Letter to a Priest on the Teaching of Prayer

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

 

 

Friend and father! Long ago I should have replied to you about the impoverishment of faith and prayer and about the means of combating them. But that same bustle which, by your own admission, disperses the feeling of reverence, deprived me as well of the opportunity to write to you for a month and a half. Now it is Clean Monday; I have just returned from the cathedral, where I read the Great Canon and, together with all who were praying, showered myself with the reproaches of Saint Andrew for negligence toward the eternal and for preference of the temporal.

True, our episcopal bustle is more involuntary than voluntary; it consists of constant receptions of petitioners and clergy asking for transfers, engaged in lawsuits, requesting to be sent to the front, or wishing to take examinations; then papers and papers without end. Yet, in spite of all this, I managed to write down from memory a huge public lecture on a philosophical topic, to write two large articles on ecclesiastical-publicist topics, and for that which is “one thing needful,” I did not find time until this day. Our wrongly directed education is the cause of this. I am not an enemy of what is called science, but it is vexing with regard to myself when I catch myself preferring subjects, even of theological science, to the subjects of the study of the spiritual life, upon which contemporary theologians look with a certain disdain, partly because they understand little in them, and partly because theologians who are self-taught, or even academic theologians who have withdrawn by their life and by their consciousness from the theological school, reason about them more deeply and better. There ought not to be such divisions and preferences; good Christians live according to the Apostle, “in honor preferring one another,” and rivalry and envy are especially inappropriate where the acquired possession of experience and study does not remain the property of the author alone, but of all readers, that is, a possession belonging to all.

You write: “I experience involuntary hardness; there is no former prayerful compunction; even more—against my will there are moments of complete absence of faith at the most important moments of the liturgy. Heal me! I write to you, my spiritual father. I desire prayer; but there is no prayer. Does the Lord truly deprive me of His grace?” No, my friend: if, God forbid, the latter had happened, then this would be expressed first and foremost in the fact that a person would not grieve over such a state of his; and if he fears falling into such estrangement, then the Divine grace is dear to him, and if it is dear, then it is not far from him. No one on earth responds to one who calls with such readiness as our Heavenly Father, but one must know how to hear His response. At times it is beneficial for us to come to know His chastisement, so as not to think highly of ourselves and thereby to come to know our sins and to learn humble-mindedness; in this learning, which is of greatest value, come to know His fatherly response to the cry of summons, as it were, of one’s soul drying up in insensibility. You have surely read in the works of the Right Reverend [St.] Theophan the Recluse a fatherly parable. If you heat strongly a bucket with water and pieces of ice, the water will not begin to warm until all the pieces of ice, to the last one, have melted; but then the warming will proceed very quickly. Therefore, above all, never think that the Lord has left you if for a long time you do not feel compunction and living joyful faith, although you would wish to experience both; the action of grace is manifested in you, but for the time being in contrition of soul, and not in compunction.

Now let us examine those circumstances under which the Lord permits a person to fall into a depressed state and to suspect himself of having lost faith.

The first and least dangerous condition of struggle and doubts arises directly from spiritual inexperience and the absence of guidance from elders. It happens precisely that a young priest or a young ascetic becomes accustomed in his mind, as it were, to feel about, or, speaking in bookish terms, to attentively analyze his spiritual state.

Previously he always wept when he read the Trinitarian prayers in church; even when, in a moment of solitude, he recalled the words of the mystical prayers, tears would come to his eyes. But then he sets himself to test with his attention how this feeling differs from that which he had when he partook of the Holy Mysteries. What, properly speaking, moves him to compunction in the words of these prayers? Does this compunctious feeling repeat itself if he reproduces these words in his memory a third time, a fourth time, and so on?—Naturally, the tears will soon cease to appear in your eyes, and in these moments, you are no longer a man of prayer, but an investigator. Does this mean that your heart has truly been torn away from God and that the soul has become alien to those penitential and all-embracingly compassionate dispositions which were so characteristic of you in the past?

Of course not; but every feeling, even a bodily sensation, weakens and, as it were, completely evaporates when we begin to make it the object of our persistent attention. Pinch yourself on the arm and, while enduring the pain, begin to ponder how this pain differs from toothache, from chest pain—and you will soon lose the very sensation of pain. A German scholar some seventy years ago overcame the most severe toothache, which tormented him almost to fainting, by such a method.

It is understandable that more spiritual feelings, which waft over our soul as it were with a “still small voice,” become completely imperceptible if they themselves are subjected to idle probing or so-called reflection.

Such is also the feeling of faith, that is, the living sensation of the divine presence and of God’s participation in your personal life. If even in secular life absent-minded young people are constantly told by teachers and parents, “Do not dig into yourselves; you will be capable of nothing,” then all the more is such a requirement appropriate in the spiritual life. When bright compunction has visited you, when a ray of God’s grace has as it were opened before you the face of God and sacred awe together with blessed joy has illumined the heart, then do not brood over your sensations, but surrender yourself to the stream of thoughts that flow into your soul, and put your deeds and life to the test, like Zacchaeus when the Savior came to him, in order to impel yourself to the correction of life and to the service of virtue: “Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wronged anyone of anything, I restore fourfold” (Lk. 19:8). A good feeling and spiritual rapture must be secured in one’s soul by an exploit either of struggle with one’s sins or of works of love. If those two blessed travelers on the evening of the Resurrection had limited themselves to the “burning of hearts” at the explanation of the prophecies, they would not have recognized their Interlocutor. But they fulfilled the commandment of hospitality: they constrained Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is far spent” (Lk. 24:29). Then their eyes were opened, and they knew Him (Lk. 24:31).

Such an indication of the Gospel as to how one ought to strengthen in one’s soul holy prayerful and other grace-filled dispositions has significance also in other difficult circumstances of our spiritual life. Here you may perhaps say: “I did not at all have the habit of probing my dispositions and asking myself what and how I feel. This digging into myself was always alien to me, and yet the compunctious feelings that visited me before have left me; saddened by this, I perhaps even asked myself without need: do I believe in God at all? And I did not find in my soul a confident answer. I realize that I should not have done the latter, for I could not have lost faith in God without wavering in my convictions and without succumbing to some false teaching; I know that faith remains with me, but where has the bright feeling gone that embraces the believer when he thinks of God? I would not have dug into it, but I am aware that it has not been in me of late. What is the reason for that?”

About the reasons we shall say something presently, but first I will remind you of the counsel of the holy fathers on how to act in such impoverishment. The fathers speak thus: “Compunctious feeling is not yours, but God’s gift; yours, however, must be the labor to receive it.” What labor? First of all, the labor of a virtuous life in general, and in particular with regard to the very prayerful exploit. The fathers strictly forbid squeezing a feeling out of oneself, straining one’s breathing and forcing out tears; but what must the laborer of prayer strain? His attention! He must ponder the words of the prayer, not merely run through the prayerful words with eyes or voice, but also with his mind imagine what he is saying before God. Very often this alone is quite sufficient for prayerful compunction soon to penetrate the soul and for the fullness of communion with the Divinity accessible to you to open again before you. However, if this too does not happen, do not despond: you strove to fulfill before the Lord what was within your power, and now reflect on why the Lord, who undoubtedly looks with love upon your prayerful labor, did not grant you to hear His response.

I said that the reasons for this are various; you mentioned distraction by earthly bustle. Simple distraction is removed by the fulfillment of the stated rule of prayer; but if insensibility continues, then it means that the hook was not in simple distraction, but in the oppression of the soul by one or many cares. It is precisely of this that it is spoken in the Sermon on the Mount, at the end of the sixth chapter. What is condemned by the Lord is not the foresight of our needs, family and personal, but the oppression of one’s soul by them, when care so takes possession of the latter that it becomes almost indifferent “to the Kingdom of Heaven and its righteousness.” One must calmly set before oneself the always-near possibility of ruin, and of severe family need, and of illness, and of injury, and of the death of one’s loved ones, but at the same time remember that if you have fulfilled everything that depends on you to provide for relatives and loved ones, and yet it should please God to subject you or your family to severe misfortune, then it means that this is necessary for their salvation, for everything that happens to us not by our evil will happens by God’s permission, and therefore for our benefit, since the Lord does nothing and permits nothing except what is good for us.

If you thus calm your heart and, following the Church, will conclude your petitions before the Lord by entrusting yourself and your own to His holy will (“Let us commit ourselves to Christ God”), then that sinful distraction, that is, the oppression of the soul by cares and fears, will leave you, and you will again glorify God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Condescending to our weakness, the Lord does not forbid us to desire external well-being for ourselves, and especially for others; He also permits us to pray for this, but commands us to entrust the fulfillment of such a prayer to the will of God and not to murmur, and not even to grieve excessively, if things turn out not according to our desire, for we ourselves do not know what is more beneficial both for our own soul and for the souls of those close to us. But, of course, far from Christian righteousness are those who desire for their children only happiness and happiness. In our mad time, even among believing society, such people are the majority, and they do not understand that, while believing in the Christian God, they look upon Him and upon their life in a purely pagan way, because all these things the pagans seek (Mt. 6:32).

One of the best means of combating the impoverishment of prayer arising from the oppression of the soul—and, moreover, from other causes as well—must be acknowledged to be a temporary withdrawal from the world and from one’s own, that is, a journey on pilgrimage or a direct withdrawal to a monastery for a period of retreat; finally, confession, even in the usual setting of one’s life, if there is no possibility of leaving it even for a time.

As for what irreplaceably precious significance a heartfelt conversation with an experienced monastic elder has, everyone knows this already, if not from practice, then even from secular accounts. But the monastery itself also instructs. Both monks or nuns and laypeople who have gathered on pilgrimage, by their appearance and by their standing in church, by reading, chanting, and prostrations, bear living witness to us that there is one thing needful. The vanity of the earthly, its transitory significance, and the value of the eternal, the value of the soul and of conscience—this is the lesson from which no one can evade who has spent even three days in a monastery as a pilgrim. To see people fervently praying, having forgotten the earthly, is impossible without a lofty elevation of one’s own soul. At times, standing in the altar of the Kiev Caves Lavra, I would cast a glance through the Royal Doors at the simple pilgrims standing in front. On their faces shone that spiritual rapture which is expressed in the brief church prayer: “Standing in the temple of Thy glory, we think ourselves to be standing in heaven, O Theotokos, Gate of Heaven.” Strive to be among such people—and you will be filled with their spirit, like Saul who met on his way the sons of the prophets (see 1 Sam. 10:10–13).

Sinful distraction, or the “cares of life,” by which people stifle the Word within themselves (see Lk. 8:14), is not the only cause of the temporary loss of the gift of prayer. Such a loss also occurs as the sole recompense: 1) for a sin not covered by repentance, and 2) for an evil intention that has crept into the soul, and all the more—for a sinful passion.

One monk often fell into a grievous sin and, trembling at the coming wrath of God, cried out: “Lord, punish me however You will, only do not deprive me of faith and repentance!” A sin that is covered by repentance will not expel prayerful warmth from the heart until a person befriends that sin to the degree of complete impenitence. The parables of the publican and of the prodigal son, and the pardoned prudent thief, assure us of this. From this we learn that it is not sin that is so terrible as impenitence. But a sin lightly consigned to oblivion, offenses against one’s neighbor not covered by reconciliation, mad blasphemy (but, of course, not merely “blasphemous thoughts” that assail a person without his guilt), a malicious threat—for example, a threat of suicide or of renouncing the priestly rank or of apostasy from the Orthodox faith—these are what become the cause of “my prayer returning to my bosom” (Luke 34:13). Such transgressions against God’s commandments, even if they were isolated and, through human light-mindedness, consigned to oblivion, leave a dark, sinful whirlpool on the heart and hinder the grace of the Holy Spirit from gaining access to it. But most of all our heart is barred from receiving this grace through the conscious concealment of sin at confession. Alas, those who permit the latter often end their lives by suicide—monks and priests. May the Lord preserve all from such a Judas-like lot!

Therefore, until you understand why the spirit of prayer has departed from you, strive to recall whether you have forgotten some grievous sin committed by you, like those that have just been indicated; and if you recall such a one, hasten to weep over it, bringing repentance before God and before your neighbor, if you have offended him.

However, sin often lies not in deeds committed by you, but in intentions and in the dispositions of your heart. At times this is a formed, already assimilated malicious disposition, as with Amnon and Absalom; at times it is merely a nascent lust or passion. Here one must especially beware of the passions of lust, envy, ambition, or love of money. To such a state of soul pertain the Lord’s words about the impossibility of serving two masters—God and mammon (see Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13). The subjugation of the heart to one of the mentioned passions, even before its domination expresses itself in any deeds or undertakings, will immediately manifest itself in an impoverishment of the gift of prayer. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Mt. 6:21; Lk. 12:34). If your treasure, toward which you strive, is high rank, or money, or sinful love, then your heart will no longer take delight in communion with God, and when you stand to pray you will think only of how it might end as quickly as possible. And conversely—if such an impatient thought visits you during prayer, then, the fathers say, know that your heart has been seized, or is being seized, by some subtle passion that is driving out of it the joy of glorifying God and the thirst for knowing Him through spiritual reading, which begins to seem boring to you. But you will say: “I have tested my heart and in none of the things indicated am I guilty—not, of course, in the sense of considering myself passionless or sinless, but I hate my sinful habits or the embryos of passions, I bring sincere repentance for my sins, and yet I have not found healing for my ‘hardened insensibility.’”

“It is good for you if it is so,” I shall answer, “for righteous anger is that which the ascetic directs not against people, but against his passions; and if he acts thus, then, although the passion has not yet been completely expelled from his heart, being scourged by sacred anger it can no longer expel the spirit of prayer from your soul. — And yet this spirit of prayer has left me: I do not pray to God for health, for family happiness, for wealth and long life; I ask of Him only those gifts which are enumerated in the prayer of Ephrem the Syrian, which today, on the first day of the fast, I read sixteen times with prostrations; but the Lord refuses me these gifts, for I feel this by my despondent disposition, and this despondency insistently presses into my soul. Friend! If this is so, then know that not you alone, but Paul—immeasurably superior to us sinners—prayed three times that the angel of Satan might depart from him, yet he was not heard by God in this petition. Lest I should be exalted (2 Cor. 12:7)—thus the apostle himself explains this. The impetuosity of a young soul, making progress in the knowledge of God, is sometimes subjected to a trial in patience and humility, as with the Old Testament Job and the New Testament Paul, and the most ancient of both—Abraham. Therefore, do not give way to the spirit of despondency: strike it with itself. What does this mean? Here is what the holy fathers say: “Such a seemingly causeless attack of despondency is the direct action of the devil.” Having recognized whence it comes, you have almost already conquered it, conquered the spirit of despondency, for you yourself will not wish to accept a demonic suggestion. “The demon falls upon us with despondency then,” say the fathers, “when he sees the invincibility of our soul to other passions.” Therefore answer the spirit of despondency thus: “You wish to trouble me with the thought that God is far from me, but I know that, without revealing Himself to me, He is testing my patience and teaching me humility; and the very fact that you, and not another spirit, are attacking me ought to gladden and console me by the thought that your approach signifies (in the absence of other causes) that the other passions have not gained power over me, and that you take up the passion of despondency as the last instrument accessible to you. Therefore, I patiently accept God’s trial and repeat the words of the apostle read on Forgiveness Sunday: now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand (Rom. 13:11).”

Of course, all this concerns those who, after testing their conscience with prayer, have not discerned in themselves other reasons for the impoverishment of the gift of prayer: they may with hope and in the near future await that joyful clarification of their trials with which God consoled the Apostle Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9).

We mean, of course, not any miraculous revelation, for to seek such a thing is a matter of ruinous delusion, but we foretell to the ascetic the unveiling of inner perplexities through a subsequent compunctious disposition of the soul, through the unexpected finding of a direct answer to its inquiries in the sacred books, in edifying conversations, or in the events of one’s life. And there is no need to consider oneself to have attained (see Phil. 3:13) a high degree of spirituality in order to understand, in the events of one’s life or in the replacement of oppressive perplexity by joyful doxology, the response of Divine Providence to your seeking.

Thus, I have written to you about various obstacles on the path of drawing near to God; I have set forth various circumstances in which the rays of Divine illumination do not immediately penetrate our soul. This happens to the servants of God, but these trials befall them when they are already able, with diligence, to understand and to bear them. The Lord tempts no one, that is, He does not test beyond one’s strength, as the Apostle Paul assures (see 1 Cor. 10:13). “Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been tested, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (Jas. 1:12).

I repeat: only those are rejected by God who themselves have rejected Him; but he who struggles, even with heartfelt anguish, is thereby being taught by God, so that, “having been tempted,” he might also “be able to help those who are tempted.” Therefore. give thanks to God, my friend, that you are working through a question not about worldly needs, but about the gift of prayer, for the very desire to know all this has entered your soul not without His gracious help.

My son! do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor grow despondent when He reproves you. For whom the Lord loves He chastens; and He scourges every son whom He receives. If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons (Heb. 12:5–7).

 

Source: Собрание сочинений [Collected Works], Vol. 1, Moscow: Даръ, 2007, pp. 652-659.

Homily on Theophany by Metropolitan Gerontios II of Piraeus and Salamis

Your Beatitude Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Mr. Kallinikos.

Your Eminences, Holy Hierarchs, Most Reverend and Most Venerable Fathers, God-beloved Deacons. Most Venerable Monks and Nuns.

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, Representatives of the State, of the Municipal, Regional, Military, Police, and Port Authorities.

Chosen people of the Lord, the guardian of Orthodoxy.

“Today the waters of the Jordan are transformed into healings, and all creation is mystically sprinkled.” (Sticheron of Vespers of Theophany)

The holy and great feast of Theophany, the feast of the manifestation of the Triune God, reveals today before us the great mystery of the Divine Economy. The Son and Word of God condescends to descend into the waters of the Jordan, not in order to be cleansed – He, the Immaculate One – but in order to cleanse, to sanctify, and to illumine the whole creation.

Today the Father bears witness from the heavens, the Son is baptized in the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. The Holy Trinity is manifested, and the truth shines forth without reserve, overthrowing falsehood and delusion.

The ceremony of the immersion of the Precious and Life-giving Cross, which we perform today, does not constitute a custom or a quaint tradition; it is a confession of faith. The Cross of Christ is immersed into the waters, just as Christ descended into the Jordan, in order to sanctify the whole world and to crush the power of the enemy.

However, my brethren, the feast of Theophany also sets before us a great criterion: the criterion of truth. For if today God is manifested, the devil attempts to conceal the truth with pseudo‑illuminations, with interreligious amalgamations, and with anti‑canonical innovations, which wound the Body of the Church.

We cannot remain silent when we become witnesses of actions that offend Orthodox ecclesiology. The recent visit of the Pope to Nicaea and the Phanar, and the anti‑canonical commemoration of him there as an Orthodox Hierarch, does not constitute a testimony of truth, but confusion.

The Church of Christ has no need of diplomatic equalizations, nor of unity without repentance and a return to the patristic faith.

The unity of the Church is a fruit of truth and not a compromise at the expense of it. Just as the waters of the Jordan were sanctified only because they received the True God, so also the Church remains holy only when it preserves whole the dogma and the tradition of the Holy Fathers.

We, as Genuine Orthodox Christians, have nothing to boast of in terms of numbers, nor in terms of worldly power. We boast only in the faith once delivered “unto the Saints.” We boast because we stand in the truth, even if we are few, even if we are despised, yet unshaken.

And today, while the Precious Cross is immersed into the waters, Christ calls us also to immerse our own will into His will. To reject the ease of compromises and to hold fast to the narrow and afflicted path of tradition.

Let us keep, my brethren, the faith pure, like the sanctified waters of Theophany. Let us preserve the ancestral traditions, not as a museum relic, but as a living testimony of salvation. Let us remain faithful to the Church of the Fathers, so that we too may be deemed worthy to be illumined by the True Light, the Light which enlightens and sanctifies every man.

Many years, good illumination, and steadfastness in the patristic traditions.

 

Greek source: https://www.facebook.com/impcgr

A Thunderbolt from St. Mark of Ephesus Against the Latins

Encyclical “To all the Orthodox Christians found throughout the earth and the islands” (1440–1)

Archimandrite Meletios Vadrachanis

 

 

“Just as throughout my life I was separated [walled off] from them, so also at the time of my departure and even after my passing, I reject any relationship and union with them, and I adjure you and command you:

“Let none of them approach my funeral or my memorial services or any other event of our own faction.”

 

This encyclical was written a few years before the Fall [of Constantinople], from the island of Lemnos. There, Saint Mark of Ephesus had been exiled by Emperor John Palaiologos at the demand of the Latin-minded Romans, because Saint Mark would not close his mouth but continuously spoke out against the most impious and God-hating Latins.

These unionists, when they saw that they had failed to impose the false union of Ferrara-Florence, resorted to underhanded actions and theological sophistries in order to mislead the more naive.

Later, in the 16th century, these things would be systematized by the Latins, and thus Unia would be created. Consequently, the Latin-minded unionist Romans are the forerunners and preparers of Unia, together with Pope Innocent IV (1243–1254), who in 1254 issued an encyclical and permitted the customs and traditions of the Easterners to be tolerated, with the ultimate aim of their gradual abolition and the complete Latinization of those united—thus, of the Orthodox with Rome.

1. This encyclical of Saint Mark, in which he confronts the Latin-minded Romans and the dogmatic deviations of the Papists from Orthodoxy, we shall present in a summarized adaptation.

The Papists are heretics and not merely schismatics, as the Latin-minded claimed.

a. Those among the Papists who come to Orthodoxy are received through chrismation with holy myrrh—and sometimes they were even re-baptized—classifying them together with the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, and other heretics of the 4th century.

Silvester Syropoulos, who recorded the history of the Council of Florence, says that Saint Mark emphasized this to the Orthodox delegation, “but our Church kept it silent, because their nation is great and more powerful than ours,” and “those before us did not wish to officially name the Latins as heretics, awaiting their return and seeking friendship.”

b. Saint Mark cites the phrase of Saint John of Damascus: “We do not confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” and the phrase of Saint Photios: “A heretic is he who even slightly deviates from the right faith, and he is subject to the laws against heretics.” Therefore, the Latins, on account of the Filioque alone, are heretics.

c. The Latin-minded say that the Papists are schismatics because that is how they consider us—since they have nothing heretical to accuse us of, except that we ceased to submit to them. So then, shall we repay them in kind and call them schismatics, while in fact they are heretics?

d. The Patriarch of Alexandria Mark asked the Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon—a renowned canonist of that time—whether he could give the Holy Mysteries to Latins.

He replied that this could not be done, since the name of the pope—to whom they are subject—is not commemorated in the hierarchical Divine Services of the Church.

And it is not commemorated because the Papists have “customs and dogmas foreign to the Orthodox,” and therefore heretical.

The Latins must be catechized in the Orthodox faith, chrismated, and only then received.

Therefore:

I. From where, then, did they suddenly appear to be Orthodox—those who for so many years, and by the Fathers and Teachers, were judged to be heretics? Who so easily made them Orthodox?

If you wished us to speak the truth—and for your own benefit—rather, it is they who were supposedly made Orthodox, but you, having been made like unto them, were pushed to the side of the heretics.

II. When will there be unity?

When customs, traditions, and dogmas are united. And this will come about through the return of the Papists to the Orthodox tradition and theology.

Now we have two creeds, leavened and unleavened liturgy, two kinds of baptism (that of the Orthodox by triple immersion, that of the Papists by pouring; the baptism of the Orthodox with chrism, that of the Papists without chrism), double and entirely different customs and traditions, fasts and ecclesiastical orders, and other such things.

How, then, can there be union when there is no unity in these things?

2. There is no middle ground in matters of dogma.

In diplomacy and politics, many ambiguous or vague terms are used—understood by each person according to his preferences—in order to achieve agreement and rapprochement. But between truth and falsehood, between affirmation and denial, between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial, there is no middle.

The Greco-Latins or the Latin-minded or the Uniates are hybrid creatures, fond of pursuing mixtures; they are like the centaurs in mythology. Gregory the Theologian calls them kothornoi* and men who go wherever the wind blows. A modern person might compare them to “the hodja’s oven.”

The Council of Ferrara-Florence, which attempted to apply a middle ground in dogma, is like that assembly which decided to build the Tower of Babel, or like the council of Caiaphas which condemned Christ. Those who participated in the Council of Florence and agreed with the Papists are the ones of whom the prophet Jeremiah speaks: “The leaders of My people did not know Me; they are foolish children and not understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have not known.” (Jer. 4:22)

3. What should be our stance toward the Latin-minded?

Let us avoid them as we would a snake. Let us avoid them as we would those who exploit and traffic in Christ. These are the ones who “suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Tim. 6:5). These are “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.” These are ministers of Satan, who “transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:13–15). “Such men serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and blessings they deceive the hearts of the simple”; “yet the firm foundation of the faith stands, having this seal” (Rom. 16:18; 2 Tim. 2:19).

“Therefore, flee from them, brethren, and from communion with them: ‘If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, even if it be an angel from heaven, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8–9). ‘If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not greet him; for he who greets him partakes in his evil works’ (2 John 10–11).”

We do not know whether the contemporary ecumenists, both clergy and laity, have in mind what Saint Mark of Ephesus says. Let them study it, and let them come to their senses—if they wish to remain Orthodox.

 

* Literally, “kothornos” was a special type of footwear used by actors in ancient tragedies, with thick soles and a very high heel. Because it could be worn on either foot—right or left—it came to signify a double-dealing person, one of weak character, changeable and opportunistic.

Source: Χριστιανική Σπίθα, May 2006

***

Saint Mark of Ephesus unequivocally teaches and exhorts to walling off (ἀποτείχισις), even at the end of his life, through his testament:

“Just as throughout my life I was separated [walled off] from them, so also at the time of my departure and likewise after my repose, I reject any relationship and union with them, and I adjure you and command you:

Let none of them draw near to my funeral, or to my memorial services, or to any other event of our own faction, in order to attempt to gather jointly or concelebrate with our own.

For this would mean to mix what is unmixed.

And they must in all things be separated from us, until God grants the good correction and peace of His Church.”

(Patrologia Orientalis, Volume 25, Belgium, 1973, pp. 347–348.)                                                                                            

 

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_39.html

On the stance of Saint Mark of Ephesus toward the Latins during the Council of Ferrara - Florence

A favorite argument of the ecumenists is: “Why do you protest the Patriarch’s joint prayers, since that Saint Mark of Ephesus, whom you so often invoke, prayed together with the Latins at the opening ceremony of the Council of Ferrara – Florence?” (See Acts of the Council of Ferrara - Florence, lines 475–478.)

Our response will be multifaceted, and thus, necessarily extensive.

The facts of the matter are twofold: that our Saint DID PRAY TOGETHER, and that the Church, the Holy Canons—that is, the Holy Spirit—FORBID joint prayers with heretics.

From the evaluation of these facts, two conclusions can be drawn: Either our Saint made a mistake (as is known, the Saints are not infallible; they also fall into errors, and rarely even into theologically mistaken views due to temporary delusion — cf. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, concerning Origenism, etc.). Secondly, that he did not err, but acted with divine inspiration, divinely moved — that is, with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and prompted by Him. Which of the two is the case, we shall see below. According to the above, we must accept either that the Saint is a transgressor of the canons or that he acted under divine inspiration. Our Saints become apparent transgressors of the canons (in the case where this is done through divine inspiration) only in the rarest of cases, by condescension, with specific persons as recipients, at a specific moment in time and for specific reasons and purposes, ALWAYS in extreme, rare cases.

This means that we are not able to make these extreme exceptions into a rule of our Church, and this is what Saint Nikodemos teaches: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (P, p. 371). The Saint is absolutely clear: “Neither law nor example can it be considered!”

And from this alone, the argument of the Ecumenists collapses. Let us also present some examples   to make the above more understandable. We read (in the Gerontikon) about Saint Sisoes that, when a father came to him with his son and asked that he become a monk, the Saint told him to throw his son into the furnace. The father obeyed and threw him in, and by a miracle, the child was not burned by the fire. As we see, the Saint gives a command that is clearly contrary to the Gospel and inhumane. Yet this command is divinely inspired! How do we know? From the result! The child suffered nothing at all! This case is extreme, exceedingly rare. Is it possible for us today to make it a rule of the Church, and for Abbots to test the obedience of those who wish to become monks in this way? Of course not! Therefore, how is it that today the Ecumenists want an extreme, exceedingly rare act (even if divinely inspired) of a Saint to be made a rule? To justify the Patriarch?

Another example is that of Saint Dionysios of Olympus. In his life we read that, when he was a monk in a monastery of Meteora and wished to leave, his Elder did not give him a blessing. He, disobeying, departed by leaping from the rocks down into the abyss! This too was a divinely inspired act. How do we know? From the result! The Saint suffered nothing from his fall into the chasm, for God protected him. This disobedience of the Saint (which appears contrary to the Gospel) is also an exceedingly rare case, yet divinely inspired. However, is it permissible to make this extreme, rare case of the Saint into a rule of the Church and to practice disobedience toward our Elders? Of course not! Therefore, how do today’s Ecumenists want a rare, extreme case of a Saint (even if divinely inspired) to become a rule?

Another exceedingly rare, contrary to the Gospel and uncanonical case is that of the holy Abbas [elders] (from the Evergetinos), who entered houses of prostitution with the purpose of admonishing and saving the women working there as prostitutes. Yet this action was divinely inspired. How do we know? From the result! They brought the prostitutes to repentance and saved them! However, is it permissible today for monks, invoking this exceptional act of the Saints, to enter houses of prostitution and, from exception, make it a rule? Of course not! Therefore, how do the Ecumenists wish to make an exceptional act (even if divinely inspired) of a Saint into a rule?

Fourth and final example is that of Saint Theodora, who dressed in male clothing and, appearing as a man, became a monk in a male monastery. Another extreme, rare case of a Saint acting clearly uncanonically, yet divinely inspired. How do we understand this? From the result! She became a Saint and was never condemned by our Holy Church; on the contrary, she is praised. But is it permissible today for women who wish to become monastics in male monasteries to be received into them—even in male attire—invoking the exceptional action of the Saint and making it a rule of the Church? Of course not! So how, then, do the Ecumenists, invoking an extreme and rare action of a Saint, seek to make it a rule?

As even the simplest Christian understands, even if Saint Mark did not err, but prayed together through divine prompting, this still cannot constitute either a law or an example, as is proven by the above cases and by the teaching of Saint Nikodemos, which we have already cited: “The oikonomia, which certain Fathers employed temporarily, can be considered neither law nor example” (Pedalion, p. 371).

Even if, however, we insist with demonic stubbornness on the heretical doctrine of the Ecumenists, our arguments do not end here. Even if we continue to accept that the Saint did not err, in order thereby to justify the Patriarch by saying that he is doing nothing more than imitating the Saint, we must still point out: Bravo to the Patriarch for imitating him—but why does he imitate him only in the matter of joint prayer? Why does he imitate him only in his stance toward the Latins before the council, and not also in his stance after the council?

The Saint engaged in dialogue with the Latins for fifteen months, and as soon as he discerned their satanic unrepentance, he no longer wanted even to see them! Why does our most holy Patriarch not imitate the Saint also in this—he who ceased dialogue after fifteen months—whereas our Patriarch, after decades of dialogue, continues it? And it goes without saying that the Latins remain satanically in the same heresies, having, moreover, in the meantime added many more. Why does he imitate selectively? Perhaps because selective imitation is convenient? Why, furthermore, does our most holy Patriarch imitate the Saint in his addresses to the pan-heresy-promoting Pope with phrases like “father,” “sister Church,” etc., and does not also imitate him in the rest of his expressions, found in the same letter, which are full of reproof and truth? Why does he imitate selectively?

Let us clarify at this point that these expressions of the Saint were words of courtesy and nothing more.

This is proven by the later stance of the Saint, when he calls them heretics, schismatics, Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.

From these expressions alone, it is evident that the Saint was speaking courteously in the first instance and by no means intended to imply that the heretics are the Church. And it is understood that these words of courtesy are so rare, that personally I do not know if there exists another Saint who used such expressions when addressing the Papists. Today, however, they are no longer rare but have become a rule (!)—and indeed such a rule that it allows not a single exception! Moreover, when our Saint ceased the dialogues, he said of the Latins that they are heretics, schismatics, Christ-traffickers, Christ-merchants, etc.

But has our Patriarch ever been heard to imitate the Saint and call the Latins in such a manner? Why this selective imitation? Why does he imitate the Saint in joint prayers and in all other matters do the exact opposite of him? Perhaps because it is convenient? From this alone, the hypocrisy of those who bring forth such examples and arguments is made evident. And imagine that Saint Mark not only did not wish to see the Latins, but even the Latin-minded “Orthodox” themselves! Indeed, he said at the time of his repose, that the more I distance myself from them, the closer I draw to God! What relation do all these things of the Saint have with today’s Patriarch? Is it possible to claim that the Patriarch is an imitator of Saint Mark? O, what madness!!!

And yet our arguments have not run dry, even if the heretical-minded persist with satanic obstinacy, despite all the above observations. We shall continue, by way of condescension, to accept that the Saint did not err (though the above is more than sufficient).

Let us accept that the Saint did engage in joint prayer (all that we say, it is understood, also applies to the other actions of the Saint that the Ecumenists invoke) in order to justify the various actions of our Patriarch. But what relation do the things our Patriarch does have with the things the Saint did? Is there any comparison? The Saint performed one prayer (how long could it have been—five minutes, ten?) and you invoke this to justify the thousands of uncanonical missteps of the Patriarch? In what instance did the Saint engage in joint prayers with those of other religions (Muslims, Buddhists …), and even with leaders (!), as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray together with heretics or those of other religions? When did the Saint bring the Pope to the All-Holy Tomb (!!!) for joint prayer, as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons of our Holy Church anathematize those who pray together with heretics?

When did the Saint allow the Pope to bless the Orthodox (!!!), as the Patriarch does, when the Holy Canons anathematize those who give or receive blessings from heretics, because, as the Holy Rudder of our Holy Church says, these are not blessings of the heretics, but follies?

When did the Saint ever receive the Pope (!!!) into an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, as the Patriarch has done THREE TIMES with THREE POPES, even chanting the Polychronion for them—when the Holy Canons of our Church forbid not only the presence of heretical leaders in the Church (for joint prayer), but even that of ordinary heretics, the laity! When did the Saint say to the Pope, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (!!!), as the Patriarch has done?

When did the Saint allow the Pope during the Divine Liturgy to say the “Our Father” (!!!), as the Patriarch does?

When did the Saint allow the Pope, inside an Orthodox Church and moreover during the Divine Liturgy, to deliver a sermon from the pulpit to the Orthodox faithful (!!!), and moreover to preach the heresy of the primacy (!!! — not three, but thirteen exclamation marks should be used), as the Patriarch does?

When did the Saint commemorate the heretical Pope as an Orthodox Bishop, as the Patriarch did in Constantinople (may God have mercy on us), whereas the Saint, on the contrary, taught that:

“I, Mark the sinner, tell you that he who commemorates the Pope as an Orthodox hierarch is guilty, and whoever holds the doctrines of the Latins will be condemned with the Latins and will be regarded as a transgressor of the faith” (Letter to Theophanes, PG 160, 1096–1100).

As for the documents signed within the WCC (World Council of Churches), when did the Saint ever say or sign anything resembling the shameful and heretical texts (Porto Alegre, Busan, Balamand, etc.) which the Patriarch signs and praises? And the transgressions have no end (there are more and more and more—these were only a MINIMAL sample!!!). And ALL of this is justified by invoking five to ten minutes of joint prayer (and some other actions done by oikonomia, which are themselves extreme, rare, and limited). But what madness is this? How is it possible that all of these things we have mentioned—and many more—are justified and compared with the 5–10 minutes of joint prayer of the Saint? Is it possible to take the least as a basis to justify the greatest? Is it ever possible for a murderer to be acquitted when, in response to the judge's question, “Why did you kill?” he answers, “Because he slapped me. He struck me, should I not strike him back?” Is it permissible to invoke the least (the slap) to justify the greatest (the murder)? Of course not!!! How then do they attempt, by invoking the least of the Saint’s actions, to justify the GREATEST (and what great things indeed—I marvel how God has not consumed us) of the Patriarch mentioned above? Is there any comparison? The same degree of similarity that exists between “a slap” and “murder” exists between the actions of the Saint and those of the Patriarch. Is this not perverted? Is this not madness? Unless, of course, it is the height of hypocrisy—and then the perplexity is resolved.

The arguments have not been exhausted. Our subsequent arguments will not, of course, be used to persuade the Ecumenists, because if they were not convinced by the above, their damage is incurable, but they are set forth solely for the instruction and establishment of the well‑intentioned. Up to now we have argued by taking as our basis the version that Saint Mark did not err. The arguments that we shall now present prove, in our humble opinion (which may also be mistaken—we are not infallible), that the Saint did err; his actions were human, proceeding from the real and sincere desire of the Saint for the return of the heretics to the truth, and thus he proceeded to uncanonical actions, by way of condescension. And first, that the Saint did err is shown by his stance when he saw their satanic persistence in heresy after the council. After the council, the Saint did not even wish to see them. He called them Christ‑traffickers, Christ‑merchants, heretics and schismatics! Indeed, it is characteristic that he taught that we should avoid them as we do snakes!!! From these things is it not evident that the Saint erred and repented? Is it possible to claim that, if the Saint had been able from the outset to foresee their persistence in their heresies, he would have proceeded to such actions? Of course he would not have said or done the things the Saint did if he had known beforehand what would follow. Not only would he not have said them, but he would not even have entered into dialogue!!! How could he have gone into dialogue, when he himself later taught that we should avoid them like snakes?

Second argument of ours that the Saint erred, that his action was human, is the argument that this action was certainly not divinely inspired! From where is this proven? Let us first answer the question: How do we know that an action of a Saint is divinely inspired in those cases where it is also uncanonical? The answer will naturally be: We know it BY THE RESULT! A divinely inspired action (when it is also uncanonical, contrary to the Gospel, etc.) is impossible to be a failure! The opposite cannot occur, because it would mean that the Holy Spirit prompted a Saint to an uncanonical action in order to lead him to failure! But the Holy Spirit prompts uncanonical actions only in cases where it foreknows that there will be positive fruit, and the examples of the first chapter support this point—namely, the examples of Saints Sisoes, Dionysios, Theodora, etc., prove that all of their transgressions bore positive fruit, something which is not the case with Saint Mark. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that, when an uncanonical action of a Saint is also divinely inspired, it must necessarily yield positive fruit. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would appear to be prompting violations of the canons without purpose (!), which we would say is blasphemous.

For the end, as the saying goes, let us place the cherry on top of the cake. Only, allow us to make a small innovation. After all, innovation is not a privilege exclusive to the Ecumenists—let them permit us to have that privilege too. So instead of one cherry on the cake, we will place three cherries. A whole cake with only one cherry—who will manage to grab it first? With three, at least something can be done.

The first cherry, then, is this: When we say “honoring a Saint means imitating the Saint,” we do not mean that we merely take a Saint’s life and try to imitate his deeds independently of his teaching. Both must coexist—never the one without the other. One complements the other; otherwise, we will certainly fall into delusion.

What do we mean in plain words? Let us once again take the above examples from the first chapter (of Saints Sisoes, Dionysios, the Abbas, and Theodora). Saint Sisoes, as we said, gave a “contrary to the Gospel” command. However, he never taught that others should do likewise. Therefore, that particular act of his does not align with his teaching, nor does it constitute an instruction for application, much less a rule he established. This does not give us the right to imitate him in that specific act, since he neither taught, nor encouraged, nor imposed it! The same applies to the disobedience of Saint Dionysios and to the entry of the Abbas into brothels. Saint Dionysios never taught or encouraged others to disobey. Therefore, his isolated act does not align with his entire teaching and does not give us the right to imitate him in that act. Thus, the reasonable question arises: Yes, Saint Mark may have engaged in joint prayer—but when and where did he teach, encourage, or, even more so, impose it as a rule that others should do the same? Of course, never!!! With what right, then, do you take, so dryly and arbitrarily, as an example, a single act of a Saint independently of his teaching, and (supposedly) imitate it, especially when Saint Mark actually taught the opposite, as we said above? By that same logic, why don’t the Ecumenists simply take as an example the act of Saint Paisios the Great, who did not eat for decades, and try to imitate that? Or the act of Saint Symeon the Stylite and go sit atop a pillar for years, and other similar feats? (Of course, regarding the spirituality of the Ecumenists, it is better that we do not speak—Saint Paisios the Athonite has already spoken about that.)

The second cherry we will borrow from the Pedalion (commentary on the 6th Ecumenical Council, Canon 94, footnote 1). Saint Nikodemos speaks about the oath and invokes Saint Chrysostom. Saint Chrysostom says regarding the oath (in brief), that it is entirely forbidden by Scripture. “But you say to me, such-and-such a man, virtuous, devout, a clergyman, sober-minded, took an oath. Do not tell me that… he swore… Even if, hypothetically, Peter, Paul, or an Angel swore… it is not their command, but God’s… Why do you bring forth this one and that one?... For on the Day of Judgment, God will say to you ‘I commanded,’ and you were to obey—not to bring forward this or that one and to busy yourself with the transgressions of others… even if the transgressor is ten thousand times great and wondrous.” I believe the parallel is perfect and clear. In other words, no one has the right to invoke the transgressions of others, even Saints (even the greatest of them). The Ecumenists, who are obedient instruments of the devil, do the opposite, that is, they invoke the transgressions of Saints in order to justify their heretical missteps.

I do not know how one should be characterized who, after the above arguments, persists in the heresy of the heretical (better yet, pan-heresy of the) Ecumenists. In any case, we have a duty, in conclusion, to add the third promising and innovative cherry on top, which comes from… the fierce opponent of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos... We will quote a few phrases from one of his letters, the context of which is as follows: The Elder was a vehement opponent of the transfer of bishops (yet another plague), and someone, in order to justify this violation by the bishops, brought up the transfer of a Saint and said: “Behold, why do you protest?” And naturally, he received the appropriate response from the most wise Elder—and here too, the parallel with our topic is perfect. We quote approximately what he wrote, without of course altering the meaning:

“The divine Father Gregory the Theologian says that ‘if you rebuke someone for a transgression committed willingly and deliberately, he will hasten to find examples of others, so as to justify his own deviation. If, for example, you say to someone that he should not, while still beardless, assume the role of teacher of the Church, since even the Lord was baptized and began to teach at the age of thirty, he will refer you to Daniel, who at a young age became a judge—and to others!’... ‘What is rare is not law in the Church.’ (Oration 37, PG 36, 352)... What significance is there if, in the history of the Church, there have occurred few or many transgressions of this or that Canon? Shall transgression prevail, or the Law? But do there happen to be, among those who at times transgressed the Canons against translation (in our case, the Canons against joint prayer with heretics), persons who are respectable, notable, and virtuous? And what of it? ‘No one is pure of stain, even if his life on earth be but one day.’ Even the holiest of men fall into transgressions and slips. What must we imitate? Their transgressions and slips—or their virtues? The virtues are to be imitated; the faults are to be avoided.

“Saint Epiphanios, Bishop of Cyprus, performed in Constantinople—an evident violation of the holy Canons—an ordination without the permission of the local Bishop (John Chrysostom)… Should we therefore abolish the relevant Canons and legislate that each Bishop may freely ordain in any foreign diocese? Saint Theodora not only wore male clothing but also lived in a male monastery… Should we therefore abolish the relevant Canons? Saint John the Merciful struck a monk, in violation of the holy Canons. Should we therefore abolish the Canons that forbid striking and legislate that clergy may freely use the rod for the correction of the disobedient?... What if among the transgressors there were perhaps virtuous persons? Their virtues, we repeat, are examples to be imitated; their possible transgressions and errors are examples to be avoided. Let us hear our great Father Basil crying out: ‘Even if Saint Dionysios of Alexandria said that those returning from the Montanists to the Church should be received without baptism, yet in this he erred. And by no means must we follow his error.’ (St. Basil, Canon I)”

(Articles, Studies, Letters, 2nd ed., p. 137, ‘WE MUST NOT GUARD THE IMITATION OF ERROR’)

I believe further comment is unnecessary.

And yet, despite all the above that we have said, the Ecumenists persist, insist, and claim that they are right!!!

These, however, are not Orthodox—they are (hard though it may be to say, yet necessary) HERETICS!!

Your brother in Christ…

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/01/blog-post_51.html

 

The Prayer of Saint Mark of Ephesus for Divine Mercy and Repentance

Saint Mark was a man of prayer. Spontaneous prayers, supplications, and entreaties are often interwoven in his writings.

Here we will present the prayer he addressed to the Lord before departing for Italy, in which he begs the Lord to grant him repentance.

The prayer is as follows:

 

I, slothful even toward virtue and tyrannized by the assaults of the passions—what shall I do, O long-suffering Lord?

Shall I fall away from so great a gift of Thine, and shall the mystery of Thy gracious good pleasure be delayed in me?

May it not be so, O compassionate and man-loving God.

May I not be abandoned by Thee; may I not become a portion for the evil one unto perdition. But being entreated by the labors of Thy saints who have gone before, and receiving the intercessions of the holy angels—especially those of their sovereign, our Lady the Theotokos—grant me to direct my path toward Thee, not demanding of me the worthy fruit of repentance, but that which is possible.

Cast into my hardened heart Thy fear, and through it, purify and soften my whole being to compunction unto love.

And when my body departs, grant me rest in the tabernacles of Thy saints, and vouchsafe that I may be filled with eternal glory and divine vision, for blessed art Thou unto the ages. Amen.

 

(To be read every night by the faithful, after the Supplicatory Canon to Saint Mark, or after Compline and the Salutations to the Most Holy Theotokos, whom Saint Mark especially revered and in whose honor he composed eight Supplicatory Canons).

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/01/blog-post_37.html

 

“The Body is Not the Soul’s Garbage”

Fr. Charalambos Livios Papadopoulos | January 14, 2026

 

If the body has no worth, then neither does the soul.

The body is not the soul’s garbage, to be burned in the landfills of our “pseudo-civilization.”

You see, we have this “modern,” “rational” idea that cremation is simply a technical solution: cleaner, more efficient, more ecological, less space, less “trouble.”

But this is precisely where the problem lies.

Because the real question is not, “What is more practical?”

The real question is: what kind of civilization are we, when we consider it normal to burn a human being?

If someone were burned alive, we would call it horror, a crime, unthinkable violence. And now, suddenly, because he is dead, the very same act is presented as a “choice.” A nice word: choice.

This is the ideologization of life.

Ideology is not that we tell lies. It is that we make the lie appear natural: to appear “neutral,” to appear “civilized.” But the burning of human beings is precisely the opposite: it is the point at which civilization reveals its hidden barbarity.

For what does cremation say?

It says: “the human being is finished.”

And when we say “finished,” we do not simply mean that he has died. No. We mean something deeper: that now you can do whatever you want with the body, because it is nothing. It is residue. It is garbage with no value anymore. Get rid of it.

And this is the modern thinking: the body as garbage.

And yet, the cremation of the dead often reveals a deep perception that the body no longer has value, that we can do whatever we want with it: make it disappear, throw it away, burn it.

But the body is not garbage.

The body is a temple, it is history, it is a person. It is the human being whom I loved, whom I kissed, whom I baptized, whom I communed, for whom I wept.

The body is the earth, the place and the space of my soul. Every one of its cells is my history, what I was and what I became in this life.

You know, the body was and always is a “problem.”

The body smells, the body decays, the body reminds us that we are mortal. And our culture hates this reminder. It cannot endure our corruptibility.

It wants to make the body disappear, not simply to bury it. For nothing to remain. To become dust.

As if to say: I do not want even the memory of materiality.

And here something appears that the Orthodox — and Christianity in its most radical form in general — proclaim: matter is not a mistake. The body is not inferior to the soul.

We do not have here a “spirituality” of the neo-Platonic type, where the body is the prison of the soul. No. Exactly the opposite: matter is glorified. Matter is sanctified. Matter becomes the place of God. The place and space of love.

The scandal is the Incarnation. God enters into matter. Therefore, matter is not “abandonment”; it is encounter.

And here is the real scandal of Orthodox thought and experience:

Christianity is not a disembodied religion, nor a philosophy that despises matter. Orthodox theology is not Neoplatonism.

It does not say that matter is evil and must be eliminated.

On the contrary, Orthodoxy is the glory of Matter, the deification of Matter.

For God Himself became man: He took a body, He took blood, He took flesh.

Matter in the Church is sacred: water, oil, bread, wine — all are sanctified, all become bearers of Grace.

And perhaps here lies the most violent aspect of cremation: it is not simply the management of a dead body. It is an act of denial, a symbolic declaration: I do not want anything material to exist that reminds me that the human being has eternal value.

That is why the relics of the Saints are so disturbing to the modern consciousness.

A relic, a bone, matter that exudes fragrance — this is the most irrational thing for “rational” modernity.

And precisely for that reason it is so powerful: the relic is the point where matter refuses to become garbage.

And here perhaps we must say the simplest thing: the human being is not a soul that merely “wears” a body. He is a body with a soul, in absolute equality and value.

A human being without a body is a ghost; a human being without a soul is a corpse.

So, yes: cremation is the last, final illusion of our pseudo-civilization — that it can discard matter and keep only the “meaning.” But when you discard matter, in the end you discard meaning as well.

 

Source: https://www.gnothiseauton.org/2026/01/the-body-is-not-souls-garbage.html

 

A Morning Prayer

Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep me this day without sin. Lord, do not abandon me to the counsel of mine enemies, neither depart from me. Lord, deliver me from the domination of the passions and the burning of pleasures. Lord, grant me a guiding hand and strengthen me in Thy fear. O Lord, grant compunction and humility of heart, that I may weep for my transgressions. Lord, grant me patience in temptations and discernment. Lord, cleanse me from ignorance, slothfulness, and hardheartedness. Lord, deliver me from corrupting associations and from consent to evil thoughts. Lord, drive from me forgetfulness, stony insensibility, and captivity of mind. Lord, shelter me from the warfare of fornication. Lord, implant in me hatred for pleasures, and grant me a virtuous and shameless life, and direct me in the way of Thy commandments. Through the intercessions of our all-immaculate Lady the Theotokos, and of all Thy Saints, for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen.

 

Greek source: Μικρὸ Προσευχητάρι [Small Prayer Book], published by the Holy Monastery of Saints Kyprianos and Justina, Attika, 2003, pp. 18-19.

Online: https://www.imoph.org/Publications_el/4b6002Proseyxhtari.pdf

 

Dr. Dimitris Chatzinikolaou: “The Russians, rightly I think, call Bartholomew a ‘devil incarnate’!

See, for example, the post:

Bombshell from Russia: “Patriarch Bartholomew is working with British MI6 to uproot Orthodoxy from the Baltics”

January 12, 2026

 

 

The Russian secret services proceeded with a shocking accusation, charging Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Phanar with collaborating with the British secret services in order to expel the Orthodox Church from the Baltic countries, according to Lenta.ru.

In fact, the Russians do not hesitate to describe the Ecumenical Patriarch as... a devil incarnated into a priest, essentially presenting him as a ruthless... enemy of Orthodoxy.

But for what specific reason does the SVR accuse Bartholomew?

As the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service emphatically states, the Patriarch is "establishing" in the Baltics "ecclesiastical structures fully controlled by the Phanar," thereby striking at the legitimate institutions of the Orthodox Church.

“The devil incarnate collaborates with the British secret services”

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew intends to expel Russian Orthodoxy from the Baltic countries, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).

“This ‘devil incarnate’ is obsessed with the idea of expelling Russian Orthodoxy from the Baltic countries, establishing in its place ecclesiastical structures fully controlled by the Phanar,” states the announcement of the secret services.

The intelligence service also stated that the Patriarch receives support from the British secret services for the implementation of these initiatives.

According to the SVR, with their assistance, Bartholomew has established cooperation with the authorities of the Baltic states.

In 2024, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) attributed to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople the responsibility for the persecution of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Estonia followed Zelensky's example and declared war on the Orthodox Church

Meanwhile, the Estonian authorities are following in the footsteps of the Ukrainians, as they are exerting unbearable pressure on the Estonian Orthodox Church (EOC) in order to sever its religious and legal ties with the Russian Church.

Thus, the Secretary General of the Interior Ministry of the Baltic country, Tarmo Miilits, announced a year ago that the amendments to the Church's charter must be re-examined, as he was not satisfied with them.

For example, he does not approve of the reference in the document to the Tomos of Patriarch Alexy II, by which the EOC became a self-governing unit within the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1993.

Moreover, the new name “Orthodox Church of Estonia” (without the addition “MP,” that is, Moscow Patriarchate) is similar to that of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church.

It is worth noting that the two parallel structures already have "strained" relations, and this development will intensify the conflict.

As Russian media previously reported, the Estonian authorities are attempting to force the Orthodox Church of Estonia to sever its ties with Moscow.

The unlawful pressures to change the name of the Estonian Church

The official renaming of the Estonian Orthodox Church (EOC) to the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (ECOC) was caused by unlawful pressures exerted by the Estonian authorities, according to a source from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), cited by Tass.

It is noted that an Estonian district court had approved the change of the EOC's name to ECOC, as reported by the national public broadcasting network ERR.

“It is a positive fact that the court did not deprive this Church of the right to determine its own name. Any other decision would have been completely incomprehensible.

“However, we must not forget that this entire situation arose as a result of unlawful pressures on the Church, attempts to interfere in its internal affairs, and the imposition of a will that is not consistent with the protection of religious freedom,” the agency’s source stated.

In May 2024, the Estonian parliament characterized the Russian Orthodox Church as an entity that supports the Russian special military operation in Ukraine.

Later, the then Minister of the Interior of Estonia, Lauri Läänemets, stated that he expected the severance of relations between the EOC and the ROC, as well as the recognition of the Patriarchate of Moscow as heretical by the Estonian Orthodox Church.

Responding to these statements, Vladimir Legoida, head of the Synodal Department of the Moscow Patriarchate for Church–Society Relations and Mass Media, accused the Estonian Ministry of the Interior of aiming to destroy the EOC and to subject the faithful to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Tsargrad: "Bartholomew’s dirty mission in Estonia to turn the majority into a minority"

For its part, the Russian outlet Tsargrad emphasizes that since the early 1990s, the Phanar (Ecumenical Patriarchate) created a parallel, non-canonical ecclesiastical structure in Estonia—the so-called Estonian Apostolic Orthodox "Church," consisting mainly of ethnic Estonians.

This pseudo-Orthodox heresy, whose members are far fewer than the number of Orthodox Christians in Estonia, attempted to transfer all the property of the canonical Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to this pseudo-Orthodox sect.

At that time, in the 1990s, a compromise was reached, but in recent years, the Russophobic authorities of this post-Soviet republic and Patriarch Bartholomew have launched a new attack against the canonical Church.

They have already forced it to change its name to “Estonian Christian Orthodox Church” in order to remove the “abhorrent” reminder of Moscow.

Now, according to the new “legislation,” the canonical Church is required either to sever all ties with the Patriarchate of Moscow or be declared illegal.

Everything is a faithful replica of the situation in Ukraine, under the control of the Kiev regime.

The dangerous games of the Patriarch in Ukraine

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has for years been playing dangerous games on many fronts, yet presents himself as... a universal shepherd, which he is not...

As has also been denounced by the official representative of the Turkish Orthodox Church (Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate), Selcuk Erenerol, V. Zelensky is attempting to involve Turkey in the conflict through pressure on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC).

“Kiev has violated all laws, including religious ones, at the request of the West, involving Turkey in this conflict: they asked permission from the Phanar (the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople), even though, according to the Turkish constitution, the Phanar has no right to do so.

“The decisions of the Phanar have no legal force either in the country or abroad,” noted Erenerol.

The maneuvers of Bartholomew

He recalled that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople had previously violated his obligations by attending a conference on Ukraine in Switzerland without permission from the governorate of the Fatih district of Constantinople, as well as by signing the final document without having the right to do so.

According to TOC, Bartholomew blatantly interferes in Turkey’s relations with both Ukraine and Russia.

“The statement by Zelensky is, in fact, a crime on the international stage against the territorial integrity of the Republic of Turkey, since the Phanar is attempting—like the Vatican—to become a state within Turkey with its own laws violating the territorial integrity of another. In that case, this is a casus belli.

“It is now necessary to summon Ukrainian diplomats—heads of embassies and consulates—and declare them persona non grata.

“The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs must present a note of protest that this is no longer a religious issue; it is an attempt to drag Turkey into the conflict between the United States and Russia,” Erenerol noted.

According to him, Bartholomew supports Zelensky in his intention to continue the conflict, which is claiming the lives of thousands of people, and the problem cannot be solved merely by removing Bartholomew from his position.

“There is also the American Archbishop of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, Elpidophoros, whom the United States wants, in violation of our laws, to appoint in place of Bartholomew.

“Ankara must take all necessary diplomatic measures against Zelensky for this maneuver,” Erenerol stated.

The Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine

The Ukrainian parliament passed a law banning the Orthodox Church, the largest Christian denomination and community of believers in the country, in Ukraine.

As clarified by MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak, the UOC will have nine months to “cut its ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.”

The law goes into effect 30 days from the date of its publication.

Prior to this, the bill had been supported by the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations.

Zelensky stated that during a telephone conversation with Bartholomew, he informed him about the law banning the canonical UOC on the territory of the country. According to him, the parties “positively evaluated” Ukraine’s decision.

Turkey does not recognize the ecumenical status of the Church of Constantinople.

In Turkey, Bartholomew is referred to as the head of the Greek Orthodox community of the Phanar (Fener) district and is prohibited from engaging in political activities.

But as announced by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bartholomew bears personal responsibility for the persecution of the faithful in Ukraine.

The Kiev regime organized the largest wave of persecution against the UOC in the modern history of the country.

Citing its connection to Russia, local authorities in various regions of the Republic decided to ban the activities of the UOC.

The authorities imposed sanctions on certain representatives of the ecclesiastical clergy.

 

Greek sources:

https://orthodox-voice.blogspot.com/2026/01/h_80.html

https://www.bankingnews.gr/diethni/articles/849521/vomva-apo-rosika-mme-o-patriarxis-vartholomaios-douleyei-me-ti-vretaniki-mi6-gia-na-kserizosei-tin-orthodoksia-apo-ti-valtiki