The Josephite and Cyrillite Branches of the Right-Wing Church Opposition: Their Approaches to the Problem of Eucharistic Unity in the Russian Church

Maria Ozerskaya | February 20, 2016

Paper presented at the 22nd Sretensky Readings

 

 

Following the publication of the 1927 Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet Authorities, a powerful movement of resistance arose within the Church against the policies of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

One of the causes of discontent was that Metropolitan Sergius had permitted the secular authorities to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church: bishops were appointed to positions, transferred, removed from their sees, and suspended from serving for political reasons, at the direction of the OGPU. Metropolitan Sergius established an uncanonical Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod without consulting the Patriarchal Locum Tenens. All of this was perceived by many as an overstepping of his authority and a usurpation of power, resulting in a significant portion of the clergy and laity withdrawing from Metropolitan Sergius. They began to refer to themselves as “non-commemorators” (of the civil authorities and Metropolitan Sergius) or as members of the TOC (True Orthodox Church). Later, in ecclesiastical historiography, these movements also came to be known as the “right-wing church opposition.” Between 1927 and 1929, distinct groups (or branches) emerged within this opposition, named after the hierarchs who led them. The most significant were the Josephite and Cyrillite branches of the right-wing opposition.

One of the most difficult problems in the internal life of the Russian Church during this period was the question of Eucharistic unity. The division that had arisen resulted in a rupture of Eucharistic communion between the supporters of Metropolitan Sergius and the right-wing opposition. However, the reasons for this rupture, and the way in which it was understood by the Josephites and the followers of Metropolitan Cyril, differed substantially.

Having signed the declaration of separation from Metropolitan Sergius, the Josephites ceased commemorating him at divine services and declared him to be devoid of grace. As early as January 1928, Bishop Dimitry (Lyubimov) announced this to his flock and demanded a rupture of prayerful communion with Metropolitan Sergius. Very soon, other Josephite bishops, including Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh), made similar declarations. In analyzing their actions, it is necessary to examine the reasons for such a radical position.

The Josephites regarded Metropolitan Sergius as a heretic and apostate who, through his compromise with the godless state, had entered into an alliance with Antichrist. In the Sergianist Church, which, in the opinion of the Josephites, had become a “graceless, carnal organization,” the Holy Spirit was no longer at work. Thus, the Josephites were convinced that Metropolitan Sergius and his followers had placed themselves outside the boundaries of the True Orthodox Church, and consequently all Mysteries performed by the Sergianists were regarded as invalid and spurious.

Here it is appropriate to quote the Kiev Appeal of 1927, most likely written by Fr. Anatoly Zhurakovsky:

“One of two things must be true. Either the Church—the spotless and pure Bride of Christ—is indeed the Kingdom of Truth, in which case Truth is the very air without which we cannot breathe; or else she, like the whole world that lies in wickedness, lives in falsehood and by falsehood. And then everything is a lie. Every word we utter is a lie, every prayer, every Mystery” [7, 211].

The most radical Josephites referred to the Eucharist celebrated in Sergianist churches as the “table of Satan,” and to the churches themselves as “dens of robbers” (Bishop Victor [Ostrovidov], M. A. Novoselov). The Josephites received those baptized in the Sergianist Church through Chrismation, performed marriage ceremonies anew for those who had been married there, and refused to conduct funeral services for the deceased who had attended Sergianist churches. Such extreme zealots as Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov) and Bishop Hilarion (Belsky) even rebaptized those who had been baptized in Sergianist churches. The Josephites, however, regarded all these actions not as schismatic, but rather as “preserving the Church from schisms and divisions” (in accordance with Canon 15 of the First-Second Council), and as safeguarding the purity of Orthodoxy.

While ceasing to commemorate Metropolitan Sergius, the Josephites commemorated Metropolitan Peter as Patriarchal Locum Tenens. They prayed for exiled priests and bishops, regarding them as confessors of Christ, in whom “the holiness of the Church shines forth.”

The Josephites were outraged by the introduction of the commemoration of the civil authorities using the formula, “For our country and its authorities, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and purity,” regarding it as a manifestation of hypocrisy and duplicity. Many of them prayed according to the formula approved by the All-Russian Local Council: “For the suffering Russian State and its salvation.” Some Josephites used a prayer from the Book of Commemorations: “Those who have fallen away from the Orthodox Faith and have been blinded by pernicious heresies, enlighten with the light of Thy knowledge, and unite them to Thy Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church.”

Following the onset of severe persecution against members of the right-wing opposition, many non-commemorators began to go underground. Deprived of the opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist in churches, the faithful secretly gathered in private homes. Accounts of such domestic divine services in non-commemorating communities have been preserved. Priests and bishops frequently traveled clandestinely to celebrate divine services, violating the restrictions imposed upon them that prohibited them from leaving their places of residence. Sometimes, however, no True Orthodox priest or bishop was available nearby. Bishop Nektary (Trezvinsky), writing to his spiritual children from a prison camp in early 1933, explained how they should act in such circumstances:

“Gather together in small groups and pray in your homes. Sing the sacred hymns of the Church. Read the Word of God. […] Receive the Holy Mysteries only from true pastors. And such pastors, with God's help, you will always find if you sincerely seek them. Now, according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse, the Church has fled into the wilderness; that is, she has gone underground or has found herself in circumstances in which the faithful are compelled to gather secretly and discreetly for ecclesiastical prayer…” [8, 172].

We see, therefore, that the Josephite clergy continued to refuse to recognize the Sergianist Mysteries and did not bless their spiritual children to participate in them. When no Josephite priests were available, the laity gathered together to pray in private homes.

Returning to the question of Eucharistic unity, we should note that the Josephites had reflected deeply upon it. In their polemical writings and letters, they emphasized that Eucharistic unity does not arise in a vacuum; rather, it is an expression of the unity of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Josephites were frequently accused of destroying this unity, falling into schism, and “tearing the seamless robe of Christ,” as Metropolitan Sergius expressed it. In response, they argued that the Sergianist conception of the “unity of the Church” was merely the unity of a hierarchy bound together by soulless discipline, whereas genuine, living unity was possible only in the Spirit of Love and Conciliarity. The Church is not a robe; she is the Body of Christ. In concerning himself with the robe—that is, the external organization of the Church—Metropolitan Sergius had forgotten the Body (the inner essence of the Church), just as the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ wounded His Body while taking care to preserve His garment. True unity, however, is not external but profoundly internal. “How can there be external unity where, in people's hearts, at the very root and in the very essence of things, there is complete division and estrangement?” declared the 1928 Tambov document A Reply to Those Who Tempt Us [8, 522].

Consolidating the division that had arisen, Metropolitan Sergius and the Provisional Patriarchal Holy Synod issued Decree No. 1864 on August 6, 1929, which placed the left-wing schisms (the Renovationists and Gregorians) and the right-wing opposition on the same canonical footing. Their Mysteries were declared invalid; those baptized by these clerics were to be received through Chrismation, those married by them were to be married anew, and those who had died in the “aforementioned schisms were not to be granted funeral services, even at the earnest request of their relatives” [1, 644]. This decree gave rise to the tradition, which came to prevail in Russian ecclesiastical historiography, of regarding members of the right-wing opposition as schismatics. This perception was overcome within the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate only toward the end of the twentieth century.

Turning to the position of Metropolitan Cyril (Smirnov) and his followers, we should note that their attitude toward the question of Eucharistic unity differed from that of the Josephites. In breaking off prayerful communion with Metropolitan Sergius, they regarded this as a protest against the reform of ecclesiastical administration being carried out by Metropolitan Sergius and as “the only means of reproving an erring brother.” This reproof was necessary in order to call Metropolitan Sergius to repentance. The followers of Metropolitan Cyril considered themselves to belong to the same Church as Metropolitan Sergius. In their view, the sin of a primate in his administration of the Church did not impair her Orthodox dogmatic teaching. Consequently, the Cyrillites recognized the validity and grace-bearing character of the Mysteries celebrated by the Sergianists. They likewise recognized the Mysteries of the Josephites. Some followers of Metropolitan Cyril, such as Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) and Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik), believed that when unworthy ministers served at the altar, the angels celebrated the Eucharist in their stead.

Metropolitan Cyril maintained that the joint celebration of the Eucharist was possible only where there was unanimity of mind and peace of heart. It should be noted that Metropolitan Cyril applied abstention from concelebration to bishops, rather than to ordinary clergy and laity, who most often remained obedient to Metropolitan Sergius out of ignorance. Metropolitan Cyril stated that, in the event of mortal danger, he would readily receive the final sacraments from such a priest. For the laity, he even permitted the reception of the Holy Gifts in Sergianist churches if there was no nearby “Orthodox church that had preserved intact its canonical relationship with the Patriarchal Locum Tenens” [4, 545]. However, Metropolitan Cyril did not bless active participation in the life of Sergianist parishes.

Metropolitan Cyril regarded extreme judgments concerning the Sergianist Mysteries as zeal not according to knowledge. It pained him to witness manifestations of malice among the brethren. In a letter from the settlement of Khantayka, addressed to one of the Leningrad Josephites, he wrote:

“Reports reach me here in my wilderness of growing enmity among brethren in the faith, turning into hatred; […] of zeal not according to knowledge, bordering on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, such as the mutual accusations of being devoid of grace. It is grievous to hear this. […] May the Lord preserve you all in love for one another and for your erring brethren” [4, 306–307].

Metropolitan Cyril considered it necessary to pray privately for Metropolitan Sergius and his followers.

On the other hand, Metropolitan Cyril also considered that Metropolitan Sergius had acted wrongly in issuing a decree declaring the Mysteries of the Josephites invalid. According to Metropolitan Cyril, by this decree, Metropolitan Sergius was “turning a dispute that was not yet clear to everyone into irreconcilable ecclesiastical enmity” [4, 545]. Every manifestation of ecclesiastical enmity, however, is harmful to the Church.

Metropolitan Sergius accused Metropolitan Cyril of acting uncanonically by recognizing the validity of the Sergianist Mysteries while at the same time refusing Eucharistic communion with the supporters of Metropolitan Sergius. In response, Metropolitan Cyril maintained that, in recent times, ecclesiastical life had not been conducted in accordance with the literal meaning of the canons.

Metropolitan Cyril recognized Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) as the first hierarch of the country and Patriarchal Locum Tenens, and commemorated his name at divine services. Metropolitan Cyril did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius, since he regarded him merely as Metropolitan Peter’s deputy for the administration of current affairs, who had usurped the authority of the Locum Tenens and the Council.

It should be noted that, gradually, the statements of Metropolitan Cyril and his supporters concerning the Sergianists became increasingly severe. In February 1934, Metropolitan Cyril wrote a stern letter to an unidentified hierarch in which he discussed the efficacy of the Sergianist Mysteries.

“The Mysteries celebrated by the Sergianists […] are undoubtedly Mysteries unto salvation for those who receive them with faith, in simplicity, without questioning or doubting their efficacy, and who do not even suspect that anything is amiss in the Sergianist organization of the Church,” wrote Metropolitan Cyril. “But at the same time, they bring judgment and condemnation upon those who celebrate them and upon those who partake of them who fully understand the wrongdoing inherent in Sergianism and, by failing to resist it, demonstrate criminal indifference to the desecration of the Church” [4, 585–586].

Similar views were expressed by Bishop Damaskin (Tsedrik) in his correspondence with Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich) in 1934 [6, 432–470]. Bishop Damaskin described the rupture of liturgical communion with the Sergianists as “resistance to the wrongdoing and scandal taking place,” and even as a conciliar judgment of the Church against “Metropolitan Sergius and his lawless deeds.” Concerning the Sergianist Mysteries, Bishop Damaskin wrote that Metropolitan Sergius and his conscious followers had undoubtedly “fallen from grace” because of the sin of apostasy. Nevertheless, until a conciliar judgment had been rendered, and so long as they had not been cut off from the Church, the Lord sent His angels to perform the Mysteries in place of the unworthy ministers, for the sake of those who attended Sergianist churches in ignorance. All those, however, who had “been given the ability to discern the situation, to recognize the wrongdoing and evil of Sergianism, […] must […] demonstrate by their example their resistance to the wrongdoing and scandal taking place, by breaking off liturgical communion with the Sergianists, refraining from attending their churches, and doing everything possible to hasten a conciliar judgment against the lawbreakers” [6, 448].

The bishop believed that external forms of ecclesiastical relationships, church institutions, and even solemn divine services in churches were becoming unnecessary in the present age and could even become a source of scandal. Concerning those attached to worship in churches, Bishop Damaskin wrote:

“A sorrowful spectacle is presented by people who are attached to the church building but are entirely unecclesial. For Orthodox clergymen in a church are replaced by members of the Living Church, these in turn by Renovationists or self-consecrated clergy, then by Sergianists, and afterward once again by Renovationists; yet those attached to the church building are scarcely troubled by any of this. All they need is the church building, the outward decorum of divine worship, the familiar ritual forms of their external participation in the Mysteries, and nothing more.

“This is the very essence of the Sergianist Church. It is the sorrowful legacy of the Synodal period of the Church, an indication of the waning of the spirit within the Church. All of us pastors, who bear considerable guilt for this grave sin against the Church, must repent of it earnestly” [6, 449].

Bishop Damaskin saw the possibility of resolving these problems in “the establishment of firm spiritual and grace-bearing bonds between pastors and their flocks. […] Then, amid the present tempest, the Church will remain unshaken in the face of even more subtle temptations, even without church buildings” [6, 449].

In 1945, following the election of Alexy I (Simansky) as Patriarch, many non-commemorators restored prayerful communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Recalling the events of that period, Bishop Athanasius (Sakharov) wrote:

“When, in 1945, while I was in prison, the priests who were with me and I, who had not commemorated Metropolitan Sergius, learned of the election and enthronement of Patriarch Alexy, we discussed the situation that had arisen and unanimously decided that, since there was now no other lawful First Hierarch of the Russian Local Church besides Patriarch Alexy, who had been recognized by all the Eastern Patriarchs, we ought to commemorate the name of Patriarch Alexy in our prayers as our Patriarch. This I have done without fail ever since that day.

“Everything in the activities of the Patriarch and the Patriarchate that troubles and scandalizes zealous defenders of the faith—all this remains upon the conscience of the Patriarch, and he will answer for it before the Lord. But to deprive oneself of the grace of the Holy Mysteries merely on account of things that cause distress and scandal, and which may sometimes not be quite as they appear to us—this is a fearful thing” [3, 221].

Bishop Athanasius wrote an epistle to the catacomb communities and sketes, calling upon them to return to the fold of the Patriarchal Church. His appeal was effective, since he enjoyed considerable authority among the catacomb Christians. Upon the restoration of prayerful and canonical communion, the former non-commemorators were not required to repent, except in rare cases. Some non-commemorating communities, however, never restored Eucharistic and canonical communion with the Patriarchate. These communities joined the ranks of the True Orthodox Christians (TOC). Most often, such communities had no priests.

In conclusion, it should be said that the non-commemorators were regarded by the authorities as the most dangerous “counterrevolutionary elements” and were among the first to suffer brutal repression for their convictions. Most of them met a martyr’s death in prison camps and prisons. The courage of these people, their steadfastness, their zeal for the purity of the Church, and their readiness to suffer for her are truly remarkable. During the difficult years of persecution, the non-commemorators maintained a clearly defined ecclesiastical position and defended it, even at the risk of their lives. Our Church has yet to undertake a serious ecclesiological analysis of their views, as well as a thorough examination of the history and the causes of the emergence of the right-wing church opposition.

In recent years, significant changes have taken place in the Moscow Patriarchate’s assessment of the non-commemorators. At the Jubilee Council of Bishops in 2000, several dozen Josephites were canonized. The Council’s documents state that members of the right-wing church opposition were not schismatics and that the canonization of the non-commemorators was possible because their actions were not motivated by self-interest but arose from a concern for the welfare of the Church, as they themselves understood it.

 

Sources and Bibliography

1. The Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Subsequent Documents and Correspondence Concerning the Canonical Succession of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, 1917–1943. A collection in two parts. Compiled by M. E. Gubonin. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute (PSTBI), 1994. 1,064 pp.

2. Those Who Hunger for Righteousness: Materials from the Ecclesiastical Polemics of 1927. Compiled and introduced by Priest Alexander Mazyrin and O. V. Kosik. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities (PSTGU), 2011. 424 pp.

3. Athanasius (Sakharov), Bishop. I Am Thine: A Collection of Letters. Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2009. 352 pp.

4. Zhuravsky, A. V. In the Name of the Truth and Dignity of the Church: The Life and Writings of Hieromartyr Cyril of Kazan. Moscow: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2004. 864 pp.

5. Mazyrin, Alexander, Priest. Senior Hierarchs on the Succession of Authority in the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920s and 1930s. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities (PSTGU), 2006. 444 pp.

6. “‘God’s Judgment Is Being Carried Out upon the Church and the Russian People…’: Archival Materials for the Life of Hieromartyr Damaskin (Tsedrik), Bishop of Starodub (1877–1937).” Published by O. V. Kosik. Theological Collection, Issue 10. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute (PSTBI), 2002, pp. 432–470.

7. Shkarovsky, M. V. Josephitism: A Movement within the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg: Memorial Research and Information Center (designated a “foreign agent”), 1999. 400 pp.

8. Shkarovsky, M. V. The Fates of the Josephite Pastors: The Josephite Movement of the Russian Orthodox Church as Reflected in the Lives of Its Participants. Archival Documents. St. Petersburg: Satis, 2006. 600 pp.

 

Russian source:

https://sfi.ru/science/srietienskiie-chtieniia/xxii-sretenskie-chteniya/siektsiia-boghosloviia-i-filosofii/iosiflianskaia-i-kirillovskaia-vietvi-pravoi-tsierkovnoi-oppozitsii-otnoshieniie-k-probliemie-ievkharistichieskogho-iedinstva-russkoi-tsierkvi.html

St. Philaret of New York: Christian Service, Patriotism, and War

 

Naturally, one will love one's own family and the relatives he grew up with, most of all, and secondly, the whole country, the people to which one belongs. One is tied to this people both by state and civil obligations and by culture and customs. One is bound to one's people, to one's own homeland, and one loves them. This love for homeland is that Christian patriotism which cosmopolitanists so strongly struggle against.

Christian patriotism is, of course, alien to those extremes and errors into which "super-patriots" fall. A Christian patriot, while loving his nation, does not close his eyes to its inadequacies, but soberly looks at its properties and characteristics. He will never agree with those "patriots" who are inclined to elevate and justify everything native (even national vices and inadequacies). Such "patriots" do not realize that this is not patriotism at all, but puffed up national pride - that very sin against which Christianity struggles so strongly. No, a true patriot does not close his eyes to the sins and ills of his people; he sees them, grieves over them, struggles with them and repents before God and other peoples for himself and his nation. In addition, Christian patriotism is completely alien to hatred of other peoples. If I love my own people, then surely I must also love the Chinese, the Turks or any other people. Not to love them would be non-Christian. No, God grant them well-being and every success, for we are all people, children of one God.

The most important information which we find concerning patriotism is in the Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, all the history of the Jewish people is filled with testimony of how the Jews loved their Sion, their Jerusalem, their temple. This was a model of true patriotism, of love for one's people and its sacred things. Significantly, our Christian Church has adopted this glorification of holy things by the Jews for our own services (although with a slightly different, Christian understanding) and chants, “Blessed is the Lord out of Sion, Who dwelleth in Jerusalem. Alleluia” (Ps. 134:21). The prophet Moses showed an especially striking example of love for his people. On one occasion, immediately after having received the testament from God, the Israelite people betrayed their God and worshipped a golden calf. Then, the justice of God's Truth became strongly inflamed. Moses began to pray for his people who had sinned. He remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights in prayer. The Lord told him, “Now let Me alone, and I will be very angry with them and consume them” (Ex. 32:10). In these words of God, there is a remarkable testimony about the power of the prayer of a righteous person, by which he, in the bold words of St. John Chrysostom, in some way binds God. The great prophet began to pray even more fervently and finally exclaimed, “And now if Thou wilt forgive their sin, forgive it; and if not, blot me out of Thy book, which Thou hast written” (Ex. 32:32). And the Lord harkened to Moses. Is this not the highest struggle of self-denying patriotism?

We see a similar example in the New Testament in the life of the great Apostle Paul. No one hindered his work of preaching more wrathfully and stubbornly than did his fellow countrymen. They hated Paul and considered him to be a betrayer of the faith of their fathers. Nevertheless, the Apostle says, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). From these words, we see his love for his native people. This love was so great that, like Moses, he was prepared to sacrifice even his personal, eternal salvation for the salvation of his people.

We have an example in the life of the Saviour Himself. In the Gospel we read that He came only to His own people and spoke to them first of all. On another occasion, He said, turning to Jerusalem, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings... (Luke 13:34). When He rode into Jerusalem to the cries of "Hosannah," when all the people rejoiced, the Saviour wept. He did not weep for Himself, but for this, His city, and because of the ruin of those who were now crying to Him, "Hosannah!" but in a few days would cry, "Crucify Him." Thus did He love His own people with a profound and moving love.

The feeling of patriotism, therefore, is not rejected and condemned by Christianity. It does not condemn, despite the false views of cosmopolitanists, the righteousness of the preeminent love for one's neighbors. We already know the words of the Apostle, “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (I Tim. 5:8). Once more we emphasize that such love and care must not be an egoistic, self-enclosing love. While caring for those with whom one comes into a direct contact, a Christian must never forget other people in his Christian love -- his neighbors, and brothers in Christ. In conclusion, let us cite these words of Apostle Paul (from the Epistle to the Galatians): “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10).

Naturally, this Christian patriotism we have spoken of requires from each of us as great a service as possible to the nation. This service is fulfilled most of all in service to the government or society. The value of such service is even more significant if it is rendered unselfishly -- free of any material calculations and considerations. A person serves the country in one way or another when he participates in its life, for example, by expressing himself in the press or in civil elections, etc. In this, one must strive to bring benefit to the whole country, the whole people, and not merely to one's own personal or party interests. Then one's conscience will be at peace. It may be that one will not attain great external success, but let him, nevertheless, fulfill the duty of a patriot and a faithful child of the nation in an honorable and Christian manner.

There is a saying, "A friend in need is a friend indeed." Love for the nation is most clearly manifested in times of national trials and troubles. We all know how it feels when someone close to us is ill. We do not want diversions or comforts. In our sorrow and concern, we sometimes cannot even eat or drink or sleep. One who truly loves his nation will manifest similar feelings during times of national troubles. If our heart is filled with nothing but our own personal experiences and interests, if we moan and sigh while our deeds remain far from our words, then our love for the nation is poor indeed.

One of the clearest and most self-denying struggles of service to one's homeland is to die for the nation. A Christian soldier is a defender of the homeland, and clearly fulfills Christ's precept, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

War in itself is absolutely evil, an extremely sad phenomenon and deeply contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Words cannot express how joyous it would be if people ceased to war with one another and peace reigned on earth. Sad reality speaks quite otherwise, however. Only some dreamers far removed from reality and some narrowly one-sided sectarians can pretend that war can be omitted from real life.

It is quite correct to point out that war is a violation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:15). No one will argue against that. Still, we see from the Holy Scriptures that in that very same Old Testament time when this commandment was given, the Israelite people fought on command from God, and defeated its enemies with God's help. Consequently, the meaning of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” does not refer unconditionally to every act of removing a person's life. This commandment forbids killing for revenge, in anger, by personal decision or act of will. When our Saviour explained the deep meaning of this commandment, He pointed out that it forbids not only actual killing, but also unchristian, vain anger. Nevertheless, in a conversation with the apostles about the last days, the Lord told them, “Ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass” (Matt. 24:6). With these words, the Lord refutes all statements that war is avoidable.

True, we have already examined the fact that war is a negative phenomenon. Yet, it will exist, sometimes as the sole defense of truth and human rights, or against seizure, brutal invasion and violence. Only such wars of defense are recognized in Christian teaching. In fact, we hear of the following event in the life of St. Athanasius of the Holy Mountain. Prince Tornikian of Georgia, an eminent commander of the Byzantine armies, was received into monasticism at St. Athanasius' monastery. During the time of the Persian invasion, Empress Zoe recalled Tornikian to command the armies. Tornikian flatly refused on the grounds that he was a monk. But St. Athanasius said to him, "We are all children of our homeland and we are obligated to defend it. Our obligation is to guard the homeland from enemies by prayers. Nevertheless, if God deems it expedient to use both our hands and our heart for the commonwealth, we must submit completely… If you do not obey the ruler, you will have to answer for the blood of your compatriots whom you did not wish to save, and for the destruction of the churches of God." Tornikian submitted, defeated the enemy and rescued the homeland from danger.

In a conversation with Mohammedans, about war, St. Cyril, the Enlightener of the Slavs, said, "We meekly endure personal offenses; but as a society, we defend each other, laying down our lives for our neighbors, so that you having taken them captive, do not force them to deny their faith or perform acts against God." Finally, what Russian does not know the example of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who blessed Prince Dimitry Donskoy to go to war, prayed for the success of the Russian army, and commemorated those soldiers who died on the field of battle? One can, of course, sin and sin greatly while participating in war. This happens when one participates in war with a feeling of personal hatred, vengeance, or vainglory and with proud personal aims. On the contrary, the less he thinks about himself, and the more he is ready to lay down his life for others, the closer the Christian soldier approaches the martyr's crown.

 

Source: Metropolitan Philaret of New York, On the Law of God (Jordanville: Printshop of St Job of Pochaev, 2002), pp. 60-65.

How Orthodox Christians Should Approach Death and Dying

From keeping vigil at the bedside to praying for the departed, the Orthodox Church offers a deeply human and spiritual approach to life's final moments.

Fr. Joshua Genig | November 9, 2026

 

 

500. That is the number of deaths that I estimate I have been present for in my role as a Trauma and ICU Chaplain at a large level-one trauma center outside of Detroit. I have witnessed the good, the bad, and the ugly. All of it has only reinforced in me the importance of the ancient, Orthodox understanding of death and dying. Indeed, this is the “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31) that, though forgotten by an industrialized and commercialized medical and funeral industry, must be retained and promoted by us today within our culturally dying milieu. 

It seems prudent, however, to first offer a few observations from my work before proceeding to suggestions.

Covid Dehumanized Death.

During the years of the pandemic, the process and act of dying were completely dehumanized, in no small part because family members were prohibited from being present at the time of death. No one should die alone. Even the Lord Jesus, though abandoned by many, was not abandoned by all. Instead, however, many who died during this time began their departure from this earthly life with only the ceiling of their hospital room as their companion. They looked up from their beds and saw no familiar face and, in some cases, no face at all. What faces they did see were further dehumanized by masks and breathing apparatuses. This changed the way our country (and the world) views death. We must recover the humanity of dying.

Death is Not Natural.

Yes, we know this. Death is not the way God created us to live. Yet, this is the language often employed by family and staff in hospital settings, particularly in the midst of anxiety and the unfamiliar. The goal, of course, is to soften the blow of death, to make it more sanitary and acceptable to our grief, but this provides us no benefit spiritually or emotionally. We must recover the reality of life: “God did not create death” (Wisdom 1:13). And when death occurs, it is the antithesis to natural. We should sit with that and absorb it. It is good for us. 

Touch and Voice matter.

When someone is dying or has died, for many, the first reaction to step back, to retreat. Yet, I am constantly encouraging people to draw near. To hold the hand of the one who is beginning their journey to God. To speak to them. To tell them what they need to tell them. To ask for forgiveness for all things. To just be present. 

So, where does this leave us, the Orthodox, in our approach to death and dying?

We are not mere psycho-somatic organisms, but we are fully human, made in the image of God Who created us and declared humanity “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Death is a foreign enemy that invaded our lives at the fall of our first family. But eternal death is dead. Christ has crucified it on the cross, buried in the grave, and given us hope – in His own glorious and life-giving resurrection – that we, too, will rise again. It is this hope that should guide our approach to death and dying. 

Stay with the Dying.

Think about it: from the minute a person is born, we keep them near. We do not let a newborn out of our sight. Over time, children grow up and move on and out. They must become independent in some way. Yet, our prayer is that they are never alone. Nevertheless, when it comes to dying, we often retreat and run away. We are not comfortable with death and, thus, we disengage. The one who was near to us all our lives, at the moment of death, becomes very far from us. We must stay near them. Even if it makes us uncomfortable – especially if it makes it uncomfortable! – we must be with them. 

Involve the Priest.

Death is a struggle, physically and spiritually. Of course, Orthodox Christians today like to quibble over the journey of the soul from this life. Do Toll Houses exist? Is there a struggle for the soul during its departure from the body? Whatever a Christian may think personally, the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church makes this clear: the soul’s journey to God is filled with the threat of aerial spirits who wish to drag our souls down (see, for example, the prayer to one’s guardian angel in the “Canon of Preparation for Holy Communion” or the “Office of the Parting of the Soul from the Body”).

The priest should be called upon whenever a person is suffering, yes, but particularly at this most critical time in the life of the Christian. Coming to the bedside of the dying one, the priest will pray several prayers, including a Canon, prayers for one who has suffered and, at the time of death, he will pronounce holy absolution. These are not indifferent or unnecessary things, but they have a real and lasting influence on the departure of the soul and its journey back to the Father. 

Honor the Days After.

In our culture, the minute a person dies, they are taken from us (or we leave them). They generally go to a morgue, then to a funeral home, and then – for a short time – to a church for a funeral. Of course, this need not be so (as will be delineated below), but most importantly, we must honor these first days. The ancient Jewish belief was that the soul remained near the body of the departed for three days, with the possibility of being reunited with it (later, the Jewish Talmud speaks explicitly of this). The Lord Jesus, knowing this, waits until the fourth day to come and raise Lazarus, indicating that He had power over death, as all hope had disappeared.

Yet, even for the Orthodox today, the first days after a person dies are extraordinarily significant for them and for us. As St. John Cassian notes: “Souls after the separation from this body are not idle, do not remain without consciousness; this is proved by the Gospel parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22-28). The souls of the dead do not lose their consciousness, they do not even lose their dispositions—that is, hope and fear, joy and grief, and something of that which they expect for themselves at the Universal Judgment they begin already to foretaste” (referenced by St. John Maximovitch in his Homily “Life After Death”).

During this time, the most loving thing we can do for the departed is pray for them, request Panakhidas for them in the Church, and ensure that they are being commemorated in the Divine Liturgy. Our prayers will accompany them in their journey so that, along the way, they are never alone and never unloved. 

Re-think the “Rules”.

What we have come to believe are hard-and-fast rules around burial are simply not so, and Orthodox Christians should re-think these.

First, embalming is not required in any state. Of course, there are some cases where embalming is necessary (e.g. when a body must be transported by plane or cannot be properly refrigerated before a funeral). Yet, when this is not the case, choosing to leave the body as the Lord made it, without removing what is natural and introducing what is foreign, is a way to honor the holiness of the Lord’s image in man.

Second, while it is required by some cemeteries, not all require burial vaults. As the funeral ikos proclaims: “For out of the earth were we mortals made, and unto the same earth shall we return again.” Allowing the body of the reposed to be placed into the earth, as close to the very dust from which he was made, is perfectly acceptable and often preferred.

Third, we must push back against the casket industry, which requires far more than is necessary for a humble Orthodox Christian. In short, we need to start making our own simple coffins again, with our own hands, for our own parish family members.

Finally, we need to let the body of the reposed spend its final few days or hours in the temple. The parish church is the Christian's home. Period. Following death, rather than lying on display in a generic funeral home, the body of the reposed should be brought to the Church with prayer, laid in the center of the temple for mourning, and receive the help that comes from the prayers and the reading of the Psalms. 

We are not of this world. Our death is dead in Christ. Our departed ones have not left us. In Christ, who is the life, they are alive. In all things, we must follow the example of the holy ones who have gone before us: “Do for them what is needful for them and within your power” (St. John Maximovitch).

 

Source: https://uoj.news/man-and-church/how-orthodox-christians-should-approach-death-and-dying/

Patriarch of Constantinople: The True and Enduring Bond and Guarantor of the Unity of the Church?

George K. Tzanakis | November 8, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

“The Archbishop of Constantinople–New Rome has throughout the ages constituted the visible and actual bond of unity of the Lord’s ecclesial Body and, at the same time, the guarantor of that unity, in accordance with the provisions laid down by the divine Fathers in their conciliar pronouncements.”

Patriarch Bartholomew
October 17, 2026, Sofia, Bulgaria. [1]

 

These things are said by the present Archbishop of Constantinople concerning whoever may occupy the office of Archbishop of Constantinople at any given time, and therefore concerning himself as well.

In other words: “The visible and actual—that is, existing, actually subsisting, real—bond of the body of the Church is the Archbishop of Constantinople”!!!

One man, the Archbishop of Constantinople, is the bond of unity of the entire Church!!!

I suppose that anyone with even an elementary understanding of the Church would be troubled, astonished, and perplexed by these statements, just as I am upon hearing them. In the divine services, we hear that the Lord is the firm foundation of those who believe in Him, that is, of the Church, and it is to Him that we human beings—all of us, clergy and laity alike—pray that He may establish the Church: “O Lord, Thou Who art the firm foundation of those who put their trust in Thee, establish the Church which Thou hast purchased with Thy precious Blood.”

Is it not, to say the least, strange for a man, even if he is an Archbishop, to claim that he himself unites and establishes the Church of Christ?

(What follows are only a few observations on a few points, for if one were to examine the entire address, then… time and courage would fail him.)

Let us compare the Patriarch’s statement with a passage from one of the saints of our Church (just one passage among the countless passages from this same saint, and the equally countless passages from the other saints of our Church):

“In the Theanthropic Body of the Church, the Holy Spirit holds together in unity, through the grace of the Holy Mysteries and the holy virtues, all the faithful who have been baptized through Him and who constitute the Body of the Church.” -  St. Justin (Popović) of Ćelije, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, p. 36. [2]

Patriarch Bartholomew himself (which is why I quote this passage) describes the theology of St. Justin as follows:

“Living and relevant to the present day, a theology which springs from participation in the worshipping, liturgical, spiritual, ascetical, and diaconal experience of the Church … and expresses the inseparable unity of dogma and ethos, faith and life…” [3]

In other words, according to St. Justin, whose theology is “living and relevant to the present day … and expresses the inseparable unity of dogma, ethos, and faith” (according to the Patriarch of Constantinople), it is the Holy Spirit Who ensures the unity and cohesion of the Church. How does He accomplish this? Through His divine power:

“The Holy Spirit, through His divine power, unites all the faithful into one body, that is, into the Church, for ‘by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body … and have been all made to drink into one Spirit’” (1 Cor. 12:13). -  St. Justin (Popović) of Ćelije, op. cit., p. 33.

Can the divine power of the Holy Spirit be compared with the power of any human being? Can the guarantee provided by the Holy Spirit be compared with that provided by any human being? What are we even discussing here?…

The adjective “actual” (ὑποστατός) denotes “that which exists in substance, that which actually exists, that which constitutes the foundation, the underpinning, the basis” (D. Dimitrakos, Great Dictionary, Vol. XIV, p. 7505). Thus, there is no room for anything else. Since the Archbishop of Constantinople constitutes the “actual bond of unity of the Lord’s Ecclesiastical Body,” there can be no other such bond!!!

How is it possible, then, for the same man, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to acknowledge the theology of the great St. Justin while simultaneously theologizing in a manner contrary to it? Given that St. Justin’s theology is Scriptural and Patristic theology (not post-Patristic, that is, anti-Patristic), how is it possible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to contradict the theology of the Holy Fathers while at the same time declaring that:

“We assure you that we have followed in all things the sanctified and well-trodden path of our Fathers. We have never, for any reason, departed from what has been handed down to us to this day. Whatever the Church has always done, we too do today.” - Patriarch Bartholomew (op. cit.).

(Anyone, even the most well-disposed person, can recognize that, in view of the Patriarch’s words and deeds, this passage appears ironic and contradictory, and that each of its sentences ought to be subjected to analysis, as a cause for reflection among those who, ignoring his deeds, content themselves with the foregoing words.)

In any case, according to the Patriarch’s statement above, we are called upon to place our hope in the unity guaranteed by a human being, namely, the Archbishop of Constantinople. If the words “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man” (Jer. 17:5) hold true, are we not placing ourselves under a curse by entertaining such hopes, given that the Holy Spirit is He “Who spake by the prophets,” and therefore also through the Prophet Jeremiah?

It is also striking that the Patriarch describes his role as the bond and guarantor of the unity of the Church by employing the neologism “throughout the ages” [διαχρονικῶς]!!!

The Church, as a Body, encompasses all the faithful throughout the entire world and of all ages, including even those who lived before the coming of Christ, as well as those who will exist in the future.

“And what is meant by ‘one body’? The faithful throughout the whole world, those who now exist, those who have existed, and those who shall exist. Likewise, those who pleased God before the coming of Christ are also one body. How so? Because they too knew Christ. Whence is this evident? ‘Abraham our father,’ He says, ‘rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.’ And again He says, ‘Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me,’ as did the prophets. For they would not have written concerning One Whom they did not know, nor spoken the things they did; but knowing Him, they also worshipped Him. Therefore, they too are one body.” - St. John Chrysostomos, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 62, col. 75.

Does he consider that, even for those who lived before Christ, the bond and guarantor of unity is whoever happens to be Patriarch of Constantinople at any given time, even though neither Constantinople nor, consequently, its Patriarch existed then?

But during the first three centuries of the Church, when Constantinople did not even exist, who was the bond and guarantor of the unity of the Church?

And what of the future? If, God forbid, the Church of Constantinople should cease to exist, as did the churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation, who will guarantee the unity of the Catholic Church?

As the saints teach:

“In her (the Church), all things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.” - St. Justin of Ćelije, Dogmatics, p. 367. [3]

The Holy Trinity, therefore, is the Creator, the unifying principle, and the guarantor of the unity of the Body of the God-man, the Church, against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail,” precisely for this reason.

At what point in time, and for what reason, did the Holy Trinity cease to be the guarantor and sustaining bond of the Church, only to be replaced thereafter, “throughout the ages,” by whoever happens to be Archbishop of Constantinople?

What are the “provisions laid down by the divine Fathers in their conciliar pronouncements” to which the Patriarch refers?

Can there be provisions established by the Holy Fathers that replace the Providence of the Triune God for the Theanthropic Body of the Church with the providence of a human being, himself a member of the Body of the Church?

If such provisions do indeed exist, let them be presented clearly and precisely, with specific references and supporting documentation, so that the perplexity of those who have such questions may be resolved.

Furthermore, if this is true, namely, that “the Archbishop of Constantinople–New Rome has throughout the ages constituted…” etc., does this not mean that Macedonius I, Nestorius, Sergius I, John Bekkos (and so many other Archbishops of Constantinople who were shown to be heretics and condemned by Ecumenical Councils) were also bonds and guarantors of the unity of the Church, even though, as heretics, they were precisely the opposite?

Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Kition, subsequently—by the favor of the Venizelists—Archbishop of Athens, then of America, thereafter Ecumenical Patriarch (for 17 months), and subsequently Patriarch of Alexandria, a Freemason—according to the Grand Lodge of Greece [4] and the documentary evidence that exists [5]—did he too, during his tenure as Archbishop of Constantinople, constitute the visible and actual bond of unity of the Church of Christ? Yet, quite apart from everything else, he also proved to be a cause of schism through his alteration of the Church calendar… In the other Patriarchal or Archiepiscopal offices he held, did he have no connection with this role of being the embodiment and guarantor of ecclesiastical unity?

How exactly, and from what source, is this attribute conferred upon whoever happens to be Archbishop of Constantinople, and not upon any other Archbishop? Is it something akin to the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, who becomes infallible as soon as he is elected?

But we hope that those at the Patriarchate, those who embrace these positions, or others who specialize in theology, will graciously clarify these matters, since we, insignificant and wretched as we are, have such questions.

However much we may wish the present Patriarch a long life, because of his age he will inevitably follow the immutable rule that applies to every mortal. At that point, the new bond of unity will become (according to what is being said) either Elpidophoros of America, or Emmanuel, formerly of France, or Makarios of Australia. In any case, however, according to the statements of Patriarch Bartholomew, whoever may be elected, the “guarantee of the unity of the Lord’s Ecclesiastical Body” and the path to salvation for us all are assured. Therefore, there is no need for either concern or anxiety.

All this brings to mind the incident involving a Roman Catholic monk who, in 1978, following the death of the Pope, happened to be on Mount Athos and asked St. Paisios to pray that God would raise up a new and good Pope.

The Saint then gave him a friendly pat on the back and, with the characteristic humor for which he was known, replied:

“Don’t be troubled at all. Whoever becomes Pope, he too will be infallible! You have no reason to worry.”

So let us not worry either. Delicate and gentle hands rock our cradle, and soothing words lull us to sleep. Let us continue our slumber in peace.

George K. Tzanakis

Akrotiri, Chania, November 8, 2026

 

NOTES

1. Address delivered by Patriarch Bartholomew in response to his welcome at the Synodal Headquarters of the Bulgarian Patriarchate on Saturday, October 17, 2026.

https://fosfanariou.gr/index.php/2026/10/18/omilies-oikoumenikou-patriarchou-kai-patriarchou-voulgarias-kata-tin-episimo-ypodochi-tou-protou-sto-synodiko-megaro-tis-ekklisias-tis-voulgarias/

2. Justin Popović, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism. Orthodoxos Kypseli Publications, Thessaloniki, 1974.

3. St. Justin (Popović) of Ćelije, Dogmatics. Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopedi, Mount Athos, 2019. Second edition.

4. https://grandlodge.gr/tektones/meletios-v-metaxakis/

5. Part I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fOTANiQ6eo

Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUobtvbojko&t=6388s

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%cf%80%ce%b1%cf%84%cf%81%ce%b9%ce%ac%cf%81%cf%87%ce%b7%cf%82-%ce%ba%cf%89%ce%bd%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b1%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%bd%ce%bf%cf%85%cf%80%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b5%cf%89%cf%82-%e1%bd%81-%cf%80%cf%81%ce%b1/

 

“The Zealots glued our books together!”

Greek source: Sacred Memories, Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, Athens, 2010, pp. 24-26.

 

 

My elder, Elder Nikodemos, was also an excellent cook. Every year, on July 5, the feast of St. Athanasios, the trustees of the Great Lavra would invite him to prepare the meals for the monastery’s pilgrims.

Among the trustees in those days were Elder Spyridon Kampanaos, a physician; Elder Epiphanios; Elder Gerasimos; Elder Ioakeim; Elder Pavlidis, also a physician; Elder Ambrosios, who is still living today; Papa-Nikandros; and other venerable fathers who held my elder in high esteem, even though he was a Zealot.

In those days, a Zealot was a scapegoat. There were approximately three hundred Zealot monks. Most of them lived in the sketes and remote wilderness regions of Mount Athos, while some resided within the monasteries themselves. They were strict in their observance of ecclesiastical tradition, refusing to accept the commemoration of the Patriarch and declining to attend divine services in monasteries where he was commemorated. For the same reason, they would not even kiss the hands of the abbots or trustees.

In retaliation, the monastery authorities refused to recognize them, would not enter their names in the monastic registers, and would not include them in the homologa [monastic cell deeds]. Many young monks preferred to serve in the military and temporarily lay aside their monastic habits rather than make a prostration before those who commemorated the Patriarch.

The same situation continues to this day, although the Zealot monks have achieved a great victory. Recently, the Monastery of Esphigmenou joined their ranks and raised black flags outside its gates bearing the words, “Orthodoxy or Death.”

One year, the fathers of the Great Lavra decided to enlighten the Zealots by publishing a book. The task of writing it was undertaken by an educated monk, Gerasimos Menagias. The book was circulated throughout Mount Athos.

That year, they did not invite Elder Nikodemos to cook, since he was a Zealot and his presence would cause scandal among the fathers, both Zealots and non-Zealots alike.

Elder Nikodemos took this very hard. He waited until the feast of St. Athanasios had passed and then went to the monastery to find out why.

His fellow countryman, Elder Epiphanios, intercepted him at the monastery pavilion. “Elder Nikodemos, the Zealots have glued all our books together! The Zealots, my brother, your own people, have glued all our books together!”

He then explained that the ascetics of the wilderness had gathered as many copies of the book as they could, glued them together one by one with fish glue, made them into a bundle, and, at dawn, before sunrise, hung the bundle outside the monastery gate.

When the gatekeeper opened the gate, he found the bundle. Without opening it, he took it to the monastery’s council chamber. The wooden semantron was sounded to summon the elders, and the trustees assembled. There they heard the physician Spyridon Kampanaos explain: “Holy brethren, the Zealots have glued our books together!”

The fathers of the Great Lavra gave a bitter laugh, and realizing that they were kicking against the goads and that the Zealots would not change their convictions, they relaxed the strict measures they had imposed upon them.

 

On the Deluded Ultra-Zealots of Athos: “Christ is Risen, Pantelis”

Greek source: Sacred Memories, by Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, Athens, 1990, pp. 58-59.

 

 

Elder Thomas, a kindhearted, gaunt, and very tall monk, lived with his two disciples, Panteleimon and John, on a mountainside near the summit at the Skete of St. Anne. Below their cell ran the narrow, rugged path leading to Katounakia, St. Basil’s, and Karoulia—that is, the desert region of Mount Athos, where holy hermits and ascetics lived and continue to live to this day.

Elder Thomas had a passion for fishing. This was also the handicraft by which his kalyve supported itself. He spent the entire night fishing near Pina, a headland of Mount Athos, and at daybreak Panteleimon, whom the fathers called “Thomas’s Pantelis,” would come down from the cell, collect the fish, and sell them at the Skete.

And life flowed pleasantly in the monastic brotherhood, fragrant with the incense of daily prayers and the scent of the sea that rose from Elder Thomas’s freshly caught fish. Everything went well until the day Panteleimon fell into delusion. He became a Hexagonist. Now I must explain to you what a “Hexagonist” is. Indeed, I shall find this rather difficult, for the matter has “profound theological significance”! In 1935, a monk who was a hermit published a book entitled The Elements of Orthodox Symbolic Signs. Triangles, squares, circles, hexagons, and various other geometric shapes adorned his work. He had also acquired some twenty followers, whom the fathers of Mount Athos called “Hexagonists.”

The customary greeting on Mount Athos, in place of “Good morning,” “Good evening,” “Good night,” “To your health,” and so forth, is “Bless!” [Evlogeite]. The Hexagonists abolished this beautiful greeting. They applied the principle, “Do not even greet heretics.” And in their eyes, all the fathers of Mount Athos who were not Hexagonists were heretics. Among those who had fallen into this delusion was Fr. Panteleimon, also known as “Thomas’s Pantelis.”

It was Bright Week. We happened to meet at the Skete’s watermill.

“Christ is Risen, Father Panteleimon!”

Not a word from him. He pretended not to hear me.

“Father Panteleimon, Christ is Risen!” I said again. He looked at me, smiling beneath his blond mustache, but again gave me no answer.

“What is this, Fr. Panteleimon? Have you become a Jew? I said to you, ‘Christ is Risen!’ Only they deny His Resurrection.”

Then, narrowing his blue eyes, he said to me contemptuously:

“Christ is Risen for me, not for you.”

You see, he was a Hexagonist.

Later, I learned that Thomas’s Pantelis had lost his mind. He went insane, just like the other Panteleimon, the king, whom I told you about on another occasion. A few years later, he died insane.

What a terrible evil pride truly is! How dreadful it is for someone to think so highly of himself and to believe that he is a saint...

 

 

The Moscow Patriarchate on Opposition to Ecumenism (2000)

Source: The Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church toward the Non-Orthodox, adopted by the Council of Bishops in August 2000.

 

 

7.3. The Church condemns those who, by using inauthentic information, deliberately distort the task of the Orthodox Church in her witness before the non-Orthodox world and consciously slander the Church authorities, accusing them of the “betrayal” of Orthodoxy. These people, who sow seeds of temptation among ordinary believers, should be subject to canonical sanctions. In this regard, guidance is given by the decisions of the pan-Orthodox meeting in Thessaloniki in 1998: “The delegates unanimously denounced those groups of schismatics, as well as certain extremist groups within the local Orthodox Churches themselves, that are using the theme of ecumenism in order to criticise the Church leadership and undermine its authority, thus attempting to create divisions and schisms within the Church. They also use non-factual material and misinformation in order to support their unjust criticism. The delegates also emphasised that the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has always been based on Orthodox tradition, on the decisions of the Holy Synods of the local Orthodox Churches, and on Pan-Orthodox meetings… The participants are unanimous in their understanding of the necessity for continuing their participation in various forms of inter-Christian activity. We have no right to withdraw from the mission laid upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, the mission of witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world. We must not interrupt relations with Christians of other confessions who are prepared to work together with us… During Orthodox participation of many decades in the ecumenical movement, Orthodoxy has never been betrayed by any representative of a Local Orthodox Church. On the contrary, these representatives have always been completely faithful and obedient to their respective Church authorities, and acted in complete agreement with the canonical rules, the Teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church”. A threat to the Church is also presented by those who participate in inter-Christian contacts, speaking on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church without the blessing of the Church authorities, as well as by those who bring temptation into the midst of Orthodoxy by entering into canonically inadmissible sacramental communion with non-Orthodox communities.

 

English source: https://old.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/vii/

Original Russian source:

https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/87579-7-vnutrennie-zadachi-v-svyazi-s-dialogom-s-inoslaviem/

Its inclusion in the 2017 proposed Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church: https://patriarchia.ru/article/56023

 

Aristotle Delimbasis: “The Great Responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate” (1996)

Aristotle Delimbasis (1925–2007) was one of the greatest Greek theologians of our time. He was systematically scorned by the ecclesiastical establishment because he defended the Julian Calendar and opposed the heresy of Ecumenism and the Neo-Papism of the Phanar. What follows is an important text written by him in 1996, on the occasion of the Moscow Patriarchate's rupture of ecclesiastical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the latter's unlawful intrusion into Estonia.

* * *

The Great Responsibility of the Moscow Patriarchate

(Excerpts from an article by Aristotle Delimbasis entitled “Concerning the Predatory Assault on the Russian Church,” published in the journal Voice of the Fathers [Athens, February 1996].)

1) To renounce the heresy and pan-heresy of Ecumenism, or Papal Ecumenism, in accordance with the principle that “every heresy shall be anathematized” (Canon 1 of the Second Ecumenical Council), and to proclaim the Orthodoxy of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, in accordance with the commandment, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), which the Lord gave to the Holy Apostles and to their successors throughout all ages—the Orthodox and worthy bishops, and especially the Patriarchs.

2) For the Patriarchal Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate to condemn the present Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, on grounds of faith and righteousness (cf. Apostolic Canon 31). That is, to depose and anathematize him as a heretic and subverter of the sacred foundations of the Orthodox Church, as an Ecumenist and Papal Ecumenist who acknowledges every heresy and transgresses the sacred canons, who preaches the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and Papal Ecumenism, which he seeks to impose upon the Church, while cooperating with everything alien to Her and persecuting Orthodox believers. This must be done on the basis of the centuries-old pious experience of the Orthodox Church and Her Holy Fathers, such as, for example, St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who, in opposing the Nestorian heresy that arose in his time and its very originator, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, condemned him through the Patriarchal Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, writing to him as follows:

“Know that thou hast no communion with us, nor any place or standing among the priests and bishops of God. For it is impossible for us to remain negligent when the Churches are so disturbed, the people are scandalized, the right Faith is trampled underfoot, and thou scatterest the flock—thou who oughtest to be its shepherd.” (Letter to Nestorius Concerning Excommunication [a.k.a., Third Letter to Nestorius])

For every primate of the Church, whether bishop or patriarch, must concern himself, in matters of faith and scandalous lawlessness, not only with his own diocese or patriarchate, but also with the entire Church throughout the world. As the worthy Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, declares:

“It behooves the one who presides over the Church to care not only for the [Church] entrusted to him by the Spirit, but also for every [Church] throughout the world” (PG 50, 602).

3) The Moscow Patriarchate must come to an understanding [νὰ συνεννοηθῇ] with the patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops, and other faithful throughout the world who have remained truly Orthodox in their faith, and convene a genuinely Pan-Orthodox, anti-heretical, and therefore anti-Ecumenist Council.

This will be pleasing to God and in accordance with ecclesiastical order, and will serve to strengthen Orthodox Christians in their saving confession of the Orthodox Faith, in accordance with the commandment, “Strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). It will also mark the beginning of the purification of ecclesiastical affairs through the “good fight” of the Christian Faith, confessed and victorious (1 Tim. 6:12).

There are no canonical or ecclesiastical impediments whatsoever to anything stated above. The fact that the Patriarch of Moscow ranks fifth in the order of the Orthodox Patriarchs is of no significance, since this does not imply that he is inferior to those who precede him or superior to those who follow him. Nor does it imply subordination or any preeminent authority, as the heterodox and Papists teach, but merely the necessary order of precedence among autocephalous Patriarchs and Patriarchates of equal honor. The Church of Christ has acknowledged that the Patriarch of Moscow “is and is called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs,” “equal in rank and sharing the same throne, equal in both rank and dignity,” as indeed are all Orthodox Patriarchs.

Therefore, there is no impediment whatsoever to the Patriarch of Moscow acting on his own initiative [πρωτοβούλως] in the interests of Orthodoxy. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon him to do so, since the Holy Ecumenical Councils themselves were convened through the actions of Patriarchs, without any regard to their place in the order of precedence. Consequently, the initiative and the taking of measures to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council concerning matters of faith and righteousness that have arisen within the Church are not the exclusive prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, especially when he himself is professing heresy and acting in defiance of ecclesiastical order!

 

Greek/Russian source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_10.html

 

The Incident Involving Elder Iakovos Tsalikis (+1991) and Joint Prayers with the Heterodox

With just a few words, the Elder demonstrated so much, offering valuable lessons to today’s shepherds, even though very few of them remember him today.

 

 

Recently, frequent incidents of Orthodox hierarchs engaging in joint prayers with Papists and even Protestants have come pouring in like a torrent…

This is an issue of enormous importance and particular relevance, as the Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete is only a few days away. [This was originally shared on June 5, 2016. The elder was canonized by the EP in 2017. – Blog Admin.] Many accuse those who oppose such practices of being backward and out of touch with modern reality, as though the dogmas of the Faith ought to change with the times.

On this immensely important issue, it is worth learning how it was approached by a truly enlightened Elder, Elder Iakovos Tsalikis, who departed this life a few years ago:

“When a Papist stayed overnight at the Monastery, the Elder treated him with love.

The visitor was well-intentioned and had many questions. The Elder explained things to him with kindness and meekness.

At that time, the Monastery did not have the large refectory it has today, and everyone (monks, clergy, and laypeople) ate together at a small table in a dining room on the ground floor, beside the fountain.

All the others had gone ahead. They sat down at the table and waited for the Elder. When the Elder entered, everyone stood up out of respect, but also so that the customary prayer before the meal might be said.

The Elder sat down, told the others to sit as well, made the sign of the Cross, and began to eat.

The Papist was a devout believer. He spoke up and said to the Elder, ‘Elder, are we not going to say a prayer?’

And the Elder calmly replied, ‘It would be better for us to remain silent.’

And he continued eating his meal.

Let those who insist upon joint prayers with the heterodox understand the spirit of the holy Elder.”

Indeed, with just a few words, the Elder conveyed so much, offering valuable lessons to today’s shepherds, even though very few of them remember him today.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/to-peristatiko-me-ton-agio-tsaliki-gia/