The Disease of “Worldliness” vs. the Orthodox World-view

by Fr. Alexey Young (now Hieroschemamonk Ambrose)

 

 

What is “worldliness”?

As I have already observed, Orthodoxy is an other-worldly religion-that is, a Faith that has its eyes set clearly on the other world, on the Kingdom of Heaven, and on the Lord who rules there and in the hearts of believers here, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Him crucified and risen. But what do we mean by the term “worldly”?

In his important work, The Arena, which should be carefully read and studied by everyone, the 19th-century Father of our Russian Church, Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, explained that the term “worldly” refers not just to life on this planet, in this “world,” as it were, but more specifically to “those people who lead a sinful life opposed to the will of God, who live for time and not for eternity.” Sadly, this describes most of the people living today, including many of us – you and me –, whom fallen spirits have been able to seduce, setting before us “earthly prosperity in an attractive, false picture, [suggesting that we] should desire and strive for it, so as to steal and rob [us] of [our] eternal treasure.”

Furthermore, Saint Ignatius explained:

“The world is the general name for all the passions… The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasure from which comes sexual passion, love of honor which gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothes and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancor and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active, there the world is dead…” And then, the saint adds: “See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it… How far you are tied to the world, and how far you are detached from it.” (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Arena, pps. 166, 169-170)

According to this definition, then, we are all of us (including “traditional” Orthodox Christians), without exception, infected with the disease of worldliness! This should be a very serious concern for all of us.

Not long before he died more than fifteen years ago, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) wrote a particularly important article, “The Orthodox World-View.”  Few of those who read the article at the time of its publication will ever forget it. It’s a particularly valuable article because it came right at the end of Fr. Seraphim’s too-short earthly life, and is therefore almost a “last will and testament” that we should read and study today. Certainly it deserves to be revisited now, in the light of the continuing degeneration of Western culture and values, all of which Fr. Seraphim foresaw and warned about.

Fr. Seraphim explained that until very recent times, a truly Christian worldview was not only widely spread, but it was supported by the surrounding culture- even in some non-Orthodox cultures- into the early part of this century. People did not separate the secular from the sacred, the holy from the profane, the civilian from the ecclesiastical, the way we do today. Until this century, even most people, especially in Orthodox countries, lived and thought and saw things in the “old way”. In Orthodox countries such as Russia, of course, this was even more true until the Revolution. Monasteries were the center of spiritual life for that whole vast country; Orthodox customs were part and parcel of everyday life. There was a whole way of life that was inspired and informed by the Orthodox Faith. Life was also relatively short for most people in those days, and death was a weekly if not a daily reality for everyone. This was actually a good thing, because it helped people to keep focused on the meaning, purpose, and goal of this life and remain spiritually sober; they realized that for all of us the other world is very close, and so they saw “other-worldliness” as a most desirable part of one’s way of thinking and feeling.

But, as Fr. Seraphim wrote: “Today…all of this has changed.” Not only are Christian values and principles under attack and in full retreat, but, he said,

Our Orthodoxy is a little island [now] in the midst of a world which operates on totally different principles- and every day these principles are changed for the worse, making us more and more alienated from it. Many people are tempted to divide their lives into two sharply distinct categories: the daily life we lead at work, with worldly friends, in our worldly business, and Orthodoxy, which we live on Sunday and at other times in the week when we have time for it…. a strange combination of Christian values and worldly values, which really do not mix. (O.W., July-August, 1982)

From all of this we really can conclude that an artificial and superficial Orthodoxy has no future, no future at all. It is destined to be swallowed up in the growing abnormality and worldliness of the increasingly pagan culture of our post-Christian time. I repeat: this kind of worldly Orthodoxy will not grow, cannot grow, and it will not survive, for it cannot give life.  If we do not know Orthodoxy, and “if we don’t live Orthodoxy, we simply are not Orthodox, no matter what formal beliefs we might hold.” (Ibid.)

Fr. Seraphim suggested that one of the reasons why worldly and shallow Orthodoxy has no future is because of the basic narcissism of our generation. What did he mean by this? He said that most of us are simply “spoiled, pampered”:

 “From infancy,” he wrote, “today’s child is treated, as a general rule, like a little god or goddess in the family: his whims are catered to, his desires fulfilled; he is surrounded by toys, amusements, comforts; but he is not trained and brought up according to strict principles of Christian behavior but left to develop whichever way his desires incline. It is usually enough for him to say, ‘I want it!’ or ‘I won’t do it!’ for his obliging parents to bow down before him and let him have his way… When such a child becomes an adult, he naturally surrounds himself with the same things he was used to in his childhood: comforts, amusements, and grown-up toys. Life becomes a constant search for ‘fun’…”

If this is an accurate description of most of us- and I think it is, even more so now than when Fr. Seraphim wrote his article- then we are indeed in deep spiritual trouble, both personally and individually, and also collectively as a Church. Well might we wonder if our Orthodoxy has a meaningful and recognizable future.

The Future of Orthodoxy Is Bound up with the Future of Russia

Is Holy Russia still alive today?

From an historical standpoint there is something we must understand and never forget. For five long centuries Orthodoxy in the middle east, and in what we today know as Greece, was under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire and Islam. It was a harsh yoke indeed. Many Orthodox were martyred. Others were able only to preserve the Divine Services themselves; much else in our Orthodox way of life was either modified under the harsh conditions of life under the Moslems, or disappeared altogether. With few exceptions, that way of life has still not been fully recovered in those countries.

But in Russia at that same time, the Church was relatively free, even under Peter the Great and other unsympathetic monarchs who sought to limit and control the Church. Orthodoxy was not at all destroyed, the basic principles of her essence remained alive and healthy-even seventy-five years of Communism could not completely destroy her. I believe that, as a result, the Church in Russia preserved the best and deepest streams of Orthodox spirituality, all of which, of course, had originally come from Byzantium. (Even the quiet way in which our Russian clergy serve in church is more noetic, more hesychastic than our more flamboyant and theatrical brothers in other jurisdictions, who have been influenced by Western ideas about religion and worship.) Incomparable spiritual treasures were preserved in the Church of Russia, treasures which can now be shared with those Orthodox Churches which lost them during their times of terrible persecution and oppression.

The answer from Russia:
 a glimpse of the future

In the former Soviet Union, Russia is still on the cross, still climbing Calvary.  This is a Church which has the external freedom she did not have under the Soviet state, but has also not yet gained her own inner psychological freedom. A religious awakening certainly exists in Russia, but the story is not yet finished, and will not be until the fullness of genuine repentance has been successfully completed, as Saint John (Maximovitch) wrote in 1938. (O.W., May-June 1973)

While new chapters, probably bloody chapters akin to what has already transpired in Russia earlier in this century, are still to be written in the Church’s history, and although it may seem that this future must certainly be very different from ours, we actually have something in common with them right now, today; and that is that many serious people in and outside Russia feel that civilization is now coming to an end everywhere in the world. It is a slow process, but it has been accelerating over the last twenty-five years. In the West many people, especially young people, typically feel that there is nothing left that’s worth dying for. But this is absolutely the same way that many in Russia feel, too! So in both East and West there is a hopeless sense that we are now living in a spiritual vacuum. And yet, some hints of an answer, some glimpses of what the future of Orthodoxy might be, has already come to us here in the West from Russia-only we weren’t paying attention; and most of us still aren’t paying attention today.

In a lecture he gave in 1980, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) quoted a thoughtful Russian believer who had written the following:

“In these conditions of spiritual crises, with no way out, there inevitably comes up the chief question of a worldview: what am I living for if there is no salvation? And when this frightful moment comes, each of us feels that death has really caught him by the throat: if some kind of a spiritual answer does not come, life comes to an end, because without God not only is ‘everything permitted,’ but life itself has no value and no meaning.” (O.W., Jan-Feb 1988)

He went on to explain that we in the West “are satisfied with the freedom to worship as we wish, we easily mix a few hours weekly devoted to church matters with an overwhelming preponderance of worldly things in our lives; few of us are really transformed by Orthodox Christianity.

 “But,” Fr. Seraphim continued, we must call “on Orthodox Christians to counterattack… Christianity must become the content of the whole of life… We must illuminate all questions with Christianity; it cannot be limited within strict bounds… We must bring the Church to the life which is outside the church building… The Christian cannot close himself up in some kind of shell; he must be pained over the pains of others.” (Ibid.) To this Fr. Seraphim added:

“Seeing reality in this way-that, being really aware of what is happening in the world, and not closing his eyes to it as we in the free world so often do, insulated by our temporary freedom and prosperity, [we must speak] in a tone that is urgent and full of crisis…constantly saying: Russia is perishing, the whole world is perishing – let us act , let us start being Christians right now!” (Ibid.)

Fr. Seraphim also made it clear in many of his writings, especially those composed in the last five or ten years of his life, that we should not be looking for some kind of outward solution, some kind of purely external promotion of Orthodoxy, using the best and most recent “techniques” of Protestants the way some of the modernist Orthodox are now doing. No; not at all.  What Fr. Seraphim wanted, what he prayed for and begged us for, is “our inward spiritual resurrection,” and, he reminded us, “the events in Russia give us hope that, in contrast to all the imitation and fake Christianity and Orthodoxy that abounds today, there will yet be a resurrection…not only in Russia, but wherever hearts have not become entirely frozen. But we must be ready for the suffering that must precede this… Are we in the West ready for it?” (Ibid.)

These words of Fr. Seraphim were written more than eighteen years ago. They were true then; they are even more true today. In fact, the time of their fulfillment is finally, I believe, at hand, and they have begun to be fulfilled before our very eyes.

To all of this must be added the sober and prophetic words of Archbishop Averky who, back in the 1970s, warned those who would listen that a “time of confession” is coming, a time of “firm standing, if need be even to death, for one’s Orthodox faith, which is being subjected everywhere to open and secret attacks, oppression, and persecution on the part of the servants of the coming Antichrist.” (O.W., Sept.-Dec. 1981)

This “time of confession” of Faith has already arrived; it is here: it is now as close as a whisper in the ear. And this-open and courageous confession of the Faith-this is the future of Orthodoxy, if we will but embrace it.

What must we do?

Archbishop Averky said that the first thing we must do, if we are to have an active and saving role in this “time of confession,” is to have a “spirit of constant expectation of the Second Coming of Christ” so that we will recognize Antichrist when he comes. In order to do this, “we must lead a conscious life of prayer, nourished by the reading of Scripture and the Holy Fathers, and by frequent confession and reception of Holy Communion.” (O.W., Sept.-Dec. 1981)

With the help of our spiritual fathers, we must identify and root out of ourselves certain qualities that darken the soul, such as superficiality and worldliness, a fascination for that which is “fashionable” and “in,” and also, we must pull out the weeds of overcorrectness and cowardliness, if they are growing within the garden of our souls. We must wage unseen warfare on these inner vices and seek at all cost to replace these weeds with the flowers of virtues. Archbishop Averky said that we must develop “moral heroism”-something that we almost never talk about today-and he reminded us that “the Orthodox Faith teaches how to construct life according to the demands of Christian perfection, whereas heterodoxy takes from Christianity only those things which are…compatible with the conditions of contemporary cultural life.” (O.W., Oct.-Nov.-Dec. 1967) As Fr. Seraphim wrote:

“We must understand that the culture around us is …pounding in upon us…; it has a certain rhythm, a certain message to give us, this message of self-worship, of relaxing, of letting go, of enjoying yourself, of giving up any thought of the other world, in various forms, whether in music, or in movies, television, or what is being taught in schools….We have to fight back by knowing just what the world is trying to do to us, and by formulating and communicating our Orthodox Christian response to it….With such an attitude-a view of both the good things and the bad things in the world-it is possible for us to have and to live an Orthodox worldview, that is, an Orthodox view on the whole of life, not just on narrow church subjects….One is Orthodox all the time, every day, in every situation of life, or one is not really Orthodox at all.” (O.W., July-Aug. 1982)

If we can achieve this, then Orthodoxy truly does indeed have a future-perhaps not a glorious future, for undoubtedly very hard times are coming as civilization continues to collapse and the forces of darkness increase. But it does have a future, a future in which many souls will yet be salvaged from the stormy seas of this life.

The Future of Orthodoxy:
Everything depends upon us

Fr. Seraphim wrote that “the true Christian life, even since the time of the Apostles, has always been inseparable from communicating it to others.” (O.W., July-Aug. 1982) This means that if we are not sharing our Faith with others, if we are not giving a witness or a “confession of faith,” as Archbishop Averky put it, and if our parishes are not growing, then, brothers and sisters, we are doing something wrong: there is something deeply flawed about us and our faith and it is time to bestir ourselves and arise and take action!

Frankly, the future of Orthodoxy depends upon each one of us individually. If Orthodoxy is to save as many souls as possible before Christ comes again in glory to judge us, then we must change! If we remain the same, if we do nothing, then we can be sure that nothing will happen. So, first, we must make sure that the “Orthodoxy” we are living, the Orthodoxy we want to share with others, is true Orthodoxy and not some shallow, superficial imitation. That means that we must learn, and study, and pray. We must ourselves be repenting of our sins and constantly putting others before ourselves. We must be loving and forgiving to a degree that will astonish and amaze our non-Orthodox friends and co-workers. If we do this, then Orthodoxy will have a glorious future, no matter how poor she is by worldly standards, and no matter how difficult or dark the times ahead might become.

So let us now really start being Orthodox Christians. Let us keep our eyes fixed firmly on the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven. If we do this, Orthodoxy will have a future. Let us beg God to give us the grace and the strength to follow Him into holiness, into sanctity; let us strive to be holy men and women, holy boys and girls, so that we, and our precious Orthodoxy, will be true reflections of our blessed Savior’s words:

 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 5:14-16)

Source: Orthodox America, Vol. XVIII (2000), Nos. 7-8.

Bishop Gideon of Pskov (+1763): On Palm Sunday

Hosanna, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel.

John 12:13

 

 

Behold, pious hearers, a wondrous spectacle! The King of Israel, or rather, the King of the whole world, today makes His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. And how do you suppose? Do you suppose with noble pomp and great glory? Do you suppose that He sits upon a gilded chariot, drawn by many most costly mules? True, it would seem to me also that such splendor befits His royal name; and a chariot suitable for this His triumphal entry, the Prophet says, stands ready for Him: the chariot, he saith, of God is by tens of thousands, even thousands of them that rejoice. [94] And He has wondrous horses as well, seen by that same Prophet, namely, clouds and winds: Who maketh, he saith, the clouds His ascent, and walketh upon the wing of the wind; [95] and He could, if only He so desired, on this occasion have taken also that living many-eyed chariot which Ezekiel once saw beneath Him. When, saith he, the living creatures went, the wheels went also. And when they stood, they stood (and the wheels with them): for the spirit of life was in the wheels, [96] and those wheels were full of eyes. But not one, as you see, of those chariots does this King now employ; rather, He rides—an unheard-of thing!—the King of kings and Lord of lords, giving to other authorities an example of humility, rides upon a certain dry and scarcely moving ass, as today’s Evangelist relates. Jesus, saith he, found a young ass, and sat thereon, as it is written: Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. [97] As for His noble and glorious reception, truly it was no other than befits a King. The courteous inhabitants of Jerusalem, notwithstanding so humble an appearance in Christ, showed Him great honor on this occasion. Hardly has such courtesy ever been shown on earth to any king as was shown to this King by those refined citizens. They came out to meet Him with very extraordinary adornment, and greeted Him, so to speak, beyond compare. They held in their hands, as a sign that they were meeting a victor, palms; they cut branches from the trees and cast them upon the road, and some even spread their garments; moreover, all cried aloud with a great voice: Hosanna, hosanna, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel! Why describe at length the celebration shown by this kindly people at the coming of their King? It is enough to say that what took place among them on the day of Solomon’s coronation took place today also. For just as then, according to the testimony of the Books of Kings: all the people went up after Solomon, and rejoiced with so great a joy that the earth rent asunder from their voice; [98] so also today, it is said: when Christ entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was moved, saith the Evangelist Matthew. [99]

But what then, my hearers? Reflecting on such favor as is now shown by the Jews to our Savior, do you not already begin to praise them in your thoughts and say: what courteous people! what a sensible nation! It knows what honor ought to be rendered to its King!

For God’s sake, refrain from such praise, at least for a time; behold, Great Friday will soon come, on which the Bride mentioned in the Song of Songs will say to the daughters of Jerusalem: Go forth and behold your King with the crown wherewith His mother, that is, the Jewish Synagogue, crowned Him in the day of His espousals; [100] and then better understand with what words these people ought to be blessed.

This evil and adulterous generation, as the Savior Himself calls it, never acts with a true heart. They now sing to Christ, Hosanna! but a little later they will cry out: Away, away, crucify Him. [101] Now they bless Him, but after four days they will begin to curse Him. Now they call Him the King of Israel; but soon they will cry out before Pilate: We have no king but Caesar. [102] And do you suppose that even at this very time they all think as they speak with their tongue? Look into their assemblies, and you will see that already many of them have begun to take counsel how they might ensnare Him, how they might destroy Him altogether as quickly as possible.

But it is strange to me that Christ, especially knowing, as the Foreknower of all things, of such a Jewish intention, permitted them on this occasion to address Him by such words. Formerly He so fled human glory that when the Jews wished to make Him their king, according to the testimony of John the Evangelist in chapter 6, He could in no way consent to it. Perceiving, saith he, that they would come and take Him by force, and make Him a king, He departed again into a mountain alone. [103] But now, although the Pharisees tell Him to forbid the people to call Him King, yet not only does He not listen to them, but He even confirms the people’s opinion all the more. If these, saith He, should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. [104] What then is this? Whence this visible change in our Christ? Many and diverse causes for this are found by interpreters of Holy Scripture, hearers!

First, Christ accepted this title from the people now because the time had come in which His spiritual kingdom was actually to be established on earth, once He had ascended in this city to His throne in it, that is, the Cross, and had freed His kingdom from tyrannical hands through His most glorious victory over the devil.

Second, by this testimony of the people Christ wished to show to the ages to come that He is the true God, who ruleth the hearts of men, and that He went up upon the Cross of His own will and not by any necessity; for at a time when all the chief men of Jerusalem had already agreed upon His murder, for Him to be so glorified by the people was in truth not a human deed, but a divine one.

Third, Christ resolved to enter Jerusalem today with such ceremony so that afterward the Jews might have no excuse, as though they had crucified their true Messiah and King without knowing Him, Him whom they themselves proclaimed to be the One whom God had promised them by the mouths of His Prophets, their King and Deliverer.

Fourth, Christ did this also in order to let us know to what difficulties, afflictions, and sorrows the honor of kings and other authorities is subject. For He, as anyone may see in the Gospel, is nowhere called the King of Israel except in three places. First, now, when the Jews are taking counsel for His murder; second, in Pilate’s praetorium, when the soldiers, having placed upon His head a crown of thorns and bowing their knees, mocked Him and said: Hail, King of the Jews; [105] third, on the Cross, when the lawless judge ordered this title to be affixed above Him: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. [106] And now behold, all of you, what sort of royal life is this? A sea filled with afflictions and sorrows! What crown is upon their heads? A crown of thorns, bristling everywhere with sharp spikes! What is their office? Not only to care day and night for the welfare of their subjects and to have no rest from labors, but also, in a necessary case, to lay down their life for them. All this is proved in part by the present day, and in part will be proved by the coming Great Friday.

There are also many other causes, as has been said, for Christ’s so glorious and magnificent entry today into Jerusalem. But the chief one itself, as it seems to me, is this: that we might learn from it how inconstant this world is, and how vain all its glory is. You now see the King who after five days will take upon Himself a robber’s cross; you now see garments spread before Him whose clothing, soon enough, His murderers will cast lots for; you now see the Guest met with unusual joy by the citizens, whom, before a week has passed, those same citizens will drag outside their city with indescribable mockery. What a swift change! what inconstancy of this age! Learned men rightly liken it to a turning wheel, which has not one part that is firm and unmoving. Whoever does not believe it, let him mark this truth on this very day. I do not say that we should observe this truth, for example, in Belisarius, once called the beauty of Rome, and afterward deprived not only of all his possessions but even of his sight; or in Paul and Barnabas, whom the inhabitants of Lycaonia at first, when they saw the man lame from his mother’s womb healed by them, magnified as gods, saying: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; [107] and then, after not many days, stoned those same men and dragged them outside the city as evildoers. But mark, I say, this inconstancy of the world in our very Lord and Creator Himself. If, hearers, to use Christ’s own words, these things were done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry? [108] If, I say, Christ, who seemed desired by all, beloved by all, felt such a change in Himself, can we then trust in our own good fortune? Can we lean with hope upon this dry and easily broken reed? But at the same time, neither must we ourselves imitate that inconstant people.

Do you know why I have said this? Behold, already—thanks be to the Lord—we are finishing the Holy Fast, during which many of us, having prepared ourselves by fervent repentance, were deemed worthy to receive into the inner city of our soul this most precious Guest, whom today the inhabitants of Jerusalem go forth to meet; we have tasted His Body, we have been given to drink of His Blood, we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit unto the remission of our sins. And of this I now remind you, namely, that having shown fervent love to Christ in these days, after their end we should not turn against Him in hatred; that, having been counted worthy of His gracious presence, we might not again drive Him out of our soul and mock Him, as the above-mentioned Jews did. For if it was grievous for Christ to endure this even from the Jews, according to that Gospel word: He began to be sorrowful and very heavy, and to say, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; [109] how much more intolerable will it be for Him to see such ingratitude from Christians, who according to Paul are accounted His very own members.

Nor ought we to omit, on the present occasion also, to declare our zeal for our Redeemer; for we know that, as all His other acts, so also His present entry into Jerusalem was accomplished for the sake of our salvation. Let us then go forth without delay, let us go forth with our minds to that place where the people of Jerusalem, with so great a glory as you yourselves have heard, go out to meet Him; and standing together with them, though not with one and the same spirit, let us begin to cut off, instead of branches, our passions, and instead of garments let us spread beneath His feet our hearts. Let us also raise with them, as a sign of our rejoicing, this triumphant cry: Hosanna, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel! Only—and I repeat it once more—the One whom we now bless, let us not cease to bless unto all ages. Amen.

 

94. Psalm 67:18.

95. Psalm 103:3.

96. Ezekiel 1:19, 21.

97. John 12:14, 15.

98. 3 Kingdoms 1:40.

99. Matthew 21:10.

100. Song of Songs 3:11.

101. John 19:15.

102. John 19:15.

103. John 6:15.

104. Luke 19:40.

105. Mark 15:18.

106. John 19:19.

107. Acts 14:11.

108. Luke 23:31.

109. Matthew 26:37, 38.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Gedeon-Krinovskij/sobranie-pouchitelnyh-slov-chast-2/#0_8

Interreligious Ecumenism: Two Patriarchs compete over who will become more pleasing to the Muslims

Evangelia Zoulaki | April 4, 2026

 

 

“No concession is permitted in matters of the Faith” (Saint Mark Eugenikos)

On March 10, the president of Turkey, Tayyip Erdoğan, hosted at the Presidential Palace a (pan-religious) Iftar dinner, which is offered during the period of Ramadan after the end of the Muslims’ daily fast. A multitude of the country’s religious leaders were present, among them the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew, whom Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon accompanied. [1]

A related video reveals that during the Iftar a recitation of the Koran was given by Egzon Ibrahimi.

https://youtu.be/26YKP_nsvKI?si=3twPSXnxIbw2PEt6&t=8

According to the announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Patriarch Bartholomew “expressed his wishes for Ramadan to the Turkish president and through him to all Muslims.”

A similar official dinner was hosted in Ankara by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). The Patriarch of Constantinople, who is invited every year, was represented by Metropolitan Joachim of Prousa.

Likewise, on March 16, the Ecumenical Patriarch attended another Iftar dinner hosted by the historic Greek community educational institution, the Zographeion Lyceum. [2]

Parallel actions were also undertaken by Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria. [3]

More specifically, on March 10, he himself hosted an Iftar dinner in honor of the engineers, architects, and workers who are laboring for the restoration of the historic Holy Church of the Annunciation of the Theotokos in Alexandria, expressing through this initiative his satisfaction toward all the workers.

We read in the announcement of the Patriarchate of Alexandria: “The Iftar took place in the courtyard of the Patriarchate in Alexandria, in the presence of His Excellency the Consul General of Greece in Alexandria, Mr. Ioannis Pyrgakis, the President of the Greek Community of Alexandria, Mr. Andreas Vafeiadis, the Most Learned representative of the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar in Alexandria, Dr. Ibrahim Al-Jamal, His God-beloved Bishop Damaskinos of Mareotis, Patriarchal Vicar of Alexandria, as well as the persons in charge of the construction company Rowad, which has undertaken the execution of the restoration project of the Holy Church.”

 

 

It is noteworthy that the announcement of the Patriarchate of Alexandria characterizes the month of Ramadan as “holy,” and this indeed during the period of the truly holy fast of Great Lent:

“[Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria] referred in particular to the period of the holy month of Ramadan, during which, despite the strict fast, the workers continue with the same dedication and industriousness the restoration works.”

It is recalled that on October 29, 2009, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, while in Atlanta, America, offered as a gift a Koran to the president of Coca-Cola, which he in fact called the “Holy Koran” and the “sacred book of our Muslim brethren.”

https://katanixi.gr/synaxis-orthodoxon-klirikon-kai-monachon-oikoymeniston-lechthenta-kai-prachthenta-a%CE%84-meros-4on/

In his speech he had said: “I have a small keepsake. Small and important. A keepsake for Daphne and Mukhtar. This is the Holy Koran, the sacred book of our Muslim brethren.”

https://youtu.be/fIwdL2IZ3cY?si=pq6zqBQbQHhV0sI7&t=232

It has now become a common phenomenon for certain contemporary ecumenist Orthodox hierarchs to distribute the Koran, calling it a sacred book, or to participate in Iftar dinners, characterizing the fast of Ramadan as holy.

This is not the first time in history that Orthodox Christians and Muslims have coexisted in one place.

During the long historical coexistence of Orthodox Christians and Muslims, the Church engaged in dialogue genuinely and authentically through her Saints, who authentically lived the mystery of the Church and for this reason understood in depth the dogma and ethos of Islam.

The Saints did not make the slightest concession in the dogmas of the Orthodox Faith.

We read concerning this in a study by a Monk of the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou on Mount Athos, which was written under the supervision of the Monastery’s abbot, the blessed Archimandrite Georgios Kapsanis [4]:

“During the long historical coexistence of the Orthodox Christian and Muslim peoples, our Orthodox Church was in a continual Orthodox-Muslim ‘dialogue.’ The Church engaged in dialogue genuinely and authentically through her Saints, who authentically lived the mystery of the Church and for this reason understood in depth the dogma and ethos of Islam.

Representative examples of this ‘dialogue’ in different periods of Islamic-Christian contact are the dialogues carried out by Saint John of Damascus (8th century), Saint Gregory Palamas (14th century), the holy Gennadios Scholarios (15th century), and Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite (18th–19th centuries). The remarkable theological uniformity of these dialogues proves the single spirit under which the Saints engage in dialogue, regardless of the historical period through which Islam is passing and regardless of the political and social condition of the Orthodox peoples.

These dialogues can safely be regarded also as the authentic expression of the dialogue of Orthodox peoples with Islam.

[...]

Yet the Saints dialogued with Islam in an entirely different way [in relation to the contemporary Hierarchs]. They confessed the Orthodox Faith precisely, indeed in periods when the Orthodox would have had reasons to secure more favorable treatment on the part of their Muslim rulers by downplaying the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Nevertheless, they did not make even the slightest concession in the dogmas of the Orthodox Faith, something which many times cost them even their very life.

The holy New Martyrs are shining examples. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite summarizes the stance of the holy New Martyrs as follows: ‘Did those men (the ancient martyrs) suffer martyrdom for the faith of the Holy Trinity? These likewise did so. Did those men shed their blood for the name and the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? These likewise did so. Not to say that these have something more than those, in that those indeed struggled against polytheism and idolatry, which is an obvious impiety, where it is difficult to deceive a rational mind, whereas these struggled against the one-person monotheism of the heterodox, which is a hidden impiety, and which can easily deceive the mind.’”

The same excellent study points out the erroneous assumption that the Orthodox faith and Islam believe in the same God, whereas in reality Islam constitutes a denial of the true God:

“Interreligious syncretism

[…] the erroneous assumption that Christianity and Islam believe in the same God of the Bible, whereas in reality Islam constitutes a denial of the true God, because it denies the tri-hypostatic being of God and the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[…] Anthropocentric approach.

Islam draws its teaching concerning Jesus Christ from anti-Christian Jewish and heretical Christian (Arian-Neo-Nestorian) literature. It accepts Him as a great prophet, as the seal of holiness, as the one who is going to judge the world at the Second Coming. It also regards Him as the Word and Spirit of God, born of the Virgin Mary (not the Lady Theotokos, but the sister of Moses), a teacher of monotheism, and finally as having been taken up into the heavens until his second mission for the judgment.

It denies the divinity of Christ, His death on the Cross, and the Resurrection, because it considers these unfitting and blasphemous for a prophet of God. For this reason, it also abhors the Precious Cross. In order to support all this teaching concerning Jesus Christ, Islam maintains that the Christians distorted the original Gospel preached by Jesus by additions, subtractions, and falsifications.”

The Pan-Heresy of interreligious Ecumenism is taking on flesh and bones, with the Hierarchs and their followers setting aside the Holy Canons of our Faith.

The position and stance of the Holy Fathers constitute the sharpest rebuke of the interreligious syncretistic words and deeds of the contemporary Hierarchs.

 

[1] https://ec-patr.org/10/03/22/29/o-oikoymenikos-patriarchis-stin-agkyr-12/

[2] https://ec-patr.org/17/03/11/13/o-panagiotatos-paresti-sto-deipno-ift/

[3] https://www.patriarchateofalexandria.com/iftar-toy-patriarcheioy-alexandreias-pros-timin-ton-ergazomenon-tis-anastilosis-toy-ieroy-naoy-toy-eyaggelismoy-alexandreias/

[4] https://www.impantokratoros.gr/E43ED69B.el.aspx

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/diathriskeiakos-oikoymenismos-dyo-patriarches-antagonizontai-gia-to-poios-tha-ginei-pio-arestos-stoys-moysoylmanoys/

The Truth on the 2014 Union of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece and the Synod in Resistance

Transcribed excerpt from the presentation of Dr. Demetrios Alibertis at the 2024 G.O.C. Family and Youth Conference, "Genuine Orthodoxy - 100 Years Later,” which took place on October 11-14, 2024, at the historic Cathedral of St. Markella, Astoria, NY.

 

"In 2013, after years of discussions that were taking place between the Synod in Resistance and the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos, there was a joyful union. This event which should have been a source of great joy for the entire old calendar world, came to be the subject of harsh criticism from all of the old calendar vagante groups who made various preposterous claims concerning it. I will try to present some of the facts, in the hope that it will simultaneously address some of these accusations against us.

"First, when the dialogue ensued, the Holy Synod in Resistance did not approach the discussions with the understanding that they were separate synod but rather expressed the sentiments that they were a part of the GOC, and that all which had transpired back in 1983 was simply to save the old calendar movement. With regard to the ecclesiological position of Metropolitan Cyprian, the truth of the matter is that since 1935, the issue of grace in the new calendar churches has been an issue for the Church and it had to be discussed. While differing opinions were expressed from both sides, the talks allowed for an ecclesiological position to be stated that both sides could agree on.

"Certain terminologies and expressions used by Metropolitan Cyprian were removed since they were a source of confusion for some. The truth of the matter is, that the patristic approach to danger surrounding the faith requires a very deep knowledge of matters a level that the majority of laity and some priests do not have. As these terms and expressions were not helpful to the people, the synod decided let's remove it as it serves no purpose. The sixth section of the joint reconciliation document entitled ‘The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism’ exposits on the sensitive topic of Grace in a manner identical to the position stated by St. Philaret of New York and Chrysostomos of Florina. ‘We know that our Church bears grace and mysteries and so we do not concern ourselves with what the outsiders do or do not have.’ The Church of the GOC can only provide assurance concerning the validity or concerning the soteriological efficacy of the mystery celebrated within her midst, but it will not provide such assurances for those who commune knowingly with syncretistic ecumenism. Furthermore, the subsequent section states that while synodal condemnations of ecumenism have been issued by local churches, ROCOR in 1983 and the GOC in 1998, the Church awaits the convocation of a major synod of the True Orthodox Church which with expanded authority will arrive at important decisions concerning the calendar innovation and ecumenism. This was the position of the great saints before us, and this is our position today."

(...)

"The Lamian Synod [of ‘Archbishop’ Makarios Kavakidis] has adopted the Holy Orthodox Church in North America’s (HOCNA) version of the events which makes the man of God [Metropolitan Vitaly] an ecumenist. The reason people have adopted the story is because of Metropolitan Vitaly's nativity encyclical of 1984 which stated that ROCOR's anathema against ecumenism was local, and did not affect other local Churches, meaning that the other local Churches had to adopt such resolutions on their own. I hate to break it to everyone, and I know there's some in here that will not agree with me, but he [Metropolitan Vitaly] was right. Our regional council was precisely that, a local regional council, it was not an ecumenical council. We have to be able to differentiate this as it was the position of St. Philaret, this was the position of that entire generation of ROCOR hierarchs including the then Archbishop Vitaly."

[Blog Administrator’s note: besides Saints Philaret and Chrysostomos, a similar theological understanding was also notably maintained by the founder of the Cathedral of Saint Markella, His Eminence, blessed Metropolitan Petros of Astoria.

See https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/09/bishop-petros-astyfides-on-grace.html ]

On Novelties in the Orthodox Faith: A Card from the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra (1982)

Source: ROCOR's Department of Public and Foreign Relations Newsletter #40, June-July 1982.

 

 

The chancery of the Synod of Bishops has received from the U.S.S.R. a photographic card constituting a reproduction of a proclamation which has been circulated among pilgrims to the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra by someone, apparently as an antidote to the ecumenism of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

At the top of the card are icons of the Savior, the Mother of God, St. John the Baptist, and two archangels. Its content is as follows:

Against the Introduction of Novelties in the Orthodox Faith

A Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: "By divine grace we decree that the Faith which has been handed down to us shall be and remain exempt from any and every innovation and mutilation just as it has been delivered to us by those who have been both eye-witnesses and servants of the Word, the God-bearing apostles, and further by the holy and blessed fathers in Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and elsewhere". He that overturns the dogmas and canons of the holy pastors and teachers, overthrows the Church itself; without them it cannot exist (Works of the Venerable Macarius, Vol. I, p. 34). From innovations are wont to arise divers heresies and schisms, from which may Christ preserve all the Orthodoxy (the Elder Paisy Velichkovsky). Let us preserve not anything that is an innovation, but the Church's traditions which have been established for us either by Scripture or outside of the Scriptures (Seventh Ecumenical Council). From all of the above one can see that it is not permissible to introduce anything new (or to change anything). Does this not also concern the New Calendar, or the fasts, or anything else new which is opposed to the holy Orthodox Faith? Can the hierarchs or anyone else change or introduce anything new into the Orthodox Faith? As we see in other Orthodox Churches, as for example the Bulgarian Church, the Patriarch issued an epistle implementing the New Calendar, in accordance with which they began to celebrate the feasts thirteen days earlier and to violate (through this) the fasts. The Elder Paisy [writes]: "The hierarchs have not received from the Holy Spirit the authority to violate the traditions of the Apostles and the canons of the Church. It seems to me that one ought not to submit not only to bishops, but even to an angel in the case of an incorrect understanding and decree concerning the holy Orthodoxy Church " (This Elder was writing in regard to the violation of the holy fasts).

 

The Theology of the Passion of Christ in the Orthodox East and in the Heretical West

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | April 4, 2026

 

1. Orthodox Theology: The Passion as Victory

In Orthodox theology, the passions of Christ are interpreted primarily as victory over death and the devil, and not as punishment or expiation. As is noted in a Greek Orthodox source, “Christ willingly accepted death on the cross, because, as God who desires to save man, He had to confront also man’s greatest enemy, death.”

The Orthodox Church follows the patristic tradition that sees the Cross as a trophy of victory. John of Damascus (8th c.) proclaimed: “We venerate the Cross of Christ, by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the devil were destroyed.” Saint Athanasius of Alexandria emphasizes that “Christ’s trophy over death was the Cross,” while Maximus the Confessor notes that “by voluntarily being conquered, He conquered the one who hoped to conquer, and snatched the world from his authority.”

A central element of Orthodox theology is that Christ conquered death by death itself: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death” (Paschal Troparion). The Resurrection is not merely the continuation of the Passion, but its fulfillment. As is explained in the Triodion, “the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the Lord constitute one single, indivisible act.”

Orthodox Iconography

Orthodox iconography reflects this theology: Christ on the cross is depicted as the King of Glory, not as a victim of torture. The Orthodox icon “does not present Him on the cross in a wretched bodily condition—as Western depiction does—but presents Him as the King of Glory, the One who conquers corruption and death.” Orthodox priests often point out that the Western fixation on bloody martyrdom creates “feelings of shame and guilt,” whereas the Orthodox approach focuses on freedom and redemption.

2. Western Theology: The Passion as Satisfaction of Justice

In Western theology, and especially after Saint Anselm (11th c.), the judicial/legal understanding of the cross became dominant. According to this view, Christ underwent the punishment fitting for humanity in order for divine justice to be satisfied. As is noted in a comparative study, “Western Christians see the crucified Christ as a victim undergoing divine judgment and paying the legal price for our sins.”

This theology, known as the satisfaction theory, holds that humanity had accumulated a debt toward God because of sin, and Christ repaid it with His own blood. Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) and scholastic theology reinforced this direction, seeing the Passion as a sacrifice directed chiefly toward God the Father for the propitiation of divine wrath.

Western Iconography

Western Christian art reflects this focus on martyrdom. Works such as those of Peter Paul Rubens and Matthias Grünewald present Christ in a wretched physical condition, bloodied and tortured. The film The Passion of the Christ (2004) by Mel Gibson is a characteristic example of this Western approach, which “seems to revel in the violence and blood of Christ’s punishment.”

3. Fundamental Differences

1. In Orthodox theology, the Passion is interpreted primarily as a military victory and the overthrow of tyranny. John of Damascus proclaims that “Christ’s trophy over death was the Cross,” while Maximus the Confessor notes that Christ, “by voluntarily being conquered, conquered the one who hoped to conquer, and snatched the world from his authority.” The Orthodox Church chants, “trampling down death by death,” declaring that Christ used death itself as a weapon against death.

By contrast, in Western theology, and especially after Saint Anselm (11th c.), the legal understanding of the cross became dominant. Christ is regarded as having undergone the punishment fitting for humanity in order for divine justice to be satisfied. Thomas Aquinas further developed this theory of “satisfaction,” seeing the Passion as a substitutionary sacrifice directed toward God the Father for the propitiation of divine wrath.

2. Orthodox theology adopts a medical model of salvation. Man, by subjecting himself to the evil one, “came to corruption and death,” as John of Damascus explains. Salvation consists in liberation from this bondage and in the deification of human nature. The cross is the “medicine” that heals the “wound” of sin.

In the West, the dominant model is judicial. Man is considered guilty on account of original sin and condemned to eternal punishment. The cross functions as the “payment” of the debt to divine justice, permitting the remission of the penalty. As Seraphim Rose points out, this approach risks presenting a God who is a “punisher and judge” who “sadistically demands satisfaction” through the martyrdom of His Son.

3. In the Orthodox tradition, the Passion is directed against death and the devil, as an act of liberating humanity from their tyranny. Christ, according to the Apostle Paul, “became a curse for our sake” (Gal. 3:13), that is, He confronted the curse of death that weighed upon humanity, not in order to satisfy the Father, but to abolish the power of death.

Western theology reverses this direction. The Passion is directed toward God the Father as an act of satisfying His justice. Saint Anselm held that humanity had offended the honor of God and that only the sacrifice of the God-man could restore that honor. Thomas Aquinas added the concept of “substitutionary sacrifice,” in which Christ undergoes the punishment fitting for sinners.

4. Orthodox anthropology, based on the patristic tradition, sees man after the fall as a slave of death and corruption, not as one who is guilty and owes a penalty. Death is “the last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26) that holds humanity hostage. Salvation consists in liberation from this bondage and the restoration of nature to immortality.

In the West, especially after Saint Augustine of Hippo, the idea of ancestral guilt prevailed. Man inherits not only the consequences of Adam’s sin (mortality), but also guilt itself, thus becoming “sinful by nature.” Salvation requires primarily the remission of this guilt, which is achieved through the judicial redemption of the cross. By contrast, the East preserved the understanding of “ancestral sin” as the death and corruption that we inherit, not as legal guilt.

As Fr. Thomas Hopko explains, in Orthodox theology “the language of ‘price’ and ‘ransom’ is understood metaphorically and symbolically,” not as a legal transaction. Christ “paid the price” neither to the devil (who had acquired rights by deceit) nor to God the Father (who could not demand the punishment of His Son), but “to Reality itself,” creating the conditions for forgiveness and eternal life.

Saint Gregory the Theologian (4th c.) strongly rejects the idea that Christ’s blood was a “payment” to God the Father: “If to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not He who was oppressing us. And secondly, on what principle did the blood of His Only-Begotten Son delight the Father, who did not even accept Isaac when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim?”

The difference between Orthodox and Western theology concerning the passions of Christ reflects two different soteriological perspectives: Orthodox theology sees the Passion as healing (the medical model) and victory (the military model), whereas the West sees it chiefly as judicial expiation (the legal model). Both traditions accept that Christ died for the salvation of the world, but they disagree on how this death operates soteriologically. As Seraphim Rose points out, Orthodox theology does not deny the existence of pain in the Passion, but it refuses to idealize it, seeing above it the victory of love and the abolition of death.

 

A. Primary Sources – Patristic Literature

Western Tradition

Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (translated into Greek as Why God Became Man) – The foundational text of the theory of satisfaction.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Greek translations) – The scholastic theology of salvation as a judicial exchange.

B. Modern Greek Studies – Orthodox Theology

Archimandrite Damianos Zafeiris, The Passion and the Resurrection of Christ (Zafeiris Publications, 2008) – A contemporary theological approach to the Passion with emphasis on the liturgical experience.

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou, Patristic Theology and Orthodox Theology: The Church of the Holy Fathers – An analysis of the difference between Orthodox and Western soteriology.

Panagiotis Nellas, Person and Freedom – The ontological approach to the cross as the healing of human nature.

Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West in Modern Greece (Domos Publications, 1992) – A historical and theological analysis of the differences.

Fr. John S. Romanides, Original Sin (2nd ed. 1989) – A critique of Western anthropology and theology of the cross.

Georges Florovsky, Anatomy of Problems of Faith (trans. Archim. Meletios Kalamaras, Thessaloniki, 1977) – A neo-patristic synthesis and critique of Western influence.

Petros Vassiliadis, Cross and Salvation: The Soteriological Background of the Pauline Teaching on the Cross – A comparative study of the biblical and patristic tradition.

Myrtali Potamianou-Acheimastou, Visual Expressions of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ – A comparison of the Orthodox and Western iconographic tradition.

Andreas Drosos, The Passion of Christ in Folk Poetry – A folkloristic approach.

Andreas Theodorou, From the Hymnography of Holy Week – The liturgical theology of the Passion in the Orthodox Church.

Ioannis Karavidopoulos, Problems in the Synoptic Evangelists’ Narratives Concerning the Passion of Christ (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1974) – A critical interpretation of the Gospel narratives.

Ioannis Karavidopoulos, The Gospel according to Mark (Interpretation of the New Testament series, Pournaras, 1988) – Theology of the Passion in Mark.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/04/blog-post_4.html

The Ordination of a Woman as “Archbishop” in the Anglican Church and Its Ecumenical Implications

Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon | March 21/April 3, 2026

 

 

The recent enthronement of Sarah Mullally as the first woman “Archbishop” for the “Church” of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion (March 25, 2026) constitutes an event of Ecumenical significance, which calls for comment as to its implications, especially for the ecumenists from among the Orthodox.

The issue of the ordination of women to the Priesthood never occupied the holy Orthodox Church from the time of her foundation. It was something unthinkable. Her divine teaching and tradition allowed no such room whatsoever. The institution of deaconesses, which later fell into disuse, addressed pastoral and practical reasons and did not pertain to the liturgical-specific Priesthood.

The issue arose within an Ecumenical framework, in the sphere of Protestantism, as an outgrowth of social and other factors (feminism, etc.) decades ago. Since no Sacred Tradition existed as a guiding principle, the choice to ordain women to a priesthood—devoid in any case of sacramental content and dimension—was almost something to be expected, although it further divided even the Protestants into liberals and traditionalists.

The Protestants also posed this challenge to their Orthodox partners at their Ecumenist conferences and compelled them to concern themselves with an issue that had not occupied them. It was something extraneous, serving to emphasize and prove the “benefits” of their Ecumenical commitment!

The Anglican Communion, which broke away from the Roman Catholics in the first half of the sixteenth century and is Protestantizing to a great extent, of course did not remain unaffected by this new anti-traditional trend and went so far as to ordain women to the priesthood in 1994 and then, after two decades, to proceed even to the ordination of women to the rank of bishop!

As was to be expected, this caused problems in the Ecumenical relationship with the ecumenists among the Orthodox, who nevertheless, despite their apparent protests and difficulties, in practice are led into tolerance and acceptance (in the sense of Ecumenist cooperation) of every kind of outrageous choice made by the Protestants, even by those regarded as historic, serious, and dominant.

The slide into extreme forms of choices that are morally depraved from a Christian standpoint (abortions, support for moral perversions, etc.) has become commonplace in the Ecumenist sphere during recent decades and miserably and resoundingly refutes the nonsense about a supposedly “Orthodox Witness,” purely academic and theoretical in character, offered by the ecumenists from among the Orthodox within the framework of their condemned anti-ecclesiastical venture.

And so it is that the Anglicans, long greatly esteemed by the ecumenists from among the Orthodox, have arrived at the choice and establishment of the first woman “Archbishop” of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, 63 years old, a former nurse, married with children, whose enthronement took place in the cathedral church of Canterbury in southeastern England on March 25, 2026 (Newpost, March 26, 2026).

About 2,000 invited guests were present for the event, which is regarded as “a major turning point for British religious affairs.” They even chose for it to take place on the Feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos according to the New Calendar, because, as they comment, “this marks the moment at which the Panagia was informed that she had been chosen to become the mother of Jesus” (Star.gr, March 26, 2026). Thus, the Anglicans gave a “spiritual and symbolic dimension” to the event of choosing a woman “Archbishop,” so that she might become their spiritual mother, their shepherd and guide!

It should be noted that the previous Anglican archbishop, Justin Welby, was forced to resign in November 2024 because of revelations that he was implicated in an old case of sexual abuse within his church.

At a particularly critical time for the Anglicans, the promotion of a woman as “Archbishop” was preferred, and her enthronement was characterized by the organizers as “a truly global gathering,” although 16 of the 42 heads of the Anglican provinces throughout the world were absent—mainly from Africa, Asia, and South America—because they did not agree with this choice (“Orthodoxos Typos,” March 30, 2026).

Nevertheless, the event had a clear Ecumenical and Interreligious character, including an “Ecumenical Covenant,” exotic dances, and so forth.

A little earlier, on January 29, 2026, when Sarah Mullally was enthroned in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London for the legal confirmation of her appointment as “Archbishop” (the Anglican Church is a “state church” with representation in the House of Lords, and the reigning Monarch of the United Kingdom is its “Supreme Governor”), the ceremony was interrupted by an Anglican priest (Paul Williamson), who publicly expressed his disagreement, thereby demonstrating the deep crisis within the Anglican world itself regarding the issue of women’s priesthood (“Union of Orthodox Journalists” [UOJ], February 2, 2026).

Already from October 2025, millions of Anglicans throughout the world expressed their protest over the appointment of Sarah Mullally as the “first woman Archbishop of Canterbury.” The serious crisis places the unity of the worldwide Anglican community in immediate danger (UOJ, October 10, 2025). By African bishops this was regarded as “apostasy” (UOJ, October 5, 2025), and also as a “destructive” choice that does not take into account “the convictions of the majority of Anglicans, who cannot accept female leadership in the episcopate” (Star.gr, March 26, 2026).

Moreover, the new “Archbishop” is a “fanatical supporter of abortion and of the LGBTQI+ agenda” (UOJ, March 28, 2026).

Yet, despite the “moral disagreements,” Pope Leo XIV of Rome congratulated the new “Archbishop” on her work of preaching Christ and wished her to have the Theotokos Mary as a source of inspiration! (ibid.)

It is worth noting here that recently the Anglicans’ first openly homosexual “Archbishop of Wales,” Cherry Vann, stated in an interview (December 2025) that some of their faithful have left their church because of her appointment, because, among other things, she seeks the acceptance of LGBTQI+ people (homosexuals and others like them); this, however, provokes strong opposition from the traditionalists in their ranks (UOJ, January 3, 2026).

***

So, while the rotten Anglican edifice is being shaken by these new tragic and sweeping developments, the ecumenists from among the Orthodox were not absent from this highly provocative enthronement. They were evidently invited and may perhaps appeal to institutional and customary obligations, but their possible justifications certainly underscore their lamentable Ecumenist dependence, which is stirred basically and chiefly not by ecclesiastical and spiritual criteria (for they loathe “confessionalism,” after all), but by worldly, social, and geopolitical ones.

Present, as can be seen in footage from the relevant video of the ceremony, which has been posted on the website of the “Church of England” (unfortunately we found no indicative photographs despite our relevant search), was Archbishop Nikitas of Thyateira and Great Britain of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a well-known ecumenist and president of the “Conference of European Churches,” who in November 2025 presented to Pope Leo at the Vatican the new edition of the “Ecumenical Charter” [Charta Oecumenica].

Also present was Metropolitan Seraphim Kykkotis of Zimbabwe of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who, in fact, in May 2024 ordained the first deaconess in Harare, Angelic-Phoebe Molen, already an archdeaconess, with the approval of his Patriarchate, holding that “there are no theological obstacles to the ordination of women” (Orthodoxia.info, May 26, 2024); perhaps for this reason he even appears to be making the sign of the cross with gratitude in those scenes where the new “Archbishop” is being applauded by those present during her enthronement!

 

 

Also present was Metropolitan Silouan of Britain and Ireland of the Patriarchate of Antioch, as well as other clergy of other jurisdictions in England, evidently.

Let us not forget that all these nominally Orthodox were likewise celebrating the Annunciation of the Theotokos! All together in Ecumenism, and NOT in Christ, they were wrongly JOINTLY CELEBRATING and collaborating actively or passively in something “apostate” (!) according to the characterization of those same Anglicans of Africa. What more can we humble ones say, except only to describe how matters stand and to reveal the Truth?

What makes such a great impression that one may speak of a “revelation of the Truth” is that concerning the presence of the ecumenists from among the Orthodox at this enthronement of “Archbishop” Sarah Mullally, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REPORT WHATSOEVER on any website on the Internet, whether ecclesiastical or secular; absolutely no mention is made on the websites of the dioceses whose bishops or clergy were present, especially those of Great Britain, nor even on those of their Patriarchates! Not even the ever-talkative Ecumenical Patriarchate, which through its primate intervenes on every conceivable matter, has presented anything relevant up to this moment. No one publicized it and no one highlighted it! Why this strange silence?

Did not the Anglicans, so dear to the ecumenists from among the Orthodox, receive their special care? Did they not, from the beginning of the past twentieth century, attach very great importance to the promotion of Ecumenical relations with them? Was it not the notorious Freemason and arch-ecumenist Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis who, in 1922, unilaterally provoked—without prior agreement of all the local Orthodox Churches, and indeed by letters and not by a Synodal decision of all Orthodoxy—the RECOGNITION of Anglican ordinations by the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Did this not lead to the similar uncritical and unacceptable RECOGNITION of Anglican ordinations by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1923 and by the Church of Cyprus likewise in 1923? Was it not Meletios Metaxakis, when he also seized the Throne of Alexandria, who proceeded to the RECOGNITION of Anglican ordinations by that Patriarchate as well in 1930? And did this not, through bad imitation, lead the Patriarchate of Romania likewise to proceed to the RECOGNITION of Anglican ordinations in 1936? (see Io. Karmiris, The Third Pan-Orthodox Conference of Rhodes – § 4: The Dialogue between the Orthodox Catholic and the Anglican Church, in the journal Ekklesia, year 42, no. 1/1-1-1965, pp. 19–20).

All this means that the destroyer Meletios Metaxakis did not act with divine inspiration, but with a dark one. He had become accustomed to acting in a revolutionary manner in matters of the Church without regard for opinions and consequences. Thus he acted also in the Calendar issue and led to the tragic rupture of Orthodox joint celebration. He also decided at that time upon the CHANGE OF THE PASCHALION, but the implementation of this is being advanced in our own time by those who are indeed his worthy successors. But he also proceeded to recognize the ordinations of heretical and unbaptized persons, according to the Orthodox view of canonical exactitude. Did he not in this also leave a most evil legacy, so that his tragic successors might proceed, unilaterally and from afar, without common Synodal decision and agreement, to recognize the ordinations of unholy men with respect to the matter of Ukraine? So as to lead even to new schisms and bloodshed?

But in this way, is the God of Truth being served, or the Prince of the darkness of this age?

And by their participation in the enthronement of the new Anglican “Archbishop” in secret and under cover, the Gospel is confirmed: “And this is the judgment, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:19–21).

It is obvious that the lamentable ecumenists are in a tragic dilemma: on the one hand they are obliged to be present at the enthronement of a woman “Archbishop,” whose high priesthood they recognize (!), while on the other hand the public confession of this provokes the common religious sense and creates the most negative consequences! And what will they do when the new “Archbishop” visits them at their sees? Will they vest her with a mantia, present her with a pastoral staff, and have her sit officially in the synthronon? Will they present her with a precious engolpion? For her official visit to the Pope of Rome has already been announced within a few weeks. We hope and pray that she will soon make official visits to the historic sees of the ancient Patriarchates as well, so that “the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed”!

But if again they tell us that they did not publicize their participation in the enthronement of the new “Archbishop” because they fear scandalizing the weak and not because they act in darkness, then they wrong both themselves and their flock. They do not possess good and God-pleasing discernment, but bad and wicked discernment, because it is exceedingly selective and self-serving. Moreover, they disregard and conspicuously ignore their flock, whom they deceive and lull to sleep. For this reason, they will bear greater guilt if they do not sincerely repent and return to the holy and saving way of Orthodoxy from which they have deviated. And we speak, of course, of Orthodox Christianity that is Universal and Missionary, that is, truly Catholic, and NOT Ecumenist. Of Orthodoxy that is Prophetic and True, which calls to Repentance and Renewal, and not a false one that compromises, is altered, and loses its distinctness.

“Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its savor, with what shall it be seasoned? It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; they cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 14:34–35).

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2026/04/03/%e1%bc%90%ce%bd%ce%b8%cf%81%cf%8c%ce%bd%ce%b9%cf%83%ce%b7-%ce%b3%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%af%ce%ba%ce%b1%cf%82-%e1%bc%80%cf%81%cf%87%ce%b9%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b9%cf%83%ce%ba%cf%8c%cf%80%ce%bf%cf%85/

Saints Anthony the Great and Athanasios the Great: Models of Mysticism and Action

by Archimandrite Sergius [Yazadzhiev, +2008]

Former Assistant Professor Faculty of Theology University of Sofia, Bulgaria

 

 

St. Anthony and St. Athanasios, on the occasion of whose commemorations (January 17 and 18, Old Style, January 30 and 31, New Style) I am writing these words, were not only contemporaries (both flourished in the mid-fourth century), but their work was carried out in the same geographical location. While St. Anthony performed his spiritual feats in the Egyptian desert, St. Athanasios was Patriarch of the main city of Egypt, Alexandria. Thus, it is not coincidental that the Holy Church has appointed two consecutive days on the Church Calendar for their commemoration. However, beyond the similarities with regard to the time and area in which they lived, the two Saints differ in several aspects: whereas St. Athanasios was highly educated and a man of erudition in both the field of theology and that of secular philosophy, St. Anthony was simple and illiterate—the former, a bearer of Patriarchal dignity, worked in metropolitan Alexandria, the latter, a common monk of ordinary rank, carried out his monastic life in the seclusion and stillness of the wilderness.

In spite of these perfunctory or trivial differences, what both Saints had in common was sanctity, the holy life which they led and which earned both of them the honorary title “Great." For, since the acquisition of the Holy Spirit and holiness are a manifestation of God, differences in appearance and conventional characteristics present no obstacle to spiritual greatness; indeed, according to the Apostle, “there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, and there are diversities of ministration, but the same Lord, and there are diversities of working, but the same God, Who worketh all things in all" (I Corinthians 12:4-6).

Thus, St. Anthony was by nature called by God to the meditative life. He was one of the very first, and this at an early age, to renounce the vanity of the world and thus became the founder of the most difficult of tasks: that of the life of a hermit. The ultimate aim and significance of this life was to cleanse his heart of the passions and vices that thrive in the world—not to withdraw complacently into himself, thereby, but in order to help his fellow man either by his counsel or through his miraculous prayer. The great hermit was soon joined by many people similarly seeking and longing for the genuine spiritual life. His hagiographer, none other than St. Athanasios himself, says, in connection with this: “How did this recluse in the wilderness become famous in Spain and Gaul, in Rome and Africa, were it not for God, Who knows His own people everywhere? ...And although such people wish to live in seclusion, God reveals them and they cannot ‘hide their light under a bushel'" (St. Matthew 5:15).

Not only many Christians, but Gentiles [pagans or non-Christians], too, thronged to see St. Anthony; and he helped everyone. Thus, the troparion so rightly eulogizing him reads that “by his prayers he upheld and supported the entire universe." St. Athanasios speaks about the help rendered to all by St. Anthony: “Was there anyone sad who went to him and did not come back joyful? Or angered and did not become a friend? ...Or anyone whose faith was failing and did not become stronger than before? ...Or anyone worried and was not pacified? Who went to him tormented by demons and did not recover?"

Now, what was the source of the love that St. Anthony had for his fellow man, so diverse in its manifestations that, like a father, he embraced the grief and suffering of so many? Here we must remember the classic words of St. Anthony: “I no longer fear God, because I love Him." What he means is that he gradually rose above and surpassed the status of a slave, who complies with God's will because he fears him: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:17). Beginning, like all strugglers and ascetics, with the fear of God, St. Anthony, through constant struggle against sin, attained the position of a son who does the will of his Heavenly Father, since he truly loves him and fears grieving him by his sins. Thus, the words of the Holy Apostle are demonstrated in fact: “But perfect love casteth out fear" (I St. John 4:18). This perfect love of God, which St. Anthony achieved by his spiritual feats, was the source of his constant love for his fellow man, who personified the image of God; a love which was expressed in manifold ways, according to the need of each.

But St. Anthony's zealous love for God has another, immediate expression: it was unleashed in a fiery fervency for the purity of God's truth, contained in the Orthodox Faith. The Saint's mind, purified of passions, clearly contemplated the truth of the Faith, and he flew into righteous anger whenever it was perverted by heresy. It is for this reason that when he was slandered with the accusation that he allegedly sympathized with the Arians, he “gave vent to his indignation and purposely went to Alexandria, where he denounced the Arian heresy and preached the Orthodox Faith to the people."

Thus, St. Anthony is primarily characterized as a typical hermit, who, saving his own soul, saved and yet saves the souls of so many of his fellow men; at the same time, he took a keen interest in the life of the public life of the Church, unmasking heresy and conforming and strengthening Christians in the truth of Orthodoxy.

***

As we stated above, at the same time this great Saint, Anthony the Great, flourished, there lived and worked his pious contemporary, St. Athanasios of Alexandria. His life was filled with anxiety and struggle—for which reason he is called a “Father of Orthodoxy"—, his life ostensibly differs from that of St. Anthony. As early as his childhood, he was under the fatherly care and protection of St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria, who later Ordained him Deacon and appointed him his secretary. Together with his spiritual guide, St. Athanasios took an active part in the sessions of the First Ecumenical Synod in Nicaea (325). There he rendered a great service in his opposition to the Arian heresy and, in particular, in enunciating the doctrine of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith (the Creed).

Soon after the death of St. Alexander, Athanasios was unanimously elected and Consecrated Patriarch of Alexandria, being barely twenty-eight years of age. From that time forward there ensued his tireless and constant struggles with the Arian heretics, who recognized him as their greatest enemy. Therefore, using the power of certain Byzantine Emperors in their support, the Arians schemed and plotted against St. Athanasios, frequently even making attempts on his fife. As a result, he endured continuous persecution and exile for a full seventeen years—that is, for a third of his hierarchical service. Yet, in spite of all of these anxieties and horrors, he had the strength and fortitude of mind to utter the following remarkable words: “My heart is as filled with faith (reliance on God) in times of Grace as it is in times of persecution, because I firmly believe that if I die while suffering for Jesus Christ, fortified with His Grace, I shall be given greater mercy by Him."

During his travels and periods of exile, St. Athanasios did much good for people through his missionary endeavors and by firmly professing and elucidating the Orthodox Faith. St. Athanasios also visited the capital of our country (Bulgaria), then called “Sardica," and participated in the Council of Sardica in 343. The Saint's zeal for Orthodoxy fills every page of his numerous theological works, the greater part of which are characterized by their dogmatic and apologetic or defensive character. This is why the Church, in the troparion chanted in honor of the Saint, glorifies him as a “pillar of Orthodoxy, fortifying the Church and extolling Her Divine dogmas."

St. Athanasios was remarkable, preeminent among the Fathers in his instructions, writings, and activities. Must we thus conclude that such arduous activity obviated the possibility of his following the contemplative life? To state such is tantamount to repudiating all of his merits and the significance of his lifework. Though he did not have an opportunity to lead the fife of a hermit, since he was responsible for the administrative work of the Church, St. Athanasios was, generally speaking, a monastic ascetic, a recluse and hermit in the world. To this estrangement from the world he owed his purity of heart (St. Matthew 5:8) and his strong will, which enabled him to see clearly the truths of the Faith and to profess them steadfastly, without compromise, oblivious to all threats. St. Athanasios' homage to the hermits testifies to the fact that, during his periods of exile, he spent the majority of his time among the Egyptian recluses, where he felt relief from the tumultuous fife of the metropolis. He continually communicated with the desert hermits by letters and epistles which have been preserved down to present days. He paid singular honor to St. Anthony the Great, whom he gave one of his mantels, a mantel which was later used as a shroud when St. Anthony buried the first hermit monk, St. Paul of Thebes.

After St. Anthony's death, it was St. Athanasios who wrote his life, in which he so eloquently extolled the feats of the Founder of Monasticism.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVIII (2001), No. 2, pp. 18-21.