Thursday, March 6, 2025

Sermon of Praise for our Father among the Saints, St. Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch

By St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople

Note: this is the only Patristic source I have come across which praises those who fight heresy within the heretical flock (see paragraph 9). The context of this instance was an attempt by St. John Chrysostomos at healing the ongoing "Antiochian schism" between the Eustathians (the Orthodox supporters of the exiled St. Eustathius who remained in Antioch and severed communion with the "Official" Antiochian Church, which was compromised by Semi-Arianism) and the Meletians (the Orthodox supporters of St. Meletios of Antioch, who was consecrated by unjudged Arians but confessed Orthodoxy and went on to become the first president of the Second Ecumenical Synod).

 

1. A certain wise man, knowledgeable in philosophy, who had thoroughly and accurately learnt the nature of human affairs, and recognized their feebleness, and how they contain nothing trustworthy or secure, advises all people alike not to consider anything blessed before death [cf. Sir 11:28]. For this reason, since blessed Eustathius is dead, we can at this point sing his praises with complete security. I mean, if one shouldn’t consider anyone blessed before death, bestowing blessings on those who deserve it after their death would be innocent of blame. For certainly he has gone past the strait of worldly affairs, he has been freed from the turmoil of the waves, he has sailed toward the calm and tranquil harbor, he is not subject to uncertainty about the future, and is not liable to fall; instead, as if he is now standing on some rock or elevated crag, he scorns all the waves. For this reason, blessing [him] is safe, praising [him] blameless. For he has no fear of reversal, is not suspicious of change. My point is that we who are still alive, like people tossing in the middle of the sea, are subject to many reversals. And, just as the latter are at one moment lifted up high, when the waves are at their peak, at another carried down to the very depths, yet neither is being up high safe, nor being down low stable—for both these things result from water flowing and not staying still—so, too, in the case of human affairs nothing is secure and fixed, but reversals come thick and fast one after the other. While one person is carried up on high by happy circumstances, another is dragged down to a great depth by bad luck. But let neither the first get swell headed, nor the second discouraged. For with utter swiftness each will receive reversal. But not [Eustathius], who has been translated to heaven, who has gone away to the Jesus whom he desires, who has gone to a place free of confusion, where grief and pain and groaning have run away. There is no semblance of reversal there, there is no shadow cast by change; rather, everything is fixed and immovable, everything is secure and firmly set, everything is imperishable and immortal, everything is untouched and endures eternally. It’s for this reason [Scripture] says: “Call no one blessed before their death” [Sir 11:28]. On what basis? The future is unclear and nature is weak. The will is lazy, sin is hovering, and the snares are many. “Know,” it says, “that you walk in the midst of snares” [Sir 9:13]. Temptations come one after another, the crowd of affairs is large, and the war [waged] by demons unceasing, and the rebellion of the passions unrelenting. It’s for these reasons scripture says: “Call no one blessed before their death.” That’s why it’s safe to bless the deserving person after death. Rather, not simply after death, but a death of this kind: when a person has lost their life with a crown, when [they have lost it] with confession and unfeigned faith. For if a certain person called those who have simply died blessed, how much more those who died in this fashion?

2. “And who called those who have simply died blessed?”, you ask. Solomon, Solomon that utterly wise man. Don’t simply pass over the man, but consider who he was and how he lived and with how much freedom from anxiety and indulgence he lived the soft and painless life. For he conceived of every type of luxury and came up with all sorts of paths of spiritual guidance and discovered diverse and versatile kinds of pleasures, and detailing these he said: “I have built myself houses, planted myself vineyards, made myself orchards and gardens, made myself pools of water; I have acquired male slaves and young female slaves, and have slaves born at home; I have acquired herds and flocks; I have gathered silver and gold the equivalent of sand; I have created for myself male and female singers, male and female wine-pourers” [Eccl 2:4–8]. What then did this self-same man [say] after such great wealth of money, of possessions, of luxury, of indulgence? He said: “I have called the dead blessed as opposed to the living, and the person who does not yet exist, good as opposed to them” [cf. Eccl 4:2–3]. This man, who cast such a vote against luxury, is a truly trustworthy critic of it. For if one of those who had lived in poverty and on the skids had produced this vote against luxury, it would have appeared that he wasn’t condemning these things in truth, but through lack of experience. But when this man who had traveled it and traversed every path of it dishonored it, his condemnation was immediately beyond suspicion. Perhaps you think that our sermon has fallen off the current topic. But if we just pay attention, we’ll find that what I’ve said keeps to it in particular. For on martyrs’ commemorations, it is essential and logical to discuss philosophy too. Indeed, we say these things not in condemnation of the present life—heaven forbid!—but from casting a slur on luxury. For it is not to live that is bad, but to live in a pointless and random fashion.

3. Thus if a person were to live the present life with a view to good works and in expectation of the blessings to come, they would be able to say like Paul: “It is far better to live in the flesh. For [my] work is fruitful” [Phil 1:22]. Just so, then, was it the case too with blessed Eustathius, who conducted himself properly in both life and death. For he endured [death] for Christ’s sake not in his own land, but in a foreign place. This was the achievement of his enemies. For while they drove him out of his home territory with the intent of dishonoring [him], he instead became more brilliant and famous through his migration into exile, as the outcome of events indeed showed. For his fame became so great that, although his body is buried in Thrace, his memory flowers among us day after day and, while his tomb is in that barbarian region, after so long a time the desire [for him] among us, who are separated from him by so great a distance, grows day after day. Rather, if one must tell the truth, even his tomb is among us, not just in Thrace. For saints’ memorials are not urns or coffins or columns or inscriptions, but good works and a zeal for faith and a healthy conscience towards God. My point is that truly this church has risen up more brilliant than any column over the martyr, carrying inscriptions that are not voiceless but that through events themselves cry out his memory and brilliance louder than a trumpet, and each of you who are present is that saint’s tomb, a tomb that has life and soul. For, if I were to open up the conscience of each of you who are present, I would find this saint dwelling inside your mind.

4. Do you see how his enemies made no further gain? How they didn’t extinguish his glory, but raised it higher and made it more brilliant, creating so many tombs instead of one—tombs with life, tombs that give voice, tombs prepared for the same enthusiasm? For this reason, I call the saints’ bodies springs and roots and spiritual perfumes. On what basis? That each of the items mentioned doesn’t just keep its own virtue to itself, but also transmits it all over the place to a considerable distance. For instance, springs bubble up lots of water; even so, they don’t keep this contained within their own basins. Rather, by giving birth to lengthy rivers, they mingle with the sea, and, as if by stretching out a hand, through their length reach the ocean’s waters. Again, the root of plants is hidden in the bowels of the earth, but doesn’t keep all its virtue contained below, and this is the nature of tree-climbing vines in particular. For when they extend their branches to the high up twigs, they advance their shoots to a considerable distance by creeping through those stalks, creating a broad canopy with the density of their leaves. Such too is the nature of perfumes. For while often they are stored in a little house, their sweet smell tumbles out through the windows into streets and alleyways and marketplaces and teaches those walking outside the virtue of the spices stored inside. If a spring or a root or a plants’ or spices’ nature has so much strength, much more so do the saints’ bodies. And that what I’ve said isn’t false, you are witnesses. For although the martyr’s body lies in Thrace, you’re not spending time in Thrace; instead, far removed from that region, you share his sweet smell at so great a distance and have come together because of it—the length of the road hasn’t put you off, nor has the abundance of time extinguished [your enthusiasm]. The nature of spiritual achievements is like that. They aren’t cut off by any physical impediment, but flower and grow day after day, and neither does the abundance of time wither them, nor a road’s length wall them off.

5. Don’t be astonished if, when I began the sermon and praises, I called the saint a martyr. For in fact, his life came to a natural end. How, then, is he a martyr? In response to your love, I’ve often said that it’s not just the death that creates a martyr, but also the disposition. For often the martyr’s crown is woven not just from the way out, but also from the will. Indeed, it’s not I, but Paul who gives this definition of martyrdom when he speaks in this way: “I die every day” [1 Cor 15:31]. How do you die every day? How can a single mortal body possibly undergo countless deaths? “Through one’s disposition,” he says, “and through being prepared for death.” This too is the way God revealed. For truly Abraham didn’t bloody the knife, didn’t redden the altar, didn’t sacrifice Isaac, yet completed the sacrifice nonetheless. Who says this? The very one who received the sacrifice. “Because of me,” he said, “you didn’t spare your beloved son” [Gen 22:12]. And yet, he [sc. Abraham] took him alive and brought him back healthy. How, then, didn’t he spare [him]? “In that I judge such sacrifices not from the outcome of events, but from the disposition of those making the choice,” says [God]. “His hand didn’t kill, but his will did. He didn’t bathe his sword in his child’s neck, he didn’t slit his throat, yet even without blood it’s a sacrifice.” The initiated know what I’m saying. On this basis, that sacrifice also took place without blood, since it was destined to be a type of this one. Do you see its image outlined in advance in the Old Testament? Don’t doubt the truth!

6. Now, this martyr (for the argument has shown us that he is a martyr), prepared himself for countless deaths and endured them all with his will and eagerness. He endured many of the dangers that attacked him too by way of actual experience. For in fact, they drove him out of his country and translocated him into exile, and at that time set in motion many other [assaults] against that blessed man, although they had no legal grounds on which to prosecute, on the basis that, when he heard Paul say: “They worshipped and served the creation rather than the creator” [Rom 1:25], he fled the sacrilege and was alarmed at the lawlessness. But this [action] deserved crowns, not condemnation. Consider, if you please, the Devil’s wickedness. For when the pagan war had newly ended, and all the Churches had just recovered from the cruel and successive persecutions, and it wasn’t much time since every temple had been locked up, altars extinguished, and all the raging of the demons quelled, and these things grieved the wicked demon and he couldn’t mildly bear the Church’s peace, what then did he do? He introduced a second cruel war. For while the first had an external origin, this was factional. Such wars are rather difficult to guard against, and readily overpower those involved.

7. Now, at that time this blessed man had command of the Church in our community, and although the sickness arose like some cruel plague from the Egyptian regions, then next traveled through the cities in between in a hurry to attack our city, he, being alert and sober and foreseeing everything that would happen from afar, beat off the approaching war. Indeed, before the sickness attacked our city, from his base here he prepared medications like a wise doctor and steered this holy ship with a great deal of safety, running around everywhere, training the sailors, the marines, all those sailing [on her], preparing [them] to be sober, to be alert, on the basis that pirates were attacking and attempting to steal away the treasure of faith. But he didn’t employ this forethought just here, but also sent throughout all regions people who instructed, encouraged, discoursed, who blocked the enemies’ attack in advance. Truly he was well trained by the Spirit’s grace that a church’s leader should not just be concerned for the church entrusted to him by the Spirit, but also for the entire Church situated throughout the world. Indeed, he learnt this from the holy prayers. “For if one is obliged to offer prayers,” he said, “for the universal Church from one end of the world to the other, one should show far more forethought, too, for it all, and similarly be concerned for them all and care for all of them.” Indeed, what happened in the case of Stephen eventuated in his case too. For just as the Jews, powerless to resist Stephen’s wisdom, stoned that saint, so too these men, powerless to resist his wisdom and seeing the fortresses secured, at that point expelled the herald from the city. But his voice was not silent. Rather, while the person was expelled, the word of his teaching was not expelled. After all, Paul was bound, yet the word of God was not bound [cf. 2 Tim 2:9]. And this man was in another country and yet his teaching was among us. So then, after expelling [him] they attacked in a tight pack, just like a forceful torrent. But they neither carried away the plants, nor buried the seeds, nor damaged the cultivation. So well and skillfully were they rooted, since they had been cultivated by his wisdom. But it is appropriate that I mention the reason why God allowed him to be driven away from here. The Church was only just recovering. It had as no ordinary comfort that man’s command. He blockaded it on all sides and beat off the assaults of its enemies.

8. For what reason, then, was he expelled, and did God agree to their leading him away? For what reason? Whatever you do, don’t think that what I say is the solution to just this question. Rather, whether you happen to argue about such matters with Greeks or other heretics, what I am about to say is enough to solve every question. Whereas God agrees to his true and apostolic faith being warred against in many ways, he allows the heresies and Greco-Roman religions to enjoy indemnity. What on earth for? So that, on the one hand, you might learn the latter’s feebleness, since without being harassed they fold of their own accord; while, on the other, you may recognize the faith’s strength, in that despite being embattled it grows even by means of the people blocking it. And that this is not a conjecture of mine, but a divine oracle sent from above, let’s hear what Paul says about these things. For truly whatever he too suffered was human. For if Paul actually existed, then he shared our nature. What did he suffer? He was driven out, embattled, whipped, plotted against in countless ways, externally, internally, by those who appeared to be of his own party, by outsiders. And what can one say about the many afflictions he endured? Well, when he was worn out and no longer coping with the assaults of his enemies, who were always cutting off his teaching and opposing his argument, he fell down before the Master and entreated him, and said: “Satan’s angel was given to me as a thorn in the flesh, in order to discipline me. On this subject I have entreated the Lord three times and he said to me: ‘My grace is sufficient for you. For my power is made perfect in weakness.’” [2 Cor 12:7–9]. And while I know that some think that it was a physical weakness, this is not the case, not at all. On the contrary, Satan’s angel is what he [sc. Paul] calls the people who opposed him. For “Satan” is a Hebrew word. An adversary is labeled “Satan.” And so, he calls the Devil’s instruments and those people who serve him his “angels.” “Why, then,” you ask, “did it apply to the flesh?” Because while the flesh was whipped, the soul was lightened, lifted up by the hope of things to come. For he [sc. the Devil] didn’t get hold of the soul, nor trip up the thoughts within; instead, his machinations and war stopped at the flesh, unable to enter within. Since, then, it was the flesh that was cut, the flesh that was whipped, the flesh that was bound (for it’s impossible to bind the soul), it’s for this reason that he said: “Satan’s angel was given to me as a thorn in the flesh, in order to discipline me,” hinting at the trials, the afflictions, the persecutions. Then what? “On this subject I have entreated the Lord three times.” That is, he says, “I often asked to be given a little respite from my trials.” You remember the reason I mentioned: that God allowed his servants to be whipped, driven away, to suffer countless tortures, so that he might show his own power. Well, look, here truly is a person who asked to be distanced from his countless tortures and adversaries, but who didn’t attain what he asked for. Who, then, is responsible? After all, nothing prevents us from recalling it again: “My grace,” he says, “is sufficient for you. For my power is made perfect in weakness.”

9. Do you see that it’s for this reason that God allowed Satan’s angels to keep up their assault on his servants and to provide countless opportunities, so that his power might be obvious? For truly, whether we dispute with Greeks or with the miserable Jews, this suffices for us as a proof of the divine power, that, once introduced, the faith prevailed through countless wars, and although the whole world was doing the opposite and everyone was quite vehemently rejecting those twelve men (I mean, the apostles), people who were being whipped, driven away, suffering countless tortures were in a short period able to prevail to an incredible extent over those who were doing these things. It’s for these reasons that God allowed blessed Eustathius too to be escorted off into exile, so that he might show us in a major way both the power of truth and the heretics’ feebleness. So then, when he was about to depart for the journey abroad, he let go of the city, but he didn’t let go of his love for you. Nor, when he was expelled from the Church, did he think that he was alienated either from the leadership or from caring for you; rather, it was then that he expressed care and concern in a major way. Indeed, he summoned everyone and entreated them not to yield, nor to give in to the wolves, nor to betray the flock to them, but to remain inside curbing them and disputing, while securing the less corrupted of the brothers and sisters. And that he gave good orders, the outcome proved. For if you hadn’t remained in the Church then, the majority of the city would have been corrupted, while the wolves ate the sheep in a deserted place. But his word prevented them from displaying their own wickedness with impunity. It’s not just the outcome that proved it, but also Paul’s comments. For in fact he [sc. Eustathius] gave this advice based on instruction from him. What, then, did Paul say? Once when he was about to be led off to Rome on his final journey, after which he wouldn’t see the disciples again, he said: “I won’t see you again” [cf. Acts 20:25]. He said this not out of a desire to cause grief but to provide security. And so, when he was about to journey away from there, he more or less secured them in this way, saying: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will enter among you, and men from right among you will rise up and say distorted things” [Acts 20:29, 30]. The war was threefold: the nature of the wild animals; the severity of the war; that those doing the warring were not foreign but actually his own people. For this reason, it was more severe. With reason. For if someone from outside was to assault me and war against me, I would be able to subvert that person easily. But if the ulcer arises from the body internally, the evil is difficult to cure. This is in fact what happened then. Which is why he gave advice, saying: “Pay attention to yourselves and to the whole flock” [Acts 20:28]. He did not say: “Abandon the sheep and flee outside.”

10. It was on the basis, too, of this training that blessed Eustathius gave advice to his own disciples. So, when this wise and noble teacher heard this advice, he brought the theory to fruition in practice. At any rate, when they invaded, he didn’t abandon the sheep, even though he hadn’t ascended to the throne of office. But this was nothing for that noble and philosophical soul. My point is, while he gave up the honors officials enjoy to others, he himself undertook the officials’ duties, circulating inside among the wolves. For the wild animal’s teeth didn’t harm him at all, so much stronger was the faith he possessed than their bites. And so, by circulating inside and occupying them all with the war being conducted against him, he prepared considerable security for the sheep. He didn’t just do this by blocking up their mouths, stopping short their blasphemies, but he also went around the lambs themselves and got to know whether anyone had taken a hit, whether anyone had received a severe wound, and immediately applied the medication. Truly, by doing these things he fermented everyone into the true faith, and he didn’t give up until God provided blessed Meletius to come and take the whole dough. The former sowed the seed, the latter came and harvested it. So too did it happen in the case of Moses and Aaron. For truly they too, by circulating like a yeast in the midst of the Egyptians, made many people enthusiasts of their own piety. And Moses is a witness to this when he says that a very mixed group of people went up in the company of the Israelites [cf. Ex 12:38]. Copying Moses, this man too performed the tasks attached to the office before [he possessed] the office. For truly he (sc. Moses), though not yet entrusted with the leadership of the people, punished the wrongdoers very vigorously and nobly, defended those wronged, and abandoning a royal table and honors and high status, ran off to the mud and brick-making, in the belief that caring for his own people was of greater honor than any luxury and leisure and honor. With his eyes on [Moses] he [sc. Flavian] too at that time reproved all officials with his care for the people and before leisure put hard work and constantly being driven out of every place, while attracting hostility day after day. But for him everything was easy to bear. For the pretext for the events provided him with sufficient comfort for what occurred. Let’s give thanks to God for all these blessings and become enthusiasts of the virtues of these saints, so that we too may share their crowns with them, through the grace and loving kindness of our Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, honor, and power forever and ever. Amen.

 

Original source: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 50, c. 597–606.

English translation: The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters / St. John Chrysostom, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2006), pp. 51-62.


Wednesday, March 5, 2025

General Confession of Sins, Pronounced by a Penitent before a Priest

By St. Dimitri of Rostov

 

I confess to the Lord God Almighty, glorified and worshipped in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to the most blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos Mary, and to all the saints, and to you, honorable father, what I have done in all my sins, by thought, word, deed, and all my senses,1 for I was conceived in sins, I was born in sins, I was raised in sins, and I have dwelt in sins after baptism, even up to this very hour. I confess also that I have sinned in extreme manner by pride, vainglory, haughtiness with eyes and also with clothes and all my deeds, envy, hatred, desire for honors, and also by avarice, wrath, sorrow, laziness, stuffing the belly, sodomite lust, desecration, unrighteous cursing, adultery, theft, robbery, every type of fornication, most exceedingly shameful impurities, drunkenness, gluttony, lazy babbling, fleshly lust, impure kissing and touching even with my child-bearing members, the mental desire to murder; with respect to faith, hope, and love by always receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily; by violent exhortations and deception, ignorance, neglect, transgressing in gifts given and received, practice of usury, stewarding church property in an evil manner, insufficient giving of alms, hardness toward the poor, in insufficiently welcoming and giving hospitality to the lowly, stinginess toward the orphans entrusted to me, not visiting the sick and those in prison in accordance with the evangelical commandment, not burying the dead, not clothing the poor, not feeding the hungry, and not giving drink to the thirsty; by not rendering due veneration, honor, and celebration to feast days, both those of the Lord and of those saints who have pleased him, and by not remaining pure and sober on them; by agreeing to do evil against the one in charge and not being helpful before him; by not comforting those who ask and even harming them; by blaspheming and cursing elders and superiors, not keeping trust with my friends and benefactors, not fulfilling my given obedience, looking with impure conscience on bestial and animal intercourse; proud entrance into the church of God, standing, sitting, lying down, and going out of it inappropriately; carefree conversations in it, lawless activities, defiled conversations with others; touching the sacred vessels and the holy service with impure heart and defiled hands, and by performing the prayers, psalmody, and calling upon God indifferently in the church of God; by most exceedingly evil intention, meditation, and depraved teaching, lying opinion, senseless judgment, evil concord and unrighteous counsel, defiled enjoyment and delight, in free, excessive, impure, and vexing words, in lying, in enticements, in various curses, in unceasing slanders, stirring up quarrels and dissensions and laughing at others, in carefree mockery, in debates, in deceit, in wickedness, in whispering, in vain and futile joy and in all evil; complaining, blasphemy, joking, causing laughter, oversleeping, evil talk, reproach, defiled speech, insults, hypocrisy, keeping vigil against God [1], bodily lust, prodigal thoughts, impure delights, concord with the devil, breaking God’s commandments, neglect in offering love both for God and neighbor, by lustful and impure sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. I have perished in all my thoughts, words, will, and deeds. Inasmuch as in these and other lawless acts, by all those things by which only human infirmity can sin against its God and Creator in intention, word, deed, or pleasure, or enjoyment—in all this have I sinned—I consider myself guilty before the face of God more than all people, and I acknowledge and confess this and all my other numberless sins that I have committed, whether voluntary or involuntary, in knowledge or ignorance, myself with myself or through others, or by tempting my brother, and those which, on account of their multitude, I can neither know, nor remember, though what I have remembered, I have said—inasmuch as I repent, regret, and consider myself guilty before the Lord my God—for what has been said and not said, on account of not remembering the multitude of my sins, so do I humbly pray to the most holy and most blessed Virgin Theotokos and all the heavenly powers, and all the saints well-pleasing to God, and to you, honorable father priest, in all of whose presence I have confessed these things, that on the day of judgment you all might be witnesses against the devil, the enemy and adversary of the human race, that I have confessed all of this, and that you may pray for me, a sinner, to the Lord my God. And I ask you, honorable father, as one who have the authority given you by Christ God to absolve those things which have been confessed, to forgive and remit sins, that you absolve me from all these my sins, which I have described before you, cleansing me, forgiving me all these things; and also grant me an epitimia for all my transgressions, for I truly regret my transgression, and I have the will to repent and henceforth to keep myself from these things as much as is possible, with God’s help.

Forgive me, father, absolve me, and pray for me, a sinner. Amen.

And after this you may read a prayer to Christ, crucified for our sake, in order to recall his saving sufferings, undertaken for the sake of our sins, reading which [prayer] a man attains some tenderness, and, as if by some fetter, is held back from transgressions, with a view toward correction and succeeding in a life pleasing to God.

 

[1] “Keeping vigil against God”: The reversing of daytime and nighttime activities in opposition to the God-established order.


Source: Jesus Crucified: The Baroque Spirituality of St. Dimitri of Rostov, by John Mikitish, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2017, pp. 149-151.

The Rule Against Defilement

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.

Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, O Treasury of every good and Bestower of life: come and dwell in us, and cleanse us of every stain, and save our souls, O Good One. 

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (thrice

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, be gracious unto our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for Thy Name’s sake. 

Lord, have mercy. (thrice

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

Our Father, Which art in the Heavens, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

Lord, have mercy. (twelve times)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

O come, let us worship and fall down before our King and God.

O come, let us worship and fall down before Christ, our King and God.

O come, let us worship and fall down before Him, Christ the King and our God. 

Psalm 50

Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions blot out my transgression. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I know mine iniquity, and my sin is ever before me. Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art judged. For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou made manifest unto me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. Thou shalt make me to hear joy and gladness; the bones that be humbled, they shall rejoice. Turn Thy face away from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and with Thy governing Spirit establish me. I shall teach transgressors Thy ways, and the ungodly shall turn back unto Thee. Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; my tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness. O Lord, Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise. For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise. Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Sion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded. Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar. 

And these Troparia, 7th Tone:

O Good Shepherd, Who didst lay down Thy life for us, Who knowest all the hidden things done by me; O Thou Who alone art Good, shepherd me who in understanding have gone astray, and snatch me from the wolf, O Lamb of God, and have mercy on me. 

Overcome by the sleep of despondency, I am darkened by sinful delusions; but grant me the morning of repentance, enlightening the eyes of my mind, O Christ God, the Enlightenment of my soul, and save me. 

The mind of my wretched soul, entangled by the darkness of sin and the pleasures of life, giveth birth to diverse passions, and doth not come to the thought of compunction, that I also, saved before the end, may call upon Thy loving-kindness: O Lord Christ my Saviour, save me the despairing and unworthy one. 

Even as he that fell among thieves and was wounded, so have I also fallen into many sins, and my wounds are of the soul. To whom shall I that am guilty flee? Only to Thee, O Merciful Healer of souls; pour upon me, O God, Thy great mercy. 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. 

Like the Prodigal Son have I come, O Compassionate One: receive me who am returning, O Father, as one of Thy hired servants, O God, and have mercy on me.

Both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

Deliver us, O Theotokos, from the sins which have taken possession of us, for the faithful have none other hope beside Thee and the Lord born of Thee. 

Lord, have mercy. (forty times)

And fifty prostrations, with this prayer:

O God, be merciful unto me, and forgive me, the prodigal, for Thy holy name’s sake. 

Prayer of St. Basil the Great

Again I, the impious one, am become blemished in mind and evil habits, laboring for sin. Again the prince of darkness and the father of passionate pleasures hath made me captive, and compelleth me, through lust and fleshly desires, to serve him as though I were a lowly slave. What shall I do, O my Lord, and Redeemer, and Helper of them that hope in Thee, if not to return again to Thee, and groan, and beg mercy for that which I have done? But I fear and tremble that, always confessing and promising to abandon evil, and yet sinning every hour, and not having lifted up my prayers to Thee, my God, I may arouse Thy long-suffering to indignation. And who will be able to endure Thy wrath, O Lord? Knowing, therefore, the multitude of Thy mercies, and the depth of Thy love for mankind, again I cast myself upon Thy mercy and cry unto Thee: In that I have sinned, forgive me. Have mercy on me the fallen, grant a helping hand to me that wallow in the mire of pleasures. Do not abandon Thy creature, O Lord, to be corrupted by mine iniquities and sins; but, having been implored for Thy usual mercy and goodness, do Thou deliver me from filth, and bodily defilements and passionate thoughts, which always defile my wretched soul. For behold, O Lord, as Thou seest, there is no clean place in it, but all is leprous, and the wound hath possessed the whole body. Therefore, O Lover of mankind, Physician of souls and bodies, and Fountain of mercy, do Thou Thyself cleanse it with the stream of my tears, pouring them upon me abundantly; pour upon me Thy love for mankind, and grant me healing and cleansing, and heal my brokenness, and turn not Thy countenance away from me, lest, like a material thing, I be devoured by the fire of despair. But as Thou has said, O truthful God, that there is great joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, cause this to happen also over me a sinner, and close not the ears of Thy loving-kindness during my prayer of repentance, but open them, and guide it aright as incense before Thee. For Thou, O Creator, knoweth the weakness of nature, and the ready inclination of youth, and the burden of the body, and Thou dost despise sins, and acceptest the repentance of them that sincerely call upon Thee. For blessed and glorified is Thy most honorable and majestic name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

 

Another Prayer of St. Basil

O plenteously merciful, incorrupt, undefiled, sinless Lord, cleanse me, Thine unprofitable servant, of all defilement of flesh and soul, and of inattentiveness, and of my despondency which cometh to me with impurity, together with all mine other iniquities. And show me fourth undefiled, O Master, through the goodness of Thy Christ, and sanctify me through the descent of Thy Most Holy Spirit; that, having escaped from the darkness of the foul phantasies of the devil, and from every impurity, I may be vouchsafed with a clear conscience to open my defiled and unclean mouth, and sing praises to Thine all-holy Name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, thee who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, thee do we magnify. 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. 

Lord, have mercy. (thrice)

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

 

On St. John of San Francisco, St. Seraphim Rose, and the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate

A Message from the defunct “Occidentalis” Western Rite Orthodox Yahoo Discussion Group

 

Message #6416 of 10909

From: ...

Date: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:01pm

Subject: Re: Status of Liturgy of St. Tikhon 

 

Dear XXXX, this is a touchy issue, but I'll try to treat it gently. My spiritual father here at the monastery is the man formerly known as Fr. Alexey Young, the disciple of Fr. Seraphim Rose. Fr. Alexey Young used to be in the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, and was (and is) very interested in the WR. He left the AWRV for a few reasons, and I will try to touch on them tactfully.

The first thing that should be said is that the AWRV liturgy has been blessed for use by the Antiochian hierarchs. The main thing to remember about a liturgy is that, so long as it contains the basic necessary elements of a Christian Eucharistic liturgy, and is celebrated with the blessing of the bishops, it is a valid liturgy. Theoretically, we could compose a liturgy on the spot, and if our bishop permitted us to celebrate it, it would truly be a Eucharistic liturgy. I mean, in times of persecution, I don't think we'll be sticklers about all the rubrics and proper vestments and whatnot. The early Christian liturgies had lots of room for impromptu prayers. So, we have to not be extremist about this, and start calling liturgies "unorthodox" that have no positively, uncompromisingly, unavoidably heretical elements to them.

That said, the Antiochian WR has served, and continues to serve, a good purpose of evangelizing people familiar with a past liturgical tradition, and helping them into Orthodoxy. This is a good and valuable thing, and I don't think that its mission is over.

Now, my observation, and Fr. Alexey Young's observation when he was in the AWRV, is that a lot of people are merely "hiding out" in it. That is to say, many exasperated Episcopalians, Anglicans and Papists, distraught over the flood of changes and impiety in their churches, simply wanted a place to be left alone. They wanted a place where they could keep doing what they were doing, without the rug being pulled out from under them again and again. So, many people have noticed a tendency for people with this mindset (which is certainly not everyone in the AWRV) to not really become Orthodox through and through, but only in merest intellectual confession.

Orthodoxy, by nature, tends not to tamper. Orthodoxy became a safe haven for many AWRV converts. Some of these people, though (and who of us wouldn't sympathize) were more attached to their familiar practices than to Orthodoxy. Fr. Alexey left in despair when he realized that many people in the AWRV were not interested in assimilating Orthodox piety. It was a sort of Western Obsession. It was for Plainchant hobbyists, or Cranmerophiles, or English history buffs who just liked all things English - you get the idea. Essentially, they would agree to excise the Filioque from their creed, but they didn't want to do anything else differently. They did not become Orthodox; rather, they remained Episcopalians or Papists, but without a Filioque and other glaring doctrinal errors. He noticed a lack of harmony with the spirit and piety of the Orthodox Church.

Having known Fr. Seraphim Rose well, and having had contact with St. John, he was very aware of the ancient Orthodox heritage of the West, and found the modern, "Traditional" forms of Episcopalianism and Papism to be much further removed from the ancient West's spirit, than even the modern East was. In the first printing of the book "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church," Fr. Alexey Young wrote the introduction (incidentally, he also wrote an article in the book "An Introduction to the Western Rite," back when he was still in the AWRV. This book is still available). When I arrived here, he encouraged me to read Fr. Seraphim Rose' introduction to the Vita Patrum of St. Gregory of Tours. He is deeply in love with the Orthodox West.

But he didn't find this same excitement in the AWRV. He found an attachment to their familiar forms of piety, regardless of their harmony with Orthodoxy. He remarked to me that one bishop had instructed one of the WR parishes he frequently served at to remove the protestant-style confession of faith from their prayerbooks. The congregation said they would, and then ignored him. For all he knew, that bishop still thinks they have been removed. I don't want to sound inflammatory, but he tells me that a few of the men (including one priest) were actually freemasons. When he brought this to the attention of the (then) dean of the vicariate, he was told to mind his own business and butt out.

So, he gave up and left.

Obviously, I am interested in the Western Rite, and so I asked Fr. Alexey what St. John had to say about it, and what Fr. Seraphim Rose passed down about it. He told me that St. John had definitely envisaged the earliest approved forms of the WR as temporary. He wanted more work and scholarship to be done, and when better forms became available, for those to begin to replace them. St. John celebrated every liturgy before he approved it, so one can hardly say that even the "liturgical archaeology" known as the modern-day reconstruction of the Gallican Rite is "unorthodox." A God-Illumined, modern pillar of Orthodoxy celebrated it and approved it. Fr. Alexey tells me that when a rubric was uncertain, St. John would know during the celebrating what the proper interpretation was, and would often make little "tweaks," speaking with a spiritual authority on what was supposed to happen. So, St. John wanted better forms to be used, but he apparently had a heavenly pipeline helping him to put together the best liturgy he could with the material he had! This is why he insisted on celebrating them beforehand, by the way.

But he wanted more authentic forms to be used. In fact, Fr. Seraphim told Fr. Alexey that St. John believed that the Gallican Liturgy should, in general, not be celebrated as a normal, daily rite because it had been suppressed by the West while it was still Orthodox. That is, because the West eliminated this rite of its own accord before the Schism, St. John believed that the Holy Spirit was behind this. The approval of the Gallican rite as such was intended to be a temporary measure until they could sort out the development of the Roman liturgy, especially as indigenously celebrated in France. St. John believed, according to Fr. Seraphim Rose, that each people had their own Orthodox genius, and contribution to the faith. He felt that Western people would not be able to easily or fully assimilate into Orthodoxy until they reclaimed these aspects of their genius (incidentally, this is why I think Western Orthodox people, even if they have to use Byzantine liturgy right now, should try to decorate their parishes in Ancient Western Orthodox styles, and employ Gregorian Chant rather than Byzantine, and include Latin Trisagions in their liturgies rather than every other language besides Latin!).

Now, my experience with the AWRV has been more positive, because I think that many in the Vicariate are starting to wake up to the far richer and more beautiful inheritance of the Orthodox west. Also, the very nature of the AWRV liturgy is that it primarily is going to appeal to the people who have a "nostalgia" for those Episcopalian or Papist liturgies, in which they were raised, and with which they are comfortable. But Vatican II was a long time ago now, and many of the people old enough to be nostalgic for that liturgy are not with us anymore. While Episcopalianism and Papism certainly retained much that was beautiful from their ancient Western heritage, they lost much of it, as well. And I think that now, what is happening with the WR, is that people who might not have had any liturgical background at all (like myself) are finding their own Orthodox past, and not just a comfortable childhood liturgy. So, I think many people now are finding that they hunger for their Orthodox heritage, and that (comparatively) modern forms of Episcopalian and Papist liturgy are not as appealing. I mean, when we read about the ancient Saints of the West, and want to have a devotion for them, the Old Western Rite has full services written for them. They have all sorts of prayers and other liturgical adornments, which the more modern Episcopalian and Roman Catholic usages have abolished altogether. I suppose they could start restoring them, but then, they would be returning to the older, orthodox liturgy, right?

So, I don't think any balanced person would attack the AWRV's liturgy as unorthodox. It has not implemented all of the required changes set forth by the Russian Church committee which examined their books years ago, but they do have a blessing from the Antiochian bishops to celebrate it. Therefore, it's Orthodox. I think that the AWRV can be praised for having provided a safe harbor for many people seeking the true faith and looking to be pious and faithful to God in a tradition more in line with their own heritage than with Russian or Greek heritages.

That said, I also think that the pool of people to whom such liturgies can appeal (people nostalgic for their familiar worship styles) is rapidly shallowing. And if the old, Orthodox usages are richer, more beautiful, more complete and more fully expressive of Orthodox piety and devotion to the saints, then naturally when Western people start hungering for their ancient Orthodox heritage, their hearts will be drawn to the liturgies that most express that. And, while there is no persecution going on, if we can celebrate the Mass in a manner richer and more deeply expressive of the Faith, then why not prefer it?

So, I don't think that the sentiment is so much "Anti-St. Tikhon Liturgy" as it is "Pro-Genuine-Old-Orthodox-Liturgy." Though, some people, to be sure, do slip into acerbic polemics. The sad thing is, that they make it harder for the more authentically ancient and Orthodox forms of the Western Rite to make progress, when they become such nasty examples of their own platforms. And, it goes both ways. If you talk to the right AWRV person (like Ben Johnson, whose objections Fr. Aidan has been answering), you'll hear just as much vitriol and accusation. For, you see, if many AWRV people's main concern is to see their own, comfortable liturgy remain untouched, then they might feel like the appearance and success of an ancient, Orthodox Western liturgy would once again imperil their own observances, when the comparative nakedness of their observance stood out against it. But I don't think that this is likely; I don't think Antioch would simply dissolve their usage. That would be pastorally insensitive. I think it is perfectly possible for both rites to live together.

So, just pray that everyone can keep being nice to each other. And when people fail, forgive and don't allow their faults to compromise the good cause of loving our Western, Orthodox heritage, no matter how we do that.

Reflections on the Western Rite

by Diakonissa [now Presbytera] Mary Zubricky


In recent years, much has been said by proponents of the Western Rite about the advantage of such a liturgical tradition for westerners wishing to convert to the Orthodox Church. Though I am of Slavic origin (and ultimately of Greek Catholic ancestry), as is my husband, I am a convert from Roman Catholicism. As such, I would like to offer some reflections on the Western Rite from a perspective different than that of most advocates of a Western Rite Orthodoxy.

My family and I first encountered Orthodoxy at the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery [in Etna, CA], which my husband now serves as a Deacon, about fourteen years ago. I still remember vividly the first Liturgy which we attended. We were overwhelmed, as we are still today, by the beauty and profundity of Orthodox worship. After Liturgy, we invited the Abbot of the monastery, Archimandrite (now Bishop) Chrysostomos and two of the Fathers, as well as several lay people, to our home for a meal. We talked for hours, and by the end of the day I knew in my heart that we would become Orthodox.

Our conversion to Orthodoxy—let alone to the persecution and prejudice invited by a commitment to the traditionalist or Old Calendar movement—was not easy. We had to learn much and we had to endure much, both in the reactions of our families and in adjusting ourselves to a religion which demands the whole of a person in its worship and in its spiritual life generally. Yet, looking back, if I had been offered a choice between traditional Eastern Orthodox practice and the compromise of a Western Rite, I have no doubt that I would have chosen the traditional Eastern path.

Why is this so? Webster's Dictionary defines the term "convert" as follows: "To turn round, to turn toward; to change from one religion, doctrine, opinion, course or action to another." After some months of study and questioning, I became firmly convinced that the Orthodox Church was the true Church, the historical Church, knowing, too, that She had produced a huge number of Saints: holy men and women who had attained sanctity through traditional Orthodox practice. It was to that traditional practice that I was converted, turning from Latin Christianity to its source, Orthodoxy. I thus never for a moment questioned the Church's fasting rules, the efficacy of which has been demonstrated for centuries by the Church's Saints. Nor did I question the Church's Liturgies, especially the most common, that of St. John Chrysostomos, which was appointed centuries ago by the Church and which has sanctified untold millions of the Faithful. In converting to Orthodoxy, I turned to its fullness, its entirety. And in the ensuing years, I have developed a deeper love for traditional services and have learned more and have grown steadily in an understanding of the profundity of things that I once thought less significant than they actually are.

The various Western Rites, we are often told, are ancient. This is true. In the early Church, there was a diversity of services: a diversity that succumbed to the unifying force of the spiritual integrity of Orthodox tradition. The Western Rites that exist today, however, are reconstructed from remnants of ancient local Liturgies that fell into disuse in the face of the unifying Holy Tradition of universal Orthodoxy. It seems to me that the efforts of inexperienced converts to Orthodoxy to revive, from fragments of Liturgies that were for the greater part never elements of universal tradition, services that suit their particular tastes are, however well intentioned, reflective of a misunderstanding of what it means to be truly Orthodox.

In some sense, the incorporation of Western practice, even in its ancient form, into contemporary Orthodoxy as a means for converting westerners is to produce "semi-converts," indeed to impede conversion all together in some cases. If the Orthodox Church is the true Church, then we must embrace it in its fullness, accepting its living traditions and setting aside the perhaps valid, but dead, traditions of an Orthodox West that has, lamentably enough, passed away. We must embrace even that which seems foreign to Western culture, since in so doing we exercise that humility by which what is spiritually "foreign" is made familiar and natural. By adding a little of this and a little of that to Orthodoxy, we run the risk of creating something which is not organically Orthodox at all. Indeed, where is the universality of Orthodoxy if certain groups want to pick and choose what they think is preferable Orthodox practice?

I certainly do not claim that the West does not have an Orthodox past or that the now-defunct Liturgies of the Orthodox West were not valid forms of worship. This is not my point. I am simply stating, as a convert to Orthodoxy from Western Christianity, that by following the wholeness of the Church's traditions, one makes himself more open to Grace, which God, in His infinite love and mercy, will pour out in abundance upon those who make even the slightest effort. Within the spiritual wholeness of Holy Tradition that prompts Grace, there is an established form of worship which we would do well to embrace without question and with willing compliance.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 11 (1994), No. 4, pp. 11-12.

Should I support my Orthodox brother who is arguing with heretics?

LETTER 695

Question: "If the heretic happens to be arguing better than the Orthodox brother during this discussion, is it then good perhaps for me to support the latter as much as I can, lest he be harmed in the Orthodox faith by losing the debate?"

Response: If you enter into any conversation, speaking publicly before God and people, then you are considered to be the one teaching. Moreover, if one teaches without having authority to do so, then one’s words are not in fact assured by God but remain fruitless. So, if there is no benefit in your speaking, why is it necessary for you to speak at all? If, however, you truly want to be of assistance, then speak within your heart to God, who knows our secrets [cf. Rom 2:16] and is able to accomplish far more than we could ask for. [Cf. Eph 3:20] He will deal with those who are debating, in accordance with his will, while you will find humility through this.

This situation resembles someone who imprisons another person by force and without just reason. When a third person sees what has happened, although he cannot do or say anything in opposition, yet he may go secretly to a more powerful person, who will send for the first person’s release on his own authority. Meanwhile, the one who imprisoned that man is troubled because he does not actually know who reported it. The same also applies here. Let us approach God in the prayer of our hearts for our faith and for our brothers; then he who swore unto himself [cf. Gen 22:16]: "that he desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" [1 Tim 2:4] and life will do with them according to his will.

- Romanian Philokalia, Vol. 11 (Spiritual Letters of St. Barsanuphius and John). English translation from Barsanuphius and John, Letters, Volume 2, translated by John Chryssavgis, Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2007, pp. 249-250.


Monday, March 3, 2025

1953 Response of St. Chrysostomos the New to an article in the official organ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, "The Apostle Andrew."

Source: Η Φωνή τησ Ορθοδοξίασ [The Voice of Orthodoxy], No. 154/May 4, 1953.

 

Recently, we became aware of an article titled "A Joy and a Prayer of the Church," published in the official organ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, "The Apostle Andrew." This article is divided into two parts. In the first part, the author describes the joy felt by the entire Orthodox Christ-loving flock over the hoped-for recovery of His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Christophoros, from his recent illness. Taking this occasion, the author highlights, on the one hand, the significant role that the illustrious Apostolic throne of the Patriarchate of Alexandria has played throughout the centuries in the history of the Church, and on the other hand, the seriousness, due to theological education and ecclesiastical experience, of the person of His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Christophoros.

In the second part, the author describes the new phase that the Old Calendarist issue, which has been troubling the Church of Greece for 30 years, has entered following the defection of two leading figures—namely, the former Bishop of Christianoupolis, Christophoros Hatzis, and the former Bishop of Diavleia, Polykarpos Liosis—from the Old Ecclesiastical Calendar to the New Calendar and their admission into the ranks of the State Church. They were received in their episcopal rank, which they had received from the Church of the Old Calendarists, thereby recognizing the validity of the ordinations performed by the Old Calendarist Hierarchs who consecrated them.

At the same time, the author urges the present writer, the former Metropolitan of holy Florina, Chrysostomos Kavourides, who is also the president of the Church of the Old Calendarists, to likewise join the ranks of the State Church so that, in his view, the Old Calendarist issue, which has significantly preoccupied the Church of Greece, may thus come to an end.

As for the transition of the aforementioned two Bishops from the Old Calendar to the New Calendar, respecting the religious freedom of each individual, I pass over this matter in silence, since they have managed to convince their conscience that this action neither undermines their personal dignity nor causes scandal to the faithful, who do not tolerate vacillation and inconsistency in a Bishop regarding matters of faith and worship—such as the Patristic Ecclesiastical Calendar, established by the First Ecumenical Council, which serves as a unifying link among all Orthodox Churches in the celebration of feasts and as the infallible compass of Orthodox divine worship and the Church’s typikon.

However, regarding the exhortation that the author addresses also to my humble self, urging me likewise, as one who acknowledges the truth, to join the ranks of the State Church, I have the following to respond to him:

First of all, I thank the author for his exceedingly favorable judgments, which he has been pleased to express from the abundance of his well-intentioned heart concerning my humble services to the Church and the Nation throughout my forty-year hierarchical ministry, having done nothing beyond my duty to the Mother Church, which gave me spiritual birth and nourished me with the life-giving waters of Orthodoxy. Since the author, being knowledgeable of the divine and sacred Canons and of the Pan-Orthodox Synodal decisions (1583, 1593) under Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos, in which the Gregorian calendar was characterized for the Church as "a novelty of Old Rome, a universal scandal, and an arbitrary violation of the divine and sacred Canons," has carefully avoided touching upon this matter, we too refrain from emphasizing what significance and meaning this holds for the Orthodox Eastern Church. Therefore, our response shall be limited to two points: first, whether I can comply with the appeal addressed to me to join the ranks of the State Church, and second, whether my own adherence to the new ecclesiastical calendar would contribute to the increase of its authority and benefit.

Answering the first point, I assure the well-intentioned author that I would very willingly hasten to comply with his benevolent exhortation to me if he could convince me that the stance I maintain on the issue of the ecclesiastical calendar is contrary to the sacred mission of a Bishop, whose foremost and unwavering duty is to respect and uphold the divine and sacred Canons and the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Synods, for the unaltered preservation of which he solemnly pledges, so to speak, with a living voice before the holy altar during his ordination and elevation to the high episcopal office.

Otherwise, it is entirely impossible for me, now that I am at the end of my episcopal ministry, to follow to Gregorian calendar and to transgress the divine and sacred Canons and the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Synods, against my religious conscience—which is, for every faithful Christian, the most precious and sacred gift of Christ, which I am obliged to deliver on the Day of Judgment intact and unaltered to the divine Giver. It would indeed be a praiseworthy endeavor if the one urging me to follow the Gregorian calendar could convince me with canonical arguments that those who follow the Patristic ecclesiastical calendar out of reverence for their religious conscience are in error. In that case, not only would I comply with his friendly exhortation, but I would also owe him the greatest gratitude and appreciation.

However, this, in my humble judgment, is impossible, because to claim that one who conscientiously follows the ecclesiastical calendar established by the First Ecumenical Council, later affirmed by subsequent councils and sanctioned by centuries of practice, is in error, is equivalent to believing and confessing that the entire Orthodox Church, which upheld the old calendar for centuries, was in error—something false and unacceptable. Moreover, in such a case, the heretical and heterodox Churches of the West, which follow the Gregorian calendar in their worship, would be justified in claiming that the evangelical saying of Christ, “Behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age” does not refer to the Orthodox Church but to the Churches of the West.

And these points pertain to the first issue of my response. As for the second issue, regarding the author's opinion that my joining the ranks of the State Church would benefit it and contribute to the complete resolution of the Old Calendarist issue, I state the following:

First of all, such a transition is impossible for me, for the reasons I have already outlined. However, in addition to these reasons of religious conscience, which prevent me, under any circumstances, from following the New Calendar, I am also convinced that such a shift—an act of vacillation—on my part toward the Gregorian Calendar would not only fail to benefit the State Church but would in fact harm it. This is because, in such a case, the Old Calendarist faithful who remain under my pastoral care, and who are currently kept within the bounds of the Canons, ecclesiastical order, and legitimacy, would still remain steadfast in the traditional calendar system, just as they did even after the defection from the calendar struggle of the Hierarchs of Zakynthos [Chrysostomos], Christianoupolis [Christophoros], and Diavleia [Polykarpos].

Furthermore, there is also the fear that this right-believing Old Calendarist flock, finding itself without pastoral guidance, may seek such guidance from the bishops associated with the women's monastery of Keratea, who were uncanonically ordained by the late Bishop [Matthew] of Bresthena, the founder of Keratea.

Here, in summary, are the reasons why I am unable to comply with the exhortation addressed to me by the author of the aforementioned article. I therefore recommend to him that, in the best interests of the Church, he advise His Beatitude, the Archbishop of Athens, and the governing Synod around him to cease the persecutory measures against the Old Calendarists, which tarnish the radiant mirror of Orthodoxy, and to allow them the freedom to perform their religious duties in their own churches according to the dictates of their religious conscience. And this, at least temporarily, until the convocation of a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone has the authority to resolve in a timely and definitive manner the disputed and contentious issue of the ecclesiastical calendar, so that all Orthodox Churches and all Orthodox Christians may celebrate the religious feasts simultaneously and in unity, to the glory of Christ and His Church.

Athens, May 8, 1953

Chrysostomos, former Metropolitan of Florina

 

Translated from the newly-released collection of writings of St. Chrysostomos the New (which were not included in the Greek edition of his "Collected Works") in memory of the 70th anniversary of his falling asleep. Edited by Mr. Ioannis N. Paparrigas:

https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/03/70.html

 

Sunday, March 2, 2025

What "canonicity"?

Isocrates Scholasticus | July 20, 2013

 

We hear many, when referring to the Old Calendarists, using the term "canonicity." When the New Calendarists speak about a return to canonicity, they mean the acceptance and subordination to their innovating Church. Indeed, many who have broken away, both from the New and the Old Calendar, have fallen into this trap, thinking that the Synod of the state Church is canonical and the Synods of the G.O.C. are uncanonical. Many, from the New Calendar, go even further and question even the validity of the Mysteries performed by Orthodox clergy of the Old Calendar (we will discuss the heretical view on the loss of Divine Grace in another article).

The researcher of the history of the Church of Greece will observe that it abounds in uncanonical acts. And, passing over the 19th century, both with the "Autocephaly," granted by the Bavarians and Pharmakidis, which rendered the Church of Greece potentially schismatic against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which it was uncanonically severed (1833-1850), and with the dozens of simoniacal, scandalous ordinations of bishops, we arrive at the 20th century, where we observe the following:

1918: Meletios Metaxakis is UNCANONICALLY appointed Metropolitan of Athens by an "Aristindin Synod" – an Aristindin ["according to merit"] Synod is one in which its members are arbitrarily chosen by the State, a practice foreign to Orthodoxy – using secular power (the Venizelist government later imposed him as Patriarch of Constantinople), in violation of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council.

1923: Chrysostomos Papadopoulos is UNCANONICALLY appointed Metropolitan of Athens by a five-member "Aristindin Synod" with three votes, despite serious accusations pending against him.

1938: Chrysanthos Filippidis is UNCANONICALLY appointed Archbishop of Athens instead of Damaskinos Papandreou, who had received the majority with 31 votes against 30. The Metaxas dictatorship, considering Damaskinos to be Venizelist, orchestrates his replacement by reinstating the institution of the Aristindin Synod, which elects Chrysanthos.

1941: Damaskinos Papandreou is UNCANONICALLY appointed Archbishop of Athens, as a "Greater Aristindin Synod," with the blessings of the occupation government and the Germans, grants him the archiepiscopal throne, a decision that Chrysanthos does not recognize. Thus, essentially from 1941 until 1946—when Chrysanthos submitted his resignation—there were two Archbishops of Athens in the state Church!

After the persecutor, the new Nero, Spyridon Vlachos (1949-1956), the calm Dorotheos Kottaras (1956-1957), the involved—he transferred his main supporters who had voted for him to wealthier episcopal thrones—Theoklitos Panayiotopoulos (1957-1962), the morally questionable Iakovos Vavanatsos (13/1/1962 - 25/1/1962), and the—bright exception!—conservative Chrysostomos Chatzistavrou (1962-1968), we arrive at...

1967: Ieronymos Kotsonis is UNCANONICALLY appointed Archbishop of Athens—while Chrysostomos Chatzistavrou was still alive—by an eight-member "Aristindin Synod" (all eight being enemies of Chrysostomos), reinstated by the Junta's Mandatory Law 3/1967.

1974: Seraphim Tikas is UNCANONICALLY appointed Archbishop of Athens by an "Aristindin Synod," and later proceeded to depose dissenting bishops.

Are the things I write above just Old Calendarist fantasies? Let the late Ambrosios of Eleftheroupolis speak, one of the most honest hierarchs of the New Calendarist Church. We present excerpts from his speech before the Aristindin Synod of 1974 (published in "Orthodoxos Typos" in issues 202 and 203):

I REFUSE to participate in the election for reasons of conscience.

This Synod is uncanonical, as not all bishops of the Church of Greece are participating...

The holy Canons desire and demand that the Primate of each Church be elected by all the Bishops and not by a portion of them...

I ask you, holy Brothers: Are we truly and absolutely canonical? Do we possess spotless canonicity? I answer with a loud voice: NO, NO, NO! We too are uncanonical, first, because we all carry within ourselves the ancestral sin of uncanonicity, as we have all, directly or indirectly, come from the hierarchy created by the uncanonical five-member Aristindin Synod of 1922, which elected Archbishop Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, and that with only three votes... second, because in the present Synod there are hierarchs elected by the Aristindin Synod of Archbishop Damaskinos... third, because nearly half of the members of the present Synod are accomplices in what happened after 1967... fourth, because all or at least the overwhelming majority of the members of this Synod received ordination as Deacon or Presbyter, or both, at an age younger than that specified by the holy Canons...

I repeat the words of my telegrams: "In the Church of Greece, no Hierarch will be found pure from the stain of uncanonicity" and "If You, Lord, observe uncanonicity in us, Lord, Lord, who shall stand...?" It was aptly written the other day in a daily newspaper of Athens, that if the State wishes to find Bishops of impeccable canonicity to elect the new Archbishop, there is only one solution: To ask God to send the 12 Apostles back to earth again!

Let those who speak of the uncanonical actions of the Synods of the Old Calendar keep this in mind, actions which all Orthodox of the Old Calendar know and condemn, except of course for a few who consider their Synod to be the only "Canonical" Church, thus copying the same doctrine taught by the state Church, either because they are completely ignorant of ecclesiological matters or because they harbor ambitions for power.

 

We therefore hope that after this article, the mouths of the clerical accusers will be shut once and for all, those who dare to speak of the uncanonicity of the G.O.C., implying that they lack Divine Grace and that they are supposedly outside the Church.

And once that happens, let us all ask ourselves whether at least in matters of doctrine we are in the right, or if we knowingly commune with the ecumenists of all sects and those who commune with them.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2013/07/blog-post_2103.html

Friday, February 28, 2025

The Former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, as a man

Dionysios M. Batistatos

 

It is very difficult for one to forget a figure like that of Metropolitan Chrysostomos. He has imposed himself upon the souls of those who knew him and has left an indelible mark of his personality upon them.

But where lies the foundation of this power, and what is the source of this man’s brilliant radiance? His education was multifaceted and distinguished by its depth. Those who were fortunate enough to hear his sermons or study his works can attest that Metropolitan Chrysostomos had succeeded in uniting into an organic whole the depth of thought, the loftiness of concepts, the grace of speech, and the simplicity of expression. For Chrysostomos, education was not merely a collection of greater or lesser knowledge, arranged like books in a rich library. Rather, it was the spiritual framework of a life disciplined by the hierarchy of values, drawing its vital essence from the inexhaustible and unfathomable depths of the intellect—an intellect, however, illuminated by the unfading majesty of Christianity!

And for this very reason, from the overall demeanor of the ever-memorable Elder, that affected elegance of the "educated" was absent, which makes them repulsive due to their petty pedantries and dreadful due to their arrogance stemming from "education."

The unforgettable Bishop had transmuted all his vast and multifaceted education into a unique and ideal humanity.

And this precisely constitutes the distinctive seal of his personality. Metropolitan Chrysostomos was a man, "in the image and likeness" of the most perfect model.

A man! How difficult it is to be a man! The departed granted society this possibility and alleviated a vast circle with his noble humanity.

But let us examine some details of that sublime humanity, some aspects of that holy soul, as many as his profound humility allowed us to admire.

Simplicity! Whether he was serving the Divine Liturgy, speaking, or engaging in conversation, he was distinguished by the crown of humanistic virtues—simplicity. I remember him on his quaint little couch in his home in Kypseli, wearing his monastic cap. Merely seeing that holy Elder filled my soul with spiritual satisfaction. He would listen to you—indeed, he would listen with attention, with interest. And he did this not out of "condescension" toward your spiritual poverty, but out of humanitarian understanding, out of sincere respect for man, for any man!

He did not try to sway you to his opinion because he did not consider you inferior to him. He spoke to you with that majestic democratic simplicity that springs from true spiritual aristocracy and left you free to take your own stance.

I remember that one Pascha, I had intended to go to Mount Athos to celebrate there. So, one day during Palm Sunday, the holy and youthful in spiritual strength Elder called me to his office, and the following dialogue, approximately, took place between us.

- I have heard that you intend to go to Mount Athos!

- Indeed.

- Will you allow me to share my opinion with you, and then you may decide as you see fit?

- I would be glad to hear it, Your Eminence.

- Pascha is a feast of family joy. Your wife did not marry you merely to secure her livelihood and the benefits of your work; she has the moral and just expectation to share with you the holy days of Christian feasts. This, above all, constitutes the bond of marriage.

Do not rely on her consent to wrong a noble woman, and do not accumulate clouds in the sky of your family life. Besides this, you also have an obligation toward the congregations, who during these days expect a sermon from the laborers of the Church.

Let us not seek what pleases us, but rather what is required.

- Your Eminence, I am willing to carry out your command.

- I beg you, I do not give commands; I simply express my opinion, and you are free to decide.

We have presented this dialogue to highlight his greatness as a person. He was not a "despot" with "demands" and "expectations"; for this reason, he did not attempt to impose upon others—yet, strangely, he persuaded them!

Despite his educational and moral superiority, he did not live that sinful experience of distancing himself from other mortals. In other words, he did not consider himself superior to anyone, neither in knowledge nor in morality. And although he was a pure and undefiled nature, he was not marked by the weakness of such natures—egoism. Why? Because he was a man!

He never wished to comment on grammatical, syntactical, or expressive errors of his subordinates, nor to satirize their shortcomings with biting remarks. Whenever he noticed mistakes, if they did not alter the meaning of the text, he would leave them be so as not to offend his collaborator. If, however, they did change the meaning, he would strive to guide the person toward discovering the error themselves, so that it would not appear as though he were correcting them.

He submitted various documents and works of his to the judgment of others, even those less educated and knowledgeable than himself, not out of a vain display of humility, but out of a sincere appreciation for the judgment of his fellow men.

He never spoke unfavorably about anyone for any shortcoming.

This inner humanitarian disposition was reflected in his face with the sweetest affability. A pure smile blossomed on his lips, and his overall countenance inspired respect without instilling fear. Poor, because he always stood above material wealth, he did not refuse to provide material relief to those in need.

He respected the conscience of his fellow men; for this reason, he remained vigilant even over the smallest details of his life, so as not to cause scandal to even the least among them.

Once, he traveled to Aegina, to a small monastery. In the room that was given to him for rest, there was an extra bed and a pair of slippers. He requested that these items be removed from the room. Why? Because he was a man, and he respected the conscience of his fellow men.

Those who were in any way connected with him should be considered fortunate. And this boast is undoubtedly the noblest title of honor for their lives.

And this is because the holy former Metropolitan of Florina was not only the virtuous Hierarch, the profoundly wise intellectual, the most eloquent orator, the pure saint, the indomitable fighter; but above all, he was a man. And such men are phenomena that escape the principle of frequency. Such a phenomenon of a man was he who survives in our souls as an idea and a symbol, soaring among us as an immortal and blessed soul—the ever-memorable President of the Church of the G.O.C., Chrysostomos.

Who knows when humanity will encounter such a phenomenon again!

The lament of the paralytic is also the lament of society: "Lord, I have no man."

And this lament will now emerge even heavier from the hearts of those who knew him, for the loss of "the man" makes the reality of the absence of true men even harsher!

 

Source: Η Φωνή της Ορθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], September 12, 1955.

Online: https://metemorfothis.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post_61.html

 

Sermon of Praise for our Father among the Saints, St. Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch

By St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople Note: this is the only Patristic source I have come across which praises those who f...