black-and-white” rhetoric is brought out only when it comes to intra-Orthodox “problems.” Here one can speak of a forked tongue.

The question then arises: why does he argue in such a simplistic and unnuanced manner on this issue? Well, there is probably a pastoral reason. Father Angel wants to cast suspicion and frighten people. What if one of his parishioners were to listen to what a conservative Orthodox Christian has to say? When this is one’s motive, perhaps one can also “bend” the truth a little!

Father Angel writes: “At present there is no one on Athos or in the other local canonical Churches, whether they follow the new or the old calendar, who is in communion with the Greek Old Calendarists.” Here he avoids mentioning that there are Old Calendarist groups within many of the larger Churches, such as in Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia.

But what, then, is the truth concerning Athos, the heart of Orthodoxy? Of the 20 “ruling” monasteries, one, namely Esphigmenou, has completely broken with Constantinople and commemorates an Old Calendarist bishop. Among the smaller monastic dwellings there are several that commemorate only Old Calendarist bishops. The former Archbishop of Athens, Christodoulos, estimated that approximately 35–40% of the monks on Athos refused to mention the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Liturgies and belonged to the Old Calendarist movement. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives a somewhat lower figure, approximately 500 of the roughly 2,000 monks.

Having clarified this, Father Angel goes on to comment on the mentality of schismatics. He remarks that “they are people who are constantly seeking, but never finding, [and] who are constantly studying but never becoming fully learned... they search with microscopic precision for both existing and non-existing problems.” In the same context, he comments on their “fondness for disputes over the calendar.” Naturally, he says nothing about the canonical problem posed by the fact that three Pan-Orthodox Councils condemned the new calendar. Nor, naturally, does he mention the problem concerning the First Ecumenical Council and the Paschalion. Instead, he returns to the claim that this mentality indicates a “lack of spiritual maturity” and concludes by characterizing such people as “unreasonable.”

What, then, can be said about all this?

What we chiefly wish to comment on is Father Angel’s ecclesiology, which unfortunately is an overly simplistic model. We criticize the “fanatical” Old Calendarists for the same problem. The boundaries of the Orthodox Church and the question of where grace is present are not a “black-and-white” matter; it is not like an “off” and “on” switch. One can take a clear example from the Church in which Father Angel himself is a priest, namely the Russian Exarchate in Paris under Constantinople. The Exarchate was originally formed through a schism in which its ruling bishop left his “lawful” communion in 1927, to use Father Angel’s own terms. The same bishop was then deposed by his Mother Church in 1930, and from 1965 to 1971 the Exarchate was not in communion with any Church before it was received back by Constantinople. Did schism and the absence of communion mean that grace had disappeared—the “off switch”?

Moreover, one may note that when Churches become independent, this has historically almost always begun with a schism and a lengthy period without communion with their Mother Church. Today there is an example of this in the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which, like us, lacks communion with its Mother Church. Another example may be found in the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia who were reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 after 90 years of schism from one another.

Another clear example from the same Church is perhaps Saint John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Church to which he belonged during his lifetime was in communion with us and lacked communion with Constantinople and its Mother Church. Was his asceticism then “without saving power”? to quote Father Angel. If so, how can he now be venerated as a saint even in the Moscow Patriarchate? What we simply wish to say is that Father Angel’s argument concerning schisms is too simplistic. If one wishes to take examples from Church history, one may mention Saint John Chrysostom, who opposed the ecclesiastical administration in Constantinople after he had been driven out. Did he lose “grace” and become “uncanonical” when he did this? No, hardly!

Much of the ecclesiological problem in Father Angel’s argument lies in the word found in the title of the article: “canonicity.” As we usually say, the word “canonical” is the most abused word in the Orthodox Church. We do not know how many times we have pointed out that the word “canonical” in Orthodox theology has nothing to do with being “recognized by Constantinople.” What is canonical is simply that which is in accordance with the canons of the Church. It is not the decision of a patriarch or synod that creates canonicity; on the contrary, it is the canonicity of the decision that gives it true authority and force. Truth, not power, is the criterion.

It is therefore possible for a few to be “right” against the “great communion,” as was the case with Saint John Chrysostom or Saint Maximos the Confessor, or during periods when the “true believers” were in the minority, such as during the Arian or Iconoclastic controversies. We all know the saying: Athanasium contra Mundum! [“Athanasios against the World!”]

Temporary and transitory schisms within the Orthodox Church do not affect the unity of the Church, and we consider ourselves to be a temporary movement of resistance within the Church. We do not consider that the responsibility lies with us to justify our preservation of the Orthodox Faith; rather, the responsibility lies with those Orthodox who have introduced “innovations” into the Church.

Father Angel’s view of the Old Calendarists has, however, been made abundantly clear through his article, but what do other Orthodox say? Here we choose to quote two Orthodox Christians in communion with Constantinople. The first example is the now-reposed Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem (†2000), who, during a visit to one of our monasteries, made the following statement concerning our Synod of Bishops:

“Most ... Reverend Hierarchs of the Church, beloved children in Christ: It is with special joy and emotion that I find myself in this holy place... My joy and emotion are especially great because I am in the midst of Bishops and Priests who, in the course of the last decade, have spread the light of Orthodoxy to nearly every continent: to Europe, Africa, America, and wherever there exists an opportunity to proclaim the Orthodox Church. Thanks to the labors of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Cyprian and his Bishops, the voice of Orthodoxy has reached the most distant corners of the world.”

Here the message is not about schism and an incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox phronema, but consists entirely of praise for our activity and witness.

The second example we take from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “What future have the Old Calendarists? It is tempting to dismiss them as a survival from the past, doomed to gradual extinction... Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. Following the collapse of Communism... there has emerged throughout Eastern Europe a growing conservatism within the Orthodox Church... Although at present marginalized, the Greek Old Calendarists — and their allies in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia — may still have a part to play in the Orthodox world.”

We of course hope and pray that Metropolitan Kallistos’ words will prove true. We wish to ensure that the Orthodox Faith is preserved and thereby prepare the way for the divisions that exist within the Orthodox Church to receive a final resolution and end through a Pan-Orthodox Council. A first step on this arduous path must be mutual humility in the face of difficult ecclesiological questions.

If anyone truly wishes to delve more deeply into questions such as Orthodox ecclesiology and canonicity, I would like to recommend two articles. These could serve as a basis if Father Angel is interested in a serious dialogue. The first, on ecclesiology, is entitled “Who Determines Who Is Orthodox?” and is found in Orthodox Insights — Volume II, Chrysostomos, Auxentios, Akakios, Florovsky, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, California, 2009. The second, on canon law, is entitled “The True Meaning of Canonicity.”

 

Swedish source:

https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/_files/ugd/f29474_0d8221610c5b4f84bcc8ba80c8feedc3.pdf

Today everyone sits down and constructs a religion of his own.

Theoktistos the Cretan | August 8, 2026

 

 

Today everyone sits down and constructs a religion of his own. He takes a little from Christianity, a little from philosophy, a little from the Eastern religions, adds whatever his own reasoning dictates to him, and then says with certainty: “This is what I believe.”

But, my child, faith is not food, for everyone to put into it whatever ingredient he likes. Nor is Christ some vague idea that each person can adapt to his own desires and conceptions. “For me,” he says, “Christ was a good man, a social revolutionary, a wise teacher.”

Another says: “He was one of the many enlightened men of humanity.” These things are not faith. They are human constructions, usually born of ignorance and pride. Christ did not say that He is one of many truths. He said that He is the Truth. He did not leave each person free to interpret Him according to his passions, ideologies, and personal preferences. He founded the Church, sent forth the Apostles, and handed down the Gospel and the Mysteries. Therefore, whoever rejects the Church but retains a Christ whom he has fashioned for himself does not follow Christ. He follows himself and calls his own personal arbitrariness faith.

A person cannot fail to attend church, fail to confess, not know even the elementary things of the faith, never have read the entire Gospel, and then pronounce authoritatively on Christ, the Church, Holy Communion, Paradise, and hell. In every other field, people recognize that knowledge, study, and experience are necessary. To speak about medicine, one must have studied it. To build a house, one must know the craft. Only when it comes to God do they think they need to know nothing. Because they heard a discussion, watched a program, or read a couple of lines on the internet, they imagine that they have become theologians. And what is worse, they do not ask in order to learn, but speak in order to impose their ignorance. True catechesis, however, is not dry intellectual instruction, nor is it a series of religious lessons. It presupposes participation in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, repentance, prayer, confession, and humble discipleship. The faith is not learned only with the mind. It is lived within the body of the Church. If a person does not struggle to purify his heart, even if he reads many books, he will interpret everything according to his own reasoning. He may then use even the Gospel, not to correct himself, but to justify his delusions and passions.

Then another person comes along and says: “I believe in reincarnation, but I want to receive Communion.” What can you say to him? The Church confesses the resurrection of the dead and eternal life, while he believes that the soul passes successively from one body to another. In other words, he rejects the teaching of the Church, yet at the same time demands to approach the Holy Chalice. Another says: “I do not accept confession, I do not believe in the Saints, I do not venerate the Theotokos, I do not agree with the fasts, but I want to receive Communion because I am a good person.” But Holy Communion is not a reward for good behavior, a form of social affirmation, or a custom we observe at Pascha and Christmas. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. Whoever receives Communion confesses in practice that he accepts the faith of the Church and that he strives to live within it. He cannot deny the faith of the Church and at the same time demand her Mysteries. It is as though he were to declare that he does not acknowledge a household, does not accept its family, and despises its order, yet demands to have a place at the family table. Such things simply do not stand. The Church drives no one away. But she calls everyone to repentance. It is one thing to receive a person in order to heal him, and another to call his error truth merely so as not to upset him.

With the same superficiality, they also speak about the devil. “I do not believe,” one says, “that the devil exists. The devil is simply a symbolic image of evil.” And this is said by a person who has not even once read the entire Gospel. If he had read it with even elementary attention, he would know of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, where the devil approaches Him and tempts Him. He would know of the many cases of the demon-possessed whom the Lord heals. He would see that the demons recognize Christ, speak to Him, fear Him, and entreat Him. He would also have read the Lord’s warning to the Apostle Peter that Satan had asked to test the disciples. They set all these things aside and then pronounce that the devil does not exist. In other words, they accept neither the Gospel nor the testimony of Christ Himself, yet they insist on calling themselves Christians. They retain from Christ only what does not offend their own reasoning and reject whatever does not fit into their theories. They do not accept Christ as He is, but try to correct Him. But when a person reaches the point of believing that he knows better than the Gospel, then his pride has become darker even than his ignorance. Ignorance can be healed through learning. Proud ignorance, because it thinks that it knows, refuses even the cure.

Others again say: “If God exists, then God created evil,” or “Why did God allow evil to exist?” With such a casual statement, they place upon God all the crimes, injustices, and calamities that are produced by man’s estrangement from Him. God did not create evil, because evil has no substance or creative principle of its own. It is the deprivation of good, the distortion of freedom, and estrangement from God.

Nor was the devil created evil. He was created an angel and, through pride and his own free choice, turned away from God. And man was not fashioned as a machine, compelled to do good. God gave him freedom, because without freedom there can be no true love. But we want to be free to do whatever our passions dictate to us and, when the consequences come, we blame God. Man causes wars, commits injustice, exploits, kills, destroys his family, ravages nature, gives himself over to the passions, and then asks resentfully: “Why does God allow these things?” If God forcibly prevented every evil act, those same people would complain that He had deprived them of their freedom. They want both the freedom to transgress and exemption from every consequence of that transgression. This is not a sincere search for the truth. It is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and to shift onto God the responsibility that they themselves refuse to assume.

Therefore, this spiritual superficiality and arbitrariness must come to an end. Not everyone can take the name of Christian, reject what Christ taught, and demand that the Church adapt herself to his personal views. The Church has no right to alter the truth in order to accommodate anyone’s error. She has a duty to love man, but precisely because she loves him, she is obliged to tell him the truth. A doctor who loves the sick person does not call cancer health. He reveals the illness to him and offers him the cure. So too the Church receives the sinner, but she does not bless sin. She forgives the one who repents, but she does not vindicate the one who persists in presenting error as faith. Whoever sincerely wishes to know Christ, let him abandon self-sufficiency, open the Gospel, receive catechesis, enter into the liturgical and sacramental life, and approach the Church with humility. Then he will no longer speak about a Christ fashioned by his own reasoning. He will begin to know the true Christ, Who did not come to confirm our theories, but to free us from error, sin, and the tyranny of our own egoism.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/08/blog-post_533.html

The greatest harm of our time is not that people do not go to church. It is that they want to go on their own terms.

Theoktistos the Cretan | August 8, 2026

 

 

The greatest harm of our time is not that people do not go to church. It is that they want to go on their own terms. They want a Christ who fits into their schedule, a Divine Liturgy tailored to suit them, and Holy Communion without effort, without waiting, without preparation. But this is not an ecclesiastical mindset; it is the worldly spirit that has entered into the spiritual life. The Church does not adapt to our convenience. We are called to adapt our lives to the rhythm of the Church.

And do you know what is saddest of all? They call parishes and monasteries and ask us: “What time does Holy Communion come out?” What kind of question is that, my child? What person who truly loves Christ can ask such a question? It is as though he were saying: “Tell me when to come so that I can miss as much of the Divine Liturgy as possible and keep only what is convenient for me.” If someone loves a person, he does not ask when the meeting will end; he asks when it begins, so that he will not miss even a single minute. But when the heart grows cold, then it always seeks the minimum. How long do I have to stay? When will it end? How long does it last? These are not questions of love. They are the questions of a heart that has not yet tasted the sweetness of the presence of God.

From “Blessed is the Kingdom” begins the entrance into Heaven. It is not a phrase that precedes the Liturgy, because it is itself the beginning of the Kingdom. Saint John Chrysostom says that during the Divine Liturgy the earth becomes heaven and the angels concelebrate together with men. Saint Nicholas Cabasilas teaches that every part of the Divine Liturgy prepares the soul for union with Christ. Who, then, dares to disregard this journey and keep only the end? The Divine Liturgy cannot be cut into pieces. We do not take only what we like. Whoever cuts the Liturgy to suit himself will gradually cut the Gospel to suit himself as well.

Let me tell you something painful. For a theatrical performance, we arrive half an hour early. For a movie, we sit patiently until even the credits have finished. For a flight, we are at the airport one or two hours beforehand. Lest we lose our place. Lest we miss the beginning. Lest we miss anything. Yet before Christ we do not have the same sensitivity. There, we are content merely to make it in time for the line for Holy Communion. This shows that the problem is not time. It is love. Where love is, there is time also.

Saint Symeon of Thessalonica writes that every action of the Divine Liturgy has theological meaning and leads man to participation in the divine Mysteries. Nothing is superfluous. No exclamation, no petition, no “Lord, have mercy.” Everything instructs the heart. Everything purifies the mind. Everything prepares man to stand before the Dread Mystery. Therefore, when we disregard the beginning, in reality we disregard the Church’s spiritual formation. And then we are in danger of becoming accustomed even to the holiest things.

Let us pay attention to this. Holy Communion is not a right that we must make it in time to receive. It is a gift of which we must be deemed worthy. And no one is deemed worthy merely because he happened to be in church at the appropriate time, but because he allowed the Divine Liturgy to work within him from the first blessing to the final “Through the prayers.” The saints did not seek the minimum. They did not ask, “How much is required?” They asked, “How can I love Christ more?” There begins the true ecclesiastical life. Everything else is a matter of convenience that consoles the conscience but does not heal the soul.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/08/blog-post_718.html

 

Uncontrolled Zeal of the Studites Extinguished by Canon 15 of the First-Second

Hieromonk Lavrentie (Carp) | September 16, 2019

[Note: The Romanian author is an advocate of the ecclesiological understanding of Archimandrite Theodoros Zisis.]

 

 

Moderates and extremists have always been among the faithful. Even the Pharisees were fanatics and could not accept the teaching of Christ. However, an emblematic conflict between these categories is the one marked by the regulations of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople (861) and the stance of the Studite monks of the 8th-9th centuries. Although this aspect is little known, the former was formulated to temper and condemn the rigorism of the latter after a series of dissensions that afflicted the ecclesiastical life of that period.

A unique situation is that the majority of those who do not commemorate today, after the Council of Crete, declaratively follow both the line of Canon 15 and that of St. Theodore the Studite without seeing a conflict in this. The difference is not visible, it is true, but it nevertheless exists. Even if we were to consider that the Studites often interrupted communion for moral or administrative reasons, whereas Canons 13-15 of the First-Second condemn this, the correctness of their vision should still be questioned. In the book Guardians of Orthodoxy, this aspect is mentioned—that the monks of Studion [Monastery] had inherited certain rigorist errors, reproved by several Saints, among whom was St. Ioannikios the Great.

But there is another important aspect, namely the interruption of communion due to heresy. The Studites also faced situations where matters of dogma were at stake, not just those of morality. Because the deviations concerning the sanctioning through the interruption of communion for disciplinary offenses were more striking, Canon 15 primarily addresses this aspect, yet it does not overlook the issue of sanctioning a bishop who openly preaches a heresy.

The attitude of the Studites was troubling because it often flared up and had become a trend characterized as the "madness of the schismatics" in the text of Canon 13 of the First-Second. Although this Monastery distinguished itself through a confessional stance during the Acacian Schism (484-519), from the 8th century onward, it took an unfortunate turn. Historical testimonies regarding the inappropriate reactions of the Studites can be found in the book The Photian Schism by F. Dvornik. Although the author is [Roman] Catholic and presents his own interpretations of the events—most of them correct—his documentation is valid, based on many primary sources.

Thus, the radical Studites first manifested themselves during the Seventh Ecumenical Council, where they insistently demanded the condemnation of all former Iconoclast bishops, even though they had renounced their error. Patriarch [St.] Tarasios was later confronted by St. Theodore the Studite on the grounds that he had been lenient with some simoniac bishops. A strong conflict, known as the moechian schism, erupted after the Patriarch refused, invoking reasons of economy, to defrock a priest named Joseph who had performed an uncanonical marriage for the emperor. This rupture occurred again during the time of the next Patriarch, [St.] Nicephorus [the Confessor], for the same reasons. Because the decision to rehabilitate that priest was also taken in a Synod to give it greater authority, the Studites interrupted communion with all the bishops who had signed it and with those in liturgical communion with them.

A resurgence of Iconoclasm followed, which was halted only after about three decades, in 843, when the icons were once again venerated by synodal decision. After the death of the last Iconoclast emperor, Theophilos, another Patriarch, [St.] Methodios, was elected. He upheld an Orthodox but moderate line. For this reason, none of the Studite monks were promoted to hierarchical positions to avoid inflaming tempers. This was because the resurgence of the Iconoclast heresy was attributed to the rigorism of the zealots, who provoked their opponents through their attitude. The Patriarch wished for the course of the Church to remain Orthodox but in peace, without arousing unwanted and harmful hostilities. The Studite monks reacted harshly against Patriarch Methodios as well, for which he condemned some of them and the line set by St. Theodore, which they adhered to. [1]

After the death of St. Methodios, St. Ignatios succeeded him on the throne; he was a supporter of the Studites, though not an openly declared one. However, after his controversial deposition and the enthronement of St. Photios, the Studites once again opposed him in the same manner, for which they were subsequently condemned by the canons issued by the Council of 861, which addressed the validity of his election to the throne. For a better understanding of these latter events, I will particularly focus on them.

Byzantine society was marked by conflicts between moderates and radicals, though it almost always sided with the former. For this reason, a Patriarch from the first category was chosen to restore the veneration of icons. Then, to somewhat satisfy the pressures of the Studites, a neutral Patriarch with zealot tendencies followed—St. Ignatios, as was later proven. He came into conflict with the imperial leadership, even displaying excessive zeal in ecclesiastical and political matters, leading to his largely deserved deposition. He rebuked the regent Bardas for allegedly having an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter without conclusive evidence, then took sides or was even involved in certain conspiracies—acts that could not be tolerated. He was deposed, and in his place, a neutral figure was chosen, but this time inclined toward the moderates—St. Photios. This provoked the revolt of the Studites, who contested his election. It appears that Abbot Nicholas was removed and confined to a monastery for his opposition. [2] After an unsuccessful initial session, the Synod convened by the Patriarch to determine the validity of his ordination reached a decision on this matter in 861. At that time, a series of canons were issued on pressing issues, including the schismatic phenomenon. Thus, the interruption of the commemoration of a bishop for "any kind of faults" was forbidden, except in the case of proven heretical preaching.

In spite of the fact that Apostolic Canon 31 permits the breaking of communion even for a "fault of justice," the Synod of 861 limits this attitude solely to heresy. Here, it must be noted that the text of Canon 15, as well as those preceding it, 13-14, is inspired by a writing of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (†639), titled On the Confession of Sins. He wrote:

"If any presbyter or deacon withdraws from communion with his own bishop and does not commemorate his name, supposedly sanctioning him for some offense, let him be defrocked! And if a bishop dares to do the same against his own metropolitan, let him be deposed! Likewise, if a bishop or metropolitan dares to do this against the patriarch, let them be removed from the high priesthood! But if some separate themselves from someone not under the pretext of guilt, but because of a heresy condemned by a Synod or by the Holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox." (PG 87, 3369-3372).

The similarity with Canon 15 is evident, which has the following content (revised according to the original Greek):

"The decisions concerning presbyters, bishops, and metropolitans apply even more to patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter, bishop, or metropolitan dares to withdraw from communion with his own patriarch and does not commemorate his name, as is established and prescribed in the divine sacred service, but before a synodal examination and his definitive condemnation, creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that such a one be entirely alienated from the whole priesthood, if he is merely accused of committing this lawlessness. And these things have been decreed and sealed for those who, under the pretext of certain accusations, withdraw from their first hierarchs, create schisms, and break the unity of the Church. Those who separate themselves from communion with their first hierarch for some heresy condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers—namely, one who publicly preaches heresy and teaches it openly in the Church—such persons not only are not subject to canonical penalties if they wall themselves off from communion with the said bishop before a synodal examination, but they shall also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not broken the unity of the Church with a schism but have sought to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions."

Thus, while the Synod harshly condemns the schismatic movement of that time, it considers the interruption of communion and the commemoration of a bishop guilty of heretical teaching, even before a synodal investigation, to be a praiseworthy act. Here, it must be emphasized that our bishops today avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of such an action concerning the Council of Crete.

The authentic ecclesiastical spirit is that this attitude is only permitted, not canonically imposed [sic]. Confession of faith cannot be forced, though it is praiseworthy. Only communion with a bishop who has been deposed is condemnable, not with one who has not yet been defrocked.*

The guiding principle that must be followed is to uphold the Orthodox dogma strictly, without deviation, yet with great economy, love for people, and tolerance for their weaknesses. Iconoclast hierarchs who renounced the heresy were received in their rank, even though they had been fervent supporters of the delusion. The rigorism of the Studites was not accepted, as it does not honor the Gospel of Christ. Akriveia is a dead letter without spirit; rather, even the letter itself is not properly upheld, as deviations from ecclesiastical norms arise through distortions and incorrect interpretations.

The absence of rigorism and spiritual balance are evident in the attitude of St. Basil the Great toward the Pneumatomachian heretics. He did not demand a strict confession regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit but only that it not be denied, believing that such individuals would later learn more accurately the details of the true faith if they were received into communion. On the other hand, he was less strict to avoid a harmful isolation, which would have swelled the ranks of the heretics and weakened the Church (see Epistle 113). This was despite the fact that he himself was severe when it came to the betrayal of the faith, interrupting communion with his bishop when the latter signed a text with heretical overtones (cf. Epistle 51).

A compelling example of the attitude toward heresies is given by St. Silouan the Athonite, as described by Archimandrite Sophrony:

I am aware of a conversation the Elder (Silouan) had with an Archimandrite engaged in missionary work among the non-Orthodox. This Archimandrite held the Elder in great esteem and, whenever he was on Mount Athos, would often come to speak with him. The Elder asked him how he preached. The Archimandrite, still young and inexperienced, gesticulating with his hands and moving his entire body, responded agitatedly:

"I tell them: Your faith is erroneous; everything in it is distorted, nothing is right, and you will not find salvation unless you repent."

The Elder listened and asked:

"But tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?"

"Yes, they do."

"Do they honor the Mother of God?"

"They do honor her, but their teaching about her is incorrect."

"And do they venerate the Saints?"

"Yes, they venerate them, but since they separated from the Church, what Saints can they still have?"

"Do they perform divine services in churches? Do they read the word of God?"

"Yes, they have churches and services, but if you saw how their services compare to ours—what coldness and lack of spirit!"

"So then, Father Archimandrite, their soul knows that they do well in believing in Jesus Christ, in honoring the Mother of God and the Saints, in calling upon them in prayer—so when you tell them that their faith is erroneous, they will not listen to you... But see, if you tell them that they do well in believing in God, that they do well in honoring the Mother of God and the Saints, that they do well in attending church, in participating in the services, in praying at home, in reading the word of God, and the rest—but that they are mistaken in this or that, and that this mistake must be corrected—then everything will be well, and the Lord will rejoice over them; and thus, through God's mercy, we will all be saved... God is love, and thus preaching must always come from love; then both the preacher and the listener will benefit. But if you are always reproaching them, their soul will not listen to you, and no good will come of it." [3]

In conclusion, "it is possible that even true faith cannot grow without the contrition of the heart. Faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the evangelical commandments, and everything that the Church teaches in general." These words apply not only to modernism in the Church but also to rigorism, which can no longer see even the letter because of the "letter." Therefore, it is best to avoid both deviation from the true faith and excessive zeal.

 

[1] Archim. V. Papadakis, Guardians of Orthodoxy, p. 530.

[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316c.htm.

[3] Archim. Sophrony, Elder Silouan the Athonite, trans. Hieromonk Rafail Noica, Accent Print Publishing, Suceava, 2013, pp. 69-70.

* The author appears to be invoking the principle contained in Canon 1 of Antioch: “Those who dare violate the decree of the great and holy council assembled at Nicaea… the holy council judges them to be separated [i.e., out of communion] from the Church, for he not only sins himself, but becomes for many the cause of disorder and perdition. Such clerics will be stripped of their office, them and those who remain in communion with them after the deposition.” – Trans. note.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2019/09/16/duhul-schismatic-studit-si-canonul-15-i-ii/

The Economic Crisis and Spiritual Freedom

Bishop Klemes of Gardikion (now Metropolitan of Larissa and Platamon)

Address delivered at the Fifth Pan-Hellenic Youth Meeting of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, Ktima 10, Gorytsa, Aspropyrgos, Attica, Saturday, October 19 / November 1, 2014.

 

 

Your Beatitude; Most Reverend and Right Reverend Hierarchs; Beloved Fathers and Brethren, Young Men and Young Women of our Church;

It is a great honor and joy for me, but also a weighty responsibility, to address, at such a festive Gathering, the young people of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. The occasion is wonderful; we are passing through the period of our ecclesiastical Union. We feel a special blessing from our Lord, and we receive divine gifts with gratitude. One such gift is our Gathering today, and we thank God for it.

Our Gathering is a much-desired opportunity; it brings us Pastors close to our Hope—to you, our youth, our future. You have dreams and prospects, and we both envy you, rejoice in you, and feel deeply for you. But above all, we love you!

Our Lord and God loves you, and life smiles upon you with optimism. Heaven and your conscience call you to soar to great heights, to achievements, to the development of your gifts, to creativity with freedom, genuineness, truth, courage, and love.

And our Church, the Body of Christ, shows you and offers you the framework for living these values; it offers you the ecclesiastical way of existence, and the Theanthropic ways. Freedom from every heavy yoke and the departure from the “ego,” the opening toward true relationship and communion with God, with yourselves, and with your neighbor.

This can always take place, under any circumstances. And it has been observed historically that the more oppressive the conditions of life are, the greater the possibilities we have for spiritual enlivening and freedom. And the more we are outwardly in comfort and prosperity, the more easily we become inwardly enslaved to various passions-masters, which demand a tribute of life, the surrender of our freedom, and our captivity, temporal and eternal.

For this reason, the various “crises” are permitted through divine love for mankind, so that the stagnant waters may be stirred up and we may be roused from our deep lethargy, in order to reconsider mistaken attitudes and choices, to return to our authentic selves, and to make a new beginning.

* * *

Thus it has always been with us, with our much-suffering and glorious Nation, with the Greek people. We seemed to be fading away, to be disappearing, to be crushed, to be coming to an end...

But no! We always resisted, struggled, remained hopeful, endured and persevered; in the end, we achieved great things, culminating in the triumph of our Resurrection.

We had a driving force; we had Faith. We had love of God and love of mankind; we had love of country and a sense of honor! We had that which has been preserved until today, though it is flickering faintly; that is, we had the “Greek philotimo”!

We produced noble people, people with visions and ideals, people of generosity, beneficence, sacrifice, and service. We did not from of old keep our treasure only for ourselves, but transmitted it with love and concern to others as well, through missionary work, with remarkable results not only religious, but also humanitarian and civilizing.

* * *

But how did we, the descendants of Saints and Heroes, come to the state in which we now find ourselves?

Today we are in a crisis; this is what is heard and seen everywhere, with the economic crisis as its chief manifestation. There is a great and costly price being paid here, felt by everyone, young and old, since more or less all of us are suffering. Indeed, the very survival of the poorest and weakest is directly threatened!...

Reductions in wages and pensions, unemployment, emigration abroad, anxiety, insecurity, an increase in crime, suicides, growing waves of political and economic migrants... The horizons seem to be closing in dangerously...

The blame assigned by various people is considerable and serious, and concerns mainly the politicians and the political system in general, which was unable to respond properly to the challenges, which squandered the public funds and debased values, and which also spread the falsehood that money and goods were available, though in fact they were borrowed!...

As is well known, every crisis has certain deeper spiritual causes. The deeper level of the economic crisis is political, cultural, social, moral, spiritual, and religious. I would also say ecclesiastical.

Has not our Orthodox Church, for approximately a century now, been mercilessly assailed by blows from her own leaders, aimed literally at her destruction? The persecution was not so much external, although there was such persecution as well. It was, and remains, an internal corrosion, carried out through methodical moves and actions, by means of supposedly modernizing reforms, foremost among them that of the Calendar, until we have reached the unchecked escalation of the heresy of Ecumenism, which undermines the very foundations of the essence of Christianity, since it sets itself against the Orthodox Church of Christ as a syncretistic Pan-Religion...

These crises which we have just mentioned were regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as progressive phenomena; now, amid the chaos of bankruptcy, both economic and spiritual, many see grave mistakes, but few decide not to perpetuate them and instead to change course.

If we look a little more closely at the spiritual causes of the economic crisis, we will see that in developed countries, as also in our own homeland during recent decades, people became accustomed to comfortable living, easy profit, deceit and degradation, and in general grew accustomed to what is called consumer mania. They became dominated by machines, with self-love, hardness of heart, egocentrism, love of pleasure, greed, indifference toward others, and forgetfulness of God. A terrible existential void became apparent, one that identified the meaning of life with the enjoyment of material goods and the gratification of bodily/carnal sensations. All these things had, and continue to have, tragic consequences.

People are now unable to make the simple distinction between “what I want” and “what I need.” I want many things, but in reality, I do not need all of them in order to live...

If we do not acquire self-mastery, guided by right reason—or rather, by the word of God—preferring not our own benefit, but that of the many; if we do not learn to wait for everything we desire to come in its proper time, if and when and as God grants or permits it, and not when and as we ourselves want it, forcing matters, then even amid the crisis we ourselves will increase its intensity and burden and will not contribute to alleviating it; we will be and remain slaves of corruption, and not children of freedom and grace!

* * *

But wherein does the true freedom of man lie? The answer of the Church of Christ, through Her Saints, is that it lies in self-determination. We are created according to the Image and Likeness of God, that is, free, which means possessing self-determination.

Despite our natural, social, and other limitations, we are able to choose our purpose and direct ourselves toward it. If what we choose and what pleases us entails dependence upon the senses, sensible things, and material goods, and indeed gives rise to crisis, then it is not related to true freedom, but brings spiritual slavery.

If what we choose and what pleases us entails dependence upon the senses, sensible things, and material goods, and indeed gives rise to crisis, then it is not related to true freedom, but brings spiritual slavery. For this reason, Dostoevsky somewhere posed the interesting and decisive question: “happiness or freedom?”

The “happiness” of egoism and disobedience to the divine will is, in essence, the worst form of slavery, because it subjects the supposedly happy person to the man-slaying devil. This is the “freedom of egoism,” which satisfies the will of the flesh, but leads to separation in soul and heart from other people and from God, to loneliness and to death. Behold hell!...

By contrast, the “freedom of love” is the only true freedom, because it is identified with the divine will, the will of sacrifice and responsibility, which unites us spiritually with other people and with God; this true freedom is cruciform and resurrectional; it is paradisiacal. This is the path our Most Holy Lady walked and manifested, as did all the Saints. This is what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Only Lover of Mankind, taught and revealed, both by rejecting the “temptations” of love of pleasure, love of money, and self-love in the wilderness, and above all through His Immaculate Passion and Saving Crucifixion, which bestowed upon us Life and Incorruption!...

* * *

The economic crisis today places great challenges before all of us, and especially before the young, for the rediscovery and recovery of our spiritual freedom.

The solutions which bring about good results in society do not come about violently and mechanically. They require a spiritual process within the soul of each one of us.

Since the true freedom of the soul is not connected with material measures, but with spiritual ones—with peace, solidarity, harmonious relationships, understanding, compassion, patience, forgiveness, and true love—what is therefore required is a return to ourselves, for our purification and liberation from the passions that have accumulated, so that our inner unification may be brought about by the Grace of God.

This penitential course and process constitutes the therapeutic method for finding our true identity and encountering God, so that our relationships with others may also be placed on the proper foundation and directed along the right path.

A complete reversal is needed: liberation from the suffocating structure of modern life and, as far as possible, detachment from its spirit. Our great responsibility and urgent duty is to change our materialistic mentality, to establish new priorities, to distinguish our desires from our real needs, and to become simple in our way of life, self-controlled, merciful, and devoted to the common good.

* * *

What does this economic crisis, with its restrictions, mean in practical terms for a young person—a believing young person, a modern young person of the “Old Calendar” (!)? That is, what challenges does it place before him for spiritual freedom?

Our humble proposal and exhortation is this: that our young people come once again to love their martyric Church and their Faith, their homeland, their history, their language, their culture, their weighty heritage, their dignity and nobility!...

Why?

So that they may realize that freedom begins within themselves, in their own hearts and minds;

So that they may be genuine, honorable, and sincere seekers and lovers of the Truth;

So that they may not complain and cast the burdens upon others, but instead assume their share of responsibility;

So that they may not become accustomed to ease, idleness, deceit, and falsehood, but to sacrifice, self-offering, and conscientious hard work;

So that they may not exist for themselves alone, but may learn to live with others;

So that they may begin to look upon their neighbor with compassion and prefer his good to their own;

So that they may learn to be content with the few things that are necessary, and desire to share these with others;

So that they may rejoice with those who rejoice and sorrow with those who sorrow;

So that they may acknowledge their mistakes, accept corrections and suggestions, know how to engage in dialogue, and, when necessary, yield and make concessions;

So that they may not imitate and envy things that are alien, unworthy, and harmful, but instead aim at what has been tested and proven enduring, at what is lofty and pure, at what is eternal;

So that they may not become enslaved to homogenizing theories and practices that turn them into controlled instruments and robots and reduce them to servitude, but instead uphold, preserve, and embody their distinctive Greek Orthodox identity;

So that they may not be enticed by and succumb to the suggestions of whatever temptation continually besieges them and seeks their capture and destruction, but instead display a heroic and martyric spirit;

So that they may not be carried away by outbursts of anger and wrath, nor descend into obscenities and insults, but restrain their “shattered” nerves and learn self-control and peace;

So that they may not be overcome and shattered in soul and body, nor despair amid the failures and disappointments of life, but with repentance and determination throw themselves once again, with optimism and renewed strength, into the arena of struggle;

So that they may look with purity and self-sacrifice upon the image of God, even though faded, in every human being;

So that they may listen attentively to the needs, pain, and toil of others, and learn to honor, respect, and obey.

So that they may put an end to their dependence on the internet, Facebook, YouTube, online games, gambling, virtual reality, and all those supposedly modern goods which “kill” their precious time and blacken their souls; for they lead to falsehood, deceit, and wicked and insatiable love of pleasure, with its countless tentacles, which make them slaves of corruption and literally render them useless!

[In saying the above, we do not reject the necessary use of technological achievements, but condemn their misuse, knowing that the boundaries between use and misuse are not merely difficult to distinguish, but almost nonexistent...].

[We continue], so that they (the young) may learn to feel the need to kneel and entrustingly lay before our Lord, as a beloved and compassionate Father, their grievances, weaknesses, and sins;

So that they may have recourse as often as possible to the stole of their respected, trusted, and discerning Spiritual Father, in order to lay down their burden and receive an infusion of new Life;

So that they may open themselves in love, eucharistically and ecclesially, to the Virtues and to the Mysteries, to the Divine Energies!...

With faith, hope, and love, which lead to likeness with God, that is, to theosis, every crisis is overcome; our calling is to be united with the Triune God in His eternal, ever-new, ageless Kingdom!

* * *

Beloved young men and young women;

Do not squander your youth! You are potential Saints, not a faceless herd of animals destined for slaughter! We look to you with great expectations; do not disappoint us!

I know that you, too, look to us who are older, and especially to the Clergy, with high expectations, and you do not want us to disappoint you. And in this you are absolutely right. The example of those who are older counts far more than their advice.

In a certain sense, we mutually commit ourselves to helping one another. We pray for you, and we ask you to pray for us. May our Lord grant us opportunities for communication and edification!

The final word of my text is this: Against the mutual tearing apart of the law of the jungle that prevails around us, set forth sacrificially the “rending” (according to Saint Gregory the Theologian) of healing and victorious Love!

The Love of God for Man, and of Man for God and for his fellow man, will triumph!

Be with the Free, with the Victors!

Thank you!

 

Source: Μαρτυρία Πίστεως καὶ Ζωῆς [Witness of Faith and Love], Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, Phyle, Attica, 2017, pp. 175-183.

Examination of Conscience According to the Eight Principal Vices of Saint John Cassian

Shared by the Diocese of Stokholm of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

 

 

There are many who find it difficult to know what to say when they go to confession, and we have previously published an examination of conscience with advice, but this article is intended as a supplement and is written on the basis of a book that can truly be recommended.

The book is entitled The Pure Heart – On the Soul’s Boldness in the Struggle for Purity of Heart and is a brief, 146-page summary of Saint John Cassian’s two major works, which he wrote at the request of his bishop in order to summarize what he had learned from the Desert Fathers whom he had met. The book is published in Swedish by Artos, and the most recent edition is from 2010.

(https://artos.se/bok/det-rena-hjartat-om-sjalens-djarvhet-i-kampen-for-det-rena-hjartat/)

Saint John Cassian was born around the year 360 in what is now Romania. After entering a monastery in Bethlehem as a young man, he made his way to the harsh desert landscape of Egypt. Among the Desert Fathers there, he sought out the foundations of the search for God and of how one is to attain a pure heart. In his two books, we encounter a person who himself received tried and trustworthy teaching. He himself had walked the path, and he knew that it was long and difficult. But he had received the gift and ability both to reveal what the obstacles consist of and at the same time to inspire the Christian with courage and desire to continue onward. His life’s work came to an end around the year 430 in what is now Marseille, France, where he founded two monasteries, one for monks and one for nuns, and wrote down his teachings in two books at the bishop’s request.

For Saint John Cassian, the pure heart is a heart that loves. All toil and all asceticism have this one purpose: to be a path of training toward love. At the same time, the expression “the pure heart” shows what the struggle consists of: freeing the heart from everything that defiles it, which for him is gathered under the concept of “vices” (from the Latin vitium, which goes back to the verb vitiare, to corrupt, wound, injure, spoil, or falsify).

Everything that man does is a response to God’s calling. But the one who seriously answers this calling soon discovers that there are obstacles along the way, many and persistent, which must be removed if man is to take possession of the faith.

When Saint John Cassian speaks in detail about the vices, it is this work of clearing away that he has in mind. The Byzantine Fathers call this in Greek “praktikē” (practice), meaning that which concerns asceticism, spiritual training, and struggle. Only after this comes “theoria” (theory), that which is the goal of the Christian life: the contemplation of God. This spiritual growth is often described by the three words: purification, illumination, and union.

This does not mean, however, that one passes from one stage to another and thereby leaves the previous one behind. The Christian life remains a struggle for as long as one lives. The vices are what hinder the full Christian life. Saint John Cassian says that the vices “bind the heart together” and become a false basic disposition toward life.

Saint John Cassian also uses another word, “passions” (in Latin, “passiones”), alongside vices (“vitium”), but he is not always consistent in his terminology. Sometimes he speaks of passions when he means vices. By passions, however, he usually means the fundamentally good emotional powers that man possesses by nature. It is when they pull in the wrong way and in the wrong direction that they become a vice to be fought.

Saint John Cassian speaks of eight principal vices. He begins with what we might call bodily vices: gluttony, fornication (unrestrained sexuality), and avarice. He then proceeds to the vices that concern the soul: anger, sorrow, and acedia, and concludes with the vices that concern the spirit: vainglory and pride.

These can therefore serve as a good mirror when we go to confession. For the person who says, “I do not know what to confess. I cannot think of any particular sins,” here we are given a concrete way into self-examination without reducing confession to a legalistic list of transgressions. It is therefore worth emphasizing—and strongly underlining—that confession is not primarily an inventory of faults, but an encounter with Christ in which we lay our wounds before Him in order to receive healing. Saint John Cassian’s eight principal vices can then serve as eight doors into the heart—not in order to weigh us down, but so that we may see where we need God’s grace, forgiveness, and help in the continuing struggle.

For Saint John Cassian, the principal vices are not merely individual actions, but recurring inclinations that can express themselves in thoughts, words, habits, and actions.

It may be wise to begin confession with a very simple invitation:

“We do not need to try to remember every individual sin. Instead, consider: Where have you, during the recent period, found it most difficult to live in communion with God? What thoughts, feelings, or habits have recurred? Is there anything that weighs on your conscience, anything you are ashamed of, or anything that you notice has gained power over you?”

Then we can go through the principal vices calmly and without going into details.

1. Gluttony – when the desire for pleasure is allowed to rule – vitium gastrimargiae

This is not merely about eating too much. Saint John Cassian also speaks of becoming preoccupied with food, drink, taste, timing, and satisfaction. In our own time, one can also ask about other forms of consumption and pleasure, such as television and mobile phones.

• “Have you found it difficult to restrain your desires for food, drink, or other pleasures?”

• “Have you used food, alcohol, entertainment, or consumption to escape from anxiety, loneliness, or emptiness?”

• “Have you allowed pleasure to become more important than fasting, prayer, or care for others?”

• “Have you been ungrateful, fussy, or dissatisfied with what you have received?”

• “Have you often sought immediate gratification instead of practicing patience and self-control?”

We always need help in seeing the difference between a moderate enjoyment of God’s gifts and a desire that begins to rule the person.

2. Fornication – thoughts, desires, and lack of chastity – vitium fornicationis

Here we ask ourselves questions gently, without curiosity about details. The purpose of confession is repentance and healing, not to obtain a detailed account. According to Saint John Cassian, this is also where the greatest degree of mercy is required from the one appointed to give guidance (Coll. II:13).

• “Have you deliberately nourished impure or sexual thoughts and fantasies?”

• “Have you sought out images, films, texts, or material online that has aroused or intensified the passion?”

• “Have you treated other people as objects for your own pleasure rather than as persons created in the image of God?”

• “Have you been faithful and pure in your relationships?”

• “Is there anything in this area that you are carrying within you but find difficult to say?”

The final question can sometimes be the most important. If the person confessing answers yes, the priest can say:

“You do not need to describe anything that is unnecessary. Say in simple words what it concerns, and together we will try to understand what needs to be confessed and how you can move forward.”

3. Avarice or love of money – vitium filargyriae

Saint John Cassian sees the love of money as particularly treacherous, because it does not always arise from a natural need. It can create an insatiable desire to possess, accumulate, control, and secure one’s future.

• “Have money, possessions, or financial security taken too large a place in your heart?”

• “Have you been stingy or unwilling to help someone who needed you?”

• “Have you been envious of other people’s income, possessions, or success?”

• “Have you allowed anxiety about money to cause you to forget to trust in God?”

• “Have you been dishonest in financial matters or accepted something that was not rightfully yours?”

• “Have you become so preoccupied with acquiring more that you have failed to see what you have already received?”

Here we can also ask ourselves about power and control, since money often becomes a means to both.

4. Anger – vitium irae

Saint John Cassian distinguishes between a righteous struggle against sin and anger directed against other people. The questions should therefore help the person confessing distinguish between justified indignation and passionate anger.

• “Have you become angry in a way that harmed others?”

• “Have you spoken harshly, hurtfully, or contemptuously?”

• “Have you shouted, threatened, or tried to frighten someone?”

• “Have you harbored bitterness or refused to forgive?”

• “Have you repeatedly gone over old wrongs in your mind and nourished your anger?”

• “Have you wished for something bad to happen to someone?”

• “Have you been irritable or harsh toward those closest to you?”

The final question is often important, because a person can sometimes be friendly outwardly while taking out their irritation on their family or on those with whom they live.

5. Dejection, sorrow, or sadness – vitium tristitiae

Here we must be careful. Saint John Cassian speaks of a spiritual sorrow that can lead to despondency, bitterness, and despair. But not all sorrow, of course, is sinful. Grief after a loss, illness, or hardship is not in itself a vice. We can ask ourselves:

• “Have you become stuck in bitterness over things that have happened?”

• “Have you often become discouraged when you did not get your own way?”

• “Have disappointments caused you to withdraw from God or from other people?”

• “Have you lost hope in God’s mercy?”

• “Have you thought that your sins are greater than God’s forgiveness?”

• “Have you refused to receive comfort, forgiveness, or help because you have held on to your sorrow?”

Here it is important not to treat mental illness or depression as though it were automatically a sin. The question is rather whether a person has nourished despair, bitterness, or self-absorbed sorrow, or whether, in their weakness, they are trying to hold fast to God.

6. Acedia, restlessness, and indifference – vitium acediae

Acedia is perhaps the vice described by Saint John Cassian that is most recognizable in our own time. It is more than ordinary tiredness. It can be a restlessness that makes a person unwilling to remain in prayer, in work, or in the responsibility that has been given to them.

• “Have you become indifferent toward prayer and the spiritual life?”

• “Have you often postponed prayer without a real reason?”

• “Have you allowed your phone, entertainment, or other things constantly to draw you away from stillness?”

• “Do you get stuck on TikTok or other apps on your phone?”

• “Have you become restless or bored during the divine services?”

• “Have you neglected church or the Holy Mysteries out of convenience or indifference?”

• “Have you avoided things that you know you need to do?”

• “Have you lost heart in the spiritual struggle and thought that it does not matter anyway?”

A good follow-up question can be: “What is it that you most want to escape from when you fill your time with things that distract you?”

That question can sometimes reveal that acedia conceals sorrow, fear, loneliness, or a deeper spiritual struggle.

7. Vainglory – the need to be seen and admired – vitium cenodoxiae

Vainglory can hide even in good deeds. A person may do something good while at the same time seeking praise, admiration, or an image of oneself as particularly pious, knowledgeable, or important.

• “Have you sought praise or admiration?”

• “Have you become disappointed or angry when no one noticed the good you had done?”

• “Have you spoken about your own accomplishments in order to appear important or capable?”

• “Have you wanted to be regarded as particularly pious, wise, or spiritual?”

• “Have you compared yourself with others in order to feel better?”

• “Have you done something good primarily in order to receive appreciation?”

• “Have you been more concerned with the judgment of other people than with God’s?”

Here we are helped to understand that vainglory is not merely boasting. It can also manifest itself as a strong fear of what others think.

8. Pride – vitium superbiae

For Saint John Cassian, pride is in many ways the deepest vice, because it makes a person independent of God and unwilling to receive help, correction, or forgiveness.

• “Have you thought that you know best and found it difficult to receive advice?”

• “Have you despised or looked down on others?”

• “Have you judged others more harshly than yourself?”

• “Have you found it difficult to admit that you were wrong?”

• “Have you refused to ask for forgiveness?”

• “Have you been unwilling to receive correction?”

• “Have you thought that you do not need God, the Church, or the help of other people?”

• “Have you relied on your own righteousness and compared yourself with those whom you consider worse than yourself?”

Perhaps the most revealing question is:

“Is there something you know you ought to confess but do not want to say because it damages the image you have of yourself?”

If it is too difficult to go through the eight principal vices, here is a shorter version:

Before God:

Have I neglected prayer, the divine services, fasting, or my trust in God? Have I become indifferent or lost hope?

Within myself:

What thoughts and desires have I deliberately nourished? Have anger, bitterness, envy, vainglory, or pride been allowed to grow?

Toward others:

Have I hurt anyone through words or actions? Have I judged, despised, lied, been harsh, or refused to forgive?

In my responsibilities:

Have I neglected something I should have done? Have I been dishonest, selfish, lazy, or irresponsible?

In my body and my desires:

Have I lacked moderation? Have I treated others or myself in a way that was not consistent with chastity and love?

In my relationship with God:

What is it that is separating me from God right now? What do I most want to hide? What do I need to repent of?

The important thing is that an examination of conscience does not become a questionnaire in which we merely answer yes or no. It should help us move from the general to the concrete:

“I have been angry”

can become:

“I have harbored bitterness toward my brother and refused to speak to him.”

“I have been prideful”

can become:

“I did not accept criticism, but defended myself and spoke disparagingly about the person who corrected me.”

“I have been spiritually lazy”

can become:

“For several weeks, I have deliberately avoided prayer and filled my time with things that distract me.”

For those who would like further advice on how we can remove obstacles in our spiritual life, the book The Pure Heart is highly recommended!

 

Original Swedish source:

https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/post/biktspegel-den-helige-johannes-cassianus