Friday, August 21, 2026

How Should We Keep this Dormition fast?

By the Blessed & Ever-Memorable Archbishop Averky of Jordanville

 

 

The following homily is something of a period piece, written as it was over fifty years ago. However, although a few references may strike readers as dated, there is much of spiritual worth in the Archbishop’s words. Indeed, the state of the Orthodox diaspora and the mentality of its peoples has not greatly altered since Archbishop wrote this work. If that mentality has altered, and if the world has changed, it is sadly in both cases much to the worse. The Archbishop’s words are more pertinent now than when he penned them. Our readers will notice, and some might be offended by, his constant references to the Russian peoples, but one must bear several things in mind. First and most basically, he was a Bishop of the Russian Church addressing his flock of Russian people, mostly emigrés, which at that point probably comprised very few non-Russians. He is addressing them in terms to which they would respond. And take particular notice how carefully he phrases his expression. He never speaks of “Russian Orthodox people,” but always of “Orthodox Russian people.” There has been a tendency, one unfortunately greatly augmented in recent years with the euphoria in some quarters over the “re-united” (actually more-than-ever disunited) Russian Church, to represent Russian Orthodoxy as something essentially distinct from, and, grotesquely, even superior to, the Orthodoxy of other peoples. Few are the hierarchs and Church leaders in the Russian Church today who would have the sensitivity of Archbishop Averky to address the Orthodox Russian people, rather than the Russian Orthodox people. And, although his words are addressed to each of us as individuals, yet we can only bemoan the fact that his teaching was not heeded by the “uniting parts of the Russian Church” in 2007, which now so heartily congratulate themselves on their “well-being,” but have glossed over the need for real repentance.

 

Today, 1st August, according to our Orthodox calendar, we set out upon the Dormition Fast. For us it serves as a spiritual preparation for the Great Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, imitating her own fast, by which she prepared herself for her departure from this earthly life, and it lasts for two whole weeks.

Last year, 1959 [this sermon was first given on 1st/14th August, 1960 - ed.], the Assembly of Hierarchs declared this present year, 1960, a year of repentance. In connection with this, we have for a long time been considering reminding all the Orthodox Russian people of the Appeal of the Pastoral Conference, which was convened this year at the Holy Trinity Monastery:

“The Fast of the Dormition of the Theotokos stands before us, by which customarily we prepare for the Great Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. Do we all always observe this fast in all its strictness, do we all prepare and commune of the holy Mysteries of Christ during this fast? The Mother of God weeps for us, having a presentiment of the dread punishment of God, which we bring upon ourselves by our own lack of concern, our own lack of repentance, our own stoney lack of feeling. In this year of repentance, let us now observe this fast before the Dormition as one of general preparation of all the people, so that we might worthily approach the Communion of the holy Mysteries of Christ on the feast of the Dormition. It is to this that our Pastoral Conference now calls the Orthodox Russian people” (See Pravoslavnaya Rus’ - No 12, 15th / 28th June, 1960).

But what of us? Are we addressing everyone in this appeal or not? Are we entering upon this fast as our Holy Church teaches us, with increased prayers, with all-round abstinence from the passions both of soul and of the body, with the labours of true repentance? Will we prepare as is proper and as is appointed, and will we apply ourselves with feelings of heartfelt contrition, with a firm intention to correct our life, for the great Mysteries (sacraments) of Confession and Holy Communion?

Before all else, let us take a clear account of ourselves with that certain truthfulness, such as pertains to all healthy minded people; then following this, let us resolve to change our life from the very root for the better, upon which depends the whole course of our future, both here in this earthly life, and, what is more important, there in that life eternal which we all await.

It is true that, glory be to God, many of us, Orthodox Russian people abroad, make such preparation. They do so every year in Great Lent, and some do so in the other fasts, among which the Dormition Fast is numbered. But is this preparation, as it is sometimes done simply by received custom, by tradition, as something inherited from pious forebears, always a real preparation? - that is, is it really repentance, which is what is required of us, what God awaits from us?

Can one really call it “preparation” to receive the dread Mysteries of Christ, when one comes late at the very start of the Divine Liturgy, expecting confession during the time of the Liturgy itself, and thus requiring the priestly ministers either to break off from serving or (if it is a concelebration) not to take part? Can one really call it “preparation” when it is done in a purely mechanical way without any deep self-examination, without the self-examination which is required by the Apostle’s injunction (1 Cor. 11:28)?

How many come to confession nowadays without sufficient examination of their interior world, and even, as they themselves often openly inform the confessor, without knowing what they have to repent of. “I am sinful, like everyone else,” or “I am sinful, having the usual human sins,” they will customarily say, without the necessary understanding of the whole depth and weight of their sins, and, it follows, without the intention to leave off from, or change, their sinful life. And when they hear the prayer of absolution, they assume that all that is required has been done, and that with a conscience at peace they may approach the Holy Chalice, and then equally at peace, without any interior conflict within themselves, they continue with the sinful life to which they had formerly become habituated.

All this is not that true repentance, which the Kindhearted Lord, the God of those who repent, awaits, desiring that the sinner turn away from his path of transgression.

True repentance presupposes before all else a painstaking self-examination; an attentive scrutiny of one’s conscience, of one’s interior world, by means of setting against it the law of God; an assessment of one’s sinfulness, without those tiny quotas of some sort of self-justification; it presupposes brokenness of heart on account of one’s sins and a decisive rejection of them, united with a firm intention to make amends for one’s sins by the good deeds which are contrary to them, and not to repeat those sins any more.

“Repentance is a contract with God for the correction of life,” says that great instructor of the spiritual life, the Venerable John of the Ladder (Step 5). So, where there is no intention to correct one’s life for the better in a fundamental way, there is no true repentance. The Greek word itself, metania, which has been handed down to us without the slightest shadow of change of meaning, and which is expressed in our word ‘repentance,’ means ‘change,’ - a complete, fundamental change of a person’s thought, feeling, and desires, i.e., his inner spiritual rebirth. For this reason repentance is called a ‘second rebirth,’ or a ‘second Baptism’ (see the Order of Confession in The Book of Needs).

Behold, this is the repentance which the Lord awaits from us! He desires that we, Orthodox Russian people, change our lives in a fundamental way, to become, as it were, a new, a different people, better in all respects than we were hitherto.

With such repentance, such a fundamental change for the better, our present life, all our hopes for some better future, for our salvation, for the salvation and rebirth of our unhappy homeland, Russia, are vain. And what are we, Orthodox Russian people in foreign lands, to repent of?

Oh, there is much that we should repent of!

First of all it is necessary to repent of the general sins of mankind, checking our life against the demands of God’s Law, even if only according to the Ten Commandments. (And for this it is necessary, of course, to know these Ten Commandments, something which - alas! - our contemporary generation cannot boast about). Many Russian people have completely ceased accusing themselves of sins, even those mostly clearly and evidently breaking these Ten Commandments, instead accounting the breaking of them as normal, widespread, and therefore in some sense excusable. They have no idea of the patristic saying that “the multitude of sinners does not save us.” Even if everyone around us sins, this does not serve as any justification for our own particular sins.

Furthermore, we have our own particular specific sins, for which undoubtedly God will call us to account, if we do not really repent of them.

Know that we, sons and daughters of Holy Russia, have the great good fortune to confess the one true, the one saving, Holy Orthodox Faith. Much has been given us. And to whom much is given, from him much will be required (See Luke 12:48).

Our most important and basic sin is that we have forgotten that we are living in foreign countries, in ‘far lands,’ and here in exile and in the diaspora, we have begun to feel ‘at home.’ Many of us, - alas! - many already do not want to take into account why we are found abroad, besides which, to be at ease in their countries and attempting to come to terms with their circumstances, we are merging completely with life around us, we are assimilating, slavishly imitating all the people among whom we live, only considering how in some way we might best get established and improve our material success, our well-being, in our new circumstances, and for this end we are ready to sacrifice our spiritual values, including even our Faith itself.

Among us there are some who care about the salvation and rebirth of Russia and about returning to Russia and they even set up various types of political and patriotic organizations with this aim, periodically holding assemblies and organizing conferences. But in the majority of cases, they sin in that they do not desire to understand why such a dreadful catastrophe befell our homeland, and they continue to live aboard entertaining those very same thoughts and feelings, and with the temper which accompanies them, which once brought that catastrophe about. They do not desire to bring about within themselves that unique and saving fundamental change; they do not really want to repent. And therefore, for all their sometimes, maybe, very good and sincere intentions and efforts, they are left with still-born fruit, which leads to nothing and never brings anything positive, leaving behind for all only the bitter after-taste of disillusionment.

The whole life of contemporary Christians is in all ways completely contrary to that which true Christianity requires of us. At the present time, people, bearing the name ‘Christian,’ in the majority of cases, do not even think about what this name implies and they do not strive even a little to fulfil the Gospel precepts, but lead their lives in a completely pagan way. And for this reason it is now not possible for us to live ‘like everyone else.’ Now, more than ever before in the past, it is imperative that we bear in mind the teaching of the holy Apostle James: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? And so, he who has his own ideals so that he might persuade himself and set himself at rest is he “whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

The present-day dissipation and light-mindedness of life in the world is so mindless that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity. These two things are mutually completely at odds. There is no such thing as a minimal Christianity, which might in some way be reconciled with contemporary dissolute worldly life, which has made as its one purpose the achievement of the greatest possible comfort in life, along with every kind of pleasure and enjoyment.

He who wants really desires to repent must resolutely reject the evil worldly wisdom of the present times. Either / or! There is no midway, and there cannot be one. Either we are sons of God, or we are “sons of opposition,” “sons of perdition.” To constantly amuse oneself, going to restaurants and cinemas and other places of entertainment - all this is clean contrary to true Christianity, and these things he, who has firmly resolved to commit himself truly to repent before God, and not simply in an exterior or hypocritical way, cannot stand to do.

From this point of view, the incessant instances of the countless balls and suppers, events and entertaining gatherings, even when they go under the name of “benefits,” in which so much of our life in the diaspora is now submerged, especially here in America, goes completely against any true repentance.

The most dreadful thing is that in the life of contemporary people falsehood enters in and gets very firmly established there. Present-day Christians lie before God, they lie to each other, they even lie to themselves. The are always “playing a rôle,” attempting to present themselves as something they are not. They are concerned only with outward respectability, “neglecting the tabernacle fashioned by God.” as the Great Canon [Ode 2] expresses it.

And within this there is an even greater sorrow: that they do not even want to keep Christ’s commandments and without the least fear they flout Church rules, and in doing so, they think, in a completely un-Christian way, that they are justified in all their unbridled behaviour and by their own mind-set.

Self-love and pride literally infect everything - all of contemporary life.

But the most dreadful thing, of course, is that this is not simply sinning against morality, which to one to degree or another has always had its place in people’s lives, but this is the basic sin of the present day, which hitherto never manifested itself with such force, which never before enclosed people, even those calling themselves Christians, in such a broad sweep, which never hitherto so boldly raised its head, vigorously captivating for itself even those who, evidently, wanted to resist it, but also did not find within themselves the strength to go against the general flow.

This is the sin of Apostasy, or of capitulation.

And it is an all too frequent manifestation today. People call themselves Christian, sometimes even ministers of the Church of Christ, and in reality they are apostates. They have surrendered their souls to the coming Antichrist and they actively participate in his grandiose scheme, now underway throughout the whole world, - the preparation for the kingdom of Antichrist on earth.

And it is especially painful and bitter that many Russian people not only continue to live abroad with those dispositions which led Russia to Bolshevism, but under the influence of the foreign and heterodox environment around them they go even further, wholly engaging in the headlong course of the Apostasy. For such people repentance is particularly difficult. Without the special action of the Grace of God upon their souls it may even be unattainable.

This sin is particularly enticing, because it promises so much - money, career prospects, and all earthly good things, and at the same time it is very proficient at hiding itself under the disguise of an outwardly good appearance.

He who actually, and not in words only, desires to repent, must exhibit full obedience to the Holy Church in all things - to her teachings and to her practice, to her age-old usages which are founded the sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition, on the teaching of the Holy Fathers, those Pillars of Orthodoxy and strugglers for Christian piety. With resolution he must reject all those pretensions, which are so full of pride and self-confidence, which seek to ‘reform’ or to ‘correct’ things in the Church, or to ‘infuse’ some ‘new, living current’ within her, and so on. No kind of innovation, no kind of modernism should be able to find any place in our Church, more especially that modernism which follows the trends of the anti-Christian ideas of this present evil age, which, while they appear one thing, conceal any sign of their ideological aspirations, such as the ecumenical union of all faith confessions, or universal government headed by a one-world administration.

“Not all that glistens is gold,” says a good Russian proverb [and an English one too! - transl.] And we, the Christians must understand that Satan himself, when it proves necessary for him, can “take on the appearance of an Angel of light,” and therefore it is no marvel “if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15).

He who desires actually to repent must, with all resolution, tear asunder the entangling nets of the contemporary world, which, with a determination which cannot be countered, drag all deeper and deeper into the abyss of Apostasy, from which there is no way out.

This we, Orthodox Russian people, must recognise within ourselves, if we are really seeking to achieve true repentance, if we sincerely desire salvation for ourselves and for our homeland, Russia, and with that of the whole of mankind, of the whole world, for as must be manifest to us all now, the fate of the whole world at the present time is closely bound up with the fate of our homeland, Russia.*

But woe to us, if within us there begins to speak a feeling of proud self-justification; if we do not begin to desire to recognise within ourselves all the various guilty things enumerated above. “Pride and self-justification,” according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, “darken the mind” (Abba Dorotheus: Questions and Answers, question 82).

“Guard against pride and self-justification,” the great elder John the Prophet teaches, “for they impede repentance” (answer 82).

Unfortunately there are among us Russians, those who not only do not recognise the whole depth of their fall, but with a kind of incomprehensible delusion, even yield to some sort of unfounded delight, with self-esteem and trust in themselves and in others, assuming that everything is alright with them.

Such a disposition is completely alien to true Christianity. We must not congratulate ourselves, lest this bring upon us the most severe judgment. Lulling the conscience, into which groundless fantasies have entered, is the very greatest evil, which cuts off at the very root every possibility of true repentance.

Before all else, true repentance depends upon humility, a complete and unreserved humility before the commandments of the Gospel, before the canons and precepts of the Church, a readiness completely and without dissimulation to submit to them. True repentance is completely alien to any sort of pretence or claims of self-determination. It is an inexorable awareness within oneself of one’s own sinfulness. Only when it is such can it be active and salvific.

What then? Shall we embark upon this road of real repentance? Shall we thus observe the Dormition Fast which is upon us? Shall we resolve in the most fundamental way to change our life for the better?

Or, as before, shall we take life easily, disregarding all that has been said above, until we are struck at the inescapable dread hour of God’s retribution which is approaching, when instantaneously all our present “well-being” will fall away, and awful destruction shall befall us, not only a temporal one, but one eternal.** May it not be!

 

Translator’s footnotes:

* This thought might strike some of our readers as odd or unrealistic. In fact, Archbishop Averky could have been thinking of two things. He was writing in 1960, when the Cold War was at its coldest. Politically the fate of the whole world then was very much bound up with that of what was commonly called Russia. However, on the deeper level, he was more probably considering Russia’s classic claim to be the Third Rome. This concept has, unfortunately, been bastardized by extreme nationalists, and is often presented as if it were a reason for pride, or some kind of national superiority. In fact, it was a calling to a ministry within the Church, that Russia should serve as a beacon of Orthodoxy to the rest of the world, and thus her fate would be very much bound up with the fate of the whole world. If she would lead in showing the way of repentance, then there would be hope that other peoples would follow.

** This, of course, might refer to the end of the world, but also applies at the time of death of every Orthodox individual, something we shall all experience.

 

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, August 2011, pp. 2-11.

St. Jerome: The Patron of Irascible, Morbidly Sensitive, Old Curmudgeons

Stuart Squires, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Theology at Brescia University, Owensboro, Kentucky



[The memory of Blessed Jerome of Stridon (c. 347—420 A.D.) is honored on June 15/28 in the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ.]

(…)

We know very little about Jerome’s early life as no one penned a Vita in his honor, nor did he write a Confessions-style autobiography. He was born in Stridon, but the exact location of this town is unknown. [1] His family’s considerable wealth allowed him to receive the best education in Rome. During his studies, Jerome reports spending his Sundays visiting the martyrs in the catacombs, which profoundly shaped his Catholic imagination. [2]

He bounced around the Roman world for a number of years after his schooling. During a stay in Antioch, he had a fever-induced vision of the Judge at his judgment. Jerome told the Judge that he was a Christian. “You lie!” The Judge snapped in reply: “you are a follower of Cicero, and not of Christ. Where your treasure is, so also will your heart be.” [3] Jerome had preferred refined pagan authors to the vulgar literary prose of the Bible, describing it as “rude and repellent.” [4] Despite Jerome’s passion for literature, he did not read any of the great Roman authors for 15 years after his vision because he was so shaken by the experience.

Jerome eventually returned to the Eternal City where his reputation began to grow as a translator and exegete. He found himself in the favor of Christian elites and had impressed Pope Damasus with his experiences in the east and his knowledge of Hebrew, which few Christians knew at the time. He also became a spiritual advisor to a number of rich, aristocratic women whom he encouraged to embrace the ascetic life by arguing that the good of marriage is limited to the future consecrated virgins who might come from the marital union. [5]

For the last several decades of his life, Jerome lived in Bethlehem where he established a monastery and installed himself as its head. This was a time of prolific literary output and he engaged in many of the great controversies of his day, such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, the role of marriage in the Christian life, and the anthropological fights of the Pelagian controversy, among others. Just a few years before his death, his monastery was burned to the ground by an unknown group of individuals. [6]

Jerome is best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin from the original Hebrew and Greek. Prior to Jerome’s Vulgate, Old Testament translations into Latin came from the Greek Septuagint translation. Jerome was criticized in his day for his turn to the original Hebrew, including Augustine who wrote to him with less than enthusiasm for the project, saying “I think that they [the translators of the Septuagint] should be given a preeminent authority in this task without controversy.” [7] Despite Augustine’s protests, the Vulgate became standard in the [Papal] Church in the medieval period, and was declared “authentic,” “approved,” and that “no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it” by the Council of Trent in 1546. [8]

He is also infamous for his verbal onslaughts of other eminent Christians of his time. In his On Illustrious Men, he curtly dismissed Ambrose, saying that “I withhold judgment of him because he is still alive, fearing either to praise or blame lest, in one event, I should be blamed for adulation, and, in the other, for speaking the truth.” [9] In his correspondence with Augustine, who had written to Jerome inquiring about his interpretation of Galatians and was the only person from whom Augustine ever sought advice. [10] Jerome icily responded to him that “there remains for you only that you love one who loves you and that you, a youth in the field of scripture, do not challenge an old man.” [11] Even after the death of Rufinus, his fiercest opponent and one-time friend, Jerome could not resist taking one last shot at him by calling him a “pig.” [12]

It is these types of comments that have led scholars to declare Jerome an “irascible, morbidly sensitive old curmudgeon,” [13] that he “resented adverse criticisms,” [14] that he was “sensitive and easily offended,” [15] that he had a “prickly character,” [16] and that he was “unbalanced.” [17] Although these criticisms may not be far from the mark, it is precisely this side of Jerome—the deeply flawed side—that has drawn me to him.

Jerome was not the stoic Athanasius who courageously shouldered his burdens when he was exiled from Alexandria five times by the Arians. When Jerome experienced his own sort of exile after the death of his patron Damasus, he venomously hissed at the “Senate of Pharisees” [18] for having driven him from his beloved Rome.

He was not the continent Augustine who never hinted at struggles with concupiscence after his famous moment in the garden that brought him the chastity for which he had been praying. In his mid-seventies, Jerome tells us that it was only when his body was broken by age that he was freed from his disordered desires. [19]

He was not the disciplined Antony of Egypt who spent 20 years alone pursuing a life of renunciation and who perfected the art of self-mastery. [20] He completely failed at his own desert experiment, even though he had dragged his sizeable library across the Mediterranean to keep him company (what a spectacle that must have been!). Years later, he said of his time there that “when I was living in the desert, in the vast solitude which gives to hermits a savage dwelling-place, parched by a burning sun, how often did I fancy myself among the pleasures of Rome. I used to sit alone because I was filled with bitterness.” [21]

I feel a kinship with Jerome when I think of these passages and as I reflect on my own desert experiences: both the physical desert experience I had in the Sahara for two years during my Peace Corps service, and, more importantly, the spiritual deserts of my life where, like him, I have been haunted by my failures and vices. Because of Jerome, I have come to share Fr. James Martin’s sentiment of his patron intercessors when he says that he can recognize himself, or at least parts of himself, in their lives. “This was the aspect of their lives that I most appreciated,” Martin says, “they had struggled with the same human foibles that everyone does.” [22]

Over the years, I have come to see Jerome not as the cranky, old man often panned by his critics, nor an other-worldly superhero whose piety and moral virtue seem to be much too lofty to emulate (as most saints seem to be to me). Rather, Jerome’s brokenness acts as a mirror and invites me to see that my own brokenness may direct me outward from my parched inner landscape toward God’s ebullient fecundity. For, it was in the recognition of his inordinate desire for the beauty of literature—prompted by his fever-induced vision—that led Jerome to receive exculpation after crying out to the Judge from deep within: “Lord, have mercy on me!” [23]

St. Jerome, pray for us.

***

[1] Most of the biographical information for this piece comes from J.N.D. Kelly’s fantastic work Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies.  Without a doubt, this is my favorite biography of any of the Fathers.

[2] Jerome, Comm. on Ezekiel, 40, 5-13.  See also Kelly, p. 22.

[3] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

[4] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

[5] Jerome, Ep. 22. 19-20.

[6] Josef Lössl, “Who Attacked the Monasteries of Jerome and Paula in 416 A.D.?,” 111.

[7] Augustine, Ep. 28.2

[8] Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.” The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 18.

[9] Jerome, De Viris Illustriubs, 124.

[10] James, O’Donnell.  Augustine: A New Biography, 299.

[11] Jerome, Ep. 68.2.  See also my essay on the letter correspondence between Augustine and Jerome: “Jerome’s Animosity Against Augustine.”

[12] Jerome named him “Grunnius.”  Prologue to Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah, I.

[13] Stephen Canon, “The Jerome-Augustine Correspondence,” 39.

[14] Virginia Hellenga, “The Exchange of Letters between Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome,” 177.

[15] Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies, 147.

[16] Robert O’Connell, “When Saintly Fathers Feuded: The Correspondence between Augustine and Jerome,” 346-7.

[17] John Antony McGuckin, Gregory of Nazianzus: an Intellectual Biography, xxvii.

[18] Jerome, Translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, pref.

[19] Jerome, Commentary on Amos II, prol.  See Kelly, 295.

[20] Athanasius. Life of Antony, 14.

[21] Jerome, Ep. 22.7.

[22] James Martin, My Life with the Saints, 7.

[23] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

 

Source: https://dailytheology.org/2015/09/30/st-jerome-the-patron-of-irascible-morbidly-sensitive-old-curmudgeons/

Testimonies of Holy Figures of the Church Concerning the False Council of Crete

Those Who Knowingly Maintain Communion with Heresy Are Without Excuse

Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos, theologian and author

 

 

Let us see, once again, briefly and in passing, what great saintly figures of our time said about this Council, which, in their day, was yet to be convened. Their opinion naturally carries great weight, since they were holy men.

Contemporary saintly figures of our time, closely following the entire course of the successive so-called Pan-Orthodox conferences and consultations, as well as the preparation of the “Council of Crete,” discerned, through the divine illumination within them, the ruinous ecumenist course along which the entire preparation was proceeding. They also discerned the rotten ecumenist foundations upon which the entire undertaking rested and foresaw that the “Holy and Great Council” that was to be convened would be nothing other than an ecumenist, heretical false council.

* * *

Let us see what Saint Justin Popović said—a great saint and confessor of our time. In 1971, he submitted a memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church entitled: “Concerning the Proposed Great Council of the Orthodox Church: A Memorandum to the Synod of the Hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.”

This is a text of historic significance and a splendid Orthodox Confession, in which the God-bearing Father points out, among other things, the following:

“Personally, I do not see that, under present circumstances, there is truly an unavoidable need to convene an Ecumenical Council. But if such a need does exist, the present moment is the most unsuitable in the history of our Church. Any new Ecumenical Council will be neither Holy, nor Ecumenical, nor the Eighth, unless it first accepts the ecumenical and unshakable decisions of the preceding Councils.”

The Saint perceived that the proper conditions for convening an Ecumenical Council did not exist, because even at that time Ecumenism already prevailed in almost all the Local Churches. Consequently, if such a Council were convened, it would not be a Council of Holy Fathers, but a false council of ecumenist hierarchs. But if the circumstances at that time were, in the Saint’s judgment, unsuitable, consider how much more unsuitable they are now, five and a half decades later. How much more unfavorable conditions have become today, when the tempest of the heresy of Ecumenism has swept away everything and assumed far greater proportions.

And the Saint concludes this historic memorandum of his with the following prophetic words:

“But finally, it is known both to the Angels and to men, and especially to Orthodox Christians, that in this apocalyptic age it is difficult—or rather, impossible—for many hierarchs of the Local Orthodox Churches, because of human weaknesses, to confess the Orthodox dogmas and canonical truths in an Orthodox and patristic manner at this ‘Ecumenical Council’ that may possibly be convened. For this reason, the more Orthodox course would be for an Ecumenical Council not to be convened, or at least for no one to participate in it.”

Five years later, in 1976, Saint Justin, foreseeing the bitter fruits of the future convocation of the “Council of Crete,” would once again make a new appeal to the hierarchy of the Serbian Church in another memorandum. He writes:

“Once again, at the prompting of my conscience, I address this plea and my filial, prayerful cry to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Serbia: that the Serbian Church abstain from participating in the preparation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in name only, and most especially from participating in it if it is ultimately convened.”

* * *

Venerable Philotheos Zervakos, an elder known to all of you, reposed in 1980. He too followed with deep concern the developments concerning the “Holy and Great Council” that was being prepared.

In complete agreement with Saint Justin Popović, he writes the following in a relevant article entitled “Concerning an Ecumenical Council”:

“Thus, we consider the convening of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ entirely superfluous with regard to matters upon which the divine Apostles and the God-wise Fathers and Teachers of the Church have already pronounced through the Holy Canons.”

* * *

The ever-memorable Archimandrite Charalambos Vasilopoulos likewise makes the same observations concerning the proposed Council and warns of the same dangers arising from its possible convocation. He was the founder of the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos and the Panhellenic Orthodox Union (P.O.E.). He writes:

“Unfortunately, the ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council’ now being prepared will also be a robber council. If we judge from what we have seen thus far, the ecumenists intend, through the proposed ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council,’ to ratify the innovations that they themselves are presently promoting within the Church. They want it to be a Council that will overturn the previous decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.”

* * *

Another great saintly and patristic figure, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustinos of blessed memory, writes in an important article in Spitha:

“If the principal reason for which Ecumenical Councils are convened is heresy, then there is indeed a serious reason for convening an ‘Ecumenical Council.’ And this reason—apart from the other errors and heresies that must be condemned—is the heresy that a distinguished hierarch of blessed memory of the Church of Greece called the heresy of heresies. The name of this heresy? Ecumenism.”

* * *

The ever-memorable Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios, a man of pan-Orthodox stature and spirituality, said in 1991, referring to the “Holy and Great Council” that was to be convened, in his book entitled Two Homilies Concerning the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem:

“Such a Council is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but is driven by the dark powers, with Freemasonry at their head. Let this be understood. Yes. For this reason, if this Council does take place, it will be characterized as a False Council—as though he too were speaking prophetically. It will not be accepted. What spiritual state are those bishops in who will sit down to discuss the matters of this Council? Do they uphold the Orthodox Faith or do they not? From what we are able to know today—I, you, and all of us—those who will participate have been taken captive by Ecumenism. To speak unequivocally, with perhaps a few exceptions, these men do not uphold the Orthodox Faith, even though they are called Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops. They do not uphold the Orthodox Faith. We know the manner in which they act and express themselves. We know this. I shall say it once again: they have been taken captive by Freemasonry and Ecumenism.”

Father Seraphim Zisis is currently giving a series of talks entitled “The Gradual Masonization of the Church,” in complete harmony with what Father Athanasios of blessed memory says here.

* * *

I shall conclude with what was said by another great ecclesiastical figure of our time, the grace-filled and discerning American Orthodox monk Father Seraphim Rose. He is known to all of you through his books, which have also been translated into Greek. This holy hieromonk, Father Seraphim, lived in California. What, then, does he say? He wrote in 1976:

“Judged according to the sober standard of immutable Patristic Orthodoxy, the preparations for an ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council,’ now called a ‘Pan-Orthodox Council,’ reveal themselves to be unorthodox, lacking in seriousness, and pastorally altogether irresponsible. Such a Council is an undertaking rooted not in the Orthodox mind and in heartfelt concern for the salvation of souls, but rather in the spirit of the age. It seeks to please not God, but the world—and specifically the heterodox world. Judging from the experience of the Vatican Council, which had taken place several years earlier, and its consequences for Papism, such a Council, if convened, will produce profound disorder and anarchy in the Orthodox world. The proposed ‘Ecumenical Council,’ judged on the basis of the preparations already made, can be nothing other than a robber council—a betrayal of Christ and His Church.”

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_115.html

Shared by the Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2026/08/21/20260821aMart-PsevdoSyn-Kr.pdf

Eulogy for Protopresbyter Panagiotes Carras (1937-2026)

Archimandrite Savvas Anastasiou | August 5/18, 2026 | Toronto

 

 

Your Eminence,

Holy Fathers, Beloved Brethren in Christ,

In a eulogy lasting about ten minutes, how can we summarize an entire life—and indeed the life of a great figure such as the late Fr. Panagiotes—a priest whose work left a lasting legacy, and whose name will be written in golden letters in the history of our Church?

With the grace of God and through your prayers, we will try.

Confession of Faith and Sacrifice

Of all the good and beneficial things in the life of Fr. Panagiotes, we would like to highlight three points, the first of which is his confession of faith, as well as the sacrifice and self-denial he demonstrated on its account.

As is widely known, Fr. Panagiotes Carras was born and raised in Boston. He lost his father at a young age, and the priest of his parish—who later became Archbishop Iakovos of America—took young Panagiotes under his protection. Archbishop Iakovos sent him for theological studies to Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston, and subsequently for postgraduate studies to the School of Theology at the University of Thessalonica, from which he ultimately received his Doctorate in Theology. Both in Boston and in Thessalonica, his fellow students called him "Iakovos' favorite." In 1966, he was ordained a priest by him. During his priesthood in Boston, he was assigned to serve as an interpreter for Queen Anne-Marie during the Royal Couple's visit to America. In this capacity, Fr. Panagiotes and his Presbytera accompanied them to splendid receptions and galas, surrounded by royalty, dignitaries, and politicians.

A year later, he was sent here to Toronto to open the newly established Church of St. Demetrios in Thorncliffe Park, to serve as its first presiding priest. Such was the trust they placed in Fr. Panagiotes.

Yet the great figures of this world, the positions, and the applause did not bring him spiritual rest. For even as all these things were taking place, he discerned within himself the non-Orthodox mindset prevailing in the so-called "official Church," and sought a way out. In those days, he had heard about a new Saint in Aegina, Saint. Nektarios. He and a group of parishioners from St. Demetrios prayed fervently to the Saint to help them.

During those days, Fr. Panagiotes, together with his spiritual children, visited the Russian Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, bringing with them a large icon of Saint Nektarios. There, the ever-memorable Archbishop Averky received them with great brotherly love. In fact, he even participated in the procession during the vigil with this icon.

From that moment, he understood what he needed to do. He departed from innovation and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad under the Holy Metropolitan Philaret the New Confessor.

This "favorite of Iakovos," who only shortly before had rubbed elbows with kings and dignitaries, left behind his comfort and security—without knowing what tomorrow held. Armed with unwavering faith in God and the support of his spiritual children, he stepped forward into the next chapter of his life.

And God blessed him immediately. As they had no church building in which to celebrate the Divine Services, through God's providence, the Russian Church had a vacant holy temple—Holy Trinity on Richmond Street—because its parishioners had moved to another building on Henry Street. The Russians granted this church to Fr. Panagiotes and his parishioners. And they dedicated this temple in honor of their great protector, Saint Nektarios.

His Great Love for Study, Teaching, and Learning

The second hallmark of his life was his great love for study, teaching, and learning. Here, for nearly six decades, he instructed the faithful through Catechetical Schools, Sunday sermons, and evening lectures throughout the year. Even a few days before his repose, he asked me if we had prepared the evening lecture schedule for the coming autumn. That was who he was; he loved the teachings of the Holy Fathers so deeply that the ministry of the Word was a source of life for him. His lifelong desire was to convey this knowledge to others, so that we too might benefit from such God-inspired teachings.

His Fatherly Love

And the final point of Fr. Panagiotes' life that we wish to dwell upon is his tender and fatherly love for us. We saved this dimension of his character for last, because we believe it to be the most important. This is what left the deepest and most unshakable impressions on the lives of all of us who had the blessing to live alongside him.

He lived the commandments of Christ, above all the commandment of love for one's neighbor. He did not judge us for our faults, but loved us just as we were. By his example, he gave us strength to overcome our weaknesses so that we might become better Christians. Indeed, we became better human beings because we shared in his life—and for that, we owe him an eternal debt of gratitude.

We firmly believe that, on account of his fatherly love, the All-Good God will crown him, as he now enjoys the fruits of his labors.

Father Panagiotes,

From the depths of our hearts, we wish to offer you a sincere and heartfelt "Thank you." And if you find boldness before the throne of God, please offer up prayers and supplications on behalf of us, your beloved children.

May your memory be eternal!

 

Source:

https://goctoronto.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/EULOGY-FOR-FR.-PANAGIOTES-CARRAS_English-and-Greek.pdf

Thursday, August 20, 2026

On the early influence of Christianity on Islam

Source: The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died, Philip Jenkins, HarperOne, 2008, pp. 194-197. Minus endnotes.

 

 

Within those mosques, too, Muslim worship and practice often recall older styles. A modern Christian transported back in time to the Near East of the sixth or seventh century would be struck at the many resemblances between the Christianity of that time and the modern world of Islam. It is not always easy to tell whether Muslims were influenced by practices they witnessed in Ethiopia or the eastern Syriac world, because the two were so closely related, but somewhere they observed the Christian practice of fasting, which shaped the Islamic custom of Ramadan. Modern Christians are struck by the severity of Ramadan, which forbids believers to eat or drink during daylight hours for the space of a month, a severe discipline in hot climates. Yet this was in fact close to the oldest Christian practice of Lent. Here, for instance, is the Ethiopian practice as followed during the sixteenth century: “This fast follows the old law, for they do not eat at midday, and when the sun is setting they go to church and confess and communicate and then go to supper.” Even when allowed to eat, “they eat nothing that has suffered death, nor milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor butter, nor honey, nor drink wine. Thus during the fast days they eat only bread of millet, wheat and pulse, all mixed together, spinach and herbs cooked with oil.” A Jesuit observer noted, “The severity of their fasts is equal to that of the primitive church. In Lent they never eat till after sunset.”

Another surprising continuity involves the prostrations, rak'a, that are so common a feature of Muslim prayers, and which to Western eyes surely denote characteristically “Oriental” behavior. Yet these, too, have undeniable Christian precedents. The earliest Christians prayed standing, but kneeling or prostration became increasingly common in the early centuries, especially for penitential prayer. Sinners approached God in the manner of a poor mortal abased before a king or emperor. As Saint Augustine recorded, “They who pray do with the members of their body that which befits suppliants; they fix their knees, stretch forth their hands, or even prostrate themselves on the ground.” Early saints’ lives boast how many prostrations their heroes would perform to show their love of God. Nestorian Christians genuflected often, especially during the penitential season of Lent. Far from prostration being a traditional Arabic practice, many Arabs saw the new practice both as humiliating and as a foreign import associated with protocol-fixated Christian courts and churches.

Originally, Muslims saw prostration as eccentric Christian behavior, exactly as many modern Christians are puzzled by Muslim styles of prayer. In the eighth and ninth centuries, what divided Muslims and Christians was not whether they prostrated themselves, but whether this was appropriate behavior before an icon or holy image, as Christians believed, or solely before God, as Muslims advocated. As William Dalrymple observes, witnessing Christians prostrating themselves in the monastery of Mar Gabriel, “Islam and the Eastern Christians have retained the original early Christian convention: it is the Western Christians who have broken with sacred tradition.”

Nor would early Eastern Christians have been amazed by Muslim attitudes toward women. Now, scholars disagree on just how secluded early Muslim women were expected to be, and some quite conservative Muslim authorities challenge the idea that Muhammad demanded the extreme policies that are today found in a society like Saudi Arabia. But Muslims were not alone in expecting some form of veiling, or in keeping women secluded from the world, as had been expected in both classical Greece and ancient Persia. Early Christian women covered their heads in church, where men and women were segregated by sex and probably entered by separate doors. Eastern Christian societies also used forms of head covering and veiling, although it is not always easy to distinguish references to head covering—something like a modern Muslim headscarf—from descriptions of a facial veil. Byzantine women were supposed to remain in the gynaeceum, the women’s quarters, until married, and even after marriage they wore a veil in public. One story from Mesopotamia tells how, around the year 770, authorities made extortionate tax demands, humiliating those who refused to pay. For the Christian chronicler recording the event, one of the worst official atrocities involved the violation of women’s seclusion. Agents dragged respectable Christian women from their houses, so that “women who were never seen in the street…became ignominious in the midst of men.” As in other matters, later Muslim practice largely preserves the normal expectations of early Eastern Christianity.

In their religious rhetoric, also, Muslims strove to present their faith as the true successor to older Christianity. This approach was critical when debating Near Eastern Christians, whose scriptures were familiar and venerated, yet somehow Muslims had both to assert the claims of Muhammad and to establish the Muslim view of Jesus. They accomplished this by reading prophecies retroactively into Christian texts, or by cultivating alternative scriptures. Often, they argued that the Christian Gospels would speak more directly to Muslim needs if they were the “real” Gospels, and had not been adulterated by devious churchmen. One weapon in such debates was the Gospel of Barnabas, a pseudo-Gospel originally constructed in the fourteenth century but probably using some ancient early sources, perhaps even the Diatessaron. The Gospel of Barnabas as we have it is the life of Jesus retold from a Muslim perspective, culminating with Jesus prophesying the coming of Muhammad, while other texts told of the evil deceptions wrought by Saint Paul. (“Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul deceived.”) These ideas had a powerful impact in religious controversy and are regularly cited in accounts of conversion to Islam, especially in the Balkans. Even in the 1990s, Dalrymple still found Turkish Muslim leaders appalled that Christians clung on stubbornly to their false gospels rather than acknowledging the plain truth of Barnabas. If not in the Catholic sense, Muslims still care about claiming an authentic apostolic succession: Jesus matters.

 

The Synod of Crete Under Sincere Examination? A Challenge for the “Way to Salvation” Channel

Hieromonk Lavrentie | August 20, 2026

 

 

Two videos produced on the [Romanian] Way to Salvation channel give the impression of scrupulousness and rigor in refuting the practice of ceasing the commemoration of one’s hierarch, especially the one that responds to another video by Silviu Chirilă. The citation of canons and patristic writings, together with their careful presentation and commentary, led even me to believe that they were largely correct in what they maintained. However, on watching them a second time more critically, I noticed that what predominates are distortions, falsehoods, superficial gloss—in a word: emotional manipulation through conveniently arranged arguments.

I mention from the outset that there are also some pertinent points made, but this should not lead to a validation of the whole. One truth is that we cannot regard Canon 4 of the Third Ecumenical Council as the most relevant canon for ceasing communion with condemned heretics. However, the further conclusion that such cessation is not obligatory is false, because there are other canons to this effect, such as Apostolic Canon 10, which explicitly forbids communion with those who have been excommunicated.

Although the first video struck me as propaganda and as a deliberate provocation, the statements in the second nevertheless prompted me to respond to the following commitments: that manifest errors would be retracted and that there is openness to serious criticism. Proceeding from the premise that these materials were produced not in pursuit of views, but out of certain firm and honest convictions, I decided that it was worthwhile to compose this response.

I will focus on two distinct levels: first, an elaboration of two central ideas, and then a brief inventory of the minor errors that make up the underlying supporting framework. The two main points are these: there is a dogma that was suppressed at the Synod of Crete, and it is consistently upheld. With these in mind, the other detailed criticisms that follow are easier to understand.

Which dogma was suppressed?

Although posed as a rhetorical question, the answer concerning the heresy signed at Crete is readily available and clear: the exclusive identification of the Orthodox Church with the one Church of Christ. This idea can be expressed in several ways, including the statement that outside Orthodoxy there is no salvation. Thus, the emphasis falls on the fact that Orthodoxy alone constitutes the Church, with the consequence that heresies are outside it and that there are no other “Churches.” Moreover, from this follows the impossibility of common prayer and of proclaiming unity as the goal of ecumenical dialogue.

As with all heresies, the distinction between Ecumenism and the right faith lies in the details. Falsehood has always stood close to the truth, but it is exposed by certain particular points. This is why precision of expression is necessary in order to exclude deception. It is much the same as in the past, when it was necessary to say that Christ is in two natures, not merely from two natures; that these are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably; or that grace is apprehended as uncreated, and so forth.

Thus, nowhere in the texts adopted at the “Great” Synod does there appear the qualification that only the Orthodox Church is the one Church, while the heresies are outside the latter.

Indeed, the first paragraph affirms that the Orthodox Church is the one Church, but it does not exclude the possibility that the heterodox may also be part of it. Moreover, the ecumenist perspective maintains that some “Churches” regard themselves as faithful continuations of the apostolic Church, while others consider themselves incomplete, yet still part of it. The branch theory, which holds that the Church is internally divided into several traditions and structures, is more complex and accepts not only fragmentation, but also differing degrees of ecclesial authenticity.

From this perspective, the statement in the first paragraph is a more elaborate paraphrase of the Catholic formula from the Second Vatican Council. There, the papists wrote that “the Church of the Creed … subsists in the Catholic Church …, although many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure” (Lumen gentium, I, 8). Set side by side, the first idea—that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church—is expressed among the Orthodox by the formulation that the Orthodox Church is (being) the one Church. In addition, the fact that the heterodox are also part of the Church is expressed in one way by the Catholics, while at Crete it was presented through the concept of participating from a principal position in the promotion of Christian unity on the basis of dogmatic consciousness: “firmly believes, in her profound ecclesial self-consciousness, that she occupies a principal place in the matter of promoting Christian unity.” Thus, the emphasis falls, not only grammatically but also logically, on unity with heretics, not on the exclusivity of Orthodoxy. Reformulated, the idea would sound as follows: We are the Church of Christ, but this means nothing more than that we hold a principal place in cooperating with heretics for the achievement of the unity of the Church that has been damaged by the dissensions among us.

Moreover, the idea that the one Church is not limited solely to the Orthodox Church, but comprises several so-called Churches, is also found in the quotation from the Toronto Statement: the WCC brings together “the Churches into a living relationship with one another and to promote the study and discussion of questions concerning the unity of the Church.” Thus, Orthodoxy is one of the many “Churches” that cooperate and deliberate for the realization of the unity of the Church of Christ. It is understood that all of them are part of that Church, but that they are not in communion and lack unity with one another. Consequently, this idea directly contradicts the fact that Orthodoxy alone is the Church of Christ and that the heterodox are outside it.

There are also other formulations and conceptions, which I have set forth briefly in an article on the subject entitled The Flagrant Errors of the Synod of Crete.

In conclusion, Ecumenism in the form signed at Crete suppresses the very dogma in the Orthodox Creed concerning the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. According to patristic interpretations, this expression affirms both the four attributes of the Church and the fact that heretics are outside her. Ecumenism, however, denies both of these things.

There Has Been No Departure Thus Far from the Line Adopted at Crete

Besides the formulations signed at Crete, there has been no other position taken by the Romanian hierarchy that would correct this ecumenist stance. On the contrary, all the official communiqués and decisions of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church have favored the unreserved acceptance of the documents, which they characterize as beyond reproach and as containing no innovations; indeed, they maintain that a lucid Ecumenism would be beneficial and compatible with Orthodoxy.

Indeed, His Eminence Teofan responded publicly to the demands of those who subsequently ceased commemoration in August 2016 and rejected the branch theory, but he did not repudiate his signature at Crete, and in October his position was recorded in the decision of the autumn Synod in Bucharest.

From what he told me personally, he considers that the branch theory is not found in the Cretan documents, although he was unable to point to clear passages that would invalidate it. The same can be said of the Romanian hierarchy, if we take into account the booklet published in August 2017. It states that the heterodox separated themselves from the one Church of Christ (§34). On the other hand, it falsely deduces the exclusion of the existence of other “Churches” as parts of the one, holy Church merely from the formulation that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy Church. As I wrote above, without specifying that she alone is the Church, the ecumenist branch theory is not denied. This is because the ecumenist perspective says that various “Churches” are and constitute the Church of Christ, identifying themselves wholly or partially with her.

Thus, these contradictory statements do not resolve the controversy. As long as there are common prayers, participation in the WCC and in other bodies of ecumenical dialogue, and, above all, as long as the signature at Crete remains without reservation, any other declarations lack the force to overturn the corrupted dogma endorsed synodally. In other words, the various declarations merely show either that they do not know what they signed, or that they are simply deceiving the faithful in order to quiet the criticisms directed against them while preserving intact their adherence to the Cretan line. By this they condemn themselves, like the Monothelites in the time of St. Maximus the Confessor, who by the decree known as the Typos forbade any discussion of one or two operations or wills. Just as at that time the trivialization of the right faith brought about condemnation at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so also today it may be said that affirming both the Orthodox ecclesiological dogma through correct formulations and the ecumenist one through the promotion of the Synod of Crete constitutes an unacceptable repudiation and confusion of the right faith.

In summary, to this day, the position of our hierarchy, without any praiseworthy dissent, has been to uphold an Orthodox vision without setting it against or using it to refute the decrees of Crete, but rather paradoxically or schizophrenically validating them, while compounding all this with participation and common prayers at services, events, and ecumenical dialogues. Yet faith does not mean duality and duplicity, but a firm and unashamed confession of Christ. Otherwise, one ends up with a mélange and syncretism of doctrines that confuses more than it enlightens.

This ambiguity can also be seen in the decision of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the autumn of 2016, when it stated that no new dogmas had been formulated. This wording must be viewed in context. Set against what follows—“but confessed the fact that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ”—it is clear that what is meant is a validation of the contested Orthodoxy of the Synod. Yet a mere affirmation means nothing without corresponding reality in practice. That is to say, the distortion of the dogma concerning the Church cannot be counterbalanced by that simple sentence; on the contrary, anyone who maintains that the dogma that was signed is neither something new nor an innovation thereby becomes himself a liar and deceiver.

And the acknowledgment that the texts may be clarified, nuanced, developed, or perfected does not include the idea of correction, which is something different from the four actions mentioned.

Worse still, not only were new dogmas formulated, but also new canons and liturgical practices pertaining to fasting and marriage.

Brief Inventory of the Remaining Erroneous Assertions

1. If these had merely been unclear formulations, the problem would not have been serious, but could have been resolved. However, since they are not merely expressions but erroneous ideas, the cessation of commemoration is justified. Unfortunately, I too acknowledge that too much emphasis has been placed on the inappropriate use of the term “Church” for the heterodox, while the fundamentally heretical character was not sufficiently brought to the fore—the branch theory, the theory of the invisible Church, and the notion of incomplete or gradual ecclesiality.

2. The disagreement of synodal participants permitted by the Cretan regulations is a contrivance and a deception. This does not signify openness and sincerity, but rather deception and the nullification of each hierarch’s vote according to his dogmatic conscience, his absorption into the synodal mass, and the destruction of the Orthodox synodal principle. At the Ecumenical Councils of the past, whoever did not sign was excluded from communion and anathematized, whereas at Crete the dissenters are swallowed up by being reduced to silence and allowed to hold a separate opinion that carries no weight. Moreover, the refusal of some hierarchs to sign the documents was not provided for in the regulations; their disagreement was simply to be recorded in the minutes, and that was all.

3. Article 22 of the ecumenist document mocks the confession of faith through the wording: “any rupture of the unity of the Church by individuals or groups under the pretext of preserving or supposedly defending authentic Orthodoxy is to be condemned.” As though there were no such thing as a defense of the faith, but only a pretext for it and the arrogation of an authority that does not belong to them. For the synodal system is regarded as the “only” one that “guarantees” the preservation of the faith, not as the final arbiter (as is claimed in the video, which misreads the correct text shown on the screen). In this way, acts of confession are treated mockingly, as though they were forbidden and impossible. This declaration contradicts Orthodox tradition and the Encyclical of 1848, which held that it is the people who, through reception or rejection, validate the correctness of a Synod.

4. Canon 15 does not understand by “condemned heresy (κατεγνωσμένη)” one that has been solemnly and definitively declared as such, but rather one that has already been opposed indirectly. In the case of heresies that have been clarified by the Church, there is no longer any question of a future synodal examination, because this has already taken place, whereas the canon permits the cessation of commemoration before a synodal investigation. Moreover, the Romanian translation “osândită” (“condemned”) deliberately avoids the stronger nuance of a formal condemnation, reducing it to the level of something opposed, rejected, or disapproved by Councils or Fathers.

5. The condition imposed by Canon 15—that a heresy must have been condemned synodally or patristically in order for commemoration to be ceased—does not refer to a formal ruling on the statements of the bishop in question, because that would amount precisely to a synodal investigation of the hierarch, or to his having been refuted specifically by the Fathers, which is impossible. The Fathers are precisely those attested by the Church who lived in the past; how could there be a requirement that they denounce texts from the present? It is sufficient for the incriminated statements of the bishop to be in evident contradiction with the mind of the Church as expressed in Councils and in the Fathers, and for the one who ceases commemoration to demonstrate this convincingly—or, conversely, for the hierarch to refute the accusations brought against him.

6. The decision of the Synod of the Georgian Church states concerning the Synod of Crete, in point 4, that the documents do not reflect Orthodox teaching. Even though they decided not to break communion with the participants, since this is not obligatory [sic], their characterization of it as a doctrinal deviation justifies those who have ceased commemoration in their action. The delay of a final decision can be explained by the fact that such a decision does not fall within their competence, and the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council on this subject requires time and preparation.

7. The 1983 decision of ROCOR (not 1986, as the year was incorrectly taken over from Silviu Chirilă) remains valid through its integration into the Russian Patriarchate. Even at that time, it was applied by those who issued it as a choice to avoid communion with manifest ecumenists.

8. To whatever extent the decrees Typos and Ekthesis were heretical in the time of St. Maximus, the documents of Crete are at least equally so. If we bear in mind that the latter merely prohibited dogmatic discussions, it would appear far more moderate than the documents of Crete.

9. The bishop of those who have ceased commemoration is not Christ as a substitute for the diocesan hierarch, but rather Christ as the supreme authority of whom they are not ashamed before the world. The hierarch in office remains the one being challenged through the cessation of commemoration until the issue is settled in the future. Moreover, it is not clear who stated, or from where it is inferred, that this would be a central idea of those who have walled themselves off.

10. The Moscow Conference of 1948 decided on non-participation in the WCC. Did the decision to join in 1961 arise from a change in circumstances? In the meantime, nothing had appeared except the Toronto Statement of 1950. Does it answer the Orthodox objections? The same Churches can take radically different measures over time depending on whether heretics or Orthodox confessors are making the decisions. Thus, the two perspectives—non-participation in or participation in the ecumenical movement—are not similar merely because they come from the same institution, which can be affected by changes over time.

11. Communion among the Local Orthodox Churches is not an argument that they see no dogmatic problem. There have been other situations in which certain heresies were condemned (such as the Filioque), but not their proponents, for reasons of ecclesiastical economy. On the other hand, Ecumenism is still developing, and a possible condemnation may in the future also extend to those who in the meantime will have died in this heresy. Their explicit written declaration that what is involved is a dogmatic deviation cannot be contradicted by other circumstantial considerations.

Because the material produced by Way to Salvation sets forth the arguments and general position of those who support the hierarchy regarding the issue of the Synod of Crete, refuting it amounts to a rejection of the sophisms employed by those who criticize the non-commemorators. On the other hand, at least here there is an engagement in a dialogue that appears honest, whereas the synodal hierarchs avoid even giving an account of their actions and retreat into a refusal of dialogue and a self-satisfied sense of superiority. In this context, I anticipate that a sincere examination of what has been set forth represents a challenge for ordinary laypeople and theologians as to whether they allow themselves to stand in opposition to the higher hierarchy.

I should add that I intend to produce a video presentation that will place greater emphasis on the entire issue and bring to light other important points that I have, for the time being, left aside.

 

Romanian source:

https://theodosie.ro/2026/08/20/sinodul-din-creta-sub-cercetare-sincera-provocare-pentru-canalul-calea-spre-mantuire/

How Should We Keep this Dormition fast?

By the Blessed & Ever-Memorable Archbishop Averky of Jordanville     The following homily is something of a period piece, writte...