The Perspective of Ecumenistic Union Reaffirmed in the Letter of Pope Leo Before the Celebration of the First Ecumenical Council Together with the Ecumenical Patriarch

Hieromonk Lavrentie | November 28, 2025

(Translated from the original Romanian)

The letter of Pope Leo In unitate fidei stood out especially by the fact that it cited the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the addition of the Filioque. But more interesting to me seemed the perspective it offers on the envisaged union of the “Churches.” There had also been indications in this regard in a document from last year concerning the way in which the primacy of the Bishop of Rome will be reconciled with synodality for a future church union.

Renunciation of the Filioque?

Perhaps the most generous gesture by which the current Pope shows his availability for sincere union with the “other Christians” is the apparent renunciation of the addition Filioque from the Creed. In the letter from recent days, translated also into Romanian in Catholic [i.e., Papist] language for those who cannot consult it in the languages officially offered by the Vatican, the article about the Holy Spirit from the Symbol of Faith is cited without the addition Filioque. In this way, the authentic synodal variant of 381 is officially acknowledged, but with an observation added in a footnote.

Catholic diplomacy offers the view about the addition Filioque in one sentence: “The declaration ‘and proceeds from the Son (Filioque)’ is not found in the text from Constantinople; it was introduced into the Latin Creed by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 and is the subject of Orthodox–Catholic dialogue.” From this clarification it follows that the Pope has not renounced the Filioque, even if he takes a step back. Nothing is said about whether the insertion of 1014 is correct and justified, but it is left in official debate with the Orthodox. In other words, a revision is possible if a future agreement is reached, but for the moment things remain unchanged. For this reason, we are interested in what a possible union of the Orthodox and the Catholics will look like.

Indications about the future ecumenist union

Although the current Pope was persuaded with difficulty to come to Nicaea for the commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council, it seems that in the end he does not strike a discordant note with regard to the ecumenist tradition already inscribed in the papist attitude toward the rest of the Christian world. At first, he refused to follow the program made by the late Pope Francis to visit Istanbul in the first part of the year 2025, but in the end, he accepted to come at the end of the year.

And his coming this weekend is prefaced by a positioning from which there emerges the availability and effort to reach a Christian unity on the basis of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the “one” baptism. Thus, the Pope declares that the ecumenical movement has brought Catholics to the current state of “recognizing the members of the other Churches and ecclesiastical communities as our brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.” For the moment, “what unites us is much greater than what separates us” (§12).

Thus the Pope declares that, at the official level, there exists a mutual recognition of communion among the “Churches,” but not full and not visible.

In what way will the visible and formal union look, according to the Pope? It will be achieved through an inclusive ecumenism, which is to accept both some and others.

The ecumenism described by the Pope “must leave behind the theological controversies, which have lost their raison d’être, and develop a common understanding and even a common prayer to the Holy Spirit in order to gather us together into one faith and one love.”

More precisely, again according to the letter, it is not about “an ecumenism that seeks to return to the state before the divisions, nor about a mutual recognition of the present status quo of the diversity of Churches and ecclesial communities. Rather, it is an ecumenism that looks toward the future, that seeks reconciliation through dialogue as we share the gifts and the spiritual heritage.”

I think that this perspective is difficult to contemplate by any logical and normal thinking. In what way can a union be achieved that is neither a return to the state before the ruptures, nor a remaining in the present division, and yet it be an authentic reconciliation and translated into visible frameworks? In plain Romanian, it seems to be about reconciling both the goat and the cabbage, that is, a camel-ostrich [i.e., an unnatural hybrid], something truly authentic. [Written in sarcasm – trans.]

The ecumenist union on the topic of papal primacy

In order to form a somewhat clearer picture of what the Pope wants to convey, it is useful to bring into discussion an official document from one year ago of the papal administration about primacy and synodality in the perspective of a future ecclesial union. Although a rather bulky material, rendered into a brochure of about 150 pages, a few statements and ideas can be extracted in order to summarize the general message.

By taking over and assuming the idea from a joint document of Pope John Paul II and [Pope] Shenouda III (Coptic), we learn that “in a reconciled Christianity, such a communion presupposes the fact that the relationship of the Bishop of Rome with the Eastern Churches and their bishops […] will have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted within the Latin Church and that the Churches will continue to have the right and the power to govern themselves according to their own traditions and customs” (p. 111), that is, the Orthodox will relate to the Pope as they do today, without changing anything (p. 86).

The reconciliation between the present primacy and synodal administration will somehow be defined as follows: “The Bishop of Rome acts simultaneously as bishop of a local diocese, as primate of the Western or Latin Church, and as servant of unity at the universal level” (p. 97). That is, what for Catholics will be a primacy will for the rest be something general and vague.

In concrete terms, Catholics are willing to leave papal primacy as it was defined at the First Vatican Council (where infallibility was introduced in 1870), but they will take into account that it must be understood and explained in context. That is, it will be given another meaning. Taking into account the fact that at the time of the convocation of the First Vatican Council, there were certain pressures that determined the accentuation of a centralizing perspective, now it must and can be revised, reinterpreted by them, because now the climate is different.

In summary, in the future Church united through ecumenist efforts, the current confessions and beliefs will be viewed as compatible traditions and brought together into one great Church, called “of Christ.” There will be ecclesiastical communion, but each in his own language and in perfect harmony with one another.

Union in dogmatic chaos without betrayals of faith

From what has been set forth very succinctly above, it follows that the unity that will be reached will not be attained through the power of the Holy Spirit of truth, but in a spirit of pietistic and senseless love, in which each will remain faithful to his own traditions, but will simultaneously be in communion and will accept/embrace heterodox beliefs. Such a situation I cannot imagine except through the renunciation of dogmatic akrivia, or rather even through the abandonment of ordinary sound thinking. More important will be merry union than rigorous truth. The Church will be viewed as an earthly institution meant to lead to the fulfillment of Christ’s commandments, but without seriousness, in cruel delusion similar to the charismatic movement and cut off from its purpose in eternity. Those lacking uprightness will fit into it without difficulty, but those accustomed to the true faith will not be able to accept it.

As we already see now, there are [supposedly] no betrayals of faith, even though they are clear. Ignorance will be stronger than vigilance.

Practically, we will not be able to find what to reproach to the future ecumenist union at the formal level, because the (Orthodox) faith will not be betrayed, but there will be such an amalgam that it will be hard to understand anything even logically. In other words, it will be a fair of dogmas in which even the Filioque will be preserved and rejected at the same time.

I further specify that this perspective offered by Pope Leo is in perfect consensus with the agreements signed so far by the Orthodox and the Catholics at Ravenna (2007), Chieti (2016), and Alexandria (2023). Therefore, it concerns us directly not only because the Pope will meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch in the coming days, but because this is the course of things. For this reason, an analysis in the future of the bilateral discussions mentioned above will be necessary for the benefit of those who are interested.

As an additional note, it is interesting that the portal Basilica informs us that the Orthodox–Lutheran dialogue is continuing and is focused precisely on synodality–primacy, a subject common with the Catholics. This indicates a joint effort to bring everyone to a common denominator simultaneously, even if the themes are not specific to the confessions in question.

Of course, the tempering of the ecumenist momentum after the pressures exerted following the Council of Crete was only temporary, and we are witnessing a revival of the efforts toward union even on the part of the Romanian hierarchy, without embarrassment.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2025/11/28/perspectiva-unirii-ecumeniste-reafirmata-in-scrisoarea-papei-leon-inainte-de-celebrarea-sinodului-i-ecumenic-alaturi-de-patriarhul-ecumenic/

The Ecumenists are Becoming Bolder

Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon

November 14/27, 2025

 

In the holy Orthodox Church of ours, we are members of the Body of Christ. Among ourselves, as “members one of another,” we are of the same spirit and have and preserve an unbroken unity, as the Holy Apostle Paul affirms: “One body and one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4). There must be no discord, because we receive from the same source the Holy Spirit, who constitutes the institution of the Church and preserves us in concord and like-mindedness.

Saint John Chrysostom emphasizes that, “when all believe in the same way, then there is unity” (Homily 11 on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 3).

This, however, is disturbed when friendship with heretics appears and is formed (ibid., 1). Then division begins in the cohesion of the body, and the spiritual unity is disrupted.

Things worsen when certain individuals—either personally or collectively—begin to teach and act heretically. And especially if they are Shepherds, then they are transformed into harmful and dangerous wolves. Our Patristic Tradition is clear, which for us Orthodox Christians constitutes a guiding line of direction throughout our history. When someone behaves impiously with regard to the Faith and teaches error “within the Church,” persists in innovations, and acts arbitrarily, then “he has no place of communion” with the right-believing clergy and laity, “but shall be a stranger to all” (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle XVIII, “To the clergy and people of Constantinople”).

Those who persist in foreign and alien doctrines, which the holy Orthodox Catholic Church neither knows nor accepts at all, must be shunned as corrupters and destroyers (ibid.), and it is necessary that the appropriate procedure of Synodal confrontation and judgment be set in motion.

This is precisely what has been happening for decades now with the impious Ecumenists, who shamelessly trample upon the entire Tradition and Ethos of the Church, participating in and promoting the path of Apostasy. Some characteristic recent actions of theirs overwhelmingly confirm, for the umpteenth time, this tragic conclusion—especially in view of what they are preparing in Nicaea and Constantinople before the whole world in the coming days (28–30 November 2025).

A. Sweden – Ecumenical Anniversary

On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the “Faith and Order” Conference (an early Ecumenical Organization), which was convened in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1925, Patriarch Bartholomew on Saturday, 23 August 2025, “was present and spoke at a grand ecumenical service in the Lutheran Cathedral of Stockholm, in the presence of the Royal couple, the Prime Minister of the country, representatives of Churches and Confessions, and a multitude of faithful.” “The event culminated in a common prayer and the recitation of the Symbol of Faith by those present, highlighting the historical continuity and the commitment of the Churches to unity and reconciliation” (Orthodox Times, 25 August 2025).

 

On the following day, Sunday, 24 August 2025, in the Lutheran Cathedral of Uppsala, an “ecumenical prayer” also took place under the title: “A Time for the Peace of God,” in the presence of “church primates” from all over the world. Patriarch Bartholomew recited the Symbol of Faith in Greek, “just as Patriarch Photius of Alexandria had done 100 years earlier in the same church.” An “Ecumenical Call for Peace” was also presented, with the declaration: “God calls us—as Churches, brothers and sisters in faith, fellow human beings—to become bearers of His peace… We stand together—different in traditions, languages, cultures—but united in Christ… Our unity is not uniformity, but reconciled diversity that reflects the love of God” (Orthodox Times, 25 August 2025).

These Ecumenical foolish opinions and erroneous doctrines are entirely unknown to our Orthodox Faith and Tradition, unacceptable and condemnable.

B. Rome – Interfaith Meeting

On Sunday, 26 October 2025, Patriarch Theodoros of Alexandria traveled to Rome as an official guest of the Community of Sant’Egidio, to participate as one of the speakers in the established annual Interfaith Meeting of this Community, which had the general theme: “I Dare for Peace.”

On Monday, 27 October, the Patriarch of Alexandria visited the tomb of Pope Francis, and in the afternoon, he was a speaker at the meeting with the theme: “Christian Unity – Rediscovering the Way.” There, “he urged the participants to engage in dialogue with mutual respect and mutual understanding, as well as in the recognition of each one’s contribution with Christ as the criterion. He called for rallying together and striving for the future course. In the effort to once again become an authentic family of Christ, a traditional, united, and loving family of our Savior…” (Romfea, 30 October 2025).

Also present were the new Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania, Ioannis, representatives of local Orthodox Churches, as well as of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Together with the Patriarch were the Metropolitans Gregory of Cameroon and George of Guinea, and Bishop Panaretos of Nyeri and Mount Kenya.

The Patriarch of Alexandria also participated together with Pope Leo in the gathering of Christians at the Colosseum in Rome for common prayer for the peace of the world, where he was once again a speaker. Among other things, he said: “Here today we are one family to protect life, to seek new paths of dialogue… In the name of the Lord, let us dare to strive for peace, let us dare to pray for peace…” (ibid.).

Later, he had a meeting with the Pope at the Vatican, where, among other things, they renewed their upcoming meeting in Nicaea on 28 November and at the Phanar on 29 November (Orthodox Times, 30 October 2025; National Herald, 30 October 2025).

C. Rome – Presentation of the Renewed “Ecumenical Charter”

From 4 to 6 November 2025, an Ecumenical Meeting of the Joint Committee was held in Rome, namely of the “Council of European Bishops’ Conferences” (CCEE – Papists) and the “Conference of European Churches” (CEC – composed of Orthodox Ecumenists, Anglicans, and Protestants).

The highlight of the Meeting was the joint signing of the renewed Charta Oecumenica (Ecumenical Charter) on Wednesday, 5 November (25 years after its first signing in Strasbourg in 2001), at the Church of the Martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in the Abbey of the Three Fountains. The document was signed by the Presidents of the two Organizations: on behalf of the CCEE, the Papist Archbishop of Vilnius, Gintaras Grušas, and on behalf of the CEC, Archbishop Nikitas of Thyateira and Great Britain (Romfea, 7 November 2025).

Already from its first publication in 2001, the “Ecumenical Charter” was described as “a foundational text that expresses the basic directions and the principal goals of the ecumenical cooperation of the Churches in Europe” (Kath’ Hodon periodical, issue 17/December 2001, publ. Paratiritis, Thessaloniki, pp. 71–81, where the text of the first edition of the “Charter” is presented in Greek translation).

Again in Rome, on 6 November, “the representatives of the Christian Churches of Europe” were received in a special audience by Pope Leo XIV in the Consistory Hall at the Vatican, where the Pope regarded the “Charter” as “a milestone for European ecumenical cooperation” (Romfea, 7 November 2025).

In an interview with Vatican News, Nikitas of Thyateira described the Vatican experience as “an honor, a privilege, and a blessing.” “It shows that we have overcome the differences of the past… The walls of separation have collapsed. Now we are working together. We speak the same language, the language of Christ, the language of love” (ibid.).

We perceive that these statements demonstrate the extent of the absolute spiritual darkness of the Ecumenists, who are categorical and leveling. They have no relation whatsoever to the Orthodox Faith and Tradition. We know that in their arrogance they believe that whoever does not accept their destructive line is regarded as cowardly and unrealistic. However, these unfortunate “fighters” in the alien and extra‑ecclesial ecumenical gloom are in reality striking the air and laboring in vain in spiritual chaos—or rather, more accurately, on chessboards of geopolitical interests in order to salvage institutions and thrones and to preserve privileges and titles, deprived of charism and life.

● It is to be noted that the Presidium of the CEC, under Nikitas of Thyateira, visited earlier—on 30 September 2025—the Deputy Regional Governor of Chania, in Chania, Crete, within the framework of preparations for its upcoming General Assembly, which is to be held in Kolymbari in May 2028 (Zarpanews.gr, 30 September 2025).

For the same reason, a subsequent meeting was also held with the Regional Governor of Crete in Heraklion, where in the related commemorative photograph—Nikitas of Thyateira being absent—there is seen at the center, in clerical garb, the member of the CEC Presidium, Ms. Dagmar Winter, “bishopess of the Anglican Church.” Also present on behalf of the Church of Crete was Bishop Methodios of Knossos (Region of Crete, Press Release, 2 October 2025).

So then, bishopesses and bishops together, in the name of “Orthodox witness” and “pan-Christian unity”! How hardened must one have become to consider all these things as natural and necessary for the advancement of a supposed “divine purpose and vision”? How deluded must one be to regard the institutionalization of these things as “divine gifts and blessings”?!…

Nevertheless, the utterly unfortunate Ecumenists, emboldened in their shamelessness, regard the joint signing of the revised “Ecumenical Charter” in Rome, at the beginning of November 2025, as “a historic step toward the unity of Christians in Europe and a new milestone in the ecumenical dialogue, as it expresses the desire of the Churches to walk together in a spirit of dialogue, mutual understanding, and common witness in the face of the challenges of the age” (Panorthodox Synod, 6 November 2025, ed. Io. Lotsios).

The Ecumenists do not spare pompous expressions to emphasize the importance of the “Ecumenical Charter”: namely, that it “contributes to the formation of an ecumenical ethos,” “constitutes a strong message of unity and hope,” as well as of “the assumption of common responsibility in society,” and of “working for unity with respect for theological differences,” that it essentially achieves “ecumenical unity through common forms of action,” and that it promotes dialogue with other religions and ideologies, proposing “an ecclesiology of unity, which does not mean uniformity, but includes the diversity of traditions”; for this reason, it is also believed that the well-known Ecumenistic Encyclical of 1920 of the Ecumenical Patriarchate constitutes a “forerunner” of the “Charter” with regard to the practical steps required for the advancement of Christian unity! (cf. Maria Kouroukli, Ecumenical Charter: The Respect for Freedom and Diversity within the Framework of Inter-Christian Dialogues [CEC–WCC]…, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Joint Postgraduate Program, Master’s Thesis, Athens – August 2025, pp. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 48).

All these things, from the Orthodox Patristic perspective, are worthy of condemnation and anathema for the magnitude of their perversity.

The hardened Ecumenists insistently regard the present renewed “Charter” as “a spiritual tool for cultivating a culture of cooperation, respect, and common mission. It is a visionary and prophetic text concerning the role of the Churches in today’s Europe… It calls for practical unity, responsibility, and common witness in a world thirsting for meaning, hope, and peace” (Panorthodox Synod, 6 November 2025, ed. Io. Lotsios).

If indeed someone expects these goods—granted only by the true God—to come from the murkiness of Ecumenical confusion, then he will receive precisely the opposite, because the source is defiled. This unchecked rhetoric of love and peace is—we fear—a forerunner of great calamities for unrepentant humanity, which nourishes false and vain hopes.

The Ecumenical endeavor neither had nor has divine and blessed foundations, and for this reason it went astray and continues to deviate constantly. Lacking Orthodox presuppositions, the participation considered as Orthodox increasingly distances the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox from the Holy Spirit-bearing Source of Truth of the Church.

We pray for the recovery of the deluded Ecumenists by a miracle of God, for they, unyielding in their aims, are preparing in these days new Ecumenical spectacles, especially in view of achieving a “Common Celebration of Pascha” with their heterodox brethren! This has been their fervent desire for a century now, which is why they changed the Ecclesiastical Calendar in 1924 with regard to the Fixed Feasts, “deceiving and being deceived.” As for their other justifications and vain arguments—supposedly to correct astronomical errors—they render themselves all the more inexcusable.

It is truly remarkable that even those among the official local Churches—and particularly that of Greece—who are generally regarded as “traditional” and “opposed” to Ecumenical heresy, maintain an almost absolute silence in the face of all that we have broadly described here. Or rather, they do the exact opposite: they attack the Genuine Orthodox Christians of the Patristic Calendar, on account of the noise made by marginal individuals—profiteers who impersonate the “Old Calendarist”—in order, according to their deluded opinion, to dismantle and weaken their God-pleasing witness and Confession. Let these hypocrites—whoever they may be—basking in their legalistic sophistries, hear the divine verdict: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites… therefore ye shall receive the greater condemnation!” (Matt. 23:14)…

The safeguarding, at all cost, of the divine “Deposit” (1 Tim. 6:20) inviolate, constitutes the foremost duty of true Orthodox Christians in our days. For the attainment of this, it is an urgent obligation to avoid communion with the fallen and uncommuned Ecumenists, as well as to abstain from “the commemoration of the uncommemorated” (St. Mark of Ephesus, Epistle to the Hieromonk Theophanes).

The Holy Fathers urge us to a courageous and unwavering keeping of the Faith, even if, for this sacred work, we suffer persecutions, slanders, insults, contempt, and every kind of affliction, which constitute signs of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Apostle Peter affirms: “If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you” (1 Peter 4:14).

May this consoling assurance resound decisively in the spiritual hearing of every true Orthodox Christian today, along the path of Witness and Confession, in the present and in what is to come, until the final breath, that we may attain divine favor and the divine blessedness!

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2025/11/27/%ce%bf%e1%bc%b1-%ce%bf%e1%bc%b0%ce%ba%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%e1%bd%b2%cf%82-%e1%bc%80%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%b8%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%83%cf%8d%ce%bd%ce%bf%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%b1%ce%b9/

On St. Ieronymos of Aegina’s Return to the Patristic Calendar

Source: Botsis, Peter, The Elder Ieronymos of Aegina, Brookline, MA: The Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 2007, pp. 159-163.

 

 

The region of Anatolia, Cappadocia in Asia Minor, where he lived his childhood years, where he came to know the first spiritual stirrings, where he tasted the springing waters of Orthodoxy from the holy elders who lived there, and where he matured spiritually, remained unforgettable for him. He frequently referred to his homeland and waved nostalgic for all the things he had experienced there. He never forgot the solitary chapels in the rocks, where one could go and pray in utter stillness, nor those simple people, those first-rate artisans, who, whatever they put their hand to, did it perfectly, with ardor, and with good taste.

Being a great lover of the life of stillness and prayer, he often recollected the beautiful days full of spiritual ascents and exaltations that he had passed in the chapels and abandoned monasteries of his homeland.

“Here in Greece, you cannot find a quiet place to pray,” he was wont to say. “In Anatolia there were many places where you could pass the whole day in prayer, without anybody seeing you.”

This insatiable and never-silent desire for quietude and prayer, for undisturbed communion with God, never abandoned him. He never lost an opportunity to draw apart and give himself to prayer. Usually, even when he was speaking to his visitors, he would stop for a little and say, “Now let’s chant something.”

And he would begin with his imposing, deeply resounding, and melodious voice to chant “Let us worship the Word,” or “It is truly meet…” or some other hymn, these intermissions of prayer were indispensable for him, they were his life-breath, his spiritual supply-line. And at the same time, it was an excellent example for those who conversed with him, that they might form the habit of conjoining their every occupation with prayer.

He lived the essence of Orthodoxy, tradition, in all its breadth. Without rejecting any of the attainments of technological society, he had a special weakness, a passion we might say, for whatever was olden, ancient – from material things to the spiritual. He liked the ancient order of the services, the old books, antiques, because he believed that they carried the seal of their maker, they had been constructed with fondness and were not machine-made and in bad taste.

With such convictions and perceptions, having always lived his life within but also “outside this world,” within the strict province of tradition, he felt a certain uneasiness from the time that the ecclesiastical Calendar was changed and the new was enforced. These anxieties of his increased as the years went by and he beheld many Orthodox customs changed. He did not like the abridgement of the church services, the secularization of the clergy, the abandonment of the Orthodox way of life. And although he always attended to the essence and not the dim outward form, he believed that these alterations in traditional usages and forms in and of themselves betrayed a certain indifference and slackness towards the Faith: that this was the beginning of a downhill slide whose end was unknown. For this reason, he often thought of following the Old Calendar, especially since he saw that the Old Calendarists faithfully followed tradition and would not tolerate innovations and transgressions in matters pertaining to the Faith. For some time, he hesitated, and prayed continually and fervently to God, that He might reveal to him His will. He awaited some sign, some indication from God, that would make it clear to him what he should do.

In August of 1942, specifically on the 23rd of the month [1], the eve of the feast of Saint Dionysius of Aegina, when the hospital church celebrated, Procopios, the then Metropolitan of Hydra, Spetsai, and Aegina, called him and told him to get ready so that on the morrow, on the occasion of the church’s festival, they might concelebrate. Many priests of Aegina, who knew that Father Ieronymos was sympathetic to the Old Calendar, but were ignorant of the vision he had seen, were under the impression that he had stopped liturgizing at the hospital church on account of his Old Calendarist sympathies. They reported this to the Metropolitan, and he, in order to ascertain the accusation, requested that they concelebrate [2].

Men of God perceive the finger of Divine Providence behind every action and occurrence. Father Ieronymos, who had stopped liturgizing some eighteen years before, considered this invitation from the Metropolitan to be God’s answer to his prayers. He prayed again all night long and finally decided not to go and concelebrate with the Metropolitan, but to follow the Old Calendar openly thereafter. He departed on the morrow from the hospital very early in the morning for the hermitage of the Annunciation of the Theotokos, where the Eldress Eupraxia was already staying.

From there he sent the Metropolitan the following notification of resignation from the hospital church.

 

To the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Hydra

Kyr Kyr Procopios

Aegina

 

Your Eminence,

I beseech you to accept my resignation from the hospital, because since 1924 and henceforward, my yearning and also my zeal have been for the Orthodox Church and the Faith.

Since my childhood I have reverenced her, having dedicated my whole life to her, being obedient to the traditions of the God-bearing Fathers.

I acknowledge and proclaim the Patristic Calendar to be the correct one, as you also attest [3].

For this reason, I request of you, that you yourself also pray that I abide till the end a genuine child of the Orthodox Church.

Kissing your Eminence’s right hand,

I most humbly remain

The servant of our Crucified Lord Jesus Christ,

Ieronymos Apostolides

 

Thus, simply and quietly, without the beating of drums, excommunications, and fanatical manifestations, he followed the Old Calendar the rest of his life.

This event did not in any way influence his behavior towards his spiritual children. He received them all without distinction, whether they followed “the Old” or “the New.” He never preached on the calendar issue. His foremost and principal aim was to instill into his visitors faith and love towards Christ; his chief care was how they progressed in the spiritual life, how they were united to God. He never took part in fruitless and harmful conversations concerning the calendar issue, even when he was challenged to do so. He contented himself with simply confessing that he followed the Old Calendar since “that’s the right one,” and that from the time the Church put the New Calendar into practice “things just have not been going well at all.” He never permitted immoderate and harmful fanaticism to prevail in his soul. On the contrary, he always strove to calm spirits.

Once a visitor asked him, “Elder, do you follow the Old?”

“Yes.”

“Who are you with?” She meant, with which faction.

“With all.”

“But they have quarrels with one another.”

“I am not with quarrels.”

He was very discerning and refined in his ways. Even when he went so far as to censure, he did it with the utmost love, and not only did he not cause adverse reactions, but on the contrary, he elicited confession and repentance, which was his intended purpose.

 

NOTES

1. That is, according to the New or civil Calendar; it was the tenth of August according to the Church (Old) Calendar. Since the feast of Saint Dionysius is August 24, the Elder Ieronymos was being asked to celebrate Saint Dionysius' feast according to the New Calendar. —TRANS.

2. The truth of the matter is that Father Ieronymos, like his contemporary the holy Papa Nicholas Planas of Athens (+1932), quietly celebrated many of the feasts without liturgizing according to the Old Calendar. That he never liturgized or concelebrated according to the Papal Calendar since he had desisted from serving before the change of the calendar in 1924 was very convenient for him and somewhat eased his conscience. —TRANS.

3. Many, if not the majority, of the bishops and other clergy of the State Church of Greece at the time privately acknowledged that the Julian Calendar used by the Church since the days of our Saviour was the correct calendar for reckoning the feasts as opposed to the innovating Papal New Calendar; but for fear of reprisals, they would not proclaim this publicly. —TRANS.

Venerable Daniel of Katounakia as an Expression of Hesychastic and Confessional Self-Consciousness – A Rule of Confessional Ethos

Nikos E. Sakalakis, Mathematician

Venerable Daniel of Katounakia was a hidden source of the Holy Spirit, which quenched the thirst of the hearts of Orthodox Christians. From the outset, he understood that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was evolving into a “center of ecumenistic renewal,” and for this reason, in a written message concerning the “Future Ecumenical Council,” he prophetically laid out—as a matter of distinct duty toward Orthodoxy—the apostatic deviations of the “council” (2016–Crete). To a certain high-ranking clergyman who was under the influence of an ecumenistic conception of love, he emphasized: “This mindset prepares the ground for heresy. The Fathers devoted time, labor, and blood for the true faith. They endured exiles, imprisonments, tortures, and death. We cannot be indifferent to doctrine. We are all entrusted with the sacred duty of handing down Orthodoxy unadulterated to future generations. We shall give an account—each according to his position—for how faithful he remained to Orthodoxy. For without faith, we are cut off from the Church, through which we become partakers of Divine Grace. Without grace, love cannot come, for love is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Love without Christ is not true, but self-serving and false.”

The exercise of this form of Ecclesiological–Dogmatic scrutiny by Venerable Daniel unequivocally underscores his distancing [lack of spiritual communion] from the company of the love-preaching Patriarchal Ecumenists, who, in the name of love, were plunging the faithful into heresy.

Without the right faith—this vehicle of spiritual life—we cannot be exalted “at the right hand” of Christ, for the worldly manner of love employed by the heretics leads one to Hades.

Undoubtedly, the law of gravity in the spiritual realm is dreadful; for this reason, the prayer of the Church emphasizes:

a) “The Lord shall exalt His people”

b) “He shall exalt the horn of His Christ”

c) “The humble have been exalted”

d) “He shall exalt the meek in salvation”

and e) “Christ is on Earth—be ye exalted.”

First Comment: I remain astonished (for years now) at the exceedingly poor portrayal of the ancient Fathers, at the so inexplicably consistent silence regarding their feast days—such as those of St. Mark of Ephesus, Venerable Theodore the Studite, Venerable Maximus the Confessor, and other giants of the Orthodox Church—on the part of the [Official - tr.] Metropolis [of Demetrias] and its clergy. Vigils are dedicated to contemporary Saints (we do not object), though unfortunately these often carry ecumenistic “spiritual” undertones.

Question: Are the aforementioned Fathers of lesser spiritual weight than the modern Saints? The “contemporary” ecumenist bishops, unfortunately, are kindling torches for other religious forms (pan-religion).

I understand why they do not honor these great Fathers with dedicated churches and vigils: because they are a LIGHT that BURNS the heresy of Ecumenism. I hold within myself the certainty that these great Saints (if it exists at all) have the dimmest vigil lamp before their icons. I dare say that even my own article—my lamp—is very poor in flame.

Second Comment: Let us recall that the ecumenists adopt all forms of modernism and innovation, and they assail the Church of Christ through the teaching of the so-called “branches,” which they say differ from one another [merely] in doctrine and way of life; they also fail to distinguish baptism and the Eucharist from those of the heretics, considering them likewise sufficient for salvation!

These things they teach “under the pretext of brotherly love or a supposed union of the separated Christians.”

The pan-heresy of Ecumenism is not perceived, is not discerned by the great multitude of the Orthodox, because it is unimaginably deceitful, because it “overflows” with love and compromise with the world of faith.

The devil struck at the hearts of the Orthodox, who failed to realize that the ecumenists eliminated a fundamental dogma (the 9th article of the Symbol of Faith) of our belief. What meaning does it now have to say, “In ONE Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”?

In 1924, the division of the Orthodox began with the introduction of the “new calendar,” as a gate of entry for ecumenism, which unfortunately has divided the body of the Orthodox even to this day!

In Patristic confessional-theological writings, there exists as a foremost priority—and as their central shared consciousness—the safeguarding of the right faith.

Today, when heretical saprophytes—whether of Eastern or Western form—promote their heretical content as the Church’s path toward the future, we preserve our ecclesiological memory and recall within our conscience our Evangelical–Patristic self-awareness, considering that any resemblance between the heretics of old and certain figures of our time is not accidental!

The Orthodox faith and its confession are interrelated and mutually defining concepts.

The expulsion of Ecumenism from the Church will not arise through a form of parthenogenesis, without struggles and confrontations. Venerable Theodore the Studite emphasizes:

“Therefore, when the matter concerns the faith, it is not permitted to say: ‘Who am I? A priest? Not at all. A ruler? Nor even that. A soldier? And where? A farmer? Not even this. A pauper, merely obtaining my daily food. This matter does not concern me.’ Woe, the stones cry out and you remain silent and indifferent?” (P.G. 99, 1321 B)

We are all under responsibility and shall give an account before Christ for negligence and indifference.

Undoubtedly, we are advancing into the apocalyptic times foretold in Scripture, in which Satan orchestrates his most insidious assaults. The Orthodox faith is under trial.

The poisonous vapors of unbelief, materialism, Ecumenism, and pan-religion have also contaminated the spiritual atmosphere of Greece, while the appointed sentinels raise no new bulwarks.

Regarding today’s ecclesiological disorder, the words of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem are timely:

“Formerly, the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with hidden heretics.” (Catechesis XV – Θ)

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_609.html

Lesna Convent – “Contemporary Russia, Ukraine, and the West: the Spiritual Meaning of Today’s Conflicts”

November 9, 2020

[Written while the Convent was still under the omophorion of the “Russian True Orthodox Church”]

 

Approximately two and a half years ago, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine began — a conflict that so grievously divides Orthodox Christians, including the faithful of our Church, into factions and opposing sides, and has alienated so many former friends, even relatives and close ones. To this day, our Church has not officially expressed a defined position regarding the conflict, calling only for prayer for the cessation of this fratricidal war and permitting prayers for those fighting on both sides. Many are perplexed as to how an Orthodox Christian should truly relate to what is taking place. Others, alas, interpret the silence of our Synod as agreement with their personal opinions, and decide that this gives them the right not only to express those opinions, but to present them as the opinion of the Church — binding upon all. The absence of any statement or resolution from the Synod on this matter, along with some not entirely appropriate remarks by individual hierarchs and clergy, is one of the reasons that led several communities to cease liturgical commemoration of the Chairman of the Synod of Bishops, accusing our Synod of Sergianism. For the resolution of conflicts, the restoration of mutual understanding, and the reconciliation of those in opposition, our monastery considers it necessary and urgent that the Synod adopt a formal Resolution or Appeal on this matter. I attach herewith my thoughts on what is occurring — the perspective of an Orthodox Christian nun, raised from infancy in the ROCOR, living in the West, but always considering herself Russian. I offer these reflections with the hope that the Synod may find them useful in drafting such a document.

First of all, it seems to me that one cannot but acknowledge that this conflict is a great misfortune and tragedy. Two Orthodox brotherly peoples are clashing — peoples who ought to live in peace and concord, “that with one mind they may confess” the Holy Trinity, and not shoot at one another. We cannot but grieve over this, and our very first and fervent prayer — common and obligatory for all — must be for the cessation of bloodshed and the establishment of peace.

Secondly, it must be acknowledged that, in addition to the armed conflict, there is also an information war. All forces and parties involved in the conflict are using mass media, social networks, and modern technology to convey their own “truth” to the masses. Enormous resources and efforts have been deployed in this information war; it is conducted around the clock, without ceasing, and there are no rules of conduct or notions of conscience and honor in this war. Information is distorted, transmitted in a skewed manner, and outright lies are often disseminated knowingly. We must admit that we do not know — and cannot know — the whole truth about what is happening, and therefore, an Orthodox Christian cannot form an opinion or take a stance toward these events based solely on such information. This must be explained to our flock, and they should be urged, as much as possible, to avoid the media and social networks, entering the virtual world only out of necessity — for work, correspondence, and similar obligations. In our times, perhaps more than ever before, we must remember that a Christian is called to be “not of this world,” and it is essential for each of us to cultivate within ourselves an Orthodox way of thinking and perception of the world, so that the soul and heart may possess correct spiritual orientation, which will help in properly discerning the political and social processes unfolding around us. This is possible only through constant work on oneself, the purification of the heart, and through the study and careful preservation of our true Orthodox heritage. It seems to me that this is precisely the path that St. Philaret pointed out to us in his spiritual testament: “Hold fast that which thou hast.” These words, taken from the sacred book of the Apocalypse, in our time — in these many-sorrowed, deceitful days, filled with temptations — bear especially great significance. They remind us of that precious spiritual wealth which we, the children of the Orthodox Church, possess. Yes, we are rich. And this spiritual wealth is that which the Holy Church possesses… The teaching of the faith — our wondrous, saving Orthodox faith; the numerous living examples of people who lived by faith… the beauty and splendor of our Orthodox divine services, and the living participation in them through faith and prayer; the fullness of the grace-filled life, open to all and to each…”

Only by such a path can we preserve the children of our Church from strife and division, because, as the Hierarch continues, “the crown of all this” is: “the unity of the children of the Church in that love of which the Savior spoke: by this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

If we live by “the fullness of the grace-filled life,” of which St. Philaret wrote, and remember that, in the words of the Apostle, “our citizenship is in heaven,” then no “world backstage” or “world government” will frighten us, and we will not begin to brand one another as “Russophobes” or “Ukrofascists.”

It is well known that St. Philaret believed that power and politics are spheres from which a believer should keep a distance, and he did not bless his spiritual children to take jobs connected with them. Many of us were offered work in American security agencies, promised brilliant careers, but remembering Vladyka’s counsel, we declined. Among the Russian émigré community, there were many talented people working in various fields of science and culture, but I do not recall a single one who was a politician or an official seeking state power. This was considered unacceptable for the children of the Church Abroad and a betrayal of that Russia which we lost, but whose spiritual values we preserved and continue to preserve. From the understanding that for us the life in the Church is above and dearer than anything else, I cannot agree with the signatories of the “Appeal of the Gomel Diocese,” composed with the blessing of Bishop Hermogen, in October 2014, where it is stated that “...at present, the goals of Russian Orthodox people and of the Putin regime coincide...” The Putin regime always and everywhere presents itself as the direct heir of the Soviet regime, which, in the words of Archbishop Nathaniel (Lvov), “justifies, whitewashes, and glorifies the greatest cruelties, deceits, acts of violence, and, in general, the trampling of all Divine and human laws — the greatest crimes ever committed in human history.” In Church life, in Church history, there is no statute of limitations, and as long as today’s Russian government aligns itself with the force that committed these atrocities, we cannot consider it either legitimate or in any way related to the former Tsarist Russia, to Holy Rus’, and never, in any way, can our goals coincide with theirs. In my view, the explanation given by one of the authors of the “Appeal,” Fr. Deacon Alexander, in his letter written in February 2016 — that he had in mind Putin’s goals in his “struggle (to preserve his place in the Masonic world elite — author’s clarification),” in which Putin “is forced to rely on Russian patriotic forces, and therefore, at present, the goals of Orthodox Russian people and of the Putin regime coincide in the matter of defending the enslaved and exterminated Russian population of southeastern Ukraine” — not only fails to change the essence of the original statement, but on the contrary, further emphasizes his conviction that the incompatible can be reconciled: that the goals of Orthodox Russian people and those of the avowed heirs and continuers of the God-fighting, Tsar-murdering regime can coincide. The complete incompatibility of these goals is confirmed not only by Putin’s repeated blasphemous words and statements about the Tsar-Martyr, but also by all the signs of the resurgence of Soviet, Communist symbols, Communist youth organizations, and the like, which we have recently witnessed. The events connected with the anniversary of the tragedy in Lienz in 2015 — when the Russian authorities prevented many people from traveling to Austria to honor the memory of Stalin’s victims — clearly demonstrated to us that the present-day government and the Soviet regime are one and the same: accusations of extremism were used — that is, typically Soviet methods. This example, just one among many, once again convinces me of the impossibility of considering the goals of today’s Russian government as Orthodox or in any way pleasing to God. I do not dare to call the signatories and supporters of the “Appeal” Sergianists, but I do believe that they are far from the stance toward the Soviet regime that was professed — and for which the New Martyrs of Russia died — and which was expressed by St. Philaret of New York, who forbade his spiritual children to participate in political movements. I mean a total rejection of the modern Russian regime and a complete and final refusal to support it or cooperate with it in any way. In this context, I cannot in any way accept the appeals of Fr. Archimandrite Ilya (Empulev) to support by every means the militia, which is organized and funded by the modern Russian government; all the more, I oppose the idea that our priests should bless anyone to join the ranks of this militia. I do not accept the assertion of the same “Appeal of the Gomel Diocese” that the militia’s struggle has led to an “uncontrolled state of spiritual revival,” or that it defends the “traditional monarchist ideology of the historical Russian Orthodox Church.” I do not agree with the opinion of Bishop Hermogen, expressed in his letter to Vladimir Moss on Forgiveness Sunday, 2015, that “the ambitions of the Kremlin... involuntarily compel it to defend the people in Little Russia from the goals of a world order that is entirely spiritually corrupted in the West... and that this, at present, hinders the universal establishment of the emerging Kingdom of the Antichrist.” Particularly offensive to my conscience is the comparison of the militia with the White Movement. I have no doubt that many joined the militia with the most sincere and pure intentions, that they are Orthodox Christians and sincerely believe they are fighting for Russian ideals. But the presence of such people in the militia does not make the cause itself just, does not justify the Putin regime, and certainly does not transform Putin’s militiamen into warriors of the White Movement.

Perhaps someone will respond to me that the militia is not fighting against Ukrainians, but against America and, as it is now fashionable to say, the “Sodom-West.” I do not deny that America and the European Union, defending their own interests, support the current government of Ukraine and, in all likelihood, supply the Ukrainian army with equipment and weapons. But it is not Americans or Europeans, not supporters of globalization or sodomites who are dying in this war — it is Orthodox Ukrainians and Russians. Therefore, I cannot in any way agree with Bishop Hermogen that the militia, backed by the Putin regime, constitutes a “popular resistance to the Antichrist’s plans to destroy Russia”…

I am deeply offended by the contrast drawn between today’s Russia and the West in such a statement by Bishop Hermogen: “…we believe — and more precisely, we know — that the main advance of the Antichrist comes from the Western world, where the USA and Great Britain are his primary instruments… We pray that the degree of spiritual corruption present in your England may take longer to reach Russian soil…” and that “…the sole goal of the catacomb members of our parishes is to beseech God through prayer to halt the bloodshed and the threat of subjugation of the population of Little Russia to the interests of the corrupt Antichristic West…” Nor can I agree with Bishop Hermogen’s opinion that “among the peoples of Russia there is now greater resistance to spiritual perversions than in the already officially sodomite West. How much more, I don’t know — but it is so.” Why are the peoples of Russia considered so much more spiritual than the peoples of the West? Why do so many of our faithful believe that the West and America are already completely enslaved by the Antichrist, and that no one here sees or resists the processes of apostasy? They forget that most European nations were enlightened by the light of Christ and baptized several centuries earlier than Russia. Europe was Orthodox land, and this land and these peoples produced hosts of martyrs, hierarchs, venerable ones, and pious princes. Even the New World — America — has produced Orthodox martyrs among the Aleuts, and ascetics of piety such as Fr. Seraphim (Rose) and Brother José Muñoz. In every country of Europe and in America one can find many people who are fighting against globalization, against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and so on. In our secular France, hundreds of thousands of people protested against the legalization of same-sex marriage; many state officials refused to “marry” such couples and resigned from their posts in protest. Just this past Great Lent, our sisters witnessed how the French stood for hours in line to venerate the Holy Tunic of Christ. This great relic is preserved here, in the West — it was simple people who managed to preserve it despite persecution and the widespread destruction of holy things during the French Revolution. This year in America, Western Christians have made enormous strides in limiting access to and reducing the number of abortions, and government subsidies to organizations that promote and profit from this sin have been drastically cut. In Poland and five other countries, abortion is entirely prohibited by law. Why, then, are all these countries and peoples supposedly enslaved by the Antichrist, while in modern Russia we are told there is an “uncontrolled situation of spiritual revival… which may give powerful impetus to spiritual rebirth…”? In the 20th century, nowhere in America or Europe were Orthodox Christians persecuted. It was in Russia that millions of believers were killed — and they were killed by the predecessors of today’s rulers. The attitude of Bishop Hermogen, Fr. Ilya, and their supporters toward us who live in the West — as though we were second-class people — deeply angers and troubles us. And yet our Church has never once spoken out against this. It gives the impression that our Church acknowledges only those living in Russia as true strugglers, for they are fighting against microchips, codes, taxpayer IDs, vaccinations, and passports — and now also against the forces of the Antichrist in the form of Ukrainians funded by America. And all of us living in the West have long since surrendered and are perishing, surrounded by same-sex marriages in Masonic states, using bank cards and accepting biometric documents with chips.

Many of us consider our times to be apocalyptic; many believe that we are living on the threshold of the enthronement of the Antichrist. All the more reason, then, for us to pay attention to the fact that the Holy Book of the Apocalypse does not single out any nation or state as particularly blessed or as not enslaved by the Whore of Babylon. All the kingdoms of the world and their rulers will bow to her. Only those will be able to resist her who bow to the Lamb, who acknowledge His lordship above all. We must understand that since the time of the first God-fighting French Revolution — and especially after the fall of the Tsarist Orthodox monarchy in Russia — no nation, and certainly no modern state, whether in America, Europe, or Russia, can be considered in any sense chosen by God or as standing in opposition to the processes described in the Apocalypse, as resisting the Antichrist. The degree of involvement in and consent to or participation in these processes may vary, but all of modern society is infected. We must all the more frequently and insistently call for the “fullness of the grace-filled life” and for “the unity of the children of the Church in that love of which the Savior spoke: by this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another,” as St. Philaret said — and not be carried away by contemporary political leaders or movements.

In conclusion, I would like to touch upon the issue of commemorating the “Christ-loving armed forces” or “soldiers,” in which anyone baptized and professing Orthodoxy is counted among them. In my deep conviction, the “Christ-loving armed forces” can only be those who fight for the faith, the tsar, and the fatherland in the ranks of an Orthodox monarchy’s army. In the Church Abroad, many refused to commemorate even the soldiers of the White Movement as the “Christ-loving armed forces,” since many of the leaders of the White Army played a significant role in the overthrow of the Lord’s Anointed and welcomed the revolution. The Confessor Patriarch Tikhon did not find it possible to bless the White Movement, and in the same spirit, the ROCOR never officially blessed the Vlasov movement — the ROA [Russian Liberation Army] — nor did it pray for them as the “Christ-loving armed forces.” Many Russian émigrés fought on the side of General Franco against communism during the Spanish War, and many volunteered to fight in Korea and Vietnam, wishing at least in these distant lands to struggle against communism. They were commemorated as soldiers, but not as “Christ-loving.” Undoubtedly, the relatives and loved ones of today’s soldiers must and do want to pray for them. But such prayer should not be turned into a political act by ascribing to today’s military the title of “Christ-loving armed forces,” thereby designating their side as the only correct and Orthodox one. And in this spiritual work, in our divine services, we should preserve the legacy of St. Philaret and “hold fast that which we have,” placing “the unity of the children of the Church in love” above contentious and troubling commemorations and petitions.

With all my heart I wish and hope that in the near future our Synod will adopt the appropriate resolutions and compose a document reflecting a strictly Orthodox view on the aforementioned matters.

 

Russian source:

https://monasterelesna.com/%d1%81%d0%be%d0%b2%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%bc%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%bd%d1%8b%d0%b5-%d1%80%d0%be%d1%81%d1%81%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d1%83%d0%ba%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%b8%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b8-%d0%b7%d0%b0%d0%bf%d0%b0%d0%b4-%d0%b4%d1%83/

 

“I grew up under Metropolitan Philaret…” – Abbess Euphrosinia (Molchanova) of Lesna Convent

 

I grew up under Metropolitan Philaret; he was my spiritual father. I was also a parishioner of the Synodal Cathedral and knew Vladyka Gregory [Grabbe] and his whole family well. The sister of Vladyka Gregory, Mother Abbess Magdalina [Grabbe], was my first abbess. There is a portion of truth in everything you write, but in my opinion, everything is much more complicated. The very conservative and apocalyptic views and mindset of Vladyka Philaret began to form much earlier than his acquaintance with the future Vladyka Gregory, under the influence of his father, Vladyka Dimitry [Rozhdestvensky], who in 1933 published an extensive analysis of the Apocalypse. Vladyka Philaret’s attitude toward the Moscow Patriarchate was also shaped not only through interaction with Vladyka Gregory Grabbe and his circle, but also through personal experience. After all, he was in the MP, like all clergy and parishes in Manchuria after the war. He was interrogated by the KGB; he knew firsthand what that was like. The growth of ROCOR decreased under him, first of all because the resettlement and distribution of all the Russians who had remained in Europe and China after the war had ended. Along with the “ultra-right followers” of Fr. Panteleimon [Metropoulos] (by the way, no one called or considered him an elder, except for his closest followers in Boston—among the Greeks, it is customary to call all abbots and abbesses of monasteries elders), other Americans also came into ROCOR through the monastery in Platina, who were much more moderate. Parishes of the new calendar Bulgarians and Romanians also joined, in Canada and France. As in Harbin, the Vladyka continued to communicate and work with the youth, for which we are all infinitely grateful to him. Even then, he was a most interesting conversationalist and made many jokes. Yes, the Vladyka truly loved and respected Vladyka Gregory [Grabbe] and his family, but Synods were regularly held and Councils convened—Vladyka heard other views and opinions. Vladyka was aware of and acknowledged mistakes and by no means considered himself or ROCOR infallible. His statements and opinions could indeed be sharp and strict, but he had a sense of the conciliarity of the Church; he emphasized that this was his personal opinion and did not dare to present it as the opinion of the entire Church fullness. And as a pastor and spiritual father, he was loving, kind, and lenient.

 

- Online reply (translated from Russian) to Alexy Rodionov, a Russian researcher and critic of Metropolitan Philaret, dated November 21, 2025.