Wednesday, July 2, 2025

The Life and Conduct of Our Father Among the Saints, John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco

Source (with slight editing): excerpt from The Life and Conduct of Our Father Among the Saints, John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA, 1996. Translated from Ό "Αγιος Ιωάννης (Μαξίμοβιτς) Αρχιεπίσκοπος Σαγγάης και Σάν Φραντσίσκο (1896-1966), Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Greece, 1995.


1. In Russia (1896–1921)

Saint John was born on June 4, 1896, in the country house of his parents, Boris Ivanovich and Glafyra Michailovna Maximovitch, who were descended from aristocracy, in the village of Adamovka in the county of Kharkov (in present–day Ukraine), and at Holy Baptism he received the name of the Archangel Michael.

His ancestors on his father’s side were of Serbian descent. One of his forebears, Saint John, the Metropolitan of Tobolsk, led a lofty ascetic life and was a missionary and the author of spiritual works. He lived in the first half of the eighteenth century, and his Glorification was the last to take place during the reign of the Holy Tsar–Martyr Nicholas ii (1868–1918).

Saint John was a quiet and obedient child. His sister remembers that his parents had no difficulty in raising him. In thinking about his future during his adolescence, he could not make a decision about his course, because he was not certain whether to dedicate himself to military or civil service. He felt only that his future life would be driven by a sublime desire for the Truth that was cultivated in him by his parents, who inspired him with examples of people who had sacrificed their lives for the Truth.

At the age of eleven, he began his education in the Military Academy of Poltava. He was an exemplary student, but he had an aversion to two subjects: gymnastics and dance. He was loved at the Academy, but he felt that he had to choose another path. This idea developed from his contacts with two well–known professors of religious studies at the Academy, Protopresbyter Sergei Chetverikov, who wrote books about Saint Paissy (Velichkovsky) of Neamts and the Optina Elders, and the Rector of the local Seminary, Archimandrite Varlaam.

The day that Michael Maximovitch completed his studies, after seven years at the Military Academy, coincided with the Enthronement of Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) at the Cathedral of Kharkov. This renowned Hierarch and theologian, who was the chief advocate of the restoration of the Patriarchate in Russia, later became Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia and later achieved distinction as First Hierarch and organizer of the Russian Church Abroad. This Hierarch constantly inspired the Church–loving students in all spiritual matters, thanks to his principal trait: his sincere love for them. Archbishop Antony heard of the young Michael Maximovitch, about whom many spoke in ecclesiastical circles, and Archbishop Antony wanted to meet him. So it was that in Kharkov Archbishop Antony became the spiritual guide of Saint John, and this relationship lasted until Archbishop Antony’s death (†1936).

In this city Michael studied law, received his diploma in 1918, and served for about three years in the law courts of Kharkov, in the days when Ukraine was governed by the Cossack Skoropatsky. But the heart of the future Hierarch was far away from this world. He spent all of his free time at the university, where he studied spiritual writings, and especially the Lives of the Saints. “When I was studying worldly knowledge,” said the Saint at his election to the Episcopacy, “I delved all the more into the science of sciences, into the study of the spiritual life.”

While visiting the monastery where Archbishop Antony resided, Michael had the opportunity to pray at the tomb of an ascetic of the early eighteenth century, Archbishop Melety (Leontevitch), a deeply revered, righteous man who had nonetheless not been Glorified. The soul of the young Saint was wounded by the thirst to accomplish the real journey and goal of the life in Christ.

Bishop Varnava, who later became Patriarch of Serbia, also made a profound impression on Michael during his visit to Kharkov. The young Serbian Bishop, who received a warm welcome from Archbishop Antony, recounted to him the afflictions of the Serbian people under the Turkish Yoke. This took place in January, 1917, before the Bolshevik Revolution, when the Serbs, who were fighting during World War i against Germany, Austro–Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria, no longer had any territories free from enemy occupation. Thanks to the inspiration of Archbishop Antony, the response of the Russian people in support of the Serbs was unanimous. By means of this example, Michael recognized the universal meaning of the Church and the duty of a Bishop to respond to the needs of all Orthodox peoples. In his turn Bishop Varnava, when he became Patriarch, was very hospitable and helpful to the Hierarchy of the beleaguered Russian Church Abroad.

2. In Yugoslavia (1921–1934)

The Russian Revolution forced the Maximovitch family to emigrate to Yugoslavia, in 1921, where Michael studied theology at the Academy of Saint Sava in Belgrade and received his diploma in 1925. In the final year of his studies, he was Tonsured a Reader in Belgrade by Metropolitan Antony, who afterwards, in 1926, Tonsured him a monk at the Holy Monastery of Milkovo with the name John, in honor of his distant relative, Saint John of Tobolsk, who at that time had recently been Glorified, and shortly thereafter Ordained him a Hierodeacon. On the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos that same year, the young monk was made a Hieromonk by Bishop Gabriel of Cheliabinsk. During these years, he was an instructor of religion at a Serbian high school, and in 1929, he was appointed to the Seminary of Saint John the Theologian in the city of Bitol, which belongs to the Diocese of Ochrid.

In Bitol, the Saint earned the love of his students, and it was here that his spiritual struggles became known. Saint John prayed unceasingly, celebrated Divine Liturgy daily, or attended and received the Holy Mysteries, fasted strictly, and normally ate once a day, late in the evening. With paternal love the Saint implanted lofty spiritual ideals in his students, who were the first to discover his great spiritual feat: they observed that he never lay down to sleep! He was overcome by sleep after extreme fatigue and normally when he was kneeling in the corner of his cell before the Holy Icons.

The Bishop of that Diocese, Saint Nikolai (Velimirovitch), the contemporary “Serbian Chrysostomos,” as he was aptly called, who was renowned for his virtue and wisdom, esteemed and loved the young Hieromonk John. One day when he was leaving the Seminary after a visit, he turned to a group of students and said: “Lads, listen to Father John; he is an Angel of God in the form of a man.” The same students were convinced that Saint John lived an Angelic life. They likened his patience and humility to the patience and humility of the great ascetics and hermits. He was full of love for all, particularly for children, helpful, simple, cheerful, meek, likable, and merciful. No one ever saw him angry, he never judged anyone, and he never spoke about himself. He lived the events of the Holy Gospel as if he saw them in front of his eyes. He always knew the chapter of the Holy Gospel in which to find an event, and when he needed to, he could always refer to the verse.

He knew the character and the idiosyncrasies of each student, so that at any moment he could detect what the student knew or did not know. The Saint had a special gift from God: an exceptional memory. Consequently, he could grade his students without recourse to records and notes. Love bound Father John and his students to each other. For them, the Saint was the incarnation of all the Christian virtues. They did not observe any fault in him, not even in his speech (he had a slight speech impediment). There was no personal or mutual problem which he could not himself settle immediately. There was no question for which he could not find an answer that was always exact, clear, complete, and full, because he was a truly educated man. His education and his wisdom were based on the most steadfast foundation: the fear of the Lord. The Saint prayed fervently for his students. At nights he showed loving care for each one: he would straighten the pillow of one, and the blanket of another. As he left the room, he would bless the sleeping students with the Sign of the Cross and depart without making a noise.

The first week of Great Lent, Saint John ate nothing, apart from a small prosphoron each day; he did the same thing during Great Week. On Great Saturday his body was completely exhausted. But on the day of the Resurrection of the Lord, he would be restored and would regain his powers. At Paschal Orthros he would exclaim, “Christ is risen!”, as if Christ were risen precisely on that night. His face shone. The Paschal joy that radiated from the Saint was imparted to everyone in the Church. Whoever was in the Church with Saint John on Pascha experienced this.

During the same period, he began to write noteworthy spiritual texts, such as a study on the veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos, characterized by its maturity and precision. He continued this activity of his until the end of his life. Although he did not leave us systematic works, his constant articles in the ecclesiastical press of his day, and later his reports to the Synod, are clearly rooted in Orthodox Patristic theology and are distinguished for their deep spirituality, moderation, and sobriety, their simplicity and clarity, and their completeness and elegance. The pious reader can perceive that Saint John’s output as an author expresses his experiences in Christ, and for this reason his works make fragrant and captivate the soul.

Metropolitan Antony must probably have ascertained this special gift of Blessed John for theology early on, and for this reason, when he Consecrated him Bishop, he addressed the following characteristic exhortation to him, among other things: “Love theology and try to plumb its depths. Enlighten your soul and the souls of those around you with it, and with your learning give soul–saving nourishment to your mind.”

3. In China (1934–1949)

In 1934, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad resolved to elevate Saint John to the rank of Bishop and to assign him to the city of Shanghai, as an Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of China, where, during that period, there was a sizable presence of Russian emigrés, above all because of the Communist domination of their homeland.

For the Saint himself there was nothing more remote than this thought, as is apparent from the account of a woman who knew him in Serbia. She met him on a tram and asked him why he had come to Belgrade. He replied that he had come by mistake, because he had received a message for some other Hieromonk John, who was going to be made a Bishop. When she came across him the following day, he told her that the mistake was worse than what he had anticipated, because he had learned that it was he himself who was to be Consecrated a Bishop!

When he pleaded with the Synod that he had a speech impediment, he was told that the Prophet Moses had the same difficulty. The Consecration took place on May 28, 1934. Saint John was the last Bishop to be Consecrated by Metropolitan Antony. The new Bishop arrived in Shanghai from Serbia on November 21, 1934, the Feast of the Entry of the Theotokos. Many people had gathered at the harbor to welcome their new Hierarch, who whole–heartedly assumed his duties and very soon turned out to be an outstanding personality in Shanghai.

The completion of an enormous Cathedral and the resolution of a lingering ecclesiastical problem awaited him. Saint John soon made the situation peaceful, and in time he restored relations with the Serbs, Greeks, and Ukrainians in his jurisdiction. Likewise, he completed the construction of the Cathedral, which was dedicated to the Icon of the Mother of God, “Surety of Sinners,” and of the three–story Church house, together with a bell tower. He was especially attentive to the spiritual formation of the youth. He himself taught religion to the high er grades of the Commercial School, and he was always present at the examinations in the classes on religion in all of the schools of Shanghai. He inspired and directed the construction of Churches, hospitals, asylums for the mentally ill, orphanages, old people’s homes, community centers, and in short, all of the social activities of the Russians in Shanghai. The Saint, united with his flock, participated directly in all of the initiatives of the emigré organizations; yet, despite all of these varied pastoral preoccupations of his, he remained a stranger to the world.

This combination of an intense inner life and an attractive outward activity was the most characteristic trait of his personality throughout the duration of his turbulent pastoral career. He was a man of unceasing prayer centered on the Divine Eucharist and Divine worship; it was from this that he drew his strength and holiness.

A fellow-Bishop of his writes in this regard: “Like Saint John of Kronstadt, whose example Vladyka John followed, his Grace–filled energy derived first and foremost from his daily partaking of the Holy Mysteries. Later, he would consume the Holy Gifts unhurriedly, remaining for quite some time in the sanctuary, especially on those days when he celebrated the Divine Liturgy himself. His prayer and what he experienced at those moments are a mystery, about which we dare not and cannot speak. Beyond this, he was almost always simultaneously with the people—listening to them, helping them—and in spiritual communion with the Saints. When Vladyka John traveled, he took with him a full set of liturgical books....”

Thus, from the first day of his arrival in Shanghai, as before, he Liturgized daily. Wherever he was, he never omitted the Divine Services. One time, on account of his continual standing, his foot became very swollen, and a group of doctors who examined him were afraid that he had gangrene. They advised him to go to a hospital immediately. The Saint refused. Then the Russian doctors informed the Parish Council that they would not take responsibility for the health and life of this patient. The members of the Parish Council, after exhaustive admonitions—even threats—compelled the Saint to consent and sent him to a hospital. In the afternoon, however, he slipped away from it on his own, and at 6:00 p.m. he presided at the All–Night Vigil for the Elevation of the Precious Cross, while the swelling had completely vanished!

The Saint celebrated the whole cycle of daily Services, with no abbreviation, and at Compline—as one who had exceeding love for the Saints—, he would read up to five or more Canons in honor of the Saints who were being celebrated that day. He did not allow conversations in the Holy Altar without great necessity, and showed personal concern for the behavior of the Altar boys who served, and in particular he wrote a manual of behavior for them, with which he strictly, yet lovingly, forced them to comply. After the Divine Liturgy he would remain in the Altar for two or three hours in prayer and contemplation, and one time he said: “How difficult it is to tear oneself away from prayer and to return to the din of the world!” At night he would remain without sleep.

This ascetical behavior mirrored a profound inner life, rich in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which overflowed to the exterior, although the Saint tried to cover them with the veil of humility and folly for Christ’s sake. The Faithful confessed that many times they saw him in Uncreated Light, raised above the ground, sometimes inside the Holy Altar, and at other times while he was preaching! He never made “social calls,” but he did appear suddenly to those who were in need, unexpectedly, and any time, whatever the weather conditions might be, and at the most unusual hours. Every day he would visit the sick with Divine Communion. People regularly saw him in the evening hours, in bad weather, on the streets of Shanghai, with his Episcopal staff in his hand and his rason blowing in the wind. When asked where he was going at such a time, he would reply: “I must see such–and–such a person close by....” But when they accompanied him, this “close by” was often some kilometers!

“When you are concerned for the salvation of men’s souls,” the Saint used to say, “you should remember that they also have bodily needs, which acutely reveal their presence. You cannot proclaim the Gospel without showing love in deeds.” An expression of the Evangelical love of the Saint was his founding of the Orphanage of Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, for orphans and for children of poor parents. He assembled some women, and with their help he began with eight children. In time the orphanage made such progress that it accommodated hundreds of children over the fifteen years of its operation. Vladyka himself gathered sick and hungry children from the streets and dark alleys of Shanghai. One time he brought a little girl to the Orphanage whom he had “bought” from a Chinese man for a bottle of vodka!

The Faithful of the Diocese of Shanghai nourished deep feelings of love and respect for their Hierarch, as is clear from the following extracts from a letter of theirs to Metropolitan Melety of Harbin in 1943:

“We lay people cannot even approach his broad knowledge of theology, his erudition and his homilies, which are profoundly illumined by the Apostolic Faith, which are delivered almost daily and are published regularly. We, the people of Shanghai, will speak of what we see and feel in this multi–racial city of ours, since the day our Bishop arrived, of what we see with our sinful eyes, and of what we feel in our Christian hearts. From the day of his arrival, the grievous phenomenon of Churches in discord ceased; the Orphanage of Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk, which feeds, clothes, and educates two hundred children, was created out of nothing; the situation of the Almshouse of Saint Philaret the Merciful gradually improved; the poor in all of the hospitals of Shanghai are visited by Priests and are communed regularly, and in the event of death, even if they are homeless, a fitting funeral is performed; he himself personally visits all the mentally ill who live in a hospital far away from the city; those who are imprisoned have the opportunity to pray and commune at the Divine Liturgy which is celebrated monthly. He gives serious attention to the upbringing of the youth in a strict Orthodox and patriotic spirit. In many non–Russian schools, our children are now given religious instruction. In the difficult moments in the life of our community, we see how he guides us, defending us and our ancient Russian moral principles to the end. All of the heretical groups and heterodox confessions now understand that it is very difficult to fight against such a pillar of the Orthodox Faith. Our Bishop untiringly visits Churches, hospitals, schools, prisons, and civic and military organizations, always bringing with him peace and faith. From the day of his arrival, not one sick person has remained without his blessing and personal visit. By the intercession of our enlightener many have received relief and health. He, like a beacon, enlightens our sinfulness, and like a semantron awakens our consciences and arouses our souls to the Christian struggle, and as a good shepherd he summons us to leave the earth and worldly corruption for a short time and raise our eyes up to Heaven, ‘from whence cometh our help.’ That is, he is an example, as the Apostle Paul writes, ‘in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity’ (I Timothy 4:12)!” The pious Russians were not mistaken in their estimation of the work of their pastor, who was ready “to sacrifice his life” for his flock.

The gifts of the Saint for working wonders and foresight were very well known in Shanghai. One time during Bright Week, he went to the Jewish hospital, in order to visit the Orthodox patients there. When he passed one room, he stopped in front of a screen, behind which there was the bed of an elderly Jewish woman who was on the verge of death. Her family members were there, awaiting her demise. The Saint lifted his Cross over the screen and exclaimed loudly, “Christ is Risen!”, and at the same moment—O, the wonder!—the woman, who was at death’s door, came to and asked for water. The medical personnel remained astonished by the change in the woman, who had almost died a few moments previously. The woman recovered and left the hospital. Such incidents are innumerable.

One time the Saint was called to commune a man at the point of death in the hospital. He took the Holy Gifts and went with another clergyman. When they arrived at the hospital, they ran into a young man about twenty years old, who was playing a harmonica. He had already recovered and was preparing to leave the hospital shortly. The Saint summoned him and said, “I want to commune you right now.” The young man immediately confessed and communed. In amazement, the clergyman asked the Saint why he had not gone to the man who was about to die, but had stopped at the young man whose health looked fine. The Saint replied simply: “He will die this evening. The other, who is gravely ill, will live for many years hence.” And that is precisely how it turned out! The Lord manifested similar miracles through His Saint in Europe and America.

After the repose of Metropolitan Melety (†1946) and the end of the War, the Russian emigré clergy were under a great deal of pressure from the Moscow Patriarchate to submit to the new Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis i, successor of Patriarch Sergius, who in 1927 had pushed the Church into cooperation with the atheistic Soviet power by his well–known Declaration. In the Far East, almost all of the Hierarchs submitted to the new Patriarch. Saint John, who rejected such submission, was pressured and threatened by his superior, Archbishop Victor. The Saint’s reply to these threats was simple: “I am subject to the Synod of the Diaspora, and I will follow the path that it indicates to me.”

The threats advanced to actions. The official periodical of the Moscow Patriarchate characterized “the Assistant Bishop John Maximovitch” as “schismatic,” and Archbishop Victor of Peking suspended him. The Saint completely ignored these decisions and continued to Liturgize even outside of certain Churches of his that were now sealed, with the moving support of his rational flock.

After a great delay, on account of the difficult conditions, an order arrived from the Synod of Bishops Abroad, which raised Bishop John to Archbishop, directly under the Synod. The Nationalist Government of China and the authorities of Shanghai recognized Archbishop John as the sole leader of the Russian Orthodox Church in China.

4. In Western Europe (1951–1962)

At the end of the 1940s, when the Communists seized power in China, the Russians were compelled to emigrate once again, the majority to the Philippines. In 1949, about five thousand refugees from China were in the encampment of the International Refugee Organization on the island of Tubabao in the Philippines. They lived in tents under the most primitive conditions. There they brought all the orphans, the elderly, and the sick. The unfortunate refugees lived under the continuous threat of violent typhoons, because the island lay directly in the path of these frightening and devastating tropical cyclones, which pass through that part of the Pacific Ocean. In a truly miraculous way, during the twenty–seven months that the Russian encampment existed, only one time was the island threatened by a typhoon, which changed its course and went around the island. Every night Saint John would go on foot around the camp and bless its four sides with the Cross. Later, when the people had departed for different countries and almost no one remained in the camp, a terrible hurricane passed over it and left nothing standing!

The Saint frequently met with the representatives of the civil authorities for the protection and needs of the Russian refugees. They recommended him to go in person to Washington, D.C., in order to ask that all the Russian refugees in the encampment be transferred to America. He flew to Washington, and despite the difficulties, succeeded in having the laws concerning the re–settlement of immigrants changed, and in this way the entry of his flock into America was accomplished with the help of our Lord.

In 1951, the Saint was appointed Archbishop of the Diocese of Western Europe. Initially, he had his See in Paris, and later in Brussels. He traveled constantly throughout Europe, Liturgizing in French and Dutch, and, as before, in Greek, Chinese, and subsequently, English. At that time, the following was written about the Saint: “He lives outside of our plane of existence. It is not accidental that a Catholic priest told the youth of his parish: ‘You seek proofs. You say that there are no longer miracles and Saints. But why do look for theoretical proofs, when a living Saint walks the streets of Paris, Saint John the Barefoot?’”

“The Barefoot”! This characterization encompasses a wondrous ascetical experience of the Saint in the world, which is described plainly and very graphically by a distinguished Russian intellectual as follows: “Bishop John lived the life of a strict ascetic: He refused food and sleep, usually wore sandals without socks, even in the winter, and his rason was more like the garment of a beggar than that of a Hierarch. His behavior sometimes occasioned embarrassment, on account of his ‘folly....’”

In Europe, the Saint collected information about the pre–Schism Saints of the West, who are honored in the West, but had been forgotten in the East. On his recommendation, their veneration was restored and their names took their place once more in the Ecclesiastical Calendar.

His spirituality, his facility with languages, and above all the example of the Saint, attracted many Europeans to Orthodoxy. He was a genuine missionary and a true witness of Orthodoxy. His attempts in particular to create indigenous Orthodox nuclei in France and Holland with the appropriate use of liturgical forms, language, and native clergy are noteworthy.

He intervened miraculously to strengthen his mission, as is shown by the following incident: Bishop Jacob of The Hague, a Dutch convert to Orthodoxy, was sleepless one night from anxiety arising out of many serious problems. No one was aware of this, and Archbishop John was hundreds of kilometers away.... Suddenly, the telephone rang; it was Archbishop John! Without asking anything at all, he said to Bishop Jacob: “Do not worry; go to your bed and sleep. Everything will be sorted out!”

The passage of Saint John from Western Europe is literally a story in itself; the tracks of the ascetic and wonderworking Bishop were a radiant path that carved an indelible impression on the hearts of the pious. We can savor the atmosphere in which the Saint lived from the following characteristic testimony that a revered Abbess has preserved for us: “During the reading of the Kathisma of the Psalter (in the Monastery of Lesna in France), Vladyka always stood with his elbow resting on the analogion, giving the impression that he was dozing off. At the back of the Church, Sister Xenia whispered: ‘He didn’t sleep this evening; he is taking a nap now.’ Vladyka immediately turned around and looked at her. She was ready to fall to the ground from her astonishment. Whenever he visited England, he always stayed with us at the Convent of the Annunciation in London. He never slept, but rather rested, sitting in an armchair in the office adjacent to the Church. At night we heard how often he went to the Church. A friend of our community, Paraskeve Demetriou, was lying sick in a coma. At our request, Vladyka John went to see her; he prayed and blessed her. The same day, she arose healthy and with tears recounted how she had felt the sickness suddenly leaving her! Others told me that whenever Vladyka placed his hands on someone’s head, he himself felt the power of Grace, and the person perceived light in his soul. Vladyka fulfilled the commandments of the Lord with sacrificial love, and the Lord responded to his prayers....”

5. In Western America (1962–1966)

In the autumn of 1962, Saint John arrived in his final Diocese, San Francisco. It happened to be the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos. On the same Feast, almost thirty years previously, he had arrived in Shanghai, his first Diocese. In the beginning, he helped the elderly and ailing Archbishop Tikhon, upon whose death (17 March 1963), the Saint became Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America.

Here, the untiring and hardworking servant of God encountered a half–completed Cathedral, dedicated to the Most Holy Theotokos; here also, as in China, the Church was rent by discord. The first concern of the Saint was the completion of the Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos, “Joy of All Who Sorrow,” work on which had stopped because of a lack of resources and strong disagreements over the finances, which had paralyzed the Church community. Our Lord, in His mercy, helped His Saint, who suffered greatly from the disagreement, to the point that he was dragged into the civil courts; but he continued the construction with prayer and unsleeping supervision, inspiring all to sacrifices and labors by his example.

The final years of the Saint’s life were full of bitterness, slanders, and persecution. At times, people envied and condemned the Saint when he dealt harshly with them in accordance with the sacred Canons of the Church. When asked who was responsible for the disputes in the Church, the Saint replied bluntly: “The devil.”

In 1964, the construction of the largest Church of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in America, with five gold domes, was essentially completed. The placing of the magnificent Crosses on the domes, which can be seen from ships approaching San Francisco, began with a great procession in which a large number of the Faithful took part. In spite of the risk that the procession would be postponed on account of rainfall, the Saint, without any hesitation, led it with hymns on the damp streets of the city. As soon as the procession started, the rain ceased. The Crosses were blessed in front of the Cathedral, and when the central Cross was raised up, the sun suddenly appeared, and a dove lighted on the gleaming symbol of Christ! This visible triumph of the elevation of the symbols of Christ, which shone on the hills of a contemporary Babylon, where Satanism is practiced openly, was the victory that crowned the Saint’s earthly life.

In 1966, the Saint foresaw his repose several months beforehand, telling a pious woman: “I shall die very soon, at the end of June, not in San Francisco, but in Seattle.” In this final period of his earthly life, he had attained to heights of sanctity that are hard to conceive: One would feel fear before him, one would have the feeling that he was seeing an Angel, and be overcome by “trembling and ecstasy.”

Accompanying the wonderworking Kursk–Root Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos to Seattle, Saint John, after Liturgizing in the Cathedral of Saint Nicholas, remained in the Holy Altar for three hours in prayer. It was June 19 by the Church Calendar. Then, after he had visited some of his spiritual children who lived near the Church and several sick people, in order to bless them with the wonderworking Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, he went to the room in the Church residence in which he was staying. Suddenly, the companions of the Blessed Hierarch heard the sound of someone falling to the floor. As soon as they had ascended the staircase, they found him on the ground and already departing this life. They sat him up on the armchair in front of the wonderworking Icon, and the Saint peacefully reposed in the Lord before the Most Holy Theotokos, for whom he nurtured feelings of exceeding love and reverence throughout his life.

At that moment, there ended the exceptionally difficult podvig of voluntary deprivation of rest and sleep which the Saint had imposed upon himself: They laid him on a bed that was in the room, and thus they gave him rest and sleep after forty years of superhuman asceticism! “Rest now in peace!” exclaimed Archbishop Averky of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, who loved him very much. At the end of his Funeral homily, he said: “Rest in peace, dear Vladyka! Rest from your righteous deeds and struggles! Rest in peace until the General Resurrection!”

The official funeral of Saint John took place on June 24, 1966 (Old Style) in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos, “Joy of All Who Sorrow,” in San Francisco. The Service began at 6:00 a.m. and lasted seven hours, because of the great multitude that came to bid farewell to their beloved reposed Hierarch. Metropolitan Philaret presided, Liturgizing with Archbishops Leonty (Filippovitch) of Chile and Peru and Averky of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, and Bishops Savva of Edmonton and Nektary of Seattle, as well as with many clergy.

The atmosphere at the funeral was intensely compunctionate and prayerful; no one then present will forget it. Despite the profound grief of the countless admirers of Saint John, a special joy predominated, which inundated all the Faithful. The much–suffering body of the Saint remained exposed in the coffin for six days, and despite the heat of the summer season, it did not show the slightest sign of decay or hardening: his hands were soft and supple, although nothing had been done to the blessed body during the preparation for the Funeral. The coffin with the priceless treasure was transferred to be buried in the crypt below the Cathedral, borne on the shoulders of the orphans of Shanghai, who—now grown up—expressed their deepest respect and love for their Father and protector.

But assuredly, “the Righteous live for ever” (Wisdom 5:16). Before even forty days had passed, the Saint appeared to many in a Heavenly Light, announcing, “Tell the people that although I have departed this life, I am not dead, but alive!” And, indeed, this is verified by his countless miracles and by his sepulchre, which has proven to be a life–bearing spring that gushes forth rivers of Grace and streams of healings.

6. The Translation of His Relics and Glorification (1994)

In the autumn of 1993, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia instructed Archbishop Antony of San Francisco and Western America, along with two other Hierarchs, to investigate the Relics of Saint John.

On the evening of September 28, 1993 (Old Style), after a Pannychida had been served at his tomb by the members of the Commission, Archbishop Antony urged those participating in this sacred task to forgive each other, and he himself asked forgiveness of all, and then gave a blessing for the tomb to be opened. They removed the covering of the already oxidized metal coffin, and opened it with fear of God and prayer. The face of the Saint was veiled, and all immediately noticed his white and incorrupt hands. After praying, Archbishop Antony removed the veil and revealed the incorrupt face of the Saint Glorified by God!

At the following session of the Synod of Bishops, Archbishop Antony reported that the sacred Relics of Saint John had been examined by the Synodal Commission, which was composed of himself, Archbishop Laurus of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, Bishop Kyril of Seattle, and twelve other persons. After hearing the report of Archbishop Antony and the statement of the Commission, the Synod of Bishops blessed the continuation and completion of the preparation for the Glorification of Saint John, which took place on June 19, 1994 (Old Style), the day of his blessed repose, in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos, “Joy of All Who Sorrow,” in San Francisco.

7. “Ye are the light of the world”

The Saints of Orthodoxy have entered “through the narrow gate” (St. Matthew 7:14) into the Light of Grace; they have all become Light and are, indeed, “the light of the world” (St. Matthew 5:14). They enlighten us, they guide us on our journey towards the Light, and they welcome us into the Kingdom of the Light, to the eternal glory of our Christ! This was the path trodden by the newly–revealed Saint John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco: the path of joyful sorrow (charmolype), the Cross–and–Resurrectional path of fidelity to the treasure of our Faith and to the Fathers and Teachers of Orthodoxy.

This twofold fidelity should be given special emphasis, because our Saint, this new ascetic Bishop, is for us not only an unerring guide to the spiritual life, but is also a genuine paragon of zealous adherence to the purity of our Faith. Moreover, these two things are inseparable in our Patristic Tradition: the manifestation of the holy Orthodox ethos derives from the continuous living–out of Orthodox doctrine. Thus, the Blessed John took a steadfastly negative stand against Sergianism, that is, against the cooperation of the Church with, and Her enslavement to, the Godless and anti–Christian régime of the former Soviet Union. Likewise, he stated with boldness and vigor his opposition to the calendar innovation of 1924 and also to the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism.

In his written and oral sermons, he lauded the innumerable New Martyrs of the Russian Church, whose Martyrdom constitutes the most astonishing spiritual event of the twentieth century. He also praised and expressed his sympathy and support for all those Orthodox, especially in Greece, who for their adherence to the Patristic Church Calendar have suffered hell on earth from innovators and ecumenists.

Finally, Saint John, as a true bearer and exponent of the Orthodox Faith and life, intensely experienced the feeling of the culminating apostasy, of the confusion of the last times, and for this reason he urged his spiritual children to be constantly vigilant and to struggle uncompromisingly in witnessing to the Truth and the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church.

In truth, then, there could be no greater gift of our Lord to the people of our tragic era than the contemporary Saints and their incorrupt Relics! Blessed be the Name of our Christ and Savior, which is “above every name” (Philippians 2:9), for thus it makes the very distinct demand on us that we live, struggle, and journey “with all the Saints” (Ephesians 3:18).

8. Miracles

“Wondrous is God in His Saints” (Psalm 67:36)! In the thirty years since his departure to the Heavenly mansions, Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco has consistently manifested his Grace–filled powers to those suffering from bodily and spiritual afflictions, thus rightly earning him the title Wonderworker. Included here is a small but representative sampling of his numerous miracles, which demonstrate his wonderworking love for his fellow man, both during his life on earth as well as after his repose in the Lord.

The power of his prayer.

Valentine Kollenka Stadnitsky graduated from the military school of Poltava, where he was acquainted with the then Michael Maximovitch. After World War II, Mr. Stadnitsky relocated from Yugoslavia to Brussels, where he lived with his sister.

One day in 1959, when he was between sixty–five and sixty–six years of age, while he was washing the windows of the apartment where he lived, Mr. Stadnitsky fell from the second story to the street. His bones were so fractured that the doctors had no hope of saving him.

Vladyka John arrived at the hospital with a Priest and began to pray at the pillow of the dying man. The Priest who was with him later recounted that for the first time he heard how the Saint conversed with God in prayer. The following morning the doctors could not believe that the injured man had not yet died! Not only that, but he quickly began to recover. In a short time, he left the hospital completely healthy, and he lived for several years afterwards.

“How is your hand doing?”

Anna Chodireva from Sacramento, California, relates that for a long time her sister’s hand was in constant pain. She went to doctors and used medicines, but she could not find any relief. Finally, she decided to have recourse to Vladyka John, and she wrote a letter to him in San Francisco, where he was then Archbishop, from Los Angeles, where she resided. After a short time, the pain in her hand disappeared to such an extent that she completely forgot this ordeal of hers.

One time she went to San Francisco and attended the Divine Liturgy, which Vladyka was celebrating. At the end, when she was venerating the Cross in his hands, the Saint, who had never seen her before, asked her: “How is your hand doing?”

His consolation of the suffering.

Mrs. Maria Markou published the following open letter to make known the wonderful miracle which God in His Providence granted to her: the appearance of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco:

“Beginning in July, 1995, I experienced serious health problems (weight loss, high temperature, swelling of the liver and spleen, etc.). Finally, after blood tests, I was admitted on an emergency basis to the ‘Helena Venizelos’ Hospital in Athens, on October 18, 1995, with a diagnosis of blood cell depletion (with leukocytes at a level of only 1,500) and a fifty–fifty chance of having leukemia. Leaving home, I took with me, among my other personal articles, a small paper Icon of Saint John, to whom I am particularly devoted.

“On the evening of October 18–19, heavily burdened mentally, tired in soul and body, frail in the face of the possibility of a horrible illness, I fervently prayed to Saint John. With simplicity, I reminded him that, when he was alive, as well as after his repose, he had made many ‘trips,’ from Shanghai to San Francisco and all over the world, giving aid to any who had need of it. I asked him to come to Greece, as well, not for me, a sinner, but for my seven–year–old daughter, who, with tears in her eyes, asked me, as I left for the hospital, ‘Mama, are you coming back?’

“‘Saint of God,’ I said in my prayer, ‘you loved children. In China, you protected thousands of orphans. In America, you went to the poorest of neighborhoods to relieve their pains, and when you had nothing else to give them, you distributed prosphora from the Divine Liturgy. I implore you; you would not wish the eyes of my Evangelia to flow with tears. Tomorrow they are going to make an incision in my chest, in order to diagnose my disease. I am going to place your Icon on the place of the incision, and I believe that you will come to my aid.’

“With that prayer, and absolutely trusting in Saint John’s help, I went to sleep. The next day, October 19, 1995, around six o’clock in the morning, having awakened and waiting to be taken to the laboratory, I felt a caress on my forehead. Moving my head up, I saw the venerable face of Saint John, shrouded in an exceedingly bright light. He was ascetic in appearance, and his whitish gray hair fell freely over his face. He smiled and, stooping, kissed me on the forehead. Afterwards, everything left me and I was left with a feeling of euphoria and security. Though until then, and for some time, I had not been able to walk without the assistance of another person, that morning I went by foot to the laboratory room, in another building of the hospital, underwent the incision undisturbed, and again returned on foot to my room.

“The afternoon of the same day, the examination of my bone marrow ruled out the presence of leukemia. Indeed, I was diagnosed with a different illness, though not an immediately ‘life–threatening’ one, for which I have been treated to this day at the ‘Annunciation’ Hospital in Athens.

“With regard to the eventual course of my disease, which I do not know at this time, the appearance of Saint John was an event of particular significance, for which I thank our merciful God. It is a living proof of the presence of God in my life. The Saint appeared perhaps not to heal me, but to strengthen me in the great and sudden change in my health and, without doubt, in order to assure me in a practical way of the reality of eternal life and to awaken me spiritually, occasioning thus my preparation for that ‘true life.’ I thank God, imploring Him, if it be His will, that, through the intercessions of Saint John, He leave me with my family and, in any case, that He not allow me to depart this vain world without having been reconciled to Him and without repentance and the fruits thereof. Amen.”

 


Tuesday, July 1, 2025

The Lies of the Mind: Suspicions – Assumptions

Metropolitan Cyprian II of Oropos and Phyle | June 1, 2025 (O.S.)


Did you know that, apart from words, one can also lie with the mind?

And yet, it is something that can happen to us very often, if we are not careful!

Has it happened to you to pass by some people talking and to think, “they’re talking about me”?

Or for someone to speak to you and for you to try to figure out with your mind why they are saying what they’re saying and what their purpose is?

Or to think that they act the way they do because they want to gain something from you?
All of these are suspicions.

***

One of the Fathers of our Church, who knew deeply the soul of man, Abba Dorotheos, tells us:

Whoever accepts suspicions is lying with the mind.

Suspicions are false and greatly harm our soul.

● They remain within us for a long time and begin to convince us that they are real things, even though they neither exist nor have happened.

● They undermine love and damage our relationships with others.

● They create anxiety and fears.

● They bring turmoil and sorrow. They do not allow the soul to find its peace.

● They make us live the lie in our mind.

***

Very often the tempter creates situations so that people may form suspicions about one another.

“Some days ago, someone came to me and said: ‘Why did so-and-so used to speak to me before and now doesn’t? I once made a remark to him—could it be because of that?’ I said to him, ‘Look, maybe he saw you and didn’t notice you, or maybe he had someone sick and had on his mind to look for a doctor or to find foreign currency to go abroad, etc.’ And indeed, the other person did have a sick family member, he had a heap of worries, and this man expected him to stop and talk to him, and was forming all sorts of thoughts.”

Attention! Let us never accept the suspicions that the tempter sows within our soul, who wants to bring discord among people.

“Of what you see, believe half, and of what you hear, believe none,” says the wise folk saying.

Let us have a good thought for everything. Let us excuse everything.

Let us watch our mind, that it may always be on the side of truth!

Because with falsehood, however we may express it—whether with words or with our mind—it separates us from God, who is the Truth, and brings us closer to the devil, who is the father of lies.

 

Greek source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2025/06/14/20250614aPsemata-nou.pdf

The Pencil and the Eraser

Metropolitan Cyprian II of Oropos and Phyle

June 15, 2025 (O.S.)

 

Do we sacrifice something of ourselves every day?

The eraser asked the pencil:
— How are you, my friend?
The pencil answered angrily:
— I am not your friend, I hate you!
The eraser, surprised and saddened, replied:
— Why?
The pencil answered:
— Because you erase what I write.
And the eraser replied:
— I only erase mistakes.
— And why do you do that? …asked the pencil.
— I am protective, and that is my job.
— That’s not a job… responded the pencil.
The eraser answered:
— My job is just as useful as yours.
The pencil, in a harsh tone, said:
— You’re wrong and arrogant, because the one who writes is better than the one who erases.
The eraser replied:
— Removing the mistake is equal to writing what is right.
The pencil remained silent for a moment, then, with a veil of sorrow, said:
— But I see you getting smaller every day.
The eraser replied:
— Because I sacrifice a little of myself every time I erase a mistake.
The pencil, in a very sorrowful voice, said:
— I feel shorter than before.
The eraser comforted him, saying:
— We cannot do good to others if we are not ready to sacrifice something of ourselves.
Then she looked at the pencil with affection and said:
— Do you still hate me?
The pencil smiled and replied:
— How can I hate you when you sacrifice so much?

 

Every day you wake up, and you have one less day.
If you cannot be a pencil to write the happiness of others,
be a good eraser to erase their sorrows and sow hope and optimism in their soul, reminding them that the future is brighter.

 

Greek source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2025/06/28/20250628aMolivi-goma.pdfBottom of Form

Elder Kallinikos the Athonite (1853-1930)

Part I

Kallinikos the Athonite belongs among the great figures of Athonite monasticism. Konstantinos Theiaspris — his secular name — was born in 1853 in Athens to pious parents who descended from the chieftains of 1821.

He was a lively and intelligent child. Alongside his studies, he also read various Christian books, through which he came to know the wondrous life of the ascetics. In 1875, at the age of 22, he joined the brotherhood of the virtuous Elder Daniel, in Katounakia of the Holy Mountain.

When Elder Daniel saw the young Athenian, he had doubts as to whether he would be able to endure the harsh monastic life. However, he soon changed his mind and tonsured him a monk with the name Kallinikos.

Fr. Kallinikos had zeal for the monastic life and a deep inclination for learning; for this reason, he studied various patristic books. In a very short period of time, he was able to speak and write the Russian language, being self-taught. For his overall support of the Russian monks, the Tsar of Russia awarded him medals.

With the consent of his elder, Daniel, he decided to live as a recluse—that is, to live in his cell and within a small area around it—for 45 years.

This heroic decision was combined with complete surrender to the providence of God, with unceasing prayer and fasting. Of course, this life is not for everyone, but only “for those to whom it has been given.” The silkworm produces its silk only after becoming enclosed in its cocoon. (Fr. Cherubim [Karambelas]).

[Metropolitan] Dionysios of Trikke and Stagoi writes about him: “You saw a venerable, imposing, holy figure...” His reputation attracted a multitude of people to him, to hear an enlightened answer to their problems.

Disciples, elders, hermits, cenobites, laypeople, jurists, military officers, university professors, rectors, Greeks, Russians, and generally people of all ages, social classes, and levels of education would turn to the enlightened hesychast of Katounakia to seek his counsel for their problems. Among them were [Elder] Joseph the Cave-dweller, Fr. Gerasimos Menagias, and others.

He was also deemed worthy, among a few other great fathers, of the vision of the uncreated light. Through the practice of the noetic prayer, he was granted divine illuminations, writes Monk Erastos. (Two Contemporary Saints, Athens 1963).

On August 7, 1930, the reclusive hesychast of the desert of Katounakia, Fr. Kallinikos, was destined to depart for “the beloved tabernacles of the Lord.” After he had forewarned his disciple of his end, he told him to go and prepare the Church. For ten minutes before he breathed his last, he gazed upon holy figures who had come to accompany him with honor at his departure. Then he was heard to whisper softly: “I thank You, my God, that I die an Orthodox…” (Fr. Cherubim).

Eternal be his memory.

 

Part II

At the beginning of the 20th century, a strange formation was born within the sphere of the Church. A bizarre monster: Ecumenism.

According to it, no religion possesses the full truth. Each religion has a part of the truth. The complete truth will arise from the union of all Churches and all religions. Ecumenism: a pan-religion.

Various figures have characterized Ecumenism as a pan-heresy (Fr. Justin Popovich). The first step of Ecumenism was the change of the calendar, as is evident in the 1920 encyclical of the Patriarchate and in the proceedings of the Constantinople conference in 1923, in order for Orthodox and Papists to celebrate together. Thus, in 1923, the modernist Patriarch of Constantinople Meletios Metaxakis dared the disastrous calendar change.

The entire Holy Mountain (except for the Vatopedi Monastery for a certain period) has preserved the old (Julian) calendar up to the present day. A significant portion of Zealot monks also proceeded to cease the commemoration of the innovating Patriarch. The enlightened Elder Kallinikos could not remain indifferent in the face of this unprecedented betrayal of the faith.

To him (Fr. Kallinikos), as the wisest and holiest, the concerned Fathers turned for counsel regarding what should be done, and he, interpreting the Scriptures, without evasions or doubts, based on the Holy Fathers and the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, advised them to cease the commemoration of the modernist patriarch Meletios Metaxakis. In such a gathering, the elder Kallinikos openly characterized the opinion that the commemoration of the patriarch should not be ceased as a “diabolical deception” ([Hieromonk] Maximos Hagiovasileiates, Denunciation of the Athonite Fathers, Holy Mountain 1997, p. 160).

The position of this blessed Elder Kallinikos regarding the Ecumenist innovation of the calendar change is evident from the following incident.

“Someone wanted to become a priest and wrote a confessional letter, which he sent to Fr. Kallinikos. The elder said to his disciples: ‘Write to the brother that he is in a pit of mire, clapping his hands and crying out for us to make him a king. Let him first come out of the pit of the New Calendarist innovation, be cleansed, and then we will see if he is worthy to become a king.’” (Monk Damaskinos Hagiovasileiates, Periodical Saint Agathangelos the Esphigmenite, no. 74, 1984).

He used to receive the religious periodical “ZOE.” But when the calendar change took place, he immediately returned the periodical. (Damaskinos, see above).

We could say that Elder Kallinikos in our days fulfilled the role of Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Maximus the Confessor, as well as other struggling Fathers who, in critical moments for the Church, remained the sole defenders of Orthodoxy.

From the presented evidence, it becomes clear that the holy Elder Kallinikos of Katounakia, the reclusive hesychast, is a contemporary figure of the Athonite desert who denounced the heresy of the Latins, Papism, and the modern pan-heresy of New Calendarism–Ecumenism.

- Panagiotis Iliopoulos

 

Greek source: https://imthes.gr/index.php/%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B5%CF%82/%CF%88%CF%85%CF%87%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AE/%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/91-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82-%E1%BD%81-%E1%BC%81%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%B5%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82

To serve God or Mammon?

Righteous St. John of Kronstadt

 

The words of the Lord are a true lamp on the path of our life, and so it is with the words of today's Gospel. The eye is the lamp of the body, says the Lord. Why does it not say "the eyes," but "the eye"? Because here the Lord does not mean the bodily eyes, but the spiritual eye, that is to say, our heart. By "eye" is therefore meant the heart, the seat of conscience, of the inner law that shows us what is Good and what is Evil. By "body" is meant our entire inner life, our thoughts, desires, intentions – all that we do throughout our life on earth. The meaning, then, of these words of the Savior is that our heart, or our conscience, is for man a lamp that must enlighten him in all his actions and thoughts.

Further on the Lord says: if your eye, that is to say your heart and your conscience, is clear and pure, then all your thoughts and actions will be full of light, just, pure; but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be in darkness, that is to say, all your thoughts, your whole life will be evil, perverse.

And so, if your heart, which was given to you by the Lord to be a lamp, has become darkness because of your negligence and laziness, what will your life be, what will your actions be? Is it not so in life? Do we not see examples of it constantly?

Let us take two persons. The first is content with very little, has no need of a lavish table, sumptuous clothing, a richly furnished dwelling, etc. She has daily bread, a few clean and decent changes of clothing, she has some income or a small salary – she is content with it and gives thanks to God. She desires nothing more.

But look at the life of the other person. Nothing satisfies her. Her table is not a table, her clothes are not clothes, and so it is with her dwelling. Something is always lacking. How much time and worry she devotes to her clothing! Yet our clothes are only a temporary covering, a bandage on a wound, because clothing is merely a consequence of sin, when man and woman became aware of their nakedness. And so, is it really necessary to adorn bandages on wounds? Would it not be better to focus on healing the wound as quickly as possible—that is, to purify oneself of sin as soon as possible? Let us remember that at our baptism we all received a garment of incorruptibility. It is this garment that we should care about above all. Let us preserve this garment, let it be our most beautiful adornment. But let us return to this second person: nothing ever satisfies her. Why? For the simple reason that her heart is false, darkened, that it is prey to the passions. And it is so because she does not know, and does not wish to know, the commandments of our Lord, because she is not guided by the light of the Gospel of Christ. Because she blindly fulfills the will of her flesh, enslaved to the passions.

No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will cling to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon. You cannot serve God and money, that is to say, our sinful flesh through which the devil acts, striving to anchor it to the world. This is precisely what the Lord means by serving Mammon—it is what turns our whole life upside down. Instead of caring first for our soul and for our salvation in general, we busy ourselves with satisfying the insatiable greed of our belly, and through our negligence we let our soul perish in its sins—this immortal being created in the image and likeness of God.

I will conclude with the words of the Savior: “Do not be anxious, saying: What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or How shall we clothe ourselves? For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Listen to the word of the Lord: it is the Gentiles, not the Christians, who worry about what they will eat, what they will drink, or what they will wear, and who do not think about the works of God and the fulfillment of His commandments. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all the rest shall be added unto you. Amen.

 

Translated from the French edition

Sunday, June 29, 2025

The Papal Heresies (Latin False Doctrines) are condemned by many Holy Synods and by the Holy Fathers.

Amid the multitude of erratic outcries that desperately attempt with pompous nonsense to support Ecumenism, the baseless argument is heard that Papism has not been condemned by a Synod (!?). Those who support this obviously possess no knowledge of theology, while at the same time they are entirely ignorant of historical reality.

As a response, we publish an excerpt from the remarkable study of the late Metropolitan Ambrosios of Eleutheroupolis [+1984], which he composed during the period of the ruthless openings toward Papism by Patriarch Athenagoras. The Metropolitan lists a series of Holy Synods that condemned Papism and its delusions. He also mentions names of Saints who clearly regarded Papism as a Heresy (naturally, there has never been a Saint who disagreed on this point).

...Are therefore the heretical teachings of the West “condemned” by Synods or Fathers?

Let us see:

The great Synod of 879 in Constantinople, considered by many as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, having accepted the Creed without the addition of the Filioque, dogmatized:

“We all thus think, thus believe. Those who think otherwise than this or dare to present another creed in place of this, we subject to anathema. If anyone should dare to write down another creed besides this sacred Symbol or to add or subtract from it and should impudently call it a creed, let him be condemned and cast out from every Christian confession. Therefore, if anyone, driven by such recklessness, should dare to compose another Symbol and call it a creed, or make an addition or subtraction to the one handed down to us by the holy and ecumenical great Synod held first in Nicaea, let him be anathema!” (ibid., pp. 263–264).

Behold, therefore, a most severe, most official, most solemn, and of almost Ecumenical character condemnation of the heretical and blasphemous Filioque!

When Pope Sergius IV of Rome used the Creed with the addition of the Filioque (1009), the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius..., by decision of a Synod, erased the name of the aforementioned Sergius of Rome from the diptychs of the Eastern Church; and since then until today no papal name has been placed therein” (Vas. Stefanides, Ecclesiastical History, 1st ed., p. 344).

The names of the Primates of Churches are not, of course, erased due to “local customs,” but because of heresies!

The Latin false doctrines were also condemned by the Synod in Constantinople in 1054, when the definitive Schism took place, which specifically called the “Filioque” not a “local custom,” but a “blasphemous dogma” (ibid., p. 344).

The Latin false doctrines were also condemned by the Synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351 which dealt with Hesychasm.

The Synod in Constantinople in 1440, the Synod in Russia in 1441, the Synod in Jerusalem in 1443, the Synod in Constantinople in 1450, and the Synod in Constantinople in 1484, condemned and rejected the pseudo-synod of Florence, which had accepted the “union” on a false and baseless foundation, namely by not considering the innovations of the West as heresies.

The Synod in Constantinople in 1722 condemns “the dogmas of the Latin false doctrine and perverse thinking” and declares that through them “the Latins deceive the simpler ones, leading them away from the pious Dogmas of the Church of Christ and dragging them miserably into the depths of perdition.” (ibid., vol. II, pp. 823–824).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1727 rejects the heterodox teachings of the Latins, both old and new, and describes them as “long-winded nonsense and inventions of soul-damaging flattery and offspring of a deluded mind” (ibid., p. 867).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1838 harshly condemns the heterodox teachings of Papism as “blasphemies against the Evangelical truth,” as a “Luciferian delusion,” as a “departure from God and from the immaculate and pure Faith of Jesus Christ,” etc. (ibid., pp. 896, 902).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1848 condemns Papism as a heresy! “Of these heresies, which have spread widely—by judgments known to the Lord—over a great part of the inhabited world, one was formerly Arianism, and today it is Papism,” which it characterizes as overthrowing all the Ecumenical Councils through its delusions! (ibid., p. 906).

The Synod in Constantinople in 1895 condemns the heterodox teachings of Papism as “notions of arrogant pride,” as “unlawful and anti-Gospel innovations,” as “essential differences concerning the Faith, relating to the God-given Dogmas of the Faith,” as “anti-Gospel and utterly unlawful,” as “grave and essential differences concerning the Faith,” for the adulteration of the writings of the Ecclesiastical Fathers and the misinterpretation of both Holy Scripture and the Definitions of the Holy Synods; and it concludes: “Therefore, it has rightly been rejected and continues to be rejected, as long as it persists in its delusion” (ibid., pp. 933, 935, 936, 938, 942).

I am asked: Should the Patriarch have first asked me whether I approved of his various actions? Certainly not! Who am I that the Patriarch should ask me? Such a demand would be tragic for me!

Yet I had one demand.

That he should ask the Synods of 867, 879, 1009, 1054, 1341, 1347, 1351, 1440, 1441, 1443, 1450, 1484, 1722, 1727, 1838, 1848, 1895; that he should ask the holy Fathers and the wise Teachers of the Church; that he should ask Saint Photius, the venerable Theophylact, Saint Gregory Palamas, Symeon of Thessalonica, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Eugenios Voulgaris, Nikephoros Theotokis, Saint Nikodemos, Saint Nektarios, and many, many others; that he should ask, much more so, the venerable and divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synods, which through their holy and sacred Canons forbid, under penalty of deposition, every kind of common prayer with heretics, schismatics, or those out of communion—and if all these approved of his actions, his declarations, his common prayers, his general conduct, then indeed—so be it!

No one would have the right to disagree, no one to protest, no one to obstruct. But when His All-Holiness acts contrary to the Synods, to the Fathers, to the Canons—as if all these had no true love and no fervent concern for the fulfillment of the Lord’s request “that they all may be one,” but were instead full of hatred and indifference—then we too are justified (are we justified or obliged, willingly or unwillingly?) to act contrary to His All-Holiness!

For us, above every Patriarch stand the holy Fathers, the venerable Synods, the sacred Canons. And, should we perhaps find ourselves before grievous dilemmas of obedience...

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/06/blog-post_86.html

 

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Do Not Postpone the Time of Repentance

Christos E. Naslimes | October 1934 | Volos

(future Metropolitan of Magnesia, Church of the G.O.C. of Greece)

 

Great is the devil’s wickedness. After he convinces you to rebel against God, after he succeeds in making you trample upon His commandments and through this means snatches you away from the divine embrace and makes you his own slave and captive, he then takes care to ensure that you never repent and escape from his dominion.

He resorts to schemes and forges bonds in order to keep you securely bound at all times. And while the evil one, before you sin, presents sin to you as something small, light, excusable, with the purpose of casting out from your heart the fear of God, afterwards, once you have sinned, he stirs up great turmoil in your conscience and presents the committed sin to you as far more exaggerated than it truly is; and while then he told you it was minor, deserving of no punishment (perhaps even of praise), easily healed, reminding you of God’s infinite compassion toward the repenting sinner, now that you have committed the sin, he presents it to you as a great and lofty mountain, worthy of the utmost punishments and of no forgiveness. It is his own craft, by which he attempts to drag you into despair, so that you may think that your repentance is unacceptable before God and thus, being in despair, to continue on the path of evil, fulfilling the devil’s will.

But no! You, who had the misfortune to be deceived by the evil suggestions of the devil and to fall into sin, must not listen also to this most destructive of his suggestions—that supposedly your sin, because it is grievous and mortal, will not be heard by God if you repent. No, give no heed to the despairing image of your sin, which the crafty one often presents to you, in order to shake the remaining powers of your soul, intensifying the pangs of your conscience; but take courage, strengthen your weakened morale, and hasten at once to cleanse the defilement of your soul with the warm tears of repentance, for God is long-suffering and full of compassion, and receives graciously the one who comes to Him and abundantly bestows His mercy.

Hasten, we say, at once, and do not postpone the time of your return, for no one in the morning can guarantee that he will reach the evening, nor in the evening that the morning will find him. Death often comes suddenly and unexpectedly, and its sickle reaps without distinction the elderly, the young, and infants. And what shall be your lot if death finds you unrepentant? Where do you hope your soul will be placed to find rest after a sinful and corrupt life?

Ah, my brother, be careful also here, where the deceitful enemy of your soul often tries to convince you to postpone the time of your repentance. Realize the snare he sets for you, and do not abandon today—which is yours and certain—and postpone the great and saving work of repentance for tomorrow, which is not yours and is uncertain. For if tomorrow does come, being deluded, you will postpone it for the day after tomorrow, and then for the next, and so on; constantly postponing the time of your repentance, you do nothing else but deceive yourself and mock God, promising fruits of repentance and a pure life. And one day you will reach the last day of your life, which will have no tomorrow, and you will depart bearing the heavy burden of your sins, unable to ascend to the great and difficult height of heaven.

“Do not wait to return to the Lord, and do not delay from day to day; for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will go forth, and in the time of vengeance you will perish,” says the Spirit of God through the Wise Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 5:7).

Because you are young, you presume that you will live many years and seasons so as to reach extreme old age; and thus calculating, you allow the precious time of your youth to be spent in sin and you designate the final days of your life, in old age, as the time for repentance. But O fool, who has deceived you, promising you longevity? Who has deluded you by saying that certainly and without doubt the thread of your life will reach old age and will not be cut while you are still young? What deceiver and impostor has taught you such destructive and deadly doctrines? No one else but the enemy and adversary of your soul, the devil. He it is who, through various deceitful and false reckonings, tries to mislead you into thinking that he will let you repent in old age—if you now serve him.

But by God! Do not believe him. Do not allow your best time to be offered as a sacrifice to the devil, for the virtue of youth, besides being more easily achieved, is also more worthy of reward, because it is accomplished with greater perfection, whereas the virtue of old age becomes all the more toilsome, deficient, and almost impossible. Do not let sin take hold of you in your youth, for over time it will dry up and utterly uproot all that is good and fruitful which God has planted in your soul; it will sow its own thorns, and thus make you a fruitless and thorn-bearing tree, fit to be cast into the furnace of unquenchable fire.

Do not deceive yourself by thinking that after a life full of sins and impieties you will be able to follow a life of repentance worthy of divine gifts, for the long-standing evil habit, which has become a second nature, will hinder you. But neither should you mock God by dedicating to Him the useless remnants of your earthly life, for in doing so you will provoke His wrath; and beware lest your life be suddenly cut off while you are still young—and then, alas! Wretched will be your position before the Throne of divine Justice, for you will receive a sentence of destruction. This is confirmed by God Himself: “Do not wait to return to the Lord, and do not delay from day to day; for suddenly the wrath of the Lord will go forth, and in the time of vengeance you will perish” (Wisdom of Sirach 5:7).

 

Source: Κῆρυξ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων [Herald of the Orthodox], no. 184, Oct. 22/Nov. 11, 1934.

The Canonical Walling-Off of Saint Glicherie of Romania

Facing this unpleasant and simultaneously tragic situation, the pious and zealous Hieromonk Fr. Glicherie could not remain inactive. The Saint, as Abbot and Spiritual Father of the Skete of the Holy Protection of the Theotokos, together with his brotherhood of twelve monks, did not implement the Calendar Innovation and began researching the matter for their better information.

Then they read a relevant letter against the Innovation by the Athonite Monk Arsenios Kotteas, who had in fact visited the Skete of the Holy Protection together with the then Bishop of Bukovina, Vissarion, who had reacted against the decisions of the so-called "Pan-Orthodox Congress" of Constantinople in 1923.

When, moreover, toward the end of 1925, the Fathers of the Skete learned of the impending celebration of Pascha in 1926 together with the Latins, according to the Western Paschalion, in evident violation of the entire Synodal and Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church on this matter, they were outraged and decided to henceforth openly express their opposition to the Monastic authorities.

For this reason, they went to the Abbot of the Monastery of Neamț, Nikodimos, later Patriarch of Romania, who however proposed to Fr. Glicherie to accept the Innovation and to be appointed Abbot of a larger Skete of the Monastery.

The Saint, together with his fellow monks, decisively rejected the proposal and realized, along with certain other monks from the Monasteries of Neamț and Sihăstria, that they would inevitably have to flee to the mountains as well, in order to preserve their conscience undefiled.

Thus, he and his fellow ascetic Fr. David arrived in a mountainous area near the Skete of Sihla on November 18, 1925, built a hidden hut, and remained there during the winter, living an eremitic life, nourished by mushrooms and vegetables, demonstrating patience amid deprivations, while also receiving the Divine Blessing in a tangible way.

In the spring of 1926, they built another, larger hut. It had three rooms, one of which they used as a Chapel for their services.

A little while later, three other monks joined them—brothers according to the flesh from the Skete of Sihăstria—who also built huts. Fr. Glicherie would gather mushrooms and exchange them for bread to meet the needs of their ascetic bodies, while the nourishment of their souls was the uninterrupted and diligent performance of the holy services, with oil lamps and candles, and perseverance in prayer. The hermits especially delighted in the birdsong of the forest, and at times encountered wild beasts, which, however, never harmed them.

One night in the wilderness, Fr. Glicherie felt a spiritual uneasiness. After his extended night prayer, he was seized by persistent thoughts:

“How is it possible,” he thought, “that in our country, where there are so many clergy with advanced theological education, as well as a large number of intellectuals, they abandon the Patristic Calendar, which was handed down to us by the Holy Fathers of the Church, who honored it since ancient times? Should I perhaps abandon it too and be with the others?

"Might I be committing an error before God by not changing it?" Later, he saw the following vision: From the West appeared a black cloud. It was trying to cover the whole world and was moving swiftly toward the East, roaring like a monster.

Before him, a powerful whirlwind formed, surrounded by a chain black as pitch, upon which black crosses appeared. It was terrifying! But from the East, a white cloud appeared, like snow, which shone like gold. Before it was a chain of gold, from which golden crosses were hanging.

Then a choir of Hierarchs in golden vestments appeared, walking toward the black cloud. At a certain point, the two clouds collided, and the black cloud fell. And in its place appeared a sea of water that engulfed the earth...

In the waves of the sea, Fr. Glicherie was floating alone, swimming and struggling with enormous waves. Despair overtook him, and he began to weep bitterly. Then, it seemed to him that a Monk appeared before him.

He was walking upon the waves of the sea and resembled our Lord Jesus Christ, and His face shone like the sun! When He came near him, Fr. Glicherie, who was submerged in the water up to his armpits, kissed His Feet.

The “Monk” bent down and took Fr. Glicherie by the hand and said to him: “When you see all these things, go and tell the people that the end is near!” and immediately He disappeared along with the sea!...

 

Greek source: Οι κατά Θεόν αγώνες και τα θαυμαστά παλαίσματα του Ομολογητού Ιεράρχου Αγίου Γλυκερίου εν Ρουμανία (1891-1985) [The God-pleasing struggles and marvelous contests of the Confessor Hierarch Saint Glicherie in Romania (1891-1985], by Bishop Klemes of Gardikion.

Online: https://353agios.blogspot.com/2020/06/15-2020.html

 

Holy Mountain: Canonical Cessations of Commemoration from the Heretical Patriarchs of Constantinople (1969–2020)

katanixi.gr | June 18, 2025

[A Neo-Zealot source]

Comment by the blog Katanixi: As Orthodoxy is being fiercely fought against and the Canonical, God-given, and Patristic Walling Off is being slandered in various ways, we present the testimony of the Holy Mountain (1969–2020), which serves as a support and guidepost for every Orthodox Christian. The text is an excerpt from the article “2016–2020: The Holy Mountain and the Alteration of the Orthodox Faith (Part III).”

 

Cessation of Commemoration (Canonical Walling Off)

During the 1970s, the Holy Mountain, relying on the Holy Canons, the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and the Sacred Tradition of the Orthodox Church, firmly resisted the unorthodox and anti-patristic actions of the ecumenist and freemason Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras and proceeded to a years-long cessation of his commemoration during the years 1969 to 1972. Subsequently, many Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain ceased the commemoration of the next Ecumenical Patriarch, Demetrios, as he had declared that he would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, Athenagoras.

Unfortunately, however, the confessional stance of the Holy Mountain was destined to change completely with regard to the ecumenistic overtures and ecclesiological deviations of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, which are incomparably greater than those of his predecessors. What follows is a brief record concerning the cessation of commemoration of the names of Patriarchs Athenagoras, Demetrios, and Bartholomew, which took place in the Athonite Monastic State from 1969 up to 2020.

A. Cessation of Commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras (1969–1972)

The heretical positions and actions of Patriarch Athenagoras justifiably led most of the Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain, as well as cell-dwelling monks—including Saint Paisios—to cease commemorating Patriarch Athenagoras as the local bishop of the Holy Mountain during the period 1969–1972. Fr. Theodoros Zisis notes characteristically regarding this period of resistance and confession in the Athonite Monastic State:

“There are many heretical, ecumenistic delusions and sayings of Patriarch Athenagoras, which justifiably led most of the Monasteries of Mount Athos, as well as cell-dwelling monks—including Saint Paisios—during the three-year period 1969–1972, to cease commemorating him as the local bishop, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council (861)” (Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, ‘We Will Not Cause a Schism’).

Concerning the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras, three characteristic excerpts from letters of that period are presented:

a) In November 1968, a letter was composed and co-signed by Saint Paisios, the then Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita Archimandrite Vasileios Gondikakis, and Hieromonk Gregorios Chatziemmanouil, who had undertaken the task of converting the formerly idiorrhythmic Monastery of Stavronikita into a coenobitic one. In this letter, dated November 21, 1968, the three co-signers cited specific unorthodox statements by Patriarch Athenagoras, while simultaneously emphasizing that in the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita the name of the Patriarch was still being commemorated (a rare occurrence for a coenobitic monastery of the Holy Mountain, given that most monasteries had ceased commemorating him), by way of tolerance and not as an expression of assent to the ecumenistic stance of the Patriarch.

“[…] the re-establishment of the One … Church and so many other things are incomprehensible and literally blasphemous for the Orthodox Church. The fact that in the Monastery of Stavronikita the name of the Patriarch is commemorated today—a rare thing for a Coenobium of the Holy Mountain—is done by way of tolerance, out of respect for the Church, and not as an expression of assent to this line” (source: Orthodoxos Typos March 9, 2007, no. 1680, p. 1.5).

Two years later, in October 1970, the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita, following the example of the other Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain, ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras, with the strong cooperation and support of Saint Paisios in this.

b) The Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, in a letter to all the Athonite Holy Monasteries (from which it was requesting their opinions), emphasized that the cessation of commemoration constitutes an act of resistance in view of the emerging danger:

“The cessation of Commemoration constitutes a denial and an act of resistance in view of the emerging danger” (source: Orthodoxos Typos, no. 127, October 10, 1970).

Subsequently, the Athonite Holy Monasteries, in their reply letters, emphatically affirmed their steadfastness in continuing the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras.

c) In October 1970, the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras (with the cooperation of Saint Paisios), following the stance of most of the Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain. Specifically, the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita announced the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras with a letter sent on October 7, 1970, to the Holy Community of the Holy Mountain, signed by the then Abbot of the Holy Monastery, Archimandrite Vasileios Gondikakis, on behalf of the Brotherhood (source: Orthodoxos Typos, June 15, 1971, no. 142, p. 4).

The letter of the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita:

i) It emphasized that a single gesture by the Patriarch could not reassure the Orthodox conscience, as the convictions of the Phanar remained firm and unaltered:

“Unfortunately, as the repeated patriarchal statements over the course of years demonstrate, this is not a matter of verbal errors or journalistic inaccuracies, but of fixed convictions, expressed at every opportunity with full emphasis. Therefore, it is not possible for a single gesture of the Patriarch to reassure the Orthodox conscience, so long as the convictions of the Phanar and its projected course remain the same.”

ii) It announced that the commemoration of Patriarch Athenagoras was being ceased, as all margin for tolerance or any deadline for waiting had disappeared:

“Specifically, in our Monastery, despite the Athonite reaction, we had commemorated the Patriarchal name to a certain extent, out of regard for ecclesiastical unity. But after the Patriarch’s statement regarding the Filioque and the Primacy as ‘mere customs,’ we ceased the commemoration, feeling that all margin for tolerance or any deadline for waiting had vanished. Such statements not only constitute a negation of the God-taught and life-giving tradition of our Holy Church, but also a mockery of the afflicted Western world […].”

iii) It emphatically declared with confessional boldness that to follow the patriarchal and ecumenical acrobatics is not merely inappropriate to Orthodox decorum but also contrary to elementary seriousness:

“To follow, therefore, the patriarchal and ecumenical acrobatics is not merely unfitting to Orthodox decorum, but also contrary to elementary seriousness.”

B. Cessation of Commemoration of Patriarch Demetrios

Several Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain and many Athonite fathers continued the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Demetrios, as he had declared that he would continue the policy of his predecessor, Athenagoras. Indicatively, a few characteristic letters of Athonite Fathers are mentioned:

a) The Fathers of the Holy Monastery of Simonopetra, in a letter to the Holy Community, stated categorically:

“We persist in the faithful observance of the decision of the Extraordinary Double Holy Assembly, Session 52 of November 13, 1971, regarding the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch [Demetrios], who declared that he would follow the line of his predecessor” (Orthodoxos Typos, no. 172, October 15, 1972).

b) The Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Paul, in a similar letter to the Holy Community, emphasized that reasons of ecclesiastical conscience did not permit him to resume the commemoration of Patriarch Demetrios, since the latter was a modernist and walked in the footsteps of the Ecumenist Patriarch Athenagoras:

“Reasons of ecclesiastical conscience do not permit me to resume the commemoration, because the Ecumenical Patriarch [Demetrios] is a modernist, walking in the footsteps of the Ecumenist Athenagoras, whose views and heretical opinions he did not condemn” (Orthodoxos Typos, no. 213, July 1, 1974).

c) The Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Paul, in his response to the then civil Governor of the Holy Mountain—who had asked him to resume the commemoration of the Patriarch—declared with boldness that he would not commemorate the Patriarch’s name, so long as he walked far from the sacred traditions of Orthodoxy and did not condemn the Ecumenism of Athenagoras:

“[…] I cannot, however, violate my conscience on matters of Orthodoxy. For this reason, and for the last time, I declare that I will not commemorate the name of the Patriarch, so long as he walks far from the sacred traditions of Orthodoxy and does not condemn in deed and word the Ecumenism of Athenagoras. Neither the Patriarch nor the State has the right to force me in this matter. As for you, you are obliged to report to the competent authorities that the constitutionally established privileges and the Self-Governance of the Holy Mountain must be respected” (Orthodoxos Typos, no. 213, July 1, 1974).

C. Cessation of Commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew

According to the Holy Canons and the Patristic and Athonite Tradition, the cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew by the Athonite Coenobitic Monasteries and the Cell-dwelling priests should have taken place many years ago. The cessation of commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew was justified even before the Pseudo-Council of Crete (June 2016), but all the more so after it, since the Pseudo-Council introduced the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism into the sacred realm of the Orthodox Church.

a) Before the Pseudo-Council of Crete

Before the Pseudo-Council of Crete (June 2016), the only Abbot of a Holy Monastery on the Holy Mountain who expressed (at least publicly) his intention to cease the commemoration of the name of Patriarch Bartholomew was the confessor Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, spiritual child of the venerable Elder Ephraim of Arizona. Specifically, in late 2006, following the embrace of Patriarch Bartholomew with Pope Benedict XVI, which took place on November 30, 2006, in the Church of Saint George at the Phanar, the then Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, informed his venerable Elder Ephraim—who was in Arizona—of his intention to cease commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew. Elder Ephraim responded that he was absolutely right and agreed with him, but begged him not to proceed with the cessation of commemoration at that time, because his spiritual brothers (i.e., the Abbots of the Holy Monasteries of Karakallou, Philotheou, and Xeropotamou) were not in a position to follow him at that moment. Elder Ephraim also counseled Elder Agathon to “let the enemy come closer.”

The Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, characteristically mentioned his intention to cease the commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew at the spiritual center of the Holy Byzantine Church of the Prophet Elias of the Holy Metropolis of Thessaloniki in November 2013 (where the head priest of the Church at the time was the late struggler and confessor Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis, two years before his expulsion from the Church for reasons of Faith):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05f-18kQQPk

Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon:

“Personally, I did not want to commemorate the Patriarch—not just now, but for years already. It was by God’s Economy, not something I did deliberately. I was outside, visiting one of my spiritual children, and while watching television, I see the Patriarch appear on screen, celebrating the Liturgy—at the moment when we priests say ‘Let us love one another’—he comes out from the Holy Altar, and the Pope was sitting on the bishop’s throne, and they embrace each other. Just seeing that scene—I couldn’t sleep for three days and nights. I called my Elder, who is in America (i.e., Elder Ephraim of Arizona), and I told him: ‘I am cutting off the commemoration. I saw this on television, I didn’t do it on purpose, I just saw it, and I can’t bear it—I can’t get over it. I will cut the commemoration.’ And my Elder from America begged me and said: ‘My son, you are absolutely right—I agree with you. However, we are four brothers: Karakallou, Philotheou, Xeropotamou, Konstamonitou. Your three other brothers,’ he told me, ‘cannot follow you. They don’t have the mettle you have. So do it for me.’ And I obeyed my Elder and did not cut the commemoration.”

b) After the Pseudo-Council of Crete

After the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari, the venerable Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, desired to cease the commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew. For this reason, he attempted to contact his ailing and venerable Elder Ephraim, who was in Arizona, in order to receive his blessing and to wall himself off together with his spiritual child, Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis. However, this communication and contact could not take place due to various difficulties that Elder Ephraim was facing in America. Moreover, because of a serious health issue and his advanced old age, it was not easy for Elder Agathon to support the confessional decision of cessation of commemoration, as he would have needed to uphold, admonish, and guide with all his strength the monks and nuns under his spiritual care, as well as the countless number of his spiritual children, along the difficult and martyric path of cessation of commemoration. In practice, however—tangibly—the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, affirmed and sealed the cessation of commemoration (Walling Off), as he blessed the canonical Walling Off of his spiritual child, Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis, by laying his hands upon his head and giving him a special blessing, in the presence of witnesses.

Concerning the intention of cessation of commemoration by the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, Elder Agathon, as well as the special blessing he gave for the Walling Off of Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis, the relevant excerpt is presented below from the homily of Fr. Nikolaos Manolis entitled “The Anniversary of the Walling Off and Elder Agathon”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOMniscaESA

“It is true that, in practice—tangibly—Elder (Agathon) confirmed the Walling Off and sealed it. First of all, I have said before how he blessed my own Walling Off by laying his hands on my head—a special, most special blessing he gave me with both his holy little hands; the witnesses who were present there confirm it. We are in a position to know that the Elder foresaw his death and was preparing for it throughout the previous year. However, I want to add something here: that the Elder, even though he had already suffered a stroke, even though Kolymbari was a major reason to cease commemoration, desired the cessation of commemoration (of Patriarch Bartholomew). He attempted several times to call his ailing Elder Ephraim in Arizona to receive his blessing so that, together with me, he could also proceed with the Walling Off. The Elder had this principle—he wanted the blessing of his Elder. They were not able to speak; there were some issues at the time in Arizona, some problems concerning the Elder and his presence in the Monastery there. I do not want to enter into that discussion—we were not able to have such contact.

The Elder, by blessing me, declared that he had his deputy [protopalíkaro, or "first son"]. I am not worthy of being called his deputy, but that was the Elder’s position—I’m simply stating it—he said it publicly. He had his deputy cease commemoration. He said: 'Papa-Nikolas represents me.' This is not the first time in Orthodoxy that such a thing has occurred—where the Elder gives the blessing, and the disciple bears witness, walls himself off, while the Elder does not enter into it himself. For the Elder did not only have himself to consider. He had two Monasteries—it was not easy to manage all the monks and nuns. He also didn’t have the health to support such a decision, to carry the weight of it. But he found in me that madness for the love of Orthodoxy, he blessed me, and he understood what I carried within me and made use of it. That is who the Elder is.”

Additionally, beyond the desire for cessation of commemoration on the part of the venerable Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou (and the concrete confirmation, sealing, and blessing of the Walling Off of Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis), cell-dwelling monks of the Holy Mountain ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew as their local Bishop. Among those who ceased commemoration is the venerable Elder Gabriel of the Koutloumousian Cell of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos, who, in his confessional open letter sent a few months ago to the Holy Community, declared the following concerning the cessation of commemoration:

i. After the Pseudo-Council of Crete, he—like many other Fathers—ceased the commemoration of the chief architect of the heresy, Patriarch Bartholomew, and broke communion with those of like mind with him, relying upon the Holy Canons, the Tradition of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers, the hundreds of historical examples, as well as the unbroken practice of former Athonite Fathers.

“After the treacherous-to-Orthodoxy Council of Kolymbari in the year 2016, where the age-old heresies were shamefully and collectively crowned with the most honorable title of ‘Church’—although there is only one, according to the holy Creed, which constitutes the very Body of Christ—I ceased, in the Holy Cell, as did many other Fathers, the commemoration of the chief architect of the heresy, Patriarch Bartholomew, and communion with those of like mind with him. This was applied according to the provisions of the Holy Canons—the 31st Apostolic Canon, which holds ecumenical authority, and the 15th of the First-Second Council under St. Photius in 861—according to the solid tradition of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers in hundreds of historical examples, and the uninterrupted practice of our predecessor Athonite Fathers even up to 50 years ago, under Patriarch Athenagoras.”

ii. The patristic walling off does not constitute a schism, nor a parasynagogue:

“This walling off, as outlined in its causes, conditions, and purpose by the Holy Fathers, does not constitute a schism, nor a parasynagogue, because it is impossible for the Holy Fathers to harm the Church.”

Unfortunately, however, one year after the Pseudo-Council of Crete, a text by the Former Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Iveron, Archimandrite Vasileios Gondikakis, was published as an official document of the Holy Mountain, under the title “Message of the Holy Mountain concerning the Holy and Great Council in Crete” (June 30, 2017). The Message of the Holy Mountain essentially marked a shift in Mount Athos's stance regarding the defense of Orthodox Faith and Ecclesiology, as it not only failed to condemn the unorthodox decisions and texts of the Pseudo-Council, but also attempted to suppress all the entirely justified voices of protest and the cessations of commemoration of the names of the Bishops (who either took part in the Pseudo-Council or supported its texts), stating that “There is no reason for unrest, since the Risen Lord is with us.”

“There is a constant underlying unrest observed, caused by reactions against the decisions of the Holy and Great Council (Crete, 2016). Wallings off and cessations of the commemoration of local bishops are being proposed. Since we are recipients of these concerns and are within the Church, we address to all the greeting of the Risen Christ: Peace be unto you. There is no reason for unrest, since the Risen Lord is with us. The Council took place after many years of preparation.” (‘Message of the Holy Mountain concerning the Holy and Great Council in Crete’, June 30, 2017).

What is most dramatic, however, is that within the Athonite Monastic State, beyond the attempt to suppress the justified reactions that arose due to the unorthodox decisions of the Pseudo-Council, there is also a persecution of the confessing Athonite Fathers who ceased the commemoration of Patriarch Bartholomew. A characteristic example is the persecution of the venerable Elder Gabriel (of the Koutloumousian Cell of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos), who on 06/06/2020 revealed in a public statement that in recent years events have taken place which are part of a plan aimed at his physical and psychological annihilation, due to the fact that he does not commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew after the Pseudo-Council of Crete.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZf6XvN6CTQ

“I firmly believe that all of the above are part of a plan for my physical and psychological annihilation, due to the fact that I do not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Bartholomew after the Council of Crete on 06/06/2016, with which I do not agree that Papism and the other heretics are a Church.”

 

The above text is an excerpt from the article “2016–2020: The Holy Mountain and the Alteration of the Orthodox Faith (Part III).”

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/agio-oros-ierokanoniki-apoteichisi-apo-toys-airetizontes-patriarches-kon-poleos-1969-2020/

The Life and Conduct of Our Father Among the Saints, John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco

Source (with slight editing): excerpt from The Life and Conduct of Our Father Among the Saints, John the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Shangha...