The Monastic Life: In Response to a Modernist Abbot’s Observations (1989)

by Bishop Chrysostomos [of Etna, +2019]

 

 

Hieromonk Laurence, Abbot of the Monastery of New Skete, a former Byzantine Catholic monastic institution now under the jurisdiction of the modernist Orthodox Church in America, presented the readers of the Greek Orthodox Theological Review with some surprising comments about Orthodox monasticism in his article, "Orthodox Monasticism Today: Some Reflections," which appeared in the Fall issue for 1987 (vol. 32, no. 3). His article is the text of an address delivered, along with other talks on the subject of Orthodox monasticism, at a conference held on the campus of the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. It is my understanding that the texts of the other addresses presented will also appear in the pages of The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, and I am certain that they will both challenge and take exception to much of what Abbot Laurence has written. I, however, would like to direct a few words of guidance to the readers of this article from the perspective of a rather strict and traditional monastic, hoping that my comments will counteract some of the erroneous notions that its author puts forth.

I will begin my few comments by noting that it is neither my business nor my intention to judge the monastic life of Abbot Laurence. I neither know him nor much of the monastic community which he leads. I wish simply to address myself to certain misunderstandings in what he writes of the Orthodox monastic life, allowing that these may not, in fact, affect his personal spiritual life, which again is unknown to me and not properly my concern. I am concerned here about the effect of his misunderstandings on those who might be misled by them in their understanding of the traditional form of monasticism which has survived through the ages in the Orthodox Church. Too often, today, the failures or foibles of monastics are put forth with fervor before the body of believers, while the far greater number of successful and dedicated monastics fade into oblivion. The monk who falls to the flesh, for example, is of greater interest —and far better known— than the countless number of his brothers who conquer the flesh. In such an atmosphere, the kinds of misunderstandings that we find in Father Laurence's comments about Orthodox monasticism are particularly harmful to the Faithful.

There are many things in the Abbot's article which are worthy of note. I will not comment on these. Rather, I will comment on a specific paragraph in the article, reproduced below, which seems to represent and summarize the misunderstandings of monasticism to which I have referred. He writes:

Throughout the Church, whether here or abroad, monastic life is imprisoned by nominalism and reductionism not unlike the trap that ensnares so much Protestantism through its literalism and fundamentalism. The spiritual life encouraged and practiced is itself a form of idolatry: the Jesus prayer is flaunted along with prayer ropes, and this is passed off as hesychasm. Monks and nuns are perpetually concerned with what they will or will not eat, what they will wear, and what typikon they will follow, but little concern seems to be spent on how they will save their souls. Our clothing has long enjoyed a life of its own, disproving the age-old dictum that the habit doesn't make the monk. Though we notice that some of those who love to parade in monastic garb do not hesitate at times to exchange this garb for the most fashionable of street clothes and jewelry to be worn in all kinds of non-monastic settings. Others are into all kinds of extreme ascetic practices such as minimum sleep and nourishment, and these extraordinary and stressful conditions bring on hallucinatory reactions that we then proceed to label as mystical experiences of God and his saints. The whole of life is more and more a matter of externals and superstitions we are unwilling to part with.

Now, I have visited or lived in monasteries in the United States, Greece, Romania, Serbia, Great Britain, France, and Bulgaria —all Orthodox institutions, and many ancient. Some I found healthy and flourishing. Others I found lax and apparently moribund. In some I found remarkable human beings. In some I found simple, but pious believers. In some I found individuals so free of common sin that one could rightly call them "angels on earth." In others I found repentant sinners, some repenting even of the most serious falls from their monastic vows, yet angelic in their obvious desire to be lifted above the clay and mire in which they had wallowed. Indeed, I have probably seen more monasteries and met more monastics than most. In all of these travels, "whether here or abroad," I know of almost no instances in which I encountered literalism and fundamentalism, if only because the very commitment to Orthodox monasticism is a commitment to the philosophical life —and to a philosophical life sophisticated enough not to equate the technical philosophies of "nominalism" and "reductionism" with "literalism" and "fundamentalism," an equation which is both superficial and incorrect.

Most Orthodox monasticism is centered on the Prayer of Jesus. As the Fathers tell us, this prayer is a "Gospel in miniature." The extent to which its use or even misuse, for that matter, borders on idolatry is indeed in the eye of the observer. And the critical factor of differentiation in that observer's eye is most certainly his understanding of the Gospel message. Basic kerygma begins in the Gospels, and their exhortation rises, according to Orthodox teaching, above the power of the letter and touches the spirit. If we accept this understanding, the Prayer of Jesus touches the heart, activates it, and transforms it; and this not by intellectual perception alone, not by the power of intuitive faculties alone, but within the very power of the Christ, Who is the Gospel in form and in flesh. This understanding assuredly has not the remotest connections with nominalism, nor is it literalistic or reductionist. And to be sure, it is not idolatrous, unless one means by idolatry something foreign to the lexicon of the Fathers and of the Christian message.

That the use of the prayer rope in reciting the Prayer of Jesus is not hesy chasm hardly needs saying. In fact, the accusation shows a serious misunderstanding of the nexus between praxis and theoria and a gross misunderstanding of the levels of growth by which something elementary is elevated to something profound and spontaneous. An ascent in the spirit begins with some mundane and seemingly external actions, just as flight begins with activity tied to the ground. It is not within the realm of the fair and objective to make light of beginnings by pointing out that they lack the qualities of ends. Nor can one judge the inner life of even the most apparently inexperienced monastic by observing how he uses or misuses the prayer rope. Spiritual life is always hidden and always rises above such casual criteria.

Most monastics are imitators of Christ. Like Christ, they fast. Like Christ, they live the life of poverty, both in what they wear and what they possess. They do, therefore, spend time thinking about food and clothing, but this in the strange sense of thinking how best not to think of these. They are careful not to eat that which invites gluttony or attachment to food, but to partake of the "daily bread" that provides for sustenance. They are worried about clothing that might move them away from the hem of the Savior's garment, which we all touch, entreating Christ to clothe them in His righteousness. And all of this monastics do for the very purpose of salvation. It is precisely the search for salvation which prompts them to be concerned about such things.

As Christ was obedient, so, too, the monastic is obedient. While some converts enter into the Orthodox monastic life wishing to reform the services and to discard this or that "typikon," most Orthodox monastics follow the typikon of their monastic superiors, linking themselves to an ongoing succession of spiritual power that affects, indeed, the roots of salvation itself. Fidelity to a typikon and care for its preservation should not, therefore, be mistaken as something other than a concern for salvation or, at least, the path towards salvation. Rather, one should fear those who misunderstand this kind of obedience and who bring into the Church a spirit of reform and a concern for "relevance" —things engendered by a pitiable lack of experience with the living power that is transmitted through care for the typika, or paths, on which our forefathers have walked to Paradise.

The Canons of the Church forbid clergy to adorn themselves, allowing even for the excommunication of those who style their hair, wear rich silk garments, or shave their faces for the purpose of looking better or more stylish. The austere garb which Canons appoint to nuns and monks is designed, likewise, to avoid vanity and worldliness. It may be that some monastics dress up in their habits in order to impress others, and then sport the dress of stylish laymen in various non-monastic settings. If this is so, these "monastics" have failed to comprehend the meaning of the habit. We wear simple black clothing to pronounce that we are dead to the world and to its notions of fashion. We cover ourselves completely to obscure the fallen body and to take on the purity and dignity appropriate to our bodies when they are kept pure and unspotted. The very purpose of our habits is to keep us away from non-monastic settings. To deride the habit, then, because some misuse it is not a very logical thing, unless such derision is meant somehow, in a bit of chicanery which is unbecoming good Christians, to condemn something worthy by emphasizing its unworthy misuse. We true monastics walk, talk, eat, and sleep in our habits, never remove them, and use them to safeguard our being in "non-monastic settings." Our clothes thus make us. They make us careful, wary, cautious, and continuously aware of our calling.

Too much sleep and too much nourishment lead to lethargy, poor health, and inattention to things spiritual. So the Fathers teach us. Fasting and a life which limits sleep to that absolutely necessary for the regeneration of the body lead to a state of spiritual watchfulness and attentiveness. So the Fathers teach us. Modern psychology tells us that excessive amounts of sleep lead to mental inactivity. Modern medicine teaches us that excessive food leads to many diseases, such as cancer and heart ailments. All of this is consistent with the teachings of the Fathers. Modern psychology tells us that excessive sleep deprivation leads to mental disorientation. The Fathers teach that it leads to spiritual delusion. Modern medicine tells us that states of near starvation can evoke hallucinations. The Fathers warn spiritual aspirants, and especially neophytes, that excessive fasting can lead to fantasies. Modern psychology and medicine and the teachings of the Fathers, therefore, are in full accord. They do not disagree. How, then, can one seriously consider the accusation that the control of food and sleep suggested by the Fathers of the Church is naive and leads to hallucinations? The Fathers of the Church teach just what modern medicine does: that too little or too much sleep, and that too little or too much food are dangerous. In his accusations against traditional monastic practice, Father Laurence reveals a deep misunderstanding of real Orthodox monastic practice and a rather sorry lack of reading in the ascetic literature of the Church. His mistake leads to a statement about hesychasm which is unfounded and so provocative, that we might just leave the matter where it is.

Orthodox monastic life involves a system which contemporary psychologists call a "feedback loop." By attention to externals, we affect internals; and by the restored internal state, external attributes are affected. Endlessly linked to one another, internals and externals interact with one another to the point that they are no longer separate. The humble spirit manifests itself in the humble face; the sweet countenance in the sweetness of spirit; and the contrite heart within a contrite act. Grace brings what is inside out and what is outside in. Grace molds, blends, and transforms. And if to the naive and unseeing spirit this seems to be a process that rises out of superstition, then it is the kind of superstition that makes planes fly and radios speak.

With all due respect to Abbot Laurence, there are those of us who hold to Orthodox monasticism as a greedy man holds to a rich gem. We know its worth. We have scratched it across the glass of life, and it has made a deep and lasting imprint. We will not let it go, for, to quote the monk Evagrios, it is a "sweet life." We can only lament the bitterness of those who fail to know that sweetness. I would call the Faithful to join in that lamentation and to resist being pulled away into doubt or misbelief about the monastic life by those who improperly understand it.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VI (1989), No. 4, p. 4.

A New Orthodoxy: Is this the Faith of our Fathers? (1989)

The Orthodox Church professes to preserve the Faith of the Apostolic Church. Wherever a right-believing Bishop with Apostolic Succession walks in the spiritual footsteps of the Fathers, there the whole Church of Christ is. Wherever there are those loyal to the rock of St. Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of the living God, there Orthodoxy is. And wherever the traditions of the Church and the Fathers are guarded faithfully, as St. Paul enjoins us to do, there we find our Faith. Spiritual succession, the living Faith of the Saints, the unity of God-inspired liturgical and spiritual traditions, the oneness of witness in Orthodox Baptism and Communion—these express our Faith.

But now we find, especially in America and Western Europe, a new kind of Orthodoxy, based on innovation, neo-papist notions of "officialdom," sophomoric criticism of the Fathers and of the Church's liturgical practices, and a relativism that places fidelity to the humanistic dictates of ecumenism above the dictates of the Christian conscience.

We are seeing inadequately converted clergymen and scholars create, in the midst of several modernist jurisdictions, a "church" which is far from that of the Fathers. This new Orthodoxy has manifested itself in two forms. On the one hand, there is a would-be "intellectual" trend in modernist circles, replacing the pious study of the Fathers that marks true theology in the Orthodox Church with the traditions of textual criticism, often marked by a snide spirit of doubt and impiety unknown to Orthodox spirituality. The expertise of Latin scholarship is often exalted over that of pious Orthodox theologians—"the superstitions of simple-minded Greeks," as one seminary professor recently remarked. So it is that another seminary instructor in a modernist jurisdiction beset by this spirit of unedifying disdain for Orthodox tradition began a course on liturgics with the incredible comment: "Now we will see how the Liturgy came into its present decrepit state...."

It is no wonder that these same "intellectuals" clamor to create a monasticism which is unrecognizable to us traditional Orthodox, compromised as it is by innovation, a spirituality of the brain, not the heart, and by a minimalism that dismisses traditional Orthodox asceticism with unwise talk about its abuses, rather than its centuries of triumphs —a monasticism of communal romanticism and social service lived, at times, by unbalanced individuals more to be pitied than emulated. No wonder, too, that such intellectual circles have created a "reformed" Liturgy derived from the data of historical research rather than the living, organic witness of a Liturgy wholly adequate to those truly immersed in the spiritual life which has formed it.

On the other hand, we are seeing the humble and self-effacing example of our Saints swept aside by the pompous and bombastic egotism of Bible-thumping "evangelists," who have come into various modernist jurisdictions with an understanding of traditional Orthodox piety so minimal that one blushes in thinking about it. The rubrics of pop-psychology and the tactics of the "Jesus freaks" of the 1960s are now openly preached in the name of the Orthodox Church, at times with arrogant denunciations of the ethnics and" backward" traditionalists into whose Church these misguided individuals have entered by the back door. Gone for them is the sure guidance of spiritual principles based on centuries of spiritual experience—Holy Tradition.

One would, of course, delight at the thought of a true Patristic revival in the Orthodox Church, a truly intellectual movement towards the brilliant body of wisdom contained in the Fathers. We desperately need such a thing. But such a movement must be based in true scholarship, not on snide commentaries gleaned from secondary (and usually non-Orthodox) materials by those who can only minimally read the Fathers in the original anyway. And certainly such a movement cannot divorce a study of the Fathers from traditional piety, from profound awe for what they have passed down to us, including the Divine Liturgy in its present form, and for the common civility which should mark true scholars, one aspect of which is respect for our Church Fathers and for our elders in the Faith.

One could also do nothing more than shout for joy at the return of Protestant evangelicals to the Orthodox Faith. Sincere evangelicals, deeply rooted in a Biblical Christianity and a respect for moral rectitude —how could they do anything but fulfill their Faith and adorn our Church by returning to Orthodoxy? But such Christians are a far cry from the cigar-smoking, tract-distributing purveyors of the "religious product" who now wish to use Orthodoxy to "evangelize" America. Real evangelicals would truly understand the need for self-perfection as a path to evangelization. And certainly they would have entered into the Church, not through innovation and "deals," but through humble submission to the traditions of the Church—including Orthodox Baptism, which is required for entry into the Eastern Church, save in rare and individual cases.

In seeing all that this new Orthodoxy is, as well as what it is not, one is prompted to ask: "Indeed, is this the Faith of our Fathers, the Faith for which many of us have sacrificed, even to the point of shedding our own blood?"

An Inauthentic Witness

The majority of the Orthodox Church is suffering under the yoke of communism and hostile oppression. The modernists—a handful of Orthodox in Western Europe and the Americas (less than 20% of world Orthodoxy) and the products, for the most part, of the calendar reform of the 1920s—, however, enjoy the freedom and wealth of the West. They have used these advantages to establish their minority views, to foster the un-Orthodox innovations which hold forth under the sponsorship of their jurisdictions, and to gain the attention of the press in the New World.

They have effectively disenfranchised the body of True Orthodox. With their money, they have even taken over several, dying ancient Patriarchates, or sought legitimacy from captive Sees anxious to have any voice in the West. Mediocre theologians and Churchmen, more marked by their experience in the corporate boardroom than the cells of monasteries—the traditional training grounds for spiritual leaders—, have spewed forth notions of Orthodoxy that, while perhaps new and intriguing to a naive heterodox audience, smack of the innovative spirit of those who have little careful guidance and experience in the way of life which they purport to teach.

We see converts and former Greek Catholics dismissing traditionalist Orthodox as fanatics and "fringe elements" outside the Church, all the while violating every basic Canon of the Orthodox Church by inviting joint prayer with those who are outside the Church—outside the Church, not by virtue of traditionalist polemics, but by the decrees of the Fathers and Councils who guide our Faith. All of this characterizes this new church: an inauthentic religion rooted in a deviation from genuine tradition and watered, at times, by an unfortunate spirit of arrogance—a church fueled by hostility towards authentic Orthodox tradition; towards the ethnics who have, however perfectly or imperfectly, guarded it, following the apostasy of the West; and towards all that calls Orthodoxy, not to a witness of worldly officialdom, but spiritual succession and honesty.

Sad Consequences

One of the sad consequences of the ascendency of this inauthentic Orthodoxy over True Orthodoxy is that, at a time when Western Christians are increasingly hungry for new spiritual food, they are being offered a proverbial stone in the place of Orthodoxy's Apostolic bread. Inauthentic Orthodoxy is victimizing the hungry West.

Orthodoxy teaches that Christ established one Church and that the Orthodox Church embodies this True Church. There are Mysteries within this Church—Baptism and Ordination among them—which belong only to Her. She is the criterion of truth and within Her lies the fullness of the Christian witness. She is the anchor after which many Western Christians seek.

This new "Orthodoxy," seeking to attain worldly recognition and to give wrong and un-Orthodox beliefs the flavor of Orthodox historical primacy, has changed this teaching. It has, in accord with political ecumenism, begun to declare that the Orthodox Church is not the One, True Church, the criterion of Christianity, but that She, in a spirit of deep love, accepts the sacraments and Christian ways of others. They have made of the Orthodox anchor a sail by which to blow the dinghy of their self-created church here and there, according to the whims of contemporary ecumenism.

Thus it is that the ecumenical movement is more often than not deprived of the witness of True Orthodox—though we emphasize here very clearly that there are yet some traditional voices in the modernist Orthodox Churches and among their representatives in the ecumenical movement, and that the inauthenticity of what these modernists have created certainly has not taken from them Orthodoxy in the canonical and technical sense. In ecumenical meetings, the heterodox inevitably encounter shaved clergy in Roman clerical garb. The witness of the Apostles and Patriarchs embodied by traditional Orthodox garb they see only in Hierarchs, many of whom are represented, not as equals among the many Bishops, but as the equivalents of "Cardinals," "Princes of the Church," and so on. Few ecumenists see Orthodox representatives at their various gatherings refraining from meat and dairy products on Wednesdays and Fridays, and few, to be sure, realize that their steak-eating Orthodox guests, who ignore these canonical prescriptions, are violating the basic spiritual disciplines of the religion they claim to represent.

The ecumenists learn from most of these modernist Orthodox representatives that the traditionalists—a majority—are a minority, overtaken by a spirit of fanaticism and "legalism" incompatible with the ecumenical spirit. Never do they learn that we who hold strongly to the tenets of our Faith do so with a deep yearning for Christian unity and with a deep love for our Christian brothers and sisters outside the Orthodox Church. They do not learn that we hold fast to our Apostolic Faith because we believe that the non-Orthodox will one day return to it, finding in Orthodoxy the fulfillment of their own sincere and honored Christian aspirations. They do not know that our "legalism" is based on honest adherence to our Church's teachings and that our "fanaticism" is nothing more than a fidelity which leads us not to hatred for the non-Orthodox, but to a profound love for them.

Were sincere heterodox ecumenists to hear our voices, they would hear both a stern and a loving note. And they might encounter an Orthodoxy with a power far greater than the inauthentic Orthodoxy which says: "Together with you we will find the Church." Indeed, they might rejoice at the refreshing honesty of an Orthodoxy that says: "We are what you were, and in us you can return to a unity which belongs to all of us, which was never really lost, and that has preserved the Church of the Apostles."

The ecumenical spirit of the Faith of our Fathers is based in honest and uncompromising love, not a love created by inauthenticity and human machinations.

An Impediment to Unity

Another tragic effect of the ascendency of inauthentic Orthodoxy is the separation of Orthodox themselves. What is inauthentic is threatened by the authentic. It strives to obscure the authentic. Thus, the modernist movements have found themselves increasingly separated from True Orthodoxy. Even when they go to such places as Mt. Athos, they seek out those who will tolerate them, not those who can lead them, correct them, and counsel them. If we can stop the course of Orthodox innovation and persuade the innovators to leave their false ways, then we Orthodox can find unity. This demands of us traditionalists both a stern and uncompromising stand and a loving, open attitude. But it demands from the innovators something which they do not have: honesty and humility. They must turn from their errors, admit those errors, and honestly confess that they are not what they should be.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1989, pp. 1-2.

 

Panagiotis Simatis, walled-off theologian (+2023): An Outline and Summary of His Eight-Part Study on the Validity of Mysteries

Σκέψεις για έγκυρα-άκυρα μυστήρια — Reflections on Valid and Invalid Mysteries

(December 1–27, 2018)

Generated by ChatGPT High on 10 October 2026.

 

Having examined all eight essays, I would characterize Simatis's exposition as a historical, patristic, and canonical defense of the validity of Mysteries performed by heretical clergy who have not yet been deprived of their priestly authority by the Church, combined with an uncompromising defense of the faithful's obligation to separate from such clergy.

His argument is directed against two opposing tendencies within contemporary anti-Ecumenism: those who declare the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics automatically invalid, and those who use the validity of those Mysteries to justify continued ecclesiastical communion with the heretics.

Simatis considers both positions contrary to the practice of the ancient Church.

I. The central theological argument

His exposition rests upon five interconnected propositions.

1. Heresy and the loss of priestly authority are not identical events.

A bishop or priest may fall into heresy, even knowingly and obstinately, without thereby automatically losing the authority to celebrate the Mysteries.

The heretic is spiritually alienated from the truth of the Church, but formal exclusion from the priesthood requires an ecclesiastical judgment.

2. The grace operating through the priesthood is distinct from the spiritual condition of the priest.

God can operate through an unworthy minister for the salvation of the faithful, even when that minister has forfeited divine grace in his personal spiritual life through heresy or grave sin.

Simatis draws especially upon St. John Chrysostom and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite.

3. The faithful must separate from heretical shepherds before their synodal condemnation.

The validity of a heretical bishop's Mysteries does not justify receiving Communion from him.

The purpose of separation (ἀποτείχισις) is to preserve the Orthodox Faith, avoid spiritual filement (μολυσμός), and refuse participation in heresy.

4. Validity does not guarantee spiritual benefit.

An objectively valid Mystery may be received unto condemnation by someone who knowingly maintains communion with a heretic.

Consequently, the validity of the Eucharist and its beneficial reception are separate questions.

5. The Church, acting through its competent ecclesiastical authority, removes the priestly authority of condemned heretics.

Simatis repeatedly argues that a Synod's deposition does not merely acknowledge that the minister lost his priesthood at some earlier, indeterminate moment. Rather, the synodal judgment actually deprives him of the authority he previously possessed.

His essential distinction is therefore between the personal spiritual condition of a heretical minister and the continued canonical and sacramental operation of his priestly office pending ecclesiastical judgment.

II. Outline of the eight essays

Part I — The theological foundations: Heresy, priesthood, and sacramental validity

Read Part I — December 1, 2018

Simatis explains that the study originated in disputes among Orthodox Christians who had ceased communion with Ecumenist hierarchs. Some were insisting that all Ecumenists and everyone communicating with them possessed invalid Mysteries.

He questions this reasoning through the hypothetical example of a bishop who secretly embraces heresy.

The bishop's beliefs might remain unknown for many years. Would his Mysteries suddenly become invalid upon the public discovery of his heresy, despite his believing precisely the same doctrines beforehand?

Simatis considers such a conclusion untenable.

He develops his position through several authorities:

• St. John Chrysostom: God operates even through unworthy priests for the sake of the faithful.
• St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: God works through clergy who have not been deposed, but not through those who have been justly deposed.
• The Seventh Ecumenical Council: The reception of clergy ordained by heretics demonstrates that heresy does not necessarily entail automatic loss of priestly authority.
• The iconoclastic controversy: If the Mysteries celebrated under uncondemned iconoclastic clergy were all invalid, the Church would have faced the enormous problem of restoring innumerable Baptisms, Eucharists, and other Mysteries.

Simatis introduces the crucial distinction between μολυσμός and sacramental invalidity.

He argues that heretical teaching and communion with its proponents cause spiritual defilement. Yet the Mysteries themselves are not intrinsically defiled merely because an uncondemned heretical minister celebrates them.

He also considers the differing responsibility of the informed and uninformed faithful.

A believer who unknowingly receives Communion from an uncondemned heretic is not in the same spiritual position as one who knowingly and willingly supports that heresy.

Principal conclusion: Heresy necessitates separation, but sacramental invalidity does not automatically follow from the heresy itself.

Part II — Arius and the early history of the Arian controversy

Read Part II — December 5, 2018

Simatis turns from theological principles to the historical practice of the Church.

His principal example is Arius.

He traces Arius's ecclesiastical career, his earlier association with the Melitian schism, his deposition and restoration, his ordination to the priesthood, and his subsequent propagation of heretical teachings.

The important observation is that Arius was already heretical in his convictions while exercising his priestly ministry.

Simatis then considers the ecclesiastical confusion surrounding Arius and his supporters.

Some bishops condemned Arius, while others defended him, maintained communion with him, or questioned the condemnation.

This produced complicated networks of ecclesiastical communion in which Orthodox bishops sometimes remained in communion with bishops who supported Arius.

Simatis asks whether all these bishops thereby automatically lost their priesthood or whether their Mysteries became invalid.

He finds no basis for such an automatic conclusion.

He also cites St. Alexander of Alexandria's warnings regarding Arius and his defenders.

According to Simatis, Alexander's principal concern was the spread of heretical teaching and the corruption of the faithful, rather than assertions of sacramental invalidity.

Principal conclusion: During the emergence of Arianism, the Church distinguished between condemning heretical teaching, avoiding communion with its proponents, and formally depriving clergy of their priestly authority.

Part III — The First Ecumenical Council and the persistence of Arian bishops

Read Part III — December 7, 2018

The argument proceeds through the Council of Nicaea (325) and its aftermath.

Simatis emphasizes that bishops sympathetic to Arianism participated in the Council and that some accepted its decisions without sincerely abandoning their heretical beliefs.

His examples include Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and other bishops whose subsequent conduct exposed their doctrinal sympathies.

He stresses that the Church did not invariably treat these bishops as men who had already and automatically ceased to possess priesthood.

He then examines their efforts to undermine Orthodox bishops, particularly St. Eustathius of Antioch and St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

The Arian party was able to secure condemnations of Orthodox bishops through ecclesiastical proceedings. Yet the conflict concerned the canonical legitimacy of these proceedings and the doctrines involved, rather than a universal declaration that every Arianizing bishop possessed invalid Mysteries.

Simatis considers this significant because some of these bishops continued exercising ecclesiastical authority despite their doctrinal deviations.

Principal conclusion: The Church's historical treatment of Arianizing bishops demonstrates the importance of formal ecclesiastical judgment and the insufficiency of private declarations of sacramental invalidity.

Part IV — The testimony of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the Arian disputes

Read Part IV — December 8, 2018

This part contains some of the most important documentary material in the entire series.

Simatis temporarily interrupts his account of the Arian controversy to examine the proceedings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787).

He quotes Patriarch Tarasios on the reception of clergy ordained by heretics.

Three examples are particularly important.

Anatolios of Constantinople

Anatolios had been ordained by Dioscorus of Alexandria before the latter's condemnation.

His ordination was accepted by the Church.

The bishops ordained by Monothelite patriarchs

Tarasios observes that bishops ordained by the Monothelite patriarchs Sergios, Pyrrhos, Paul, and Peter participated in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Those patriarchs were condemned, yet the ordinations they had administered were not simply repudiated.

St. Basil the Great's letter to the Nicopolitans

St. Basil rejected the reception of ordinations performed by heretical bishops for the purpose of undermining the Orthodox Faith.

Tarasios, however, distinguished this prohibition from the Church's reception of clergy ordained during periods of doctrinal confusion and later reconciled to Orthodoxy.

Simatis understands this discussion as demonstrating that the Church employed discernment and economia rather than an indiscriminate rule invalidating everything performed by a heretical bishop.

He then resumes the history of Arianism, examining rival synods, competing episcopal appointments, and the contrasting responses of Eastern and Western bishops.

Principal conclusion: The Seventh Ecumenical Council provides positive evidence against the proposition that ordination by an uncondemned heretic must automatically be invalid.

Part V — St. Athanasius, separation from heretical bishops, and the limits of economia

Read Part V — December 13, 2018

Simatis concentrates upon the continuation of the Arian controversy after Nicaea.

His particularly striking example is St. Athanasius's conduct in Antioch.

Athanasius refused ecclesiastical communion with Leontios, the Arianizing bishop of Antioch, and instead communicated with the Orthodox faithful who supported the exiled St. Eustathius and assembled in private houses.

Simatis emphasizes that Athanasius did not need first to demonstrate the invalidity of Leontios's Mysteries.

The bishop's heretical teaching was sufficient reason for separation.

He further examines the Councils of Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople, discussing how Orthodox and Arianizing bishops participated in ecclesiastical proceedings amid great doctrinal confusion.

The essay makes an important practical criticism of contemporary anti-Ecumenists.

Some, according to Simatis, argue that the faithful must be told that Ecumenist Mysteries are invalid, because otherwise they will not consent to cease communion.

Simatis condemns this as dishonest.

He maintains that the faithful should be taught the true patristic reason for separation: the danger of communion with heresy, irrespective of whether the Mysteries are valid.

Principal conclusion: Separation from heretics must be founded upon fidelity to Orthodox doctrine, not upon potentially unfounded assertions about sacramental invalidity.

Part VI — The faithful of Edessa, the deposition of Nestorius, and the authority of Synods

Read Part VI — December 20, 2018

Simatis opens with the example of the Orthodox Christians of Edessa during the reign of the Arian emperor Valens.

When their Orthodox bishop, Barses, was displaced and an Arian bishop, Loukos, was imposed, the faithful refused communion with the intruder.

They assembled elsewhere despite threats of persecution.

Simatis recounts the courage of a mother who willingly brought her infant child to the Orthodox gathering despite the danger of violence.

The lesson is that the faithful considered preservation of the Orthodox Faith more important than convenient access to church buildings or sacramental services.

He then moves to the Third Ecumenical Council (431) and its condemnation of Nestorius.

This section is particularly important for Simatis's understanding of priesthood.

He interprets the deposition of Nestorius as the Church's actual removal of episcopal authority.

He discusses several canons of the Third Ecumenical Council, especially Canons 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, together with St. Nicodemus's explanations.

Simatis argues that the Church's formal condemnation deprives heretics of ecclesiastical authority and that the mere existence of heretical convictions does not produce that effect automatically.

He also distinguishes between heretics who have separated into bodies outside the Church and those who continue to occupy ecclesiastical offices without having been synodally deposed.

Principal conclusion: The faithful must resist heretical clergy immediately, while the deprivation of priestly authority belongs to the Church's canonical judgment.

Part VII — Anthimos of Constantinople, Pope Agapetus, and the Synod of 536

Read Part VII — December 22, 2018

Simatis examines the Monophysite controversy surrounding Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople.

Anthimos supported Monophysite teaching, although the relevant doctrines had already been condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Nevertheless, he continued occupying the patriarchal throne until ecclesiastical action was taken against him.

Simatis considers this an especially significant parallel to contemporary Ecumenist hierarchs.

The Constantinopolitan monks opposed Anthimos, refused to accept his doctrinal position, and appealed for his removal.

Pope Agapetus refused ecclesiastical communion with Anthimos and intervened against him.

After Agapetus's death, the Synod under Patriarch Menas examined the matter further and confirmed the condemnation.

Simatis emphasizes the distinction between the monks' rejection of the heretic and the formal ecclesiastical proceedings that deprived him of his position and priestly authority.

He also discusses the condemnation of Severus of Antioch and related proceedings.

A particularly interesting example concerns the Orthodox people demanding a public confession of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and the condemnation of Severus before resuming communion.

Their demand concerned the defense of the Faith and the rejection of heresy, not a demand to establish that all previous Mysteries were invalid.

Principal conclusion: Even when a bishop embraces an already condemned heresy, the Church's historical practice includes personal examination, demands for repentance, and formal condemnation, rather than assuming that every canonical consequence has automatically occurred.

Part VIII — Chalcedon, the Three Chapters, ecclesiastical judgment, and authentic economia

Read Part VIII — December 27, 2018

The final installment supplied contains several interconnected historical examples.

Dioscorus of Alexandria

Simatis notes that the Fourth Ecumenical Council dealt with Dioscorus as a bishop subject to judgment before formally condemning him.

For Simatis, this distinguishes doctrinal guilt from the canonical deprivation of episcopal authority.

Theodoretos of Cyrus

Theodoretos had been condemned by the Robber Council of 449.

The Council of Chalcedon subsequently examined his case and restored him after he explicitly anathematized Nestorius.

Simatis uses the episode to illustrate the importance of synodal examination, confession of faith, and ecclesiastical restoration.

Bassianos and Stephanos

He discusses the dispute over the episcopal see of Ephesus and Chalcedon's decision to distinguish possession of the episcopal dignity from the right to occupy a particular episcopal throne.

Again, the point concerns ecclesiastical authority and the distinction between possessing priesthood and exercising a particular jurisdiction.

The Three Chapters and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Simatis then turns to the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553).

He describes the Church's efforts to address the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the controversy surrounding Nestorianism, and the use of pastoral economia by Saints Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople.

The purpose of such economia was the reconciliation of the erring and the safeguarding of ecclesiastical peace without surrendering the Orthodox Faith.

Finally, Simatis discusses Pope Vigilius and his conduct during the controversy.

He again maintains that a bishop may alienate himself spiritually from the Church through heresy while continuing to possess ecclesiastical office until the Church acts against him.

Principal conclusion: The Ecumenical Councils combined doctrinal firmness with canonical procedures, personal examination, and pastoral economia, instead of treating sacramental authority as automatically extinguished whenever heresy appeared.

III. The principal distinctions running throughout the study

The following table summarizes Simatis's ecclesiological position.

Question	Simatis's answer
Is an uncondemned bishop who publicly preaches heresy genuinely heretical?	Yes. His heresy does not depend upon a future synodal declaration.
Is he therefore automatically deprived of the authority to celebrate the Mysteries?	No.
Are his Mysteries valid before deposition?	Simatis argues that they remain valid.
Does their validity justify receiving Communion from him?	Absolutely not.
Can a valid Mystery be received unto condemnation?	Yes, particularly through conscious communion with heresy.
Does communion with an uncondemned heretic automatically invalidate another bishop's Mysteries?	No. Simatis rejects such automatic consequences.
What is the principal danger of communion with heretics?	Spiritual defilement through communion with their heresy and complicity in its propagation.
What should the faithful do before a Synod condemns the heretic?	Cease ecclesiastical communion with him and uphold the Orthodox Faith.
Who has authority to depose a heretical bishop?	The competent ecclesiastical authority, particularly a lawful Synod.
May economia be employed?	Yes, for genuine pastoral purposes, but not as a justification for compromising the Faith.

 

IV. His conception of the Church and heretical clergy

One of the most interesting features of Simatis's argument is his treatment of the apparent contradiction between describing a heretical bishop as outside the Church and recognizing his continuing priestly authority.

His solution is to distinguish two aspects of the bishop's condition.

First, in relation to the truth of the Faith, the bishop has alienated himself from the Church. Simatis acknowledges the patristic teaching that those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ.

Second, in relation to his existing ecclesiastical office, the bishop remains subject to the Church's authority and has not necessarily lost the sacramental powers conferred through ordination.

Simatis employs the analogy of a diseased or rotten member.

A diseased member can still belong to the organism until it is removed. In his presentation, the process of ecclesiastical judgment determines and effects the canonical exclusion of the offending minister.

This helps explain his repeated appeal to the language of removing a bishop from his priestly office: he argues that an authority must still exist if it is subsequently to be taken away.

The resulting distinction may be expressed as follows:

• Doctrinally and spiritually: The persistent heretic has separated himself from the truth.
• Canonically and sacramentally: The Church has not necessarily deprived him of the priestly authority he previously received.
• Practically: The Orthodox faithful must avoid communion with him even before the Church has formally deposed him.

These three propositions are not contradictory in Simatis's framework. They constitute its foundation.

V. His understanding of spiritual defilement

Simatis's treatment of μολυσμός is particularly significant.

He rejects the assumption that spiritual defilement necessarily means that the Eucharistic elements have ceased to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

He instead identifies several interrelated dangers.

Heresy defiles through false teaching. Ecclesiastical communion with a heretical shepherd constitutes participation in, or at least a failure to resist, his heresy. Conscious reception of Holy Communion from such a shepherd may then become an occasion of divine judgment.

Thus, he distinguishes between the objective celebration of the Mystery and its spiritual effect upon the recipient.

The most important consequence is that a valid Eucharist can be spiritually harmful to someone who deliberately receives it in circumstances involving conscious betrayal of the Orthodox Faith.

This explains why he does not regard sacramental validity as an argument for remaining in communion with Ecumenist hierarchs.

Indeed, he considers that reasoning particularly dangerous.

VI. His understanding of economia

Another distinction requires attention.

Simatis does not reject ecclesiastical economia as such. He repeatedly adduces examples of legitimate economia in the ancient Church.

Nevertheless, he opposes what he regards as the misuse of economia to justify prolonged communion with publicly heretical hierarchs.

For him, authentic economia must have a definite ecclesiastical purpose: the salvation of the faithful, the restoration of the erring, and the preservation of the Church's unity in the truth.

He recognizes pastoral accommodation in the reception of clergy ordained during heretical disturbances, temporary restraint in personal condemnations, and patience intended to facilitate repentance.

But he objects to invoking economia as a reason to remain indefinitely in communion with those who openly propagate heresy.

This produces an important twofold position:

The validity of an uncondemned heretic's Mysteries is not itself an economia. Simatis presents it as the consequence of the continued existence of priestly authority before deposition.

The exercise of pastoral discretion in dealing with heretical clergy and their followers, however, may involve economia.

He considers the failure to distinguish these questions responsible for much of the contemporary confusion.

VII. The strongest features of his argument—and its interpretive limits

In my assessment, three elements are especially important.

First, Simatis supports his position with concrete instances from the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils, not merely with generalized statements about heretics. His discussions of Anatolios, the Monothelite ordinations, and Patriarch Tarasios are particularly substantial.

Second, he refuses to conflate the personal spiritual condition of a cleric with the objective operation of the priestly office. His citations from Chrysostom and Nicodemus form the theological foundation for that distinction.

Third, he rejects the false dilemma that one must either recognize valid Mysteries and remain in communion or reject communion and necessarily declare the Mysteries invalid.

There are, nevertheless, interpretive questions that would require closer canonical examination if one wished to establish his thesis conclusively.

For example, the Church's reception of ordinations performed by heretics does not, by itself, settle every question about the sacramental status of such ordinations prior to reconciliation. The relationship between sacramental validity, canonical recognition, and economia needs careful treatment.

Likewise, his frequent argument from the absence of historical declarations of invalidity is significant but not independently conclusive. Silence in the surviving record does not always establish a positive doctrinal judgment.

These considerations do not negate his argument. They identify the points at which his historical evidence would need to be assessed most closely.

VIII. Overall synthesis

Simatis's central conclusion can be summarized in one paragraph:

The Orthodox faithful must immediately reject heresy and cease ecclesiastical communion with bishops and priests who openly profess it, regardless of whether those clergy have been formally condemned. Their separation is necessary because communion with heresy compromises the Orthodox Faith, not because the Mysteries celebrated by uncondemned heretics must automatically be invalid. A heretical minister may remain in possession of the sacramental authority conferred through ordination until the Church deprives him of that authority through canonical judgment. Consequently, the faithful must neither use the continuing validity of the Mysteries as an excuse for communion with heretics nor usurp the Church's judicial authority by making private declarations of sacramental invalidity.

One final bibliographical observation: Simatis states in Part I that his study is incomplete and invites further theological investigation. Moreover, Part VIII ends with Συνεχίζεται (To be continued). Thus, the eight installments should be understood as an unfinished exposition rather than a fully completed theological treatise.

The distinctive feature of Simatis's work is that he attempts to preserve simultaneously the reality of sacramental grace, the necessity of Orthodox confession, and the canonical authority of the Church—without allowing any one of these principles to cancel the others.

 

How Can the Faithful Free Themselves from the Old, Fallen Man?

Archimandrite George Kapsanis (+2014),

Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Venerable Gregory, Mount Athos

 

 

We all feel that we bear the traces of the old man. His principal characteristic is self-love, that is, the unhealthy, egocentric “love” of ourselves. Self-love prevents us from truly and selflessly loving God and our fellow man. From self-love the passions are born.

Being subject to the passions, as we are, we cannot relate to other human persons and to things without passion. Our relationships become passionate and selfish, preventing us from truly enjoying our fellow human beings and the other good things of this world. This ultimately leads us to loneliness, emptiness, and a dead end.

Therefore, when we speak of the old man, we mean the unhealthy egocentrism from which all of us suffer, some to a lesser and others to a greater degree.

How can we free ourselves from this serious spiritual illness that poisons our entire existence?

Only someone free from this illness could become our physician. Only a new man could give us, too, the possibility of overcoming the illness of the old man and becoming new men ourselves.

We all know that this new man is the God-Man, our Saviour Christ, who, according to Scripture, “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”

Out of His infinite love for us, Jesus Christ offers Himself to us so that we may be united with Him and thus receive His own new life.

Through Holy Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion, we are incorporated into the Body of Christ and given life by Christ.

Every Christian who participates in the life of Christ, within His Body, which is the Church, has received, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the seeds of new life. He must, however, also struggle to be cleansed ever more thoroughly of the passions and adorned with the virtues.

Let us put it simply: The more a person empties himself of his selfishness, the more he is filled with true love and the Grace of God. The more the old man diminishes, the more the new man grows. This passage from the old man to the new is not easy, because the passions have deep roots within us and are not easily uprooted.

Continuous struggle over many years is needed for purification from the passions. This is the struggle of repentance. Every day we must repent of our oldness, that is, our sinfulness, our subjection to the passions, our egocentrism, and our inability to love God our Father and our fellow man wholeheartedly. And every day we are called to struggle to acquire love, humility, sincere confession, self-control, righteousness, forgiveness of wrongs, and prayer.

Thus, little by little, a new spiritual birth takes place within us: the birth of the new man, who is endowed with the Grace of God.

But just as every childbirth is accompanied by birth pangs, so too spiritual birth presupposes the pangs of repentance. When we crucify the old man, we suffer pain, but it is then that the new man rises within us. We are crucified together with Christ so that we may also rise together with Him.

Thus, through our patient and daily struggle of repentance, we shall be freed from the old, fallen man and transformed into new men. This is what happened in the lives of our saints, who show us the way through their wondrous lives.

What Is the Remembrance of Death, and What Is Its Meaning?

The remembrance of death helps us overcome the old man because it brings humility to our souls. When we forget death, we have the illusion that we shall live forever on earth, and this increases our arrogance, our greed, our worship of the flesh, and our inclination to exploit other people. The remembrance of death gives us a sense of our limitations on earth and of the significance that our actions, words, and thoughts have for eternity and life after death.

Thus, it helps us to approach this present life with seriousness, in the light of eternity, and not to squander our earthly life wastefully, thoughtlessly, and frivolously, disregarding the consequences.

For this reason, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates also said that “those who philosophize rightly practice dying, and of all people they fear death the least.”

Saint John Chrysostom advises us to visit cemeteries frequently in order to reflect upon the vanity of human affairs.

We all know that after visiting a cemetery, we are humbler, more compassionate, less attached to material things, and more open to God and our fellow man.

The remembrance of death, about which Saint John of the Ladder and other Holy Fathers have written extensively, has nothing to do with any unhealthy, melancholic, or neurotic state. Such a state is not beneficial to the soul, because it brings despair and must be overcome with the help of one's spiritual father.

The remembrance of death according to God is a grace-filled and spiritual state that brings humility, peace, and joy to the soul. It is a gift of God, and we must ask Him for it.

How Is the Remembrance of God Attained?

The more a person overcomes an egocentric way of life and loves God, the more he thinks of God.

A person thinks about what occupies his mind and what he loves. The Lord Himself said: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

The study of the word of God in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, our association with spiritual people who love God, fervent prayer, regular attendance at the sacred services, and our frequent and worthy participation in Holy Communion increase our love for God and, consequently, our remembrance of God.

Saint Gregory the Theologian advises us: “We ought to remember God more often than we breathe.” That is, we should think of and remember God more frequently than we breathe.

The continual remembrance of God brings deep peace and joy to the soul, even amid the most difficult circumstances of life.

What Is Noetic Prayer and Prayer of the Heart?

The remembrance of God in a person manifests communion with God and is therefore a form of prayer. The struggle to invoke continually the holy name of Christ through the prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner,” constantly renews within a person the remembrance of God and communion with Him. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “Pray without ceasing.”

Through the remembrance of God and prayer, man reveals the true nobility of his nature, which stands at the boundary between the visible and invisible worlds and is “a living being called to become god”; he transcends natural necessity, extends his existence toward God, and feels free from everything that holds him captive on earth.

For prayer to be genuine, however, it must be the prayer of the whole person, and not merely of the lips, or merely of the mind, or merely of the heart.

Perfect prayer is both noetic prayer and prayer of the heart. The mind prays within the heart, which is the center of our existence. That is, the whole person prays from his innermost depths and center, fulfilling God's commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” The whole person offers himself to God.

For this prayer, the single-phrase prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner” is used, which, through its brief invocation, helps to concentrate the mind and draw it into the heart.

The Holy Fathers known as the Neptic Fathers wrote from their own experience about the manner and method of this prayer. There is a collection of the writings of these Holy Fathers called the Philokalia. And the word Philokalia is itself significant. Through noetic prayer and prayer of the heart, the faithful Christian is united with God and beholds God, who is the most beautiful of all that exists in the world, the supreme Beauty.

Since there is a danger of confusion between prayer of the heart and the various methods of meditation and prayer practiced in Eastern religions, I think it necessary to clarify a few points:

1. Not only the single-phrase prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ...,” but also every prayer of the Church, such as the fundamental, divinely given Lord’s Prayer, the “Our Father,” must be noetic and of the heart, that is, it must proceed from the depths of our being.

2. For us Orthodox Christians, acquiring the gift of unceasing noetic prayer and prayer of the heart is not primarily a matter of method and technique, but a matter of a contrite heart, that is, a heart that repents, grieves over its sins, and humbles itself. Without such a heart, no method or technique of prayer, such as the use of inhalation and exhalation, can bring about true prayer.

3. Prayer of the heart and noetic prayer presuppose our participation in the life of the Church, in her Mysteries, the observance of God's commandments, and obedience to a spiritual father. It is not, therefore, an individualistic or private approach to God. Within the Church, the humble Christian receives the Grace of God, and this Grace, with his own cooperation and willingness, of course, brings about true prayer within him.

In concluding the subject of prayer, I would like to say that modern man has a particular need for prayer so that he may avoid being absorbed by the profoundly materialistic way of life of our times, forgetting his Godlikeness, that is, his divine origin and divine destiny.

He also needs prayer in order to preserve his inner unity, balance, and peace amid the terrible fragmentation, imbalance, and outward preoccupation of the modern world. And so that, through a constant awareness of God's presence and providence in his life, he may avoid becoming anxious, falling into despair, and experiencing the world as empty and meaningless.

Through the continual invocation of the most sweet and holy name of Christ, he will feel Christ in his heart, avoid sin, cultivate feelings of love for God and his fellow men, find peace within himself, and bring peace to those around him.

Allow me to offer some brotherly advice drawn from the spiritual tradition of Mount Athos: The more often we say the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ...” with longing throughout the day, the closer we shall be to God, and the more Grace and strength we shall receive to face the various difficulties and temptations of life.

In These Times of Apostasy, How Do You See the Future of Hellenism and Orthodoxy?

With great sorrow, we observe that there is indeed, among a segment of modern Greeks, apostasy from the God of our Fathers and an anti-Christian and anti-ecclesiastical spirit, which sometimes develops into open or insidious persecution of the Church—organized, systematic, and relentless.

Atheism and anti-Christianity are becoming the establishment in our country, seeking to turn Greeks against Christ. They make use of education, school textbooks, radio, television, and the press. They also employ ridicule and the marginalization of those who still dare to express their faith and love for the Church. Indeed, we have reached such a demonic state of affairs that even atheist teachers of theology in schools engage in atheistic propaganda.

If one adds to these the consequences that the influx of tourism and the Western materialistic way of life into our country, as well as our entry into the melting pot of the European Union, have had on the morals and faith of our people, one realizes that we are passing through the greatest spiritual danger we have ever faced as a Greek Orthodox nation.

The worst thing is that we have not become aware of the danger; there is no proper spiritual vigilance and resistance; there are no prophetic figures—with few exceptions—who, with self-sacrifice and boldness, will denounce the instruments of the Antichrist, call the devout people to spiritual mobilization, and voice Orthodox Hellenism’s new ‘NO’ to the new and even worse spiritual captivity that threatens our Nation.

I believe that the efforts of the enemies of our Nation to de-Christianize the Greeks are aimed at stripping us of our Greek identity, so that we Greeks, spiritually and nationally enslaved, may become easy prey for international interests and totalitarian ideologies.

The enemies of the Church are making a relentless effort to ridicule our traditional Christian faith in the eyes of those Greeks who are not firmly established in the faith, especially the young, and to draw them away from the Church...

If we modern Greeks lose Christ or push Him to the margins, we shall also lose our spiritual freedom and the possibility for the life-giving tradition of Orthodox humanism to continue bearing fruit in this land.

For this reason, it is time for all of us to struggle, to offer spiritual resistance, to confess and bear witness to our faith, whatever the cost to us.

I believe that today, too, our struggle is for faith and fatherland, or, as the fighters of 1821 would have put it: “For the holy faith of Christ and the freedom of our fatherland.” For spiritual freedom, which is also the necessary prerequisite for our national independence! We modern Greeks who remain faithful to the values for which they sacrificed themselves—and I believe we are the great majority—are called today to continue their bloody struggle.

More dangerous to our country even than foreign invaders who covet our ancestral land is anti-Christian atheism, because it kills our souls and corrupts our consciences and convictions.

At critical periods in our history, God raised up enlightened men such as Saint Cosmas of Aetolia and Makriyannis, who awakened the people and strengthened them in the Orthodox faith and their national consciousness.

I believe that today, too, the Grace of God and the Champion Leader of our Nation will provide some means for our salvation, in response to the struggle, suffering, repentance, and tears of those who have not bowed down before the modern Baals of apostasy.

We also have the example of Russia, where seventy years of persecution against the Church were unable to extinguish the faith among the broader sections of the devout Russian people, but rather strengthened it and made it shine more brightly.

Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the Crucified and Risen One, and not the devil, has the final word in history, and for this reason, however dark the skies may grow, we always remain hopeful.

 

Greek source: Αγιορείτικη Μαρτυρία, Issue 2, pp. 70–75.

Greek source online: https://katanixi.gr/pos-mporei-na-apallagei-o-pistos-apo-ton-palaio-ptotiko-anthropo/

 

Second Anniversary of the Blessed Repose of Archimandrite Paisios (Jung) Commemorated in Vienna

October 7, 2026

 

 

At the memorial service in Vienna, the faithful recalled the life, courage in confessing the faith, and spiritual legacy of Archimandrite Paisios (Jung).

On October 7, 2026, the second anniversary of the blessed repose of Archimandrite Paisios Jung was commemorated with a memorial service at his grave. As the UOJ correspondent reports, today's sermon focused on the life and faith of Father Paisios, particularly his fidelity to the holy Orthodox Faith and his unwavering courage to say what needed to be said, regardless of whether others liked it or not. It was further emphasized that Father Paisios serves as an example to us, since he never lost his cheerful disposition even amid life's difficulties and, like a new Chrysostom, was able to inspire people through his sermons. Father Paisios was known to many through his lectures and sermons on YouTube. He also had many spiritual children throughout the world.

We present to our readers a few brief facts from the life of the well-known missionary Father Paisios, compiled by our journalist together with the faithful who today commemorated his blessed repose – A Biographical Sketch of Archimandrite Paisios Jung.

From Birth to Life in a Catholic Monastery

He was born Michael Jung on July 8, 1962, in Saarland, to Anton and Waltraut, and was baptized Roman Catholic. He later entered Weltenburg Abbey, received the monastic name Maximilian, and began studying theology and philosophy at the university college of Heiligenkreuz Abbey and the University of Vienna. After completing his studies, he was ordained a deacon and subsequently a priest, and worked in pastoral ministry and education.

Path to Orthodoxy

After years of searching, he discovered the rich treasure of Orthodoxy and went to Greece to convert and become an Orthodox monk. This took place at the Monastery of St. Arsenios in Chalkidiki, where he was also ordained a hierodeacon and subsequently a hieromonk.

Founding of a Monastery in Burgenland

From there, he was sent with fellow monks in 2015 to establish a monastery in Austria. Father Paisios was appointed the first abbot of this monastery and was installed on October 11, 2015. In 2016, the monastery was canonically established by Metropolitan Arsenios of Austria in St. Andrä am Zicksee, Burgenland, and placed under the protection of the Most Holy Theotokos and St. Paisios of Mount Athos. The monastery attracted pilgrims from near and far. His sermons were much sought after, and many pilgrims turned to him for counsel and confession. Some of his spiritual sons became priests and passed on his teachings to their congregations.

On the Ukrainian Church Question

On the day of the recognition of the Ukrainian pseudo-church, Father Paisios preached firmly against it. Among other things, he stated: “With this Tomos, a great schism has begun.” He further explained: “This schism is worse than the schism between the Western and Eastern Churches, because it is a schism among Orthodox Christians in our own time. And unfortunately, it originates from the Phanar.” In his view, the recognition was a product of American, or more broadly Western, anti-Russian policy, through which the Patriarch and the bishops of the Phanar had been influenced by large sums of money.

In his sermon, he had explicitly called upon the assembled faithful to remain with their canonical Metropolitan Onuphrios. He maintained that the Russian Church was entirely justified in responding to the changed stance on the Ukrainian Church question by expanding its ecclesiastical activities, among other places, in Africa and Turkey. His position was widely known, and from that point onward, problems with Metropolitan Arsenios began. Nevertheless, Father Paisios maintained a good relationship with his Metropolitan at the time.

The Beginning of Tensions: The Manner of Administering Holy Communion

During the difficult period of the coronavirus pandemic, Metropolitan Arsenios was the first bishop in the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate, and possibly in the entire Orthodox world, to change the traditional manner of administering Holy Communion. At that time, he instructed his priests no longer to administer the precious Body and Blood of Christ to the mouths of the faithful in the traditional manner with the holy spoon, but instead to place Holy Communion in their hands.

Father Paisios refused to comply with this instruction after consulting his spiritual father, the well-known Greek Elder, Father Theoklitos. For, as the Holy Fathers teach, obedience is superior to fasting and prayer. There are, however, two things to which obedience must never be given: heresy and sin. This is precisely what Father Paisios explained to his bishop. For the bishop, this action crossed a red line, and he characterized Father Paisios’ refusal as disobedience.

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith

As is well known, Father Paisios was a prominent preacher and had a great influence on Orthodox Christians of various nationalities, including Greeks, Serbs, Russians, Romanians, Arabs, Bulgarians, and Antiochians.

Many people who had not previously been Orthodox were brought to Orthodoxy through his sermons. Orthodox Christians, in turn, were strengthened in their faith through his preaching. During the coronavirus pandemic, he provided spiritual encouragement to the faithful, particularly through his live videos.

One day, he was asked whether he could explain how the schism between the Western and Eastern Churches had come about. In a lecture lasting approximately 30 minutes, he explained the Orthodox teaching on this subject, insofar as this was possible within the time available.

Only about 30 minutes later, the Metropolitan called, extremely upset, and reported that three Catholic bishops had contacted him and complained about the sermon.

Father Paisios then asked him whether he had watched the video himself and pointed out that what had been said in it was in accordance with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The bishop then made it unmistakably clear to him that he did not want any ὁμολογία πίστεως – any public confession of faith – in his Metropolis.

Just as the manner of administering Holy Communion had been a red line for the Metropolitan, this statement became a red line for Father Paisios. He had always taught that we must confess our Orthodox Faith at all times and in all places.

From that point onward, he was forbidden to continue his activities on the internet. He was also no longer permitted to receive guests or novices at the monastery or to preach publicly. In addition, he was forbidden to receive Catholics into the Orthodox Church through Holy Baptism. This had originally been one of the conditions, agreed upon with his spiritual father, under which Father Paisios had come to Austria in the first place, and which had been accepted at the time.

Father Paisios himself had been received into the Orthodox Church through Holy Baptism and had passed through all the stages of monastic life (novice, rassophore, small schema, ordination to the diaconate and priesthood, great schema, elevation to the rank of archimandrite, abbot, and spiritual father), even though he had already passed through these stages in the Catholic Church. He was firmly committed to receiving Catholics into the Orthodox Church through the Holy Mystery of Baptism.

The Ukrainian Church Question and the Growing Estrangement

Over time, Metropolitan Arsenios became increasingly active in supporting the Ukrainian pseudo-church, as well as in ecclesiastical and state-sponsored anti-Russian propaganda. During this period, several uncanonical so-called “priests” from the Ukrainian pseudo-church were also received into the Metropolis in Vienna. Father Paisios strongly disapproved of this. In protest against the Ukrainian pseudo-church and the presence of these “priests,” he ceased concelebrating at the cathedral in Vienna from that point onward. This, too, caused considerable displeasure.

Father Paisios was a staunch opponent of Ecumenism, in accordance with the teaching of St. Justin Popović of Ćelije, who described Ecumenism as the “pan-heresy,” but he advocated true ecumenism. His heart and the doors of his monastery were open to everyone.

The Path to the Serbian Orthodox Church

In the final years of his life, Father Paisios was seriously ill. For seven years, he battled severe cancer with seven metastases in its terminal stage. Despite his serious illness, he always remained cheerful, grateful, and full of hope. He even called cancer his “best friend” and thanked God for his illness.

Together with him, the brotherhood decided to seek another place where they could continue to live and carry out their work as a spiritual community. One of the first bishops to come forward was Bishop Sergius of Bosnia, of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He wished to receive Father Paisios and his brotherhood into his diocese. The brotherhood obtained the necessary letters of release from the Ecumenical Patriarchate without difficulty and was subsequently received directly into the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Departure from the Monastery in St. Andrä am Zicksee

A few days before the final Divine Liturgy was to be celebrated at the monastery and the brotherhood was to bid farewell to the faithful, the Metropolitan’s secretary, Athanasios Buk, appeared in person. He informed them that they had to leave the monastery within just four hours. What made this particularly distressing was that Father Paisios was seriously ill at the time, suffering from terminal cancer with seven metastases. Despite the bad weather and rain, no one even asked whether he or the brotherhood had somewhere to go.

Father Paisios and his monks took only their most essential personal belongings and left the monastery. Within a few days, they were already in their new diocese.

From Bosnia to Serbia

The brotherhood spent ten months in Bosnia. Due to the monastery’s unfavorable location and the monthly trips to Vienna for Father Paisios’ cancer treatment and the pastoral care of his numerous spiritual children, the brotherhood moved to a monastery in central Serbia, within the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Braničevo. These visits to Vienna greatly displeased Metropolitan Arsenios, and he repeatedly attempted to persuade the Serbian bishop to forbid them from traveling to Vienna. In doing so, he made various false statements and attempted to exert pressure on their bishop. But glory be to God, the bishop was not influenced by this. When Metropolitan Arsenios realized that these efforts were not producing the desired results, he resorted to making defamatory accusations before the civil courts. Through God’s help, however, this attempt also failed, and the proceedings were discontinued, since all the accusations proved to be groundless and false. He then attempted to destroy Father Paisios’ relationships with Greece, particularly with his spiritual father. Although he succeeded in this with some bishops, his efforts had no effect on the ordinary priests, monks, and faithful.

The Repose of Father Paisios

Three months before his death, Father Paisios’ health deteriorated severely, and he became bedridden. He spent the last month of his life in a hospital in Belgrade, where his fellow monks visited him daily and brought him Holy Communion.

His final wish was that his funeral and the associated divine services be conducted by Archpriest Slađan Vasić, who at that time was serving as a priest under the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. On October 7, 2024, he reposed in the Lord in Belgrade.

The Funeral Became a Political Issue

The services surrounding the laying out of the body took place at the Church of St. Nicholas in Mödling, with the blessing of Metropolitan Mark and Metropolitan Irinej. The funeral at Vienna Central Cemetery became a testimony to a faith lived in practice, although Metropolitan Arsenios attempted to prevent this. Memory eternal, beloved Geronda!

 

German source:

https://orthodoxnews.de/de/nachrichten/89153-zweijaehriges-gedaechtnis-des-seligen-entschlafens-von-archimandrit-paisios-in-wien-begangen-