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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Avarice or love of money – vitium filargyriae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Anger – vitium irae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Dejection, sorrow, or sadness – vitium tristitiae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Acedia, restlessness, and indifference – vitium acediae

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• “Have you sought praise or admiration?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Pride – vitium superbiae

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

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

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

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

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

• “Have you refused to ask for forgiveness?”

• “Have you been unwilling to receive correction?”

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

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

Perhaps the most revealing question is:

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

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

Before God:

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

Within myself:

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

Toward others:

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

In my responsibilities:

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

In my body and my desires:

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

In my relationship with God:

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

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

“I have been angry”

can become:

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

“I have been prideful”

can become:

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

“I have been spiritually lazy”

can become:

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

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

 

Original Swedish source:

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

 

What Are We to Believe About the Coronavirus, Vaccines, and the “Mark of the Beast”? (2020)

Do we really believe in a merciful God who would allow us to be deceived into accepting the Antichrist through medical treatment?

Father Anders Åkerström | December 7, 2020

 

 

This article is published with the blessing of our Metropolitan Cyprian and is based on a new, more in-depth text written by the fathers of the Monastery of St. Edward in Brookwood, founded on encyclicals from the bishops of our Synod, Protocol Nos. 3022 and 3026.

As the coronavirus has spread throughout the world, a multitude of conspiracy theories have also spread concerning the virus and the measures governments have taken to stop its spread. Some even maintain that the virus does not exist at all, but is merely a means for the authorities or some secret group to control people. Our bishops have therefore considered it necessary to reach out to the faithful of our Synod in order to inform them of their pastoral position on this matter, since these theories have unfortunately created a very troubling division among the Orthodox, which is precisely what the evil one seeks to bring about. The article below also includes portions from an eschatological study, The Orthodox Church and Eschatological Frenzy, written by the Metropolitan of Oropos and Fili, since these conspiracy theories often have to do with the Antichrist and the end times.

There is no doubt that the Coronavirus exists. Researchers throughout the world and healthcare workers who work with Covid-19 patients every day can easily testify to this, and the bishops of our Holy Synod have confirmed it. Our bishops have, however, clearly emphasized that we should avoid a hysterical and excessive reaction to this pandemic. The hysteria takes two forms: on the one hand, fear of the virus itself, and on the other, fear of the measures that governments in various countries have introduced.

Many non-Orthodox live in great fear of the virus. A non-believer asked a nurse who is an Orthodox believer whether she was afraid to go to work. The nurse’s answer was that she prayed and trusted that God’s will would be done. That is precisely the attitude that we should all follow. Hysterical fear of the virus, or of illness in general, shows a lack of faith in God. Our entire life and everything that happens is, in fact, in God’s hands!

The second form of hysteria is the belief that this pandemic is a trick or conspiracy intended to lead us to worship the Antichrist. This form of hysteria can lead to serious spiritual delusion. One victim of this spiritual delusion expressed himself as follows: “I do not care what our bishops say; I prayed to God and He answered me!”

This hysteria is fueled by conspiracy theories on the Internet, which in turn are supported by people who hold anti-Orthodox beliefs. Immersing ourselves in these conspiracy theories is a sin. Promoting them and spreading them further to others is an even more serious sin, because by spreading lies and creating anxiety we draw people away from Orthodox truth. In this difficult time, we should instead redouble our efforts to show love for our neighbor and comfort them through our quiet example of Christian faith and strength of soul and spirit.

The unnuanced worldview painted by conspiracy theorists is black and white and focuses on distrust of established science and of the media in general. A barrier is created between faith and science that need not exist. Modern social-scientific research points to five characteristics of a conspiracy theory, all of which are present in connection with the Coronavirus:

1. Everything that happens is seen as connected, as part of a pattern. Everything is interconnected.

2. Everything happens according to a plan. Everything is intentional. There is a carefully thought-out plan, a “master plan.”

3. Several people have planned this together. They are like “puppet masters” pulling the strings. Terms are used such as “deep state,” “New World Order,” “globalists,” the Bilderberg Group, pharmaceutical companies, the Illuminati, Freemasons, Zionists, and the like.

4. The plan is evil and is intended to harm us. Major events have major causes. Nothing happens by chance. “They” are out to destroy and harm us. The virus has appeared or was created in order to control humanity. Vaccines are created in order to control and manipulate mankind.

5. We do not really know what they want or who they are; everything is secret, despite the fact that we supposedly know their plan and can point out those responsible. This is the great paradox of conspiracy theorists.

There is also a great difference between a theory about a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies obviously do exist, but they lack the five characteristics described above. Conspiracy theories make entirely different claims. Examples of well-known conspiracies from modern times include the Watergate scandal, the NSA’s mass surveillance of Internet traffic after the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers, and so forth.

All five of these characteristics have appeared in the conspiracy theories that have circulated since the Coronavirus emerged and became widely known in January and February 2020. Internationally, these conspiracy theories have concentrated mainly on three areas: the first is the origin of the virus, the second is face masks, and the third is vaccines. We will deal briefly with the latter two. The first concerns whether the virus was created in a laboratory for a specific purpose, or so that someone, for example the pharmaceutical industry, could make money. Everything revolves around controlling humanity and an apocalyptic worldview resembling George Orwell’s novel 1984.

Every successful conspiracy theory always contains an element of truth distorted into falsehood. It is true, for example, that face masks cannot fully protect us against the Coronavirus, since the virus can in fact be inhaled through a mask. The primary purpose of wearing a face mask is to protect others. Wearing a face mask reduces the spread of aerosols (droplets of liquid that we emit when we cough or sneeze). This is why surgeons wear face masks during operations. They are trying to protect the patient’s open wound from aerosols—they are not trying to protect themselves from the patient!

Researchers are still not entirely certain how effective face masks are in slowing the spread of the coronavirus, and Sweden’s Public Health Agency has consistently been doubtful about their effectiveness, but from an Orthodox point of view there are of course no objections to wearing face masks in shops or on public transport in order to protect others in this way. Face masks are not a sign of the “Antichrist,” as some misguided Orthodox claim. As far as we know, no one in the Orthodox world ever raised a religious objection to wearing face masks before 2020. This is an entirely new and strange phenomenon among certain Orthodox Christians.

The vaccine conspiracy theory is somewhat older than the face-mask theory. Opposition to vaccination is as old as vaccination itself, but it has re-emerged because of social media and the Internet. Nearly all medical treatments carry some degree of risk. With vaccination, however, we must consider the risk to others as well as to ourselves. Spreading a disease by refusing to be vaccinated is spiritually very dangerous. How shall we answer before God at the Last Judgment if our actions have caused others to become seriously ill, to suffer, and to die? The Orthodox Church does not oppose vaccination—and it never has.

Most anti-vaccination theories have something to do with microchips and Bill Gates. Some also include antisemitic elements. These theories contradict Orthodox teaching about the Antichrist. Do we really believe in a merciful God who would allow us to be deceived into accepting the Antichrist through medical treatment? No! This is truly a dangerous idea. It is therefore not surprising that those who believe in conspiracy theories often fall into depression and sometimes lose their faith. The world becomes confusing and frightening because conspiracy theorists can no longer trust in God.

The question is whether anyone would ever knowingly want to have a readable microchip injected into them. But even if one were secretly or forcibly injected into us, that would not mean that we had accepted the Antichrist. Microchips are injected under the skin and can, of course, also easily be removed. Accepting the “mark of the beast” is a permanent spiritual mark that we acquire ourselves because we have followed the Antichrist rather than remained faithful to God, and it has nothing to do with microchips from Bill Gates.

The Bill Gates microchip conspiracy theory is obviously nonsense because there are so many different vaccines. At the time of writing, the EU has approved three different kinds, and Russia and China both claim to have their own effective vaccine. Does Bill Gates control all these governments and all the pharmaceutical companies in the world? Do all vaccines contain microchips, or only some of them? How are we supposed to know? All of this collapses under the weight of its own absurd implausibility, except for someone who is a conspiracy theorist exhibiting the five characteristics listed above.

To get around this problem, conspiracy theorists claim that Bill Gates is only part of a “secret group” of people who, with the help of all the world’s scientists, control all the world’s governments. “They want to vaccinate us so that they can control us” is a common theme. Exactly who “they” are is never explained. Instead, conspiracy theorists advise us to “trust no one and question everything.” This is very dangerous advice. Even in everyday life, we trust people. We trust cooks, bus drivers, and pilots without questioning their competence. We go to a restaurant without believing that the cook wants to poison us, that the bus driver is a suicide bomber, or that the pilot wants to crash the airplane. The idea that we possess the knowledge to question everything and everyone is sheer pride!

Conducting “research” on the Internet into these theories is a waste of time, time that we could have used for prayer and works of mercy toward our neighbor. The only ones we need to be concerned about are the demons, who shamelessly desire our destruction. We can identify their work within us by increasing our prayer and our spiritual reading. Wasting time investigating conspiracy theories is a victory for the demons because we are not using that time for spiritual work.

These theories are therefore nonsense, but the urgency surrounding the development of effective vaccines naturally raises serious questions about safety. The scale of the medical testing of these vaccines is unprecedented, but there is, of course, still some concern that the trials have been too short to reveal long-term side effects. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish our legitimate concern about this from conspiracy theories. Some are convinced that compulsory vaccination against the Coronavirus is a sign that the Antichrist is coming, but in doing so they forget that other vaccines have been compulsory in European countries such as France and Italy for several years, and that some countries do not permit entry without proof of vaccination, as with visas to the United States for stays longer than those allowed on a tourist visa.

This brings us to our final point. As Christians, it is our duty to obey the government, so long as its laws do not conflict with the Orthodox Faith. As we have already said, the Orthodox Church has never opposed hygiene, handwashing, face masks, or vaccination.

As for societal “lockdowns,” these have varied from country to country throughout the world and have affected the life of the Church here on earth because they have prevented the faithful from practicing their religion. Many of us have been deeply concerned about the whole idea of a “lockdown.” Even the scientists who have advised governments around the world have disagreed about its effectiveness. Some see lockdowns as a solution for stopping the spread of infection, while others point out that a “lockdown” leads to more deaths from other health conditions. We must not, however, seek comfort and reassurance in conspiracy theories directed against “lockdowns.” First and foremost, we must place our trust and confidence in God and in those whom He has appointed to be shepherds over us—our bishops!

It is important to remember that each bishop speaks only to the faithful in his own diocese. He responds to the situation in his own country. Some of our bishops may be more “anti-lockdown” than others because of the situation in their dioceses. This is why it is so important to read and follow the encyclicals that all our bishops have signed together. These provide us with general guidance—more country-specific guidance comes from our own bishop, and in our case Metropolitan Cyprian.

In Sweden, the government is not currently persecuting the Orthodox Church—the restrictions that have existed and still exist apply to all “public gatherings.” Following the rules in our country is not anti-Orthodox. We may not “like the rules,” but we do what is our duty. Our everyday life may have changed, but one thing that we will never change is our faith and worship. Our bishops have said: “The Church alone, and no one else, is responsible for determining the rules of her worship and good order.”

Our bishops have said that what is happening today is probably the beginning of greater difficulties. We cannot prepare ourselves for persecution by investigating conspiracy theories—persecution is not a childish game. We must prepare ourselves for whatever God permits us to suffer by strengthening our faith, living a life of repentance, and praying for God’s grace!

- Father Anders Åkerström

FAQ — Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Does the Coronavirus exist?

Yes! Our bishops say that the coronavirus exists and can kill people. “Believers who belong to risk groups, and especially those of advanced age and those with serious illnesses, should avoid exposing themselves to the virus.”

How afraid should we be of the coronavirus?

“Fear and panic have no place among our faithful, clergy and laity. What is needed is the strengthening of our faith, repentance, calmness, responsibility, and prayer.”

Should we wear face masks in shops and on public transportation?

Yes, if the law says that we should. Our bishops say: “If we, as true Christians, have love and concern for others, let us show it by refraining from behaving carelessly, inconsiderately, or even dangerously toward others.”

Does the use of face masks prepare us to accept the Antichrist?

No! “It is the activity of the devil that prepares the way for the Antichrist, and it has always been at work. Satan, who works methodically to turn people into followers of the Antichrist, has no need of noticeable and visible signs in order to gain power.” (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili)

Isn’t “controlling the spread of the virus” just an excuse for governments to control the people?

No. Our bishops are aware of “the critical nature of the situation and the impending danger, because of our sins, from the continued spread of the Coronavirus. Therefore, we cannot ignore the good and anxious efforts of all the responsible authorities who are striving to avert this evil in order to protect public health.”

I am protected by God. I do not need to follow the government’s rules.

“When human imperfection or indifference enters in, God’s grace does not automatically act to restrain or alleviate it. Grace dwells and acts only where the conditions are appropriate, where people diligently do what is expected of them, and especially where their hearts are pure.”

What happens if the government abuses its new powers?

“Our Risen Lord is also the Judge of the rulers of this earth, and the rulers and authorities of this world will have to give an account before Him of how they exercised the authority He gave them.”

How does that answer help us here and now?

“We should take comfort in the fact that [governments] can do nothing against us except what the Lord permits, and that every evil which occurs by God’s permission ultimately proves to be for the good, since we are tested so that we may become worthy of eternal glory.”

What do you say to those who claim that our Synod’s position is too “pro-government”?

“The Church of Christ is not influenced by the practices and methods of extra-ecclesiastical schismatic circles or heretical groups.”

Do our bishops recommend that we refuse a Covid-19 vaccine?

No. Our bishops also say that the Coronavirus researchers’ “diligent, exhaustive efforts” are “commendable.”

Do microchips have anything to do with the mark of the beast?

“Pious Orthodox Christians are not influenced by various newfangled theories about ‘marks.’ All fear and anxiety either about a ‘mark’ being introduced through the use of identity cards and other technological systems, or in general about some visible ‘mark’ on the human body, are a trick of the devil to divert our attention and are entirely unfounded.” (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili)

What happens if they secretly inject us with a microchip when they inject the vaccine?

“The mark cannot be understood as a mechanical procedure of imposing or receiving an external sign, which automatically makes us followers of the Antichrist regardless of our spiritual condition.” (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili)

How can we avoid being deceived into accepting the mark?

We must live a life of true faith in God and repentance: “The mark of the beast signifies an inward process and relationship, namely: belonging to, participating in, receiving, being conformed to, and being incorporated into Satan.” (Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili)

Can we become infected with the coronavirus by receiving Holy Communion?

No. Holy Communion itself cannot be contaminated or spread infection because it is the Body and Blood of our Lord and is what the Fathers call the “Medicine of Immortality.”

Must we accept everything that medical experts say?

No. “[The Church] does not await proposals from people outside her, not even from ‘experts,’ who, even if they are not under the influence of a hostile and antichristian spirit, are at best unqualified to make proposals concerning her functioning and her worship. The Church—she alone and no one else—is responsible for determining her rules of worship and good order.”

Will things get worse?

“Everything that is happening is probably the beginning of greater difficulties. Nevertheless, we emphasize that nothing should deprive us of the unconquerable joy of the Resurrection and our sure hope.”

 

Sources:

1. “Coronavirus and Conspiracy Theories,” Brookwood Blogger: St Edward Brotherhood

http://brookwoodblogger.blogspot.com/2020/11/coronavirus-and-conspiracy-theories.html

2. The Orthodox Church and Eschatological Frenzy, Metropolitan of Oropos and Fili

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2011/02/08/E20110208aYpomnemaEsxat2010A%20Folder/E20110208aYpomnemaEsxat2010A.pdf

3. Encyclicals from the bishops of our Synod, Protocol Nos. 3022

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2020/03/20/E20200320aEgkl-koronoiou.pdf

and 3026

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2020/04/15/E20200415aEgkykliosPascha20.pdf

4. For those who wish to read more about conspiracy theories in general, a joint project among European universities is recommended, which resulted in the book Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, Michael Butter, Peter Knight, 2020,

https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Conspiracy-Theories/Butter-Knight/p/book/9780815361749

or their book in popularized form as a podcast: Expert Guide to Conspiracy Theories

https://theconversation.com/expert-guide-to-conspiracy-theories-introducing-a-new-podcast-series-133258

 

Original Swedish source: https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/post/vad-ska-vi-tro-om-coronaviruset-vaccin-och-odjurets-marke

How Our World Stopped Being Christian: Anatomy of a Collapse

Review by Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet of Comment notre monde a cessé d’être chrétien: Anatomie d’un effondrement [How our world stopped being Christian: Anatomy of a collapse], by Guillaume Cuchet (Paris: Seuil, 2018), 276 pp.

 

 

For half a century, many authors have noted the spectacular decadence of Catholicism in France and more widely in Europe, and have worried about it: Louis Bouyer in The Decomposition of Catholicism (1968), Serge Bonnet in A Hue and Cry: The Avatars of Clericalism in the Fifth Republic (1973), Michel de Certeau and Jean-Marie Domenach in Christianity Exploded (1974), Paul Vigneron in A History of the Crises of the Contemporary French Clergy (1976), Jean Delumeau in Will Christianity Die? (1977), Emile Poulat in The Post-Christian Era (1994), Bishop Simon in Towards a Pagan France? (1999), Denis Pelletier in The Catholic Crisis (2002), Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Catholicism: The End of a World (2003), Yves-Marie Hilaire in Will the Churches Disappear? (2004), Denis Pelletier, in The Catholic Crisis: Religion, Society, Politics in France (1965–1978) (2005), Emmanuel Todd and Hervé Le Bras in The French Mystery (2013), and Yvon Tranvouez in The Decomposition of Western Christianity (2013).

In this book — the title of which plays on that of Paul Veyne’s book When Our World Became Christian, yet announces the inversion of the process whose beginnings the latter analyzed — Guillaume Cuchet, professor of contemporary history at the University of Paris-Est Créteil who specializes in the history of Catholicism, proposes to define the moment when this decadence began and to determine the reasons for it. One of the main scientific tools he uses is statistical analysis, and one of the objective criteria he considers is the rate of regular Sunday church attendance among the French population, which has declined from 27% in 1952 to 1.8% in 2017. This criterion can be challenged because, according to a recent article in the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, one can be a “practicing” Catholic with other commitments. True, in the absence of such a Sunday practice, a Christian culture can last for a while; but the loss of contact with liturgical life can only lead to its gradual weakening and eventual disappearance.

The first third of the book defines adherence to Catholicism as it appears from a mass of statistical data compiled by the clergy between 1945 and 1965, and in particular statistics carefully and regularly established over a wider period (1880–1965) by Canon Boulard, a sociologist and author of the four-volume work Materials for the Religious History of the French People, 19th–20th Centuries.

According to Cuchet, it is in the 1960s — more precisely in 1965 — that the rupture inaugurating the process of Catholic decadence in France can be dated. This break coincides with the Second Vatican Council, which is paradoxical, since this council was designed, by those who organized it, as an aggiornamento to vivify a Catholicism confronted with the modern world. Yet as the author, after examining various hypotheses, points out, “we do not see what other event could have generated such a reaction. By its mere existence, to the extent that it suddenly made possible the reform of the old norms, the council was enough to shake them, especially since the liturgical reform which concerned the most visible part of religion for most people began to be implemented as early as 1964."

In the second half of his book, the author precisely analyzes the causes, related to the council, of the rupture and process of decadence which continues today throughout the world.

The council caused the faithful to lose their bearings. The conciliar text published in 1965 on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae, appeared “as a kind of unofficial authorisation to rely on one’s own judgment with regard to beliefs, behavior, and practice, which contrasted strongly with the former system.” This occasioned Father Louis Bouyer’s sad remark: “Nobody believes anymore; everyone does only what they want.”

In the area of piety, notes Cruchet, aspects of the liturgical reform which might appear secondary, but which were not at all on the psychological and anthropological level, played an important role. This included the abandonment of Latin, the reception of Communion in the hand, and the relativisation of old ties. To this can be added the criticisms of solemn communion which increased starting in 1960 and especially in 1965, as well as the new pastoral practices around baptism (from 1966) and marriage (from 1969–1970), which tended to increase the level of access to the sacraments by requiring more preparation and personal investment on the part of those wishing to receive them.

In the area of beliefs, the very fact of there being a change in discourse was what mattered. Variation in official teachings made skeptics out of the humble faithful, who concluded that if the institution had been “mistaken” yesterday in declaring as immutable what had ceased to be, one could not be assured that the same would not occur in the future. A whole series of old “truths” suddenly fell into oblivion, as if the clergy themselves had ceased to believe in them or did not know what to say about them after having spoken of them for so long as something essential.

Another area in which this situation was able to destabilize the faithful, notes the author, is “that of the image of the Church, its hierarchical structure and the priesthood. The ‘Catholic crisis’ of the years 1965–1978 was at first a crisis of the clergy and Catholic militants. The abandonment of the cassock (from 1962) and the religious habit, the politicization (towards the left) of the clergy, the departure of priests, religious and nuns, appeared to many as a real ‘betrayal of the clergy’ without equivalent since the French Revolution, which had had the same destabilizing effects.”

Furthermore, “the council paved the way for what might be called ‘a collective exit from the obligatory practice on pain of mortal sin,’ which occupied a central place in ancient Catholicism. [...] This ancient culture of obligatory practice was mainly expressed in the area of the ‘commandments of the Church,’ which children learned by heart at catechism and the guarding of which had to be verified during the examination of conscience when preparing for confession. This also included the duty of keeping Sundays and feast days holy, of confessing sins, and of receiving Holy Communion at least once a year; of fasting on Fridays, on the eves of great feasts, and during the so-called "Four Seasons" of Lenten periods. All these requirements were relaxed to the point of disappearing with the exception of Communion, which became systematic and was received without any preparation, since confession and fasting had practically disappeared. The easing of the Eucharistic fast, however, had been accomplished in several preliminary stages: in 1953, Pius XII, while maintaining the obligation of fasting from midnight on before communion, decided that the intake of water would no longer break it; in 1957, the motu proprio entitled Sacram communionem reduced fasting to three hours for solid food and one hour for liquids; in 1964, Paul VI decreed that one hour sufficed in both cases, which meant in practice the disappearance of the Eucharistic fast, since one hour is the time of travel to church and the duration of the Mass before communion.

During this conciliar and post-conciliar period, “it is striking," notes the author, “to see to what extent the clergy voluntarily removed the old system of norms which they had so much difficulty putting in place,” inevitably creating in the people the feeling that one had “changed their religion,” and provoking amongst some of them an impression of generalized relativism.

The author dedicates two whole chapters to the causes of decadence which seem to him fundamental: the crisis of the sacrament of penance and the crisis of the preaching on the Last Things.

1) According to Cuchet, “The crisis of confession is one of the most revealing and striking aspects of the ‘Catholic crisis’ of the years 1965–1978.” “The decline of confession is in itself a major sociological and spiritual fact that historians and sociologists probably have not taken full measure of: nothing less, in fact, than the overwhelming transformation by massive abandonment, in the space of only a few years, of a practice which over a long period of time had profoundly shaped Catholic attitudes. In 1952, 51% of Catholic adults admitted going to confess at least once a year (at Easter, it had been obligatory since the promulgation of Canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215); in 1974, this had decreased to only 29%, and in 1983, to 14%. According to the author, the breaking point is around 1965–1966, when confession ceased to be presented as the “sacrament of penance,” and began to be presented as the “sacrament of reconciliation.” This went hand in hand with the following:

- the end of the aforementioned “obligatory practice” and a decriminalization of the abstention from religious practice, previously considered as a sin inasmuch as this was a breaking with the commandments of the Church, which were presented as duties one was compelled to fulfill;

- a loss of the sense of sin in the conscience of many faithful, but also among the clergy who now feared to evoke this notion, as well as that of the Last Things. The author notes in this regard: “The clergy have quite abruptly stopped speaking on all these delicate subjects, as if they had stopped believing in them themselves, while at the same time a vision of a Rousseau kind of God carried the day: the “Love God” (and no longer merely “God of love”) of the years 1960–1970.” As one old Breton peasant summarized in the early 1970s in an interview with the sociologist Fañch Élégoët, “The priests have paved the road to heaven.” Once narrow and steep, it was now a highway used by almost everyone. With such a road at hand, if there were no longer any sin or hell, or at least some serious sin that could deprive you of heaven, the usefulness of confession, in its traditional definition, was actually less obvious”;

- a disconnect between confession and communion. “In the old system, we confessed more than we communed, and confession was first perceived as a sort of purification ritual conditioning access to the Eucharist.” The development of frequent communion, accompanied by the loss of a sense of sin, as well as the idea among some clergy — influenced by psychoanalysis — that it was necessary to liberate the faithful from feeling guilty and to “free them from the confessional” had as a consequence that the faithful were now invited to communion without needing to confess. Communion then became trivialized, while the very possibility of confession practically did not exist any more, the regular individual confessions being replaced, starting in 1974, by “penitential ceremonies” celebrated once a year before Easter. At these gatherings, the faithful did not confess anything (the author calls these ceremonies “forms of penance without confession”) but received a collective absolution after listening to a vague speech in which the notion of sin was most often bypassed. And when the possibility of confessing remained in some parishes or was later restored, “the faithful did not know very well how to confess, or even if it was still useful to do so.”

2) The last chapter is devoted to a cause of decadence which seems equally fundamental to the author: the crisis of the preaching on the “Last Things.” In the chapter’s title, the author wonders whether that might not mean in the background “the end of salvation,” and he notes that in ancient catechisms and theological treatises, an important place was given to death, judgment, and the two final destinations of the hereafter, hell and paradise. Worried as early as December 1966 at seeing them disappear from teaching and preaching, the bishops of France noted: “Original sin [...], as well as the Last Things and Judgment, are points of Catholic doctrine directly related to salvation in Jesus Christ and whose presentation to the faithful actually makes it difficult for many priests to teach them. We do not know how to talk about them.” Shortly before this, Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had noted that original sin had almost completely disappeared from contemporary preaching. Cuchet remarks that it was not only a pastoral and pedagogical problem of presenting dogma, but also that “in reality, it was indeed a problem of faith and doctrine, and a discomfort shared between the clergy and the faithful. Everything happened as if, quite suddenly, at the end of a whole work of underground preparation, whole parts of the ancient doctrine considered hitherto as being essential, such as judgment, hell, purgatory, the devil, had become unbelievable for the faithful and unthinkable for theologians.” The author situates this crisis (although it had had some warning signs for some time) in the 1960s, along with the crisis of confession, noting that the former is closely related to the latter: “The collapse of the practice of confession follows an identical chronology, in particular the virtual disappearance in a few years, or even a few months, of the group that once was so common among those who confessed frequently. The relationship is directly, if not exclusively, linked with the erasure of the notion of mortal sin (in the sense of sin making one liable to damnation). But it also had implications on other sacraments related to the Last Things. In the new ritual of baptism, the exorcisms were considerably reduced (because it did not seem desirable to insist on the role of Satan, in whose existence some clergy no longer believed and who seemed to belong to a mythology from which the faithful, judged to be naive, were to be freed); there was also a clear mocking of original sin, from which [baptism] was supposed to deliver so as to secure eternal life.”

As far as baptism is concerned, another reform was to cause the disaffection of many of the faithful: beginning in December 1965, “a new pastoral ministry of baptism, whose primary concern until now was to have children baptized as soon as possible, on the contrary, [strove] on the contrary to put off the date so as to involve the parents more in the preparation.” It should be added that a certain number of priests went so far as to discourage the baptism of children on the pretext that it must be a free, voluntary, and fully conscious act, and advocated postponing the discussion of baptism until they had reached adolescence.

Approaching his conclusion, the author emphasizes again the catastrophic effects of the crisis of the 1960s on the dogmatic conscience of the faithful, which in a way had become Protestantised: “The consecration of the freedom of conscience by the council has often been interpreted in the Church, unexpectedly at first, as a new freedom of the Catholic conscience, implicitly allowing it to distinguish between dogmas and practices of obligation. The very notion of dogma (as obligatory belief in conscience) then became problematic. This major decision of the council, coupled with the notion of a “hierarchy” of truths, seems to have operated in the minds of many as a kind of official decriminalization of the “DIY believer” which contrasted greatly with the previous system, where the truths of the faith were to be taken as a whole and not by pick-and-choose. It was to be expected that the most disagreeable of these [tenets], or those most counter-intuitive to common sense, would pay the price, and this did not fail to occur.”

Whatever the external factors might have been that could have played a role in the collapse of Catholicism (modern attitudes, social pressure, etc.), the internal factors are what appear to be decisive according to the author of this book.

Catholicism itself bears a heavy responsibility in the dechristianization of France (and more broadly of Europe, because an analysis made for other countries would lead to identical conclusions). The aggiornamento realized by the Second Vatican Council, and which had proposed to face the challenges of the modern world, did nothing but adapt itself to the latter; thinking to bring the world to its side, it ended up giving in to the world, and despite wanting to be heard in the secular sphere, Catholicism has instead become secularized. Fearing to assert its identity, it became relativised to the point that a large number of faithful no longer found in it the signposts to which they had been accustomed or that they expected, and no longer saw the point of seeking in Catholicism what the world already offered them in a less roundabout way.

The Catholic authorities seek to minimize the collapse described in this book by various arguments (a large number of French remain Catholic and have their children baptized; religious practice is measured by commitments other than Mass attendance; quality has replaced quantity, etc.). Yet they struggle to convince. John Paul II is often presented as having engineered a recovery from the excesses that followed Vatican II, but it must be noted that Sunday religious observance in France declined from 14% at the time of his election to 5% at the time of his death in 2005. If it is true that living communities existing in cities can provide a false example (as was also the case with the few churches open during the Communist period in the Eastern Bloc, crowded on account of others being closed), as well as the spectacular gathering of young people during the World Youth Days, the French countryside nevertheless shows the reality of a dramatic desertification: the multiplication of disused churches (that is to say, churches no longer acting as place of worship); priests having the care of twenty or even thirty parishes and celebrating every Sunday a “regional” Mass for a small group of faithful, mostly elderly and sometimes coming from several dozen kilometers away; the disappearance of burials celebrated by priests due to the lack of available celebrants; the lack of contact between priests and faithful because of their mutual distance and the unavailability of the former, who are more occupied with clerical meetings than with pastoral visits...

The sad evolution of the post-conciliar Catholic Church, as described in Cuchet’s book, should serve as a warning to the Orthodox bishops and theologians who have dreamt and still dream of calling for a “Great Orthodox Council” similar to that by which the Catholic Church wanted to accomplish its aggiornamento, but whose main effect was to provoke its internal disintegration and the dramatic hemorrhage of a large number of its faithful.

 

Source: https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/how-our-world-stopped-being-christian-anatomy-of-a-collapse

 

 

 

Saint Paisios Stopped Commemorating

He walled off from an Ecumenical Patriarch and held to it for years. In 1991 an Athonite elder asked why that counsel was no longer given, and the synod everyone was waiting for answered in 2016.

Patristic Witness | August 4, 2026

 

 

Saint Paisios the Athonite ceased commemorating Patriarch Athenagoras. Not in theory, and not for a week. Together with most of the Holy Mountain and several metropolitans he stopped, and he held to it for years, until the Patriarch died. He is reported to have pressed his own monastery to do the same. He did it in anguish, praying that God would take days from his own life and give them to the Patriarch for repentance.

That fact is left out of nearly every argument in which his name is used, and it is left out by both sides. Those who tell inquirers that walling off is schism by its nature owe an account of what he was doing in those years. Those who circulate his name as a byword for compromise have not read him either.

Nor was he any friend of ecumenism. On 23 January 1969 he wrote from the Holy Mountain to Father Haralambos Vasilopoulos about the movements toward unification and the dealings between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope. He said the Patriarch had given his love to another modern woman, the Papist Church, because the modest Orthodox Mother had made no impression on him. That is not the language of a man at ease.

So when a dispute broke out on the same mountain a generation later, the instrument was not what divided the two men in it. Both had used it.

By 1991 the Elder Sabbas had already ceased. He had stopped commemorating after the acts of December 1987, when the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope of Rome appeared together, and his soul, as one account has it, could not bear to be found in such a church. He did not stop at the Phanar. He separated from the fathers of the nineteen monasteries who continued to follow it, which on the Holy Mountain means that a man may not go to church in any of them, nor in their cells or dependencies. He kept to his own cell at Kapsala. Whatever else may be said of that, it was not a cheap position, and he had held it for four years before he ever put pen to paper.

Then Father Nicodemos came up to the Cell of Saint Nicholas and told him he was outside the Church, because he no longer commemorated Patriarch Demetrios. On 13 August 1991 the Elder wrote back.

He did not hedge. The counsels his visitor had brought could not be received as pleasing to God, being wholly contrary to Orthodox teaching. Where the Truth is betrayed the thing is not economy, not concession, not indulgence. In his own words, since the Truth is betrayed it should be called iniquity rather than economy. To the saying that the Patriarch was misled by the hierarchs around him into doing what he did not want, and to the warning that whoever ceased commemoration would be found outside the Church, he applied the words of Saint John Chrysostom on speech that is foolishness and the tales of children.

Then he named the source of it. Such counsels, he wrote, are the fruit of a new theology, and that theology is the one the Phanar used in the encyclical of 1920, when it addressed heretics as fellow heirs of the grace of God.

The counsels were those of Elder Paisios, and the Elder Sabbas named him and refused him. He was one monk in a cell, and he was refusing the most beloved man on the mountain.

The refusal is hard reading, and this publication does not soften it. But notice what it is not. It is not a charge that Saint Paisios was indifferent to ecumenism, which would be false, nor that cessation of commemoration was foreign to him, which would be absurd. Cessation is not a zealot novelty unknown to the beloved saints of living memory. It was used by the most beloved Athonite of the twentieth century, against an Ecumenical Patriarch, on this exact question.

The disagreement was never whether. It was when, and what may follow.

Take the case for patience at its strongest, since it was made by a holy man and deserves no less. In that letter of 1969 Saint Paisios wrote against those who cease commemoration, break away, erect their own churches, and go on insulting the Patriarch meanwhile, and he called that course senseless. He warned that if separation followed every occasional deviation of patriarchs, the Orthodox would outdo the Protestants in fragmentation. He had watched companies of monks declare themselves churches because a chapel happened to stand in their kalyve, and he called it a second wound, the first having been given by the unionists. And he wrote the sentence that has been quoted at those who wall off ever since: "It is easy for one to separate but difficult to return."

That is an argument about the form of resistance, not a denial that resistance is owed. And the distinction it draws is real, so let it be conceded here rather than extracted later. Saint Paisios ceased commemoration and he did nothing further. He joined no separate synod, constituted no hierarchy, and remained in communion with the Patriarchate and the Church of Greece to the end of his life. He did not impose his cessation on others, nor number as heretics those who continued to commemorate. He is not a witness for those who went further, and he is not enlisted as one here.

What his position rests on is a prediction: that the deviation is the act of a man, that the Church will right herself, that a synod will settle the matter in due course, and that those who waited will be vindicated.

Set the prediction beside the file.

Two years after the Kapsala letter, in June 1993, the Joint International Commission met at Balamand in Lebanon with Orthodox delegations present, and produced a text on uniatism. Its thirteenth paragraph states that the profession of the apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, the one priesthood offering the one sacrifice, and the apostolic succession of bishops cannot be reckoned the exclusive property of either body. From that it draws the conclusion in five words: "any rebaptism must be avoided." The following paragraph has the two recognising each other as Sister Churches. Elsewhere the document sets aside what it calls the outdated ecclesiology of return, and directs that future priests be instructed in the apostolic succession of the other body and the authenticity of its sacramental life.

Weigh that against what the Church has held. The fourth position of the 2009 Confession states that reception of heretics by baptism is canonical exactitude, and cites Saint Basil, that those who broke away could no longer transmit a grace from which they had themselves fallen. Saint Symeon of Thessalonica, cited in the second position, holds that the popes after the schism are heretics, that they do not have apostolic succession, and that no mystery of theirs is valid. Balamand does not answer Saint Basil or Saint Symeon. It does not mention them. It reverses them in a subordinate clause and moves on.

Thirteen years after Balamand, at Porto Alegre in 2006, the Ninth Assembly of the World Council of Churches issued a text accepted by the Orthodox representatives present, which states that all those baptized into Christ are united in His body. The baptismal unity denied by Saint Basil is thereby made the foundation on which the unity of the Church is to be built.

Ten years after that, in June 2016, the council so long awaited actually met, in Crete. This is the synod the counsel of patience had been pointing to for half a century. It issued a document on relations with the rest of the Christian world. That document accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions. It speaks favourably of the theological documents of the dialogue commission and calls the ecumenical movement's work a praiseworthy step. It affirms membership of the World Council of Churches, and notes in passing that Georgia withdrew in 1997 and Bulgaria in 1998, which establishes beyond argument that withdrawal was possible and that the others chose otherwise.

And then it turns and addresses the men who had been waiting for it. Efforts to break the unity of the Church, it declares, undertaken by individuals or groups "under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly defending true Orthodoxy," are worthy of condemnation.

That is the answer. The synod came. It did not condemn ecumenism. It condemned those who resist it.

Read that sentence again and consider what it does to the counsel of patience. Wait for a council, the faithful were told, and the council will vindicate you. The council convened after fifty years of preparation and pronounced the resisters worthy of condemnation while calling the dialogue praiseworthy. Every man who ceased commemoration in the expectation of eventual synodal vindication now has his answer in writing, from the synod itself.

And it did not stop there. In June of this year, before a Roman Catholic congress at Vilnius, and at the invitation of a Roman Catholic archbishop, the Ecumenical Patriarch called the bodies not in communion with him sister Churches, named the Roman pontiff by the title Bishop of Elder Rome, praised his theological direction, proposed the purification of memory as the sole path forward, and described persistence in separation as a practical denial of the truth that God is revealed as a communion of persons. Guarding the boundary was attributed to distrust of Pentecost. What is preferred, the address said, is the security of dogmatic borders.

That is where the road runs. 1920, the encyclical addressing heretics as kindred of the household. 1948, membership of the World Council of Churches. 1965, the withdrawal of personal sentences that the signatories themselves recorded had never broken communion. 1993, rebaptism excluded and sister Churches affirmed. 2006, baptismal unity conceded. 2016, the historical name of churches granted to the heterodox and condemnation pronounced on those who resist. 2026, separation itself called a denial of the Triune God. Not one of those documents has been retracted. Every one of them was published by the bodies that produced them. There is nothing here that we have alleged and they have denied.

The Elder Sabbas saw the shape of it in 1991 and said why. Against the word of Saint Ignatius that nothing be enacted apart from the bishop, and the word of Saint John Chrysostom that not even the blood of martyrdom washes away schism, he answered that the Saints spoke so in a season of the Church's serenity, and that the same Saints spoke otherwise of a bishop who teaches outside the appointed order, likening him to a wolf in the fleece of a sheep and bidding the faithful flee. He recalled the fathers of the Holy Mountain under Beccos, who ceased commemorating a patriarch no council had deposed and were given the martyr's crown for it. He observed that Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Theodore the Studite were called schismatics by the hierarchy of their own day. And he asked the question his letter turns on. Not how many patriarchates remain in communion with the Phanar. Who walks in the footsteps of the Saints and stands with the truth.

Under that answer lies Canon 15 of the Council held at Constantinople in 861, which permits separation from a bishop who publicly preaches heresy before any conciliar judgment has been passed, and reckons those who so separate worthy of honour rather than liable to censure. The canon does not wait on a council. It requires that the heresy be preached openly and that it be already condemned.

One further item belongs in the record, and it is set down without comment. In January 2015 Elder Paisios was entered among the saints by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. That is the same see whose encyclical of 1920 began this, whose patriarch he had once refused to commemorate, and whose acts the Elder Sabbas would not remain under. The Kapsala letter was republished at the time in answer.

Saint Paisios reposed in 1994, before Porto Alegre, before Crete, before Vilnius. He judged by what he could see, and what he could see was the deviation of a man. He is honoured, and this publication honours him. But holiness is not a warrant for a forecast, and the forecast was that waiting would be vindicated. It was not. It was condemned, by name and in writing, by the very council it had been waiting for.

It will be said, and said immediately, that Saint Paisios never left the Church and those who walled off in the last century did. The first half is true and has been granted above. The second half contains the whole dispute in a single verb. They did not devise a new confession and they did not go anywhere. They held the one they had received while the calendar was altered around them and the ecclesiology followed after it, and they have carried the name of schismatic ever since on that account.

There is also a difference of situation that the objection passes over. One hieromonk on the Holy Mountain may cease commemoration at no structural cost, with a monastery about him and the mysteries at hand, and wait. A body of faithful cannot wait indefinitely, because it must be ordained, chrismated, communed and buried. What was posed in the last century was not the question of one man's commemoration. It was the question of what an entire people does when the change is imposed on it parish by parish. Whether the answer given then was right is a matter to be argued on its own record, and it is not settled by the example of a monk whose situation did not present the question.

What can be settled is the counsel itself. They were told then what the Elder Sabbas was told in 1991 and what inquirers are told to this day: that they had put themselves outside the Church, that the hour had not come, that a synod would settle the matter in due course. The synod met in Crete. It settled the matter.

The Elder Sabbas asked which of the two was following in the footsteps of the Saints, and it is not settled by counting the houses on either side. Saint Mark of Ephesus stood alone at Florence against an emperor, a patriarch and an assembled council, and signed nothing, and the Church has honoured his refusal for six centuries. Saint Maximus was told that every see had entered communion and that he alone dissented, and asked in reply what confession they had entered communion upon. Neither was vindicated by a council in his lifetime. Both were right.

So was the monk at Kapsala. He was told in 1991 that he had put himself outside the Church, and he answered that the question was not how many patriarchates remained in communion with the Phanar but who stood with the truth. Twenty-five years later a council sat in Crete, granted the name of Churches to bodies not in communion, called the dialogue praiseworthy, and pronounced men like him worthy of condemnation for defending true Orthodoxy under a pretext. It answered his question in the only way it could, and it answered in his favour. He did not live to be told he had been reading the file correctly. Neither did Saint Mark. That is generally how it goes.

He was one monk in a cell, refusing the counsel of the most beloved man on the mountain, cut off from every house on it, and he turned out to have seen further than any of them. The faithful are not asked to examine that record. They are asked to stop remembering it.

 

Sources

1. Elder Sabbas of Kapsala, Letter to Father Nicodemos, Cell of Saint Nicholas, Mount Athos, 13 August 1991.

2. Saint Paisios the Athonite, Letter to Father Haralambos Vasilopoulos, the Holy Mountain, 23 January 1969.

3. Hieromonk Isaac, The Life of Elder Paisios of Mount Athos.

4. Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue, "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion," Balamand, June 1993, paragraphs 13, 14, and 30.

5. World Council of Churches, Ninth Assembly, "Called to be the One Church," Porto Alegre, 2006, paragraphs 8 and 9.

6. Holy and Great Council, "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World," Crete, June 2016.

7. Ecumenical Patriarchate, Vilnius, 8 June 2026.

8. Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1 January 1920.

9. A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, 2009, positions 2 and 4, citing Saint Basil and Saint Symeon of Thessalonica.

10. Canon 15 of the First and Second Council, Constantinople, 861.

 

Source: https://patristicwitness.com/ArticleDetail?id=6a736516edaab9fda22aaf1f