Conclusions from the book “War and the Bible,” by St. Nikolaj Velimirović (+1956), first published in 1931.

 

Our boat began to rock on the waves. A wind blew from the west, and the starry firmament was covered with dark clouds. In Kren’s house they became uneasy, and the black servant began calling us from the shore.

“Although much has already been said, General, nevertheless, according to your wish, I shall try to sum up all that has been said above, despite the fact that this will be a repetition,” said the Balkan man.

“In view of the danger,” the general supported him, “before which the Christian peoples of Europe and America, and indeed all mankind, now stands, I think that everything you have said ought to be repeated from day to day.”

“Very well. Thus, the principal conclusion consists in this: only in the light of Revelation can war be understood and explained. All world literature taken together does not explain war nearly so well as Revelation does. From all that has been set forth above it is clear that war, like every individual and social phenomenon, depends exclusively upon our relation to God and to God’s law. This applies equally both to non-Christians and to Christians. The difference is only that among non-Christians war depends upon their relation to God and His law, implanted in their conscience and to some extent interpreted by their sages; whereas among Christians, war depends upon their relation to the One Living God and His law, revealed through Jesus Christ.”

…As typhus is inevitable for one who drinks water infected with typhus bacilli, so too is war inevitable for one who, having apostatized from God, feeds upon thoughts, feelings, and deeds displeasing to Him, and brings upon himself the contagion of war. As long as men, by their thoughts, feelings, and deeds, wage war against God, their dreams of peace are vain. Contrary to men’s desire, war must arise where its seeds have been sown… “There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked” (Isa. 48:22). In our time, much more than ever before, they cry out about peace — and prepare for war… It is hard to believe that such duplicity will not be punished by war. Idolatry is abominable to God. It makes no difference whether men worship God’s creations or their own creations; both forms of worship are abominable before the face of God. Every form of idolatry, both in our time and in times past, is scourged by God, Who sends various grievous punishments, of which the heaviest and fiercest is war.

Europe’s mission is to live in a Christian manner herself and to help her brothers, the pagan nations, to rise up to Christ. But Europe herself has fallen into idolatry. From this discord all the others flow, and after them war inevitably follows.

…To the frivolous question of how the God of mercy and love permits such horrors as war, one may answer with another serious question: how can men, to whom God has clearly revealed His will and His law, ceaselessly insult God and trample His law underfoot without shame and repentance? “The Lord, God, the Lover of mankind and merciful, longsuffering and plenteous in mercy and true” (Ex. 34:6). Men have already deserved the coming war. Were it not for God’s mercy and love, war would have begun long ago. Truly, were it not for God’s merciful love, the sword — for the sins of Christians — would never have been lowered into its sheath. The present relative peace, this respite, has been given to us not because of men’s intelligence and culture, but according to God’s mercy and love; and also, for the sake of the fear of God and the prayers of pious and good people, who exist in every nation of Europe and America.

Can these nations be saved? Of course they can. The question is only whether they will accept this salvation. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, and the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil,” the prophet of God once asked the Israelites before the destruction of that nation (Jer. 13:23). All things are possible, if only men are willing. The Christian people of Europe and America can change their spirit, correct their thoughts, restrain their strivings after things that have no true value, and go toward the good goal after Him Who said: “I am the Way.” They can, if they wish. But will they wish? From falling into the abyss to deliverance from it and safety, there is but one step. Will men wish to step back only one step from the terrible abyss over which they stand? God awaits the answer to this question; He waits as a loving and solicitous father. Even though they should give God a negative answer every day, yet according to His mercy and love God waits; He waits to hear whether from some nation there may come a good answer, so as to avert the catastrophe.

At present many words are being spent on disarmament. But how can a people disarm when it is burdened, “armed,” with sin? Sin inspires fear; fear forges weapons; thus, through fear, sin prepares war. Oh, were it not for this accursed fear! But fear will remain as long as there is sin. Willingly or unwillingly, sinners must arm themselves. If men were freed from sin, who then would be afraid, who would forge weapons, who would prepare for war? No one.

The goal of peace! Why do they not speak of it? Why do they not speak of it before God and before men? For this is a very important subject! In the name of what do men strive for peace, General? Ask them, and they will be confused. Having recovered from their confusion, some will answer: for the sake of culture; others: for the sake of economic progress; still others: for the preservation of works of human art; a fourth group: for the state; a fifth: for the sake of securing personal existence, and so on. Nonsense! The modern loud words about disarmament and peace give forth the sound of counterfeit coin. Men do not know the goal of the peace for which they strive. And those who now insist upon peace more than anyone else need it for a more convenient and unhindered worship of their idols. To what does such peace lead?

During the war there were not as many suicides as there are now, in our peaceful time!

For the sake of what do the rulers of Europe and America insist upon peace? For the sake of the fear of God and His glory, or so that they may more calmly reap the fruits of their injustice? If the latter is true — and it seems that it is true — then it is not surprising that, instead of peace, war will be sent to them. When the Master of peace was born, the choirs of angels sang over Bethlehem: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men.” The glorification of God, therefore, must be in the first place, and it is the necessary condition of true peace and good will among men. If men were striving for peace for the sake of the glory of God, then they would undoubtedly receive it, and this peace would remain with them forever.

But have you ever heard from any of those who insist upon peace that they have made a vow to make use of peace in the name of God’s glory and for self-amendment? Such a vow is absolutely necessary for true and lasting peace. Let the present-day peacemakers precisely define the goal of peace, confessing it aloud, so that heaven and earth may hear them, and then we shall see how war will draw away from us.

Blessed is the ruler who, having come to know the Truth, calls his people in time to repentance before the Living God. Blessed is the people that in time casts off the weapons of its sins against God. No evil shall draw near to it. Though unarmed, it will live in safety, for the Almighty Lord will protect it with His invincible right hand. Even if it had not a single sword, its enemies would be powerless before it and would not cross the borders of its land; the Lord of Sabaoth will not permit them to do so. And if its enemies do cross its borders, they will thereby dig their own grave…

Blessed is the people which, having been freed from sin, is the first to free itself from armaments. Such a people will receive a great mission in the world. It will be a light to all nations. The Lord God will glorify it with unprecedented glory and bless it unto the ages.

 

Online Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikolaj_Serbskij/vojna-i-biblija/#0_25

 

Who were the Nephilim (giants) according to the Orthodox interpretation of Scripture?

 Pavlos Klimatsakis, theologian | June 19, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

The sixth chapter of Genesis constitutes one of the most difficult and much-discussed points of the Old Testament. In particular, the first verses of the chapter, where mention is made of the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” and the “giants,” have occasioned many interpretive approaches. Within the Orthodox tradition, the prevailing interpretation is the so-called Sethite interpretation, according to which the “sons of God” were not angels, but the pious descendants of Seth, while the “daughters of men” were women from the line of Cain.

This interpretation is based on the very flow of the book of Genesis. After the murder of Abel by Cain, humanity is essentially divided into two spiritual directions. On the one side is the line of Cain, which gradually distances itself from God and turns toward the building of earthly civilization and worldly power. On the other is the line of Seth, which is presented as the line that preserves the remembrance of God and struggles for righteousness.

Holy Scripture says of Cain that, after the curse he received because of the murder of his brother, he “built a city” and gave it the name of his son, Enoch. This reference is not accidental. The building of a city symbolizes man’s turn toward self-sufficiency and the search for security apart from God. Then Genesis presents the descendants of Cain as men who develop arts, occupations, and technical skills. Jubal becomes the father of musicians; Tubal becomes a maker of bronze and iron tools. Thus we see the birth of a civilization.

However, Holy Scripture does not present this civilization as neutral. Alongside technical progress there appears moral decline. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, publicly boasts of the murder he committed, and indeed presents himself as stronger and more fearsome than Cain himself. Violence, pride, and self-sufficiency begin to characterize this line.

By contrast, the line of Seth is presented in a different way. After the birth of Seth, Scripture notes that “then men began to call upon the name of the Lord God.” This phrase shows that the descendants of Seth maintained a relationship of worship and dependence upon God. This line is not distinguished by worldly power, but by piety and righteousness. From this line Noah would later come.

With the passage of time, however, the men of the line of Seth began to be led astray by the outward beauty and charm of the women of the Cainite line. Scripture says that “when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose.” This description reveals a spiritual fall. The people who until then had sought God began to be guided by the flesh, by desire, and by worldly attraction.

The line of Cain had developed a civilization attractive in the eyes of the world. The women of this line knew how to make themselves alluring and to attract the men of the Sethite line. Outward beauty and worldly life began to prevail over spiritual seeking. Thus, the two lines were united, and humanity gradually lost its spiritual orientation.

The problem, therefore, was not simply mixed marriages as a social fact, but the spiritual alteration that resulted. Men ceased to seek a return to God and began to pursue earthly happiness as the highest goal. Life became centered on enjoyment, power, possession, and pleasure. The heart of man turned wholly toward earthly things.

Genesis describes this terrible condition with the words: “And the Lord God saw that the wickedness of men had multiplied upon the earth, and that everyone carefully devised evil in his heart all the days.” Corruption had become universal. It was no longer a matter of isolated acts of sin, but of a general condition of humanity.

Within this corrupt society there appeared certain men who stood out for their strength, their wickedness, and their domination over others. These are the so-called “giants” of Genesis 6:4. Holy Scripture says:

“Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men and they bore children to themselves, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.”

In the Sethite interpretation, these giants were not supernatural beings, nor hybrids of angels and men. They were powerful, violent, fearsome, and domineering men. They were persons who acquired great fame, authority, and power within a world that had distanced itself from God. The phrase “the men of renown” shows that these were men with worldly glory and recognition.

The Old Testament itself often uses the term “giant” with this meaning of a powerful and fearsome man. For example, Nimrod is presented in Genesis as a man who “began to be a giant upon the earth.” Nimrod was not a supernatural being, but a powerful ruler and hunter, a symbol of human authority and worldly power. The same spirit of pride and dominion is expressed later also in the building of the Tower of Babel.

Later in the Old Testament there also appear other peoples who are characterized as “giants,” such as the Anakim, the Rephaim, and the Emim. When the spies of the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, they returned saying that they had seen there “the giants, the sons of Anak.” This description, however, chiefly expresses the fear and dismay that they felt before warriors of great stature and great strength.

The Anakim are presented as a tall and fearsome people, but not as supernatural beings. The same applies also to the Rephaim, among whom belonged King Og of Bashan, as well as to the Emim, who are characterized as a people “great and many and tall.” In all these cases the term “giants” denotes men of great bodily strength, martial ability, and dominance.

The biblical tradition, therefore, uses the term not only biologically, but also spiritually and socially. The giant is the man who exalts himself by his strength, violence, and pride. He is the man who seeks to dominate others and to build his life without reference to God.

Thus humanity was gradually led into a universal estrangement from its Creator. Corruption was not limited to certain men, but had become a universal condition. Violence filled the earth, men continually sought pleasures, and the spiritual life almost disappeared.

Within this general fall, only one man remained righteous: Noah. Scripture characteristically says: “But Noah found grace before the Lord God.” And a little later: “Noah was a righteous man, being perfect in his generation; Noah was well-pleasing to God.” Noah is presented as the last bearer of the ancient piety of the Sethite line. While all humanity had turned to violence, injustice, and carnality, he remained faithful to God.

Then God discerned that the situation had reached a point of no return. Man’s freedom had been used so persistently toward evil that society had now become incorrigible. Scripture speaks anthropomorphically and says that God “considered that He had made man.” This does not mean that God changes or repents as man does, but that sin had brought humanity into a state of complete self-destruction.

The Flood is thus presented not as an act of arbitrary vengeance, but as judgment and, at the same time, as a new beginning. God permits the destruction of the corrupt world, so that the possibility may be preserved for humanity to return to communion with Him. The salvation of Noah and his family in the ark symbolizes the preservation of a small remnant of righteousness, from which human history will begin again. After the Flood, humanity receives a new beginning.

The narrative of Genesis remains timelessly relevant, because it describes a permanent spiritual danger: the replacement of the search for God by the search for earthly power, pleasure, and self-sufficiency. The line of Cain built civilization, but lost God. The line of Seth began with piety, but was finally led astray by the charm of the world. The “giants” of Scripture express precisely this inflated human self-confidence that is born when man distances himself from his Creator. They are the men who become great in the eyes of the world, but grow small spiritually. They are the mighty of the earth who acquire glory, authority, and fame, while at the same time losing their purpose. The message of the narrative is that the true man is not saved by power, civilization, or human glory, but by returning to God. For this reason, in a world that had been lost, Noah is saved not because he was powerful, but because he was righteous.

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%cf%80%ce%bf%e1%bf%96%ce%bf%ce%b9-%e1%bc%a6%cf%83%ce%b1%ce%bd-%ce%bd%ce%b5%cf%86%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%bb%e1%bd%b6%ce%bc-%ce%b3%ce%af%ce%b3%ce%b1%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%82-%ce%ba%ce%b1%cf%84%e1%bd%b0-%cf%84/

An Unpublished Letter of St Theodore the Studite

Joseph Gill, S.J. (+1989)

Former Professor of Byzantine Greek Language and of Byzantine History, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome

R. Devreesse in the catalogue of the Greek manuscripts of the Vatican Library that he edited noted that Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 contained two letters of St Theodore the Studite, the first published in Migne, P.G. 99, 1069-84 (= Bk. I no. 48), the second as far as he knew unpublished. Examination of the bibliographies and periodicals that should take notice of a new letter of Theodore leads to the conclusion that it has not been published since the appearance of the catalogue. One may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the letter is so far unedited and that its publication here is justified.

Both the letters in Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 treat of the same incident of the same larger situation. The situation was the rift between Theodore with his community and the official Church with the Emperor in the first decade of the ninth century. It arose in this way. In 795 the Emperor Constantine VI put his legitimate wife into a convent and took to himself a maid-of-honour, whom he caused to be crowned Augusta. The Patriarch Tarasius disapproved. Thereupon the Emperor prevailed on a priest, by name Joseph, to bless the union. Later Tarasius, invoking ‘economy’ (or a power of the Church to ratify without insisting on the rigour of the law), accepted the fait accompli. Not so the monastery of Saccoudion where Plato was Abbot and Theodore Prior. In 796 they were imprisoned, but they were soon set free, for Constantine was deposed by his mother. Tarasius then punished the priest Joseph. In 802 Irene lost the throne to Nicephorus, who, since Tarasius was dead, had a layman, also called Nicephorus, elected patriarch. Plato and his monks, who had meantime been installed by Queen Irene in the monastery of Stoudiou, disapproved. Worse was to come. In 806 the Patriarch Nicephorus with a synod of fifteen bishops rehabilitated the priest Joseph allowing him again to celebrate the divine liturgy. The monks of Stoudiou protested, broke off communion with Nicephorus and all others who entered into communion with Joseph. Plato, Theodore and Theodore’s brother Joseph (meantime become Archbishop of Thessalonica) were imprisoned, the monks were dispersed and in various ways punished. In January 809 an ‘adulterous synod’ (such is Theodore’s name for it) condemned with an anathema all those who refused the legitimacy of the ‘economy’ decreed for the priest Joseph. Theodore, who was the backbone of the resistance, naturally persisted in refusing and in his letters condemned the decree of the synod of 809 as heretical.

The two letters of Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 deal with this precise question and must therefore date from shortly after January 809. The first (the one in Migne) is addressed to ‘My son Athanasius’; the second published here, to ‘My son Gregory’ — both at that time monks of Stoudiou. Athanasius, who had suffered imprisonment at the turn of the century [1] but later regained his liberty and avoided further confinement by a frequent change of residence [2], had, it seems, been persuaded to accept the decision of the synod of 809 and had written to Theodore to say so and to influence him to a similar attitude. His arguments can be reconstructed in part from Theodore’s long answer [3], as follows.

My son Athanasius. First you condemned the ‘adulterous false teaching’; now you change. Your arguments are not God-inspired but are of this world. “For you would say that ‘all friends and orthodox, learned and unlearned, are furious [4] when they hear it called heresy, putting forward this explanation that, since no one champions [5] and propounds adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious, why shall we call them heretics? — contraveners of the Lord’s commandments and spurners of the divine canons and sacrilegious — fair enough’”. I am surprised. Of course those who make a synodical decree and enforce it by an anathema against those who do not accept their decree — that is, their ‘economy’ — do teach it in practice every day. If not, why am I in prison and why are they persecuting my Father and the archbishop Joseph and many others (whose names, places of confinement and punishments are given in detail, covering nearly two columns of Migne). “You said: ‘Since no one champions [6] and propounds adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious, why shall we reasonably call them heretics?’ True, they do not teach adultery and the absolution of the sacrilegious in so many words”, but they do it in fact, also by imposing with an anathema their ‘economy’ as salutary. Your principle could be extended to any and every transgression, but the laws of God are unalterable and apply to everyone, even Emperors. “I have shown you from the Gospels, the Epistles and the Fathers . . . that the ‘adulterous synod’ without any doubt is guilty of heresy” The elect are few: wisely join yourself to their number [7].

The information provided by this letter to Athanasius, and in particular the quotations in their context, are most useful for an understanding of the letter to Gregory, which is shorter and less precise. In this letter to Gregory, Theodore refers to two letters he had received, both critical of his attitude. One of them was the letter from the monk Athanasius, synopsised above. The other was from ‘our Father’, who presumably was Plato, also apparently become less unbending in respect of the ‘adulterous synod’. As he did no more (so writes Theodore) than repeat the words of the Archbishop Joseph and the monk Kalogiros (designated by the letters beta and gamma), they too must have been wavering. This is completely unexpected, for Plato, Joseph and Theodore had always been at one in their oppositions and had always suffered equally. In 809 all three were held in confinement in different localities.

Various letters of Theodore to Joseph are extant and all of them address him with the greatest affection and veneration. There is, however, one, affectionate like the rest, written seemingly shortly before the ‘adulterous synod’ of January 809, answering letters received from Joseph counselling moderation. Joseph had proposed three principles: 1) not to split the Church for the lapse of one individual; 2) not to communicate with the absolution of such a one; 3) to receive communion from every priest of good reputation. It is Theodore who reduces his brother’s letter to these principles [8], because he has to comment on them in such a way as to bring them into conformity with the stand he had adopted — and the stand he is thereby pushing Joseph to adopt and to retain. Kalogiros, who is coupled with Joseph in the second letter, is mentioned also in the first: “And I with my Father and Kalogiros driven into exile by the hand of the prince; the archbishop dismissed and, solely because he celebrated the Liturgy at my invitation in Stoudiou, degraded by them to be an ordinary priest” [9].

Also Euprepeianus was the recipient of a letter from Theodore on the ‘adulterous question’ [10]. He was clearly a person in whom Theodore placed much confidence, since he consulted him on what action to take and used him as a kind of confidential secretary who received and distributed letters, gathered and passed on information about the dispersed brethren, and did all that according to a code in which the letters of the alphabet stood for definite individuals, alpha meaning ‘our Father’, beta the Archbishop, and so on to omega which stood for Theodore himself [11]. A later letter to an Euprepeianus [11] who had endured prison both during the iconoclastic controversy and for the ‘adulterous question’ and on occasion had visited Theodore in prison by night coming over the tiles, laments that now he had cast aside his monastic habit, let his hair grow and was acting as a kind of bailiff to a convent of nuns: Theodore chides him and invites him to repentance. It was probably the same monk.

According to the description given in the Vatican catalogue Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 is made up of various items taken from a number of manuscripts of the 13th century. Its folios, made of paper, measure 230 × 150 mm. The writing is clear and regular, but the first and last lines of the pages containing our letters are faint from some kind of damage and an occasional word is illegible on account of a tear or a blot. The letter to Gregory is found on ff. 18r-19r.

 

Γρηγορίῳ τέκνῳ

Ἀπάντα τὸν λόγον, ἀδελφὲ ἠγαπημένε, ὡς Χριστοῦ στρατιώτης, ὡς σὺν ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ ἀπόκλειστος ὑπὲρ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου αὐτοῦ, μήτε ἀναλγήτως (ἀλογώτατον γάρ), μήτε αὖ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος καταλυπούμενος ([ἀχρ]ειότατον γάρ).

Ἐδεξάμην ἐπιστολὰς δύο· μίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἑτέραν [παρὰ] τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Ἀθανασίου· καθαπτομένου μου τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν τῆς ταπεινώσεως τῷ ὄντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ κλῶντός μου τὴν ἐλεεινὴν ψυχὴν εἰς συμπάθειαν· τοῦ δὲ ἀδελφοῦ Ἀθανασίου τοσοῦτον πνεύσαντος κατὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας μου, ὡς εἰ μὴ ὅτι κύριος ἐβοήθησέ μοι παραβραχὺ παρώκησε τῷ ᾅδῃ ἡ ψυχή μου. Οἶδας γὰρ ἐξ οὗ ἄνθρωπος ἐλπίζει βοηθεῖσθαι καὶ ὑπολαμβάνει τὸν τοιοῦτον ἰσόψυχον, ἰσόρροπον· τοῦτο πρόθυμον. Ὁπόταν ἐν καιρῷ πολέμου παρὰ τοῦ τοιούτου τροπὴν ἐπίδοι τὴν ἐναντίαν, θανάσιμόν τι πανθάνει πάθος.

Τοιοῦτό μοι, ποθεινότατε, ὤφθη ταχύν. Ὁ δεύτερος — ἀγγελία ἐπὶ ἀγγελίᾳ βαρείᾳ, μᾶλλον δὲ πονηρά — κατασπᾶν μου τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν ἐλεεινήν μου ψυχὴν εἰς ᾅδην ἐναγωνιζόμενος, κἂν ὡς φησι φειδοῖ· ἀμφότεροι μέν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι αἵρεσις δυνάμει λαλοῦντες τὰ τοῦ Β καὶ τοῦ Γ μάλιστα, (συνίημι γὰρ τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς διαθέσεις ἀμφοτέρων,) κἀντεῦθεν ὑποτιθέμενοι καὶ ὑπομιμνήσκοντες ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ συγ γραφέντα μοι ὡς ἐσφαλμένα, καὶ ὡς ἵνα μὴ αἰσχυνθεὶς διορθώσασθαι ἐκπέσω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὑπὸ τῶν μεταγενεστέρων, εὑρισκόντων ἀλλότρια Θεοῦ τὰ συγγράμματα· θυμώδη με καὶ ἐκστατικὸν ἐπιγράφων ὁ πρῶτος· ὁ δὲ δεύτερος, ὡς τὸν κεν[ ]λαν χείρον ἡμᾶς εἶναι· καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀδελφῶν φυλάττει τοὺς λόγους σου· καθαπτόμενος λεληθότως τῶν δι’ ἐρωτήσεων ἀποκρίσεών μου· καὶ ὅτι εἰς μυρίας δόξας διῃρέθησαν· καὶ ὅτι οἱ πλείονες καί γε τῶν προεχόντων ταῦτα λέγουσιν, εἰ καὶ μηδεὶς ἔγνω ὅτι ἐπέστειλα, ἐπιχειρήσεις φέρων ἀσυνέτους καὶ ἀλλοκότους ὡς ὅτι εἰς ἑαυτὸν περιπίπτω ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις μοι. Τοῦτο δὲ διδάσκων παντὶ σθένει, εὖ ἔχειν, ἐπεὶ φησι ὅτι πάντες οἱ φίλοι καὶ εὐσεβεῖς τὸ μὴ λέγειν αἵρεσιν ἀλλ’ ἢ μόνον παράβασιν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καταπατητὰς τῶν θείων κανόνων καὶ ἀνιέρους, (φεύγετε αὐτῶν τὴν κοινωνίαν παντάπασι,) καὶ ἕτερα πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπιπλήττων ὡς οὐχ οἷόν τε τὸ γράμμα ἀπαγγεῖλαι διὰ τὸ πλῆθος.

Τί οὖν ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐγώ; Ἀποτιναξάμενος τὴν ἀθυμίαν βοηθείᾳ καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Εὐπρεπειανοῦ καὶ ἀπαρνησάμενος τῇ διαθέσει πᾶσαν σάρκα, πρὸς μόνον δὲ Θεὸν ἀποβλέψας ὑπὲρ οὗ μοι ταῦτα καὶ δι’ οὗ ἡ βοήθεια μάλιστα τῷ ἀσθενεῖ καὶ σαθρῷ, ἀνταπέστειλα δεόντως ἐπιλύων τὰς ἀπορίας αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνστάσεις μαρτυρίαις γραφικαῖς καὶ πατρικαῖς ἐν ὀκτὼ τετραδίοις πρὸς ἥμισυ. Ὁρῶν οὖν ὅτι τὸ μὴ φέρειν αὐτοὺς τὴν ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν αἵρεσιν ὀργὴν τοῦ κρατοῦντος αἴτιον τῆς ἀσυμφωνίας, ἢ νοὸς ἐν τοῖς μὲν ἀχωρησίαν, ἢ τάχα καὶ τοῦ φθόνου ὑπομηχόμενον τὸ κέντρον· καὶ πάντοθεν ἀπορῶν· τό τε σχίσμα ἡμῶν αὐτῶν δεδιὼς εἰς χαρὰν ὂν τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν αἱρετιζόντων, τό τε συνελθεῖν αὐτοῖς ἀποστασίαν εἶναι ἀληθείας, συμβουλίᾳ καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐπὶ οἰκονομίαν ἦλθον μιμήσει τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἡμῶν, μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ὡς οἶμαι τὸ βλάπτον καὶ παρὰ τὸ εἰκὸς εἰς νόμον Θεοῦ· καὶ δὴ ταύτην παρατίθημι ἔχουσαν ὧδε.

Ἐπεὶ ὁρῶ ὑμᾶς εἰς τοσοῦτον ὑπενδοῦναι ὥστε ἀπορραγὴν γενέσθαι εἰς ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο φρονεῖν γέγονέ μοι εὖ ἔχειν εἰς οἰκονομίας τρόπον· εἰ μὴ φέροι τις λέγειν αἵρεσιν ἀχωρησίᾳ νοός, ἀσθενείας μὲν ἐστι κἂν οὐ βούλεται λογίζεσθαι οὕτως ὁ ἀκούων, συγχωρητέον δὲ ὅμως τὴν φωνὴν [χάριν] τῆς συναφείας, τῶν ἄλλων σωζομένων — λέγω δὴ τῆς τε ἀκοινωνησίας καθόλου καὶ ἄλλης πως οὐ συγκαταβάσεως — καθὰ καὶ οἱ φίλοι δῆθεν ἐπαινοῦσιν ὑμᾶς. Καμοὶ καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίως μοι αἱρουμένοις ἔστω τὸ λέγειν αὐτὴν αἵρεσιν καθὼς πεπιστεύκαμεν ἐν ἀποδείξει τῆς ἀληθείας. Καὶ εἰ οἱ δι’ ἐναντίας τοῦτο ὁρῶντες || ἐνδιαβάλλουσιν ἡμᾶς ἀσυμφώνους εἶναι μηδετέρῳ μέρει μελετῶντας — ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀφωνίᾳ, συμφωνία ἡμῖν πραγματεύεται τοὺς πράγμασι ἐξ ἴσου ἀφισταμένοις τῆς κοινωνίας αὐτῶν, ἕως ἂν ὁ Θεὸς πληροφορήσῃ ἡμᾶς, τοῦτο εἰδότες ὡς καὶ τὸ σχίσμα οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αἱρέσεως, ὡς τῷ Χρυσοστόμῳ εἴρηται.

* * *

Gregorio filio

Obviam ito sermoni, frater dilectissime, ut Christi miles, ut mecum peccatore seclusus propter ipsum evangelium, neque sine dolore (absurdum enim), neque rursus ultra quam decet tristitia depressus (supervacaneum enim).

Accepi epistulas duas: unam a Patre nostro, alteram a fratre Athanasio. Et Pater quidem noster humilitatem meam reprehendit revera, quin etiam flebilem meam animam infregit ad commiserationem; frater autem Athanasius tantum contra meam imbecillitatem invehit ut, nisi Dominus me adiuvasset, paulominus habitasset in inferno anima mea. Nosti enim: ex quo se quis adiivari sperat, hunc et praesumit idem sentire, eodem vergere: hoc animum accendit. Cum autem tempore belli in huiusmodi nomine inclinationem contrariam intuitus fuerit, letale patitur vulnus.

Tale mihi aliquid, optatissime, visum est in praesenti. Secundus ille (nuntius super nuntium gravis, immo malus) mentem meam et misellam animam in infernum detrahere conans, quamvis ut ait cum temperamento; ambo sane non esse haeresim potentialiter dicentes ea quae sunt ex B et C praesertim (intelligo enim sermones et dispositiones amborum) ac proinde suggerentes et admonentes se ea quae a me scripta sunt considerare ut erronea, et quasi eo fine ne propter pudorem renuens corrigere excidam ab Ecclesia sententia posterorum, comperientium aliena a Deo esse scripta, iracundum et mente captum me describens primus; secundus autem, nos ut [ ] esse adhuc peius, et quod ‘nullus frater verba tua observat’. Increpat quin ad responsa ope quaestionum a me facta animadvertat; dicit eos in innumerabiles opiniones divisos esse et plurimos etiam magnatarum haec dicere (etiamsi nemo me scripsisse sciat) argumenta stulta et inepta proferens, et me scriptis meis mihimetipsi discrepare. Quod omni vi docens, opinatur rem bene se habere cum dicat: ‘Omnes amici et orthodoxi asserunt illud “non dicendum haeresim” sed solummodo “transgressionem legum Dei” et eos “esse conculcatores divinorum canonum et sacrilegos”’. (Communionem eorum penitus evitate.) Praeter haec quae dixi alia etiam infligit quae propter longitudinem haec mea epistula narrare non potest.

Quid tunc ego humilis facerem? Auxilio fratris Euprepeiani segnitia deposita et omni indulgentia animae abnegata, oculis in solum Deum coniectis pro quo mihi haec et ex quo auxilium debili certe et tabido, in octo quaternionibus cum dimidio rescripsi difficultates eorum et instantias rite solvens testimoniis e Patribus et Scripturis haustis. Cum ergo conspicerem causam discordiae esse in eo quod illi imperatoris iracundiam ex eo quod haeresis dicitur ortam non ferebant, vel in aliquibus mentis angustias vel forte et invidiae aliquantulo limatum stimulum, cumque anceps remanerem quid facere deberim, veritus etiam ne nostrum schisma in diaboli et haereticorum gaudium verteretur et ne conversare cum illis idem esset ac prodere veritatem, consilio fratris roboratus, imitando sanctos nostros patres, in oeconomiam veni quae nil ut opinor habet quod laedeat vel quod immoderatum sit quod attinet ad Dei legem. Quam igitur sic sonantem subiungo.

Cum vos tantum cedere videam ut a nobis sitis disrupti, hoc consilium, quod ad modum oeconomiae, bene se habere mihi visum est. Si quis ob mentis angustias vocare haeresim non ferat, imbecillitatis est etiamsi auditor tali modo considerare non vult, sed vocabulum talibus omitti permittendum est unionis causa, salvis reliquis — dico nempe et de communione et de quavis alia condescensione penitus abnegatis — cum amici scilicet vos laudent; mihi tamen et illis qui mecum stare malunt licitum sit vocare eam haeresim, sicut in veritatis manifestatione credimus, et si illi qui rem aliter vident nos, neutrius partis studiosos, calumniantur quod conciliari nolumus — quid? Nam in silentio consensio nobis redditur in rebus aeque remotis a communione eorum, dum Deus nos certiores faciat, hoc interim scientes: schisma, ut a Chrysostomo dictum est, nihilo minus est quam haeresis.

 

A translation of the Letter to Gregory from the Greek edition here: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/06/heresy-vs-error-should-communion-be.html

 

FOOTNOTES [numbering combined]

1. A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, VIII (ed. I. Cozza, Romae 1871), S. Theodori Studitae epistolae, n. 8, p. 8, ‘Athanasio filio’.

2. Ibid. n. 236, p. 198, ‘Athanasio filio’.

3. P.G. 99, 1069-84: Cod. Vat. Gr. 712 ff. 13-18.

4. Reading ἐκμαίνονται for the ἐκμένονται of P.G. 99, 1072 A.

5. Reading ἀνισταμένου for the ἀνθισταμένου of P.G. 99, 1072 A.

6. Reading ἀνισταμένου for the ἐνισταμένου of P.G. 99, 1076 C.

7. The exact quotations in this résumé are repeated almost verbatim in the letter to Gregory, which is a proof of its authenticity.

8. P.G. 99, 1065 C.

9. P.G. 99, 1073 D where Καλογήτῳ is read, obviously in error.

10. P.G. 99, 1032-7. His name is spelt in Migne Εὐπρεπιανός.

11. A. Mai, op. cit., n. 233, p. 195-7.

 

Source: Orientalia Christiana Periodica 31 (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientalium Studiorum, 1968).

Heresy vs Error – Should Communion Be Withdrawn Over Theological Nuances in Times of Disorder?

The Counsel of St. Theodore the Studite on the division among the Studite monks who refused to call Moechiansm a heresy in the 9th century.

 

 

To Gregory, my son

Receive the whole discourse, beloved brother, as a soldier of Christ, as one shut up together with me, a sinner, for the sake of His Gospel, neither without feeling (for that would be most irrational), nor again overwhelmed with grief beyond what is fitting (for that would be most useless).

I received two letters: one from our Father, and another from brother Athanasios. Our Father truly laid hold of my humility, but also broke my pitiable soul unto sympathy; while brother Athanasios blew so greatly against my weakness that, had the Lord not helped me, my soul had almost dwelt in Hades. For you know that from whomever a man hopes to be helped, he also supposes such a one to be of like soul and of like inclination; this makes him eager. But whenever, in time of war, he sees from such a one a turn in the opposite direction, he suffers something like a mortal passion.

Something of this sort, most desired one, appeared to me now. The second one — a report upon a grievous report, or rather an evil one — was struggling to drag down my mind and my pitiable soul into Hades, even if, as he says, with sparingness. For both, speaking especially of the matters of B and Γ, say that it is not heresy potentially (for I understand the words and the dispositions of both), and hence they suggest and remind me to examine the things written by me as erroneous, and as though so that, not being ashamed to correct myself, I may not fall away from the Church under the judgment of later generations, who would find the writings alien to God. The first inscribes me as wrathful and deranged; but the second says that we are worse than the κεν[ ]λαν [lacuna; “vain talker”?], and that no one of the brethren keeps your words. He attacks, without noticing, my answers made by way of questions; and says that they have been divided into myriads of opinions; and that the majority, and indeed of the prominent ones, say these things, even if no one knew that I had sent a letter, bringing forward senseless and strange arguments, as though I fall into contradiction with myself in my writings. And teaching this with all strength, he says it is well, since he says that all the friends and pious ones say not to call it heresy, but only a transgression of the commandments of God, and that they are tramplers of the divine canons and unholy men (flee their communion altogether), and he adds other reproaches besides the things mentioned, which the letter cannot report because of their multitude.

What then was I, humble as I am, to do? Having shaken off despondency, with the help also of brother Euprepeianus, and having in disposition renounced all flesh, and looking to God alone, for Whom these things have happened to me and through Whom there is help, especially for one weak and decayed, I sent a reply, duly resolving their perplexities and objections by scriptural and patristic testimonies, in eight and a half quires. Seeing, then, that the cause of the disagreement was their inability to bear the ruler’s wrath caused by calling it heresy; or, in some, a narrowness of mind; or perhaps also the hidden sting of envy; and being perplexed on every side, fearing both that our schism itself would become a joy for the devil and for those who heretically incline, and that coming together with them would be apostasy from the truth, by counsel also of the brother I came to an economy, in imitation of our holy Fathers, one which, as I think, has nothing harmful or contrary to what is fitting with respect to the law of God. And now I set it forth as follows.

Since I see that you have yielded to such an extent that a rupture has arisen with us, this opinion has seemed to me to be good by way of economy: If someone, through narrowness of mind, cannot bear to call it heresy, this is indeed a matter of weakness, even if the hearer does not wish to reckon it so; nevertheless, the term should be permitted to be omitted for the sake of union, while the other things are preserved—I mean, namely, complete non-communion and the absence of any other kind of condescension—just as your friends, supposedly, praise you. But let it be permitted both to me and to those who choose the same as I do to call it heresy, as we have believed, in demonstration of the truth. And if those who see this in the opposite way slander us as being in disagreement, as though we are not seeking either side—let them do so. For in silence, agreement is being negotiated for us in the matters, since we equally withdraw from communion with them, until God fully assures us, knowing this: that schism too is nothing less than heresy, as has been said by Chrysostom. (Emphasis added.)

Original Greek source: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 712.

Translated from the Greek (as opposed to the Latin edition) as published in “An Unpublished Letter of St Theodore the Studite,” by Joseph Gill, S.J., Orientalia Christiana Periodica 31 (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientalium Studiorum, 1968), posted here:

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/06/an-unpublished-letter-of-st-theodore.html

Final Testament of St. Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople (826 A.D)

The Testament of our father, the holy, inspired confessor Theodore, the Studite superior, which was read aloud before his final repose.

[Preface]

Since this wretched body of mine has fallen into a constant state of ill health and I am unable to summon all of you—my sons, brothers, and fathers—at the time of my departure because the monasteries are located in diverse places and especially because some of you have journeyed afar on business, I have heeded the words of the sacred David, “I prepared myself and was not terrified” (Ps. 118 [119]:60); and again, “My heart is ready” (Ps. 56 [57]:7). Since the hour of my passing out of this life has already arrived, I have hastened to draw up this Testament beforehand. I thought that this was a fitting and sure method for you to hear my final utterance and discern exactly what I believe and think, and what sort of person I leave as a superior to succeed me so that you might thus enjoy harmony and peace in Christ—that peace which the Lord left to his holy disciples and apostles as he was about to return to the heavens.

Concerning Faith [1]

Therefore, I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—the holy and consubstantial and primal Trinity, [in whose name] I was baptized and regenerated and perfected. I confess God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—the three are one with respect to divinity just as conversely the one is three with respect to individual persons. For the Trinity is one God according to substance although it is divided by the distinction of persons. I also confess that one of the Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, came into the flesh out of immeasurable charity, that is to say for the salvation of our race, having assumed the flesh from the holy and blameless Mother of God.

He was born of her womb in accordance with the law of nature save for human procreation as the divine prophecy had foretold. This same Christ is dual [in nature], whole and complete in his divinity so that that which he was suffered no change, and whole and complete in his humanity so that that which he assumed lacked nothing. The same Christ is one in person as he is made manifest in two natures. So also he is manifest in two wills and two energies through which he acted in accordance with both things divine and things human. [col. 1816]

In addition, I follow the six holy and ecumenical councils and reject every error of heretical association. I also follow the Second Council of Nicaea which was recently assembled against the accusers of Christ. I accept and revere the sacred and holy images of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Mother of God, of the apostles, prophets, martyrs, and of all the holy and just. Moreover, I ask for their undefiled intercessions to propitiate the Godhead. With faith and awe I embrace their all-holy relics as full of divine grace.

I also accept every God-inspired book of the Old and New Testaments as well as the biographies and divine writings of all the holy fathers, teachers, and ascetics. I say this on account of the crazed Pamphilos who has come from the East attacking these holy people—I mean Mark, Isaiah, Barsanouphios, Dorotheos, and Hesychios [2]—but not the Barsanouphios, Isaiah, and Dorotheos who belonged to the fellowship of the headless ones [3] and had the same number of horns as did the ten-horned one, [4] for these men were anathematized by the saintly Sophronios in his booklet. [5] These last individuals are obviously different from those aforementioned men whom I accept as part of the patristic tradition after having questioned the patriarch Tarasios, [6] who recently held the office of bishop [of Constantinople], and other trustworthy men, both natives and Easterners. Moreover, the image of Barsanouphios was placed on the sacred altar covering of the Great Church together with the holy fathers, Antony, Ephraem, and others. [7] Also, I have found no impiety in their teachings, but on the contrary, much of spiritual assistance. I will accept them until some charge against them has been proven by a synodal inquiry. For, if these very men should appear worthy of anathema or others whom they have led to heresy, may they be anathematized and cursed, totally anathematized from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In addition, I acknowledge that the monastic life is lofty and exalted, even angelic, pure of every sin on account of its perfect way of life. It is clear that the monastic life must be ordered according to the ascetic rules of the holy Basil the Great and not by half measures so that some in one place choose some rules and let others go. For, one cannot choose to lead this life lawfully in some other fashion without the three revealed orders of the divine ladder. [8] Nor is it possible to own a slave or a domesticated animal of the female sex because this would be alien to the religious profession and dangerous to souls. [9] I have treated such things cursorily since there is not time to explain them fully, but only to prevent some from holding an inferior opinion of me contrary to what I truly think and believe. [col. 1817]

Concerning the Superior

Having treated of these points in this way, I shall speak in second place about the superior. Now as the first one I leave the lord, my father as well as yours, the most holy recluse and father who is both a luminary and a teacher. This man has been set before both you and me in the Lord and is established as the head even though he has removed himself to perfect his humility in solitude by imitating Christ. Through his directions and prayer I trust that you will be saved, if indeed on your part you show him attentive and ready obedience. Thereafter, elect someone by a common vote in a godly fashion and in the manner which the fathers have established, for my desire is to support whomever the community finds suitable.

But now, my father and brother, whoever you are, before God and his chosen angels I entrust all the community in Christ to you so that you may receive it. But, how should you accept? In what grand manner should you guide them? In what fashion should you guard them? As the lambs of Christ! As your own dear limbs! Cherish and respect them, loving each one of them with an equal measure of charity since each man cherishes the limbs of his body equally. [10] Open your heart in sympathy, welcome them all in mercy. Nurse them, reform them, make them perfect in the Lord. Sharpen your understanding with prudence; rouse your will with courage; make your heart steadfast in faith and hope. Lead them forward in every good work. Defend them against spiritual enemies. Shield them, regulate them. Introduce them to the place of virtue. Distribute shares in the land of tranquility. Therefore, I give you these rules which of necessity you ought to uphold.

Rules for the Superior

1. Therefore, save for grave necessity, you shall not alter at all the constitution and rule which you have received from my lowliness.

2. You shall not possess anything of this world nor store up anything for yourself as your own, not even one piece of silver.

3. You shall not divide your soul and heart by attachments and cares other than for those whom God has entrusted to you and I have handed over, those who have become your spiritual sons and brothers. You shall not use the things of your monastery for those who were at one time yours according to the flesh—either for your relatives or friends or associates. Neither in life nor after death shall you do this for these aforementioned people—neither according to the requirements of charity nor the rules of heredity. For you are not from those of the world so that you have to share with those of the world. But if some should cross over from the life of society to our order, then you should take thought for them in imitation of the holy fathers.

4. You shall not possess a slave either for your own use or for your monastery or for the fields since man was created in the image of God. This institution has been allowed only to those in worldly life just as marriage is. It is necessary for you rather to dedicate yourself spiritually as a slave to your brothers of the same spirit, [col. 1820] even though when appearing in public you are reckoned their lord and teacher.

5. For necessary duties you shall not have an animal from among those of the female race since you have renounced completely the female sex. You shall not have one either in the monastery or in the fields as no one of our holy fathers did nor does nature herself allow it.

6. You shall not ride on horses or mules when not necessary; rather you shall travel by foot in imitation of Christ. If it should be necessary, however, let your beast of burden be a colt.

7. You shall always be vigilant that all things in the community be held in common and be indivisible and that nothing be owned on the part of any individual, not even a needle. Your body and your soul, nothing else, should be divided up for all your spiritual children and brothers in the impartiality of love.

8. As a fugitive from the world and from marriage, you should have no part of adopting those of the world as brothers or engaging in spiritual relationships [11] with them since such practices are not found in the fathers, or if they have been found, then only rarely so that they do not constitute a law.

9. You shall not dine with women other than your mother according to the flesh and your sister, whether these be women in religious life or lay persons. I do not permit this unless some pressure or necessity should require it as the holy fathers warn.

10. You should not go out frequently or roam about unnecessarily, leaving your own flock. For, it is desirable that you have time to spend with the flock and be able to save these sheep endowed with reason, but most wily and given to straying.

11. You shall always be on your guard to teach catechism three times a week in the evening either by your own agency or through another of your children since this is the salutary tradition of the fathers.

12. You should not grant what they call the little habit and after that the great one, for the habit like baptism is one according to the usages of the fathers.

13. You should not transgress the laws and canons of the holy fathers, above all those of the holy and great Basil. Whatever you do or say, you should do it in accord with the testimony of the Scriptures or of patristic custom without violating the command of God.

14. You shall not leave your flock and transfer to another one or return to an office without the approval of your own community.

15. You shall not have a friendship with a woman in religious life nor enter into a women’s monastery. Nor shall you speak alone with a nun or a woman of the world unless necessity at some time compels you and then with two persons from either party present since one person is easily influenced as they say.

16. You shall not open the door of the monastery for any woman at all to enter unless it is absolutely necessary. If you are able to meet discreetly, this opportunity should not be rejected.

17. You shall not make for yourself a lodging or a secular house for your spiritual children in which there are women and go there frequently. [col. 1821] Rather you shall choose to attend to your temporary and essential needs at the home of pious men.

18. You shall not have an adolescent disciple in your cell out of affection, but you shall be served by various brothers and by a person above suspicion.

19. You shall not possess very distinctive and expensive clothing besides the priestly vestments. Rather, you shall put on humble clothes and shoes in imitation of the fathers.

20. You shall not spend lavishly either for your own lifestyle or for the reception of guests. This will distract you since it belongs to a life devoted to pleasure.

21. You shall not store up gold in your monastery, but you should share your abundance of whatever sort with those in need at the portal of your court as the holy fathers did.

22. You shall not take charge of the treasury room nor assume the cares of stewardship, but let your key be the greatest care of souls, of loosing and binding according to the Scriptures (cf. Matt. 16:19). You shall entrust the gold and other necessities to the stewards, the cellarers, and as seems appropriate to each service, all under your manifest authority. Together with the foremost brothers, you can take an account of each administration and transfer the offices to whichever person you decide.

23. You shall not place the person of any other man, eminent and powerful according to the present age, ahead of that which benefits the community. Nor shall you shrink from laying down your life even to the point of bloodshed in guarding these godly laws and commands.

24. You shall not make or do anything according to your own opinion whether regarding a spiritual or a physical matter of any kind. First, you should not act without the advice and prayer of your lord and father; second, without the advice of those who are foremost in knowledge and prudence regarding the issue in question. For there is need of one advisor or perhaps two, three, or more as the fathers have instructed us and as we have discussed in detail.

All these commands and whatever else you have received, you shall guard and observe that you may do well and prosper in the Lord. Far be it from [me] to say or even think of the opposite.

Rules for the Brothers

[25.] Now it is time for you, my children and brothers, to hear my most pitiful voice. Accept the lord your superior as you all selected him. [12] It is not possible for anyone in any way to choose any other life for himself other than that which is laid down. This is a bond of the Lord. Looking upon him with respect and honor, embrace him as my successor. Just as you did with me, so with him too observe the rule of obedience and do not think less of him because he has been recently appointed in the Lord. Nor should you expect anything more than the gifts which were given to him by the Holy Spirit. It is sufficient that he maintain that which was laid down by my humility. Love me, my children, and keep my commandments (cf. John 14:15). Keep peace among yourselves, [col. 1824] and marching in a heavenly fashion, preserve your angelic profession inviolate.

[26.] Hating the world, do not return to the works of the world. Having been loosed from the bonds of physical attachments, do not be bound again to the affections of the flesh. Having denied all pleasures and perishable things of the present life, do not depart from your struggle with obedience through negligence and become the sport of demons.

[27.] Stick to the race of obedience until the end so that you will “obtain the unfading crown of righteousness” (cf. I Pet. 5:4 and II Tim. 4:8). Led by humility, you should always deny your own will and pattern yourselves only after the judgments of your superior. If you keep in mind these things and if you should guard them to the end, you will be blessed. For the chorus of martyrs will receive you. Wearing crowns in the kingdom of heaven, you will enjoy the eternal blessings.

Epilogue

So farewell now, my children. I set out on a journey with no return, a journey which all those of old have traveled and on which you will set out in a short while after carrying out the duties of life. I do not know, my brothers, where I am going or what judgment awaits me or which place will receive me. For I have not completed a single good work before God. Rather I am responsible for every sin. But still, I rejoice and am glad that I am going from the world to heaven, from darkness to light, from slavery to freedom, from temporary lodging to true abode, from strange and alien lands—for I am a sojourner and a stranger as all my fathers were (cf. Ps. 38 [39]:12)—to my very own country. Still more boldly I will declare that I return to my Master, to my Lord and my God whom my spirit has loved, whom I have acknowledged as Father, even if I have not served him as a son. I have possessed him before all else, even if I have not served him as a noble slave. Raving, I have spoken these things, but I have said them for you so that you will take heart and pray for my salvation. If I achieve it, see, I give you my word before the truth that I will not be silent, but shall boldly beseech my Lord and Master for you all that you shall flourish, be saved, and multiply. I expect to see, receive, and embrace each and every one of you as you depart from the world. For I have such faith that, since you have observed his commands, his goodness just as he did here will also preserve you in the coming age for the same purpose: to sing the praises of his all-holy power. My children, remember my humble words. Keep the advice I have given in Christ Jesus our Lord in whom is glory and power forever and ever, Amen.

Being sixty-seven years old, our all-holy father and great confessor Theodore went to sleep in the month of November, the eleventh day, a Sunday, at the sixth hour, the fifth indiction, the year 6335 [A.M., = 826 A.D.].

 

Notes on the Translation

1. For an analysis of Theodore’s profession of faith and a discussion of the historical circumstances that prompted it, see Henry, “Theodore,” p. 173, n. 1.

2. Mark the Hermit: pupil of John Chrysostom, opponent of Nestorianism, and superior of a monastery at Ankyra in Galatia, who died sometime after 430; Isaiah: probably Isaiah of Skete or Gaza, fifth-century Egyptian monk who, Henry, “Theodore,” p. 173, n. 1, believes is identical with the Monophysite of this name condemned below; Barsanouphios: hermit who lived in the lavra of Seridos at Gaza, circa 540, and author of a collection of spiritual letters, for whom see Beck, KTL 395, and S. Vailhé, “Les lettres spirituelles de Jean et de Barsanuphe,” EO 7 (1904), 268–76; Dorotheos of Gaza, pupil of Barsanouphios, superior of a cenobitic Palestinian monastery, and author, circa 540–60, of ascetic treatises that influenced Theodore the Studite, for whom see Beck, KTL, p. 396; Hesychios, perhaps Hesychios of Jerusalem: for whom see B. Baldwin, “Hesychios of Jerusalem,” ODB, p. 924. Some of the individuals cited here were important sources for the doctrine and institutions of the Studite monastic reform (see below, (4) Stoudios, The Studite Monastic Reform, C. The Sources of Theodore’s Reform Program). Their accuser, Pamphilos, is probably to be identified with the 6th century presbyter, Pamphilos of Jerusalem, author of a tract against the Monophysites. See Beck, KTL, p. 379

3. Barsanouphios: Monophysite bishop of the sixth century condemned by Sophronios, for whom see Beck, KTL, p. 395; Isaiah, moderate Monophysite of the fifth century and author of ascetic tracts, for whom see L. Petit, “2. Isaïe,” in DTC, vol. 8, pt. 1, cols. 79–81; Dorotheos: a sixth-century Monophysite bishop; akephaloi, the “headless ones,” a name for the extreme Monophysites who refused to accept the Henotikon issued by Emperor Zeno (474–491) in 482.

4. dekalceratos: derisive epithet of Monophysites. See Lampe, PGL, s.v.

5. Patriarch of Jerusalem (634–638); the reference is to his letter to Patriarch Sergios (610–638) of Constantinople, ed. PG 87.3, cols. 3148A–3200C, that was read out during the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 681; see Henry, “Theodore,” p. 173, n. 1.

6. Patriarch of Constantinople (784–806).

7. Antony: Egyptian monk († 356), recognized as the founder of anchoritic monasticism; Ephraem: Ephraem Syrus († 373), Syriac monk, regarded as the founder of Syriac monasticism.

8. John Klimakos, Scala paradisi, PG, 88, cols. 632A–672B: renunciation (apotage biou), freedom from desire (aprosphatheia), and solitude (xeniteia).

9. See below, [5].

10. For the anatomical analogy, drawn from Pseudo-Basil, Constitutiones asceticae, PG 31, cols. 1381B, 1396B, 1417BD, etc., see Leroy, “Réforme,” p. 199.

11. The reference is to adelphopoiia (the adoption of a brother or sister for reasons of mutual support) and synteknia (baptismal sponsorship). On these spiritual relationships and the obligations and legal impediments they created, see R. S. Macrides, “Adelphopoiia,” ODB, 19–20; eadem, “Godparent,” ODB, p. 858.

12. Naukratios, Theodore’s designated successor.

 

Document Notes

[1] Inalterability of the constitution (typos) and rule (kanon). Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 31, lines 4–6, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [30].

[2] Ban on personal possessions. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 31, lines 6–7, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [30].

[3] Prohibition on use of monastic property for friends or relatives. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 31–32, lines 7–16, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [30].

[4] Ban on personal or agricultural slaves. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 16–21, is similar. This is probably a feature of Theodore’s reform program intended to return monasticism to the economic self-sufficiency more common in monasteries of late antiquity; possibly anticipated by his uncle Plato at the Sakkoudion monastery. See discussion by Leroy, “Réforme,” pp. 191–92, with Pargoire, “Loi monastique.” Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [31].

[5] Ban on female domestic animals. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 21–24, is identical. See discussion by Pargoire, “Loi monastique,” and Leroy, “Réforme,” pp. 191–92. Leroy believes this is not moral legislation but an attempt to curtail cattle breeding and the attendant commercial activity to which that might give rise. This seems to have been the motivation for related legislation in (12) Tzimiskes [22], [23] and in (15) Constantine IX [3], but see (45) Neophytos [19] where the identical prohibition is motivated by fears of bestiality. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [31].

[6] Ban on the use of horses or mules. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 24–26, is similar. See subsequent related provisions in (12) Tzimiskes [22], (13) Ath. Typikon [31], and (15) Constantine IX [3]

[7] Communal ownership of property. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 26–33, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [32].

[8] Ban on adoptions and spiritual relationships with lay people. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 33–36, is identical. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [32]; alluded to later by (26) Luke of Messina [3].

[9] Ban on dining with women. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 32, lines 37–39, is similar. See also [15] and [16] below. Alluded to later by (26) Luke of Messina [3].

[10] Condemnation of frequent and unnecessary absences. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 32–33, lines 40–43, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [33].

[11] Teaching of catechism. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 44–46, is similar. See provision for catechetical instruction in (4) Stoudios [B16], [21], [36], with Leroy, “Petites Catéchèses,” p. 335. Vita B, PG 99, col. 264A, identifies the tracts read as being from the Small Catecheses.

[12] Rejection of distinctions in monastic dress. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 47–49, is similar. By the time (4) Stoudios [A2] was drawn up by Theodore’s successors, the distinctions had become accepted. See discussion of this issue in (9) Galesios [130] and (36) Blemmydes [9].

[13] Endorsement of patristic laws (nomoi) and canons (kanones). Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 50–53, is similar. See discussion of Theodore’s respect for patristic precedent in Leroy, “Réforme,” pp. 187–90, with a partial list of patristic sources utilized at p. 188, n. 58; for an inventory of Theodore’s Basilian citations, see “Influence,” p. 495. The Basilian reference here is probably to Pseudo-Basil, Poenae, PG 31, cols. 1305–20.

[14] Requirement of community approval before the superior can transfer to another office. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 54–55, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [34].

[15] Ban on relations with nuns or private conversations with any women. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 56–59, is identical. See also [9] above; for a later discussion of this problem, see (26) Luke of Messina [3].

[16] No access by women to the monastery. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 60–62, is similar. This principle is adopted later by (22) Evergetis [39] and related documents.

[17] Ban on frequenting inns or private residences frequented by women. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 33, lines 63–66, is identical. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [34].

[18] Ban on adolescent disciples. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 33–34, lines 67–69, is identical. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [34].

[19] Recommendation of humble clothing. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 34, lines 70–71, is identical. For Theodore’s views, see Leroy, “Réforme,” p. 192, with references to our author’s other writings. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [33].

[20] Ban on lavish personal spending and entertainment by the superior. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 34, lines 72–74, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [33].

[21] Ban on accumulating cash assets. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 34, lines 75–77, is similar. Compare to contrary provisions in (23) Pakourianos [26] in the eleventh century and (27) Kecharitomene [24] and (29) Kosmosoteira [94] in the twelfth; in the late thirteenth century, however, (37) Auxentios [9] returns to the Studite practice.

[22] Superior not to administer finances directly. See also [24] below. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 34, lines 77–83, is similar. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [32]; a possible influence on other later documents, e.g., (32) Mamas [48] and (33) Heliou Bomon [48]. Similarly, the governing role accorded to the “foremost brothers” is adopted in (22) Evergetis [13], [14] and documents following it closely like (30) Phoberos [35], [38], and (29) Kosmosoteira [34], [35]. Collaborative rule would become even more common in late Byzantine monasteries (see below, Chapter Nine).

[23] Interests of outsiders not to be preferred to those of the community. Not in Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [35]. See subsequent discussions in (22) Evergetis [18] and related documents.

[24] Recommendation of consultative rule. Ep. 10, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, p. 34, lines 83–90, is similar. See also [22] above.

[25] – [27] Rules for the brothers. Copied later by (13) Ath. Typikon [56]. See discussion by Leroy, “Influence,” p. 505, of the importance of obedience (hypotage) to Theodore’s conception of monasticism.

Greek source: PG 99, cols. 1813–24 = J. J. Sirmond, Opera varia, ed. J. de la Baume, vol. 5: Sancti Theodori Studitae Epistolae aliaque scripta dogmatica (Paris, 1696), pp. 80–88.

English source: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero with the assistance of Giles Constable, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., 2000.

 

Prayer before the Panagia Tricherousa (Virgin with Three Hands)

 

O Most-holy and Most-blessed Virgin Theotokos Mary! We fall down and venerate thee before thy holy icon, recalling thy most glorious miracle, manifested through thine icon, of the healing of the severed hand of St. John Damascene, a sign of which is visible to this day in the form of a third hand, attached to thine image. We pray to thee and implore thee, O All-good and All-generous Protectress of our race: hearken unto us who pray to thee and, as thou didst hearken to the blessed John, who cried out to thee in his sorrow and pain, likewise disdain us not, who are in sorrow and pain from the wounds of multifarious passions, and who earnestly hasten to thee with broken and humbled souls. Thou seest, All-merciful Lady, our infirmity and oppression, and our need for thy help and protection; for we are surrounded by enemies on all sides and have neither helper nor protector if thou wilt not have mercy on us, O Sovereign Lady. Yea, we pray unto thee: attend unto our voice of pain and help us to preserve unsullied the Orthodox Faith of the Holy Fathers for the rest of our lives; to walk unwaveringly in all the commandments of the Lord; to offer always true repentance to God for our sins; and to be vouchsafed a peaceful Christian end and a good answer at the Dread Judgment of thy Son and our God. Beseech Him for us, by thy maternal prayers, that He not condemn us according to our iniquities, but that He have mercy on us, according to His great and ineffable mercy. O All-good One! Hearken unto us and deprive us not of thy mighty help that, having obtained salvation through thee, we who dwell on earth might hymn and glorify thee and Him Who was born of thee, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom is due glory and dominion, honor and worship, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.