The Persecutions and Martyrdom of Saint Justin Popović

 

 

 

Introduction

Saint Justin Popović (1894–1979) was one of the most important figures of contemporary Orthodox Theology. His life was a continuous testimony — not only against the atheistic communist regime of Yugoslavia, but also against the compromising tendencies that entered into the Serbian Orthodox Church itself. His martyrdom had a twofold dimension: political and ecclesiastical. Both aspects of the persecution were inseparably connected with his uncompromising faith in the God-man Christ.

Political Persecution by the Communist Regime

Expulsion from the University (1945)

With the establishment of communist rule in Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1945, mass persecutions against the Church began. Justin Popović, as a man of the Church with openly expressed anti-communist positions, was expelled from his position as professor of Dogmatics at the Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade, together with another 200 professors.

Arrest and Condemnation to Death (1946)

Father Justin took refuge in the Holy Monastery of Sukovo in Pirot, in southern Serbia, where in 1946 he was arrested and imprisoned. Later he was tried and condemned to death as an “enemy of the people.” He was saved at the last moment thanks to the intervention of Patriarch Gabriel, who had only just returned from the Auschwitz concentration camp and demanded his release from prison.

Thirty-Year Confinement in the Monastery of Ćelije

From 1946 until his death in 1979 — for 33 full years — Justin lived essentially confined in the small women’s Monastery of the Archangels in Ćelije of Valjevo. Driven out from everywhere, without a pension and deprived of his human, religious, and political rights, he found refuge there as the spiritual father of the monastery.

The Monastery of Ćelije as a Spiritual Center of Orthodoxy

The Search for Refuge

At the Holy Monastery of the Archangel Michael in Ćelije, the persecuted Fr. Justin was deprived of human help and consolation, both on the religious level — through the deprivation of the faithful — and on the political level, since state law provided him with no means of livelihood. Thus he sought a place of residence in a monastery. In the monasteries to which he turned (Kalenić, Ovčar, Sukovo, Ravanica), no brotherhood accepted him. But the hope of the psalmic verse gave him strength on his path: “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, and the Lord shall deliver them out of them all.”

At that time the Serbian Church had several ancient monasteries, which exercised great influence over the local people. This led the communists to turn many of them into museums without monks, in order to prevent their activity. There were, however, smaller monasteries with limited influence only in the surrounding provinces, as a result of which they were regarded by the ruling authorities as harmless. Such a coenobium was destined to host Fr. Justin.

The Arrival at Ćelije

A nun, Mother Sarah, was initially at the Monastery of Ljubostinja. Together with several sisters, in 1947 she settled in the Monastery of the Archangel Michael, known as Ćelije (Cells — Ćelije), near Valjevo in western Serbia. A year later, in May 1948, in the small church of Saint Sava in Belgrade, Mother Sarah met Fr. Justin. Knowing his integrity, she proposed that he come to the monastery of Ćelije. He accepted her invitation and remained there until the end of his earthly life.

By the unanimous decision of the women’s sisterhood, he became their spiritual father, as well as that of the faithful pilgrims of the monastery. The daily celebration of the services of the daily cycle and of the Divine Liturgy was established, according to the monastic typikon. He became a luminous teacher of simple Serbs, educated and uneducated alike, as well as of professors from the fields of theology, history, philosophy, and other sciences. In an apt expression, he became “the hidden conscience of the Church of Serbia, but also of martyric Orthodoxy in general.”

The Rupture with Mother Sarah

Later, however, the unity of the sisterhood was shaken. Differing views and continual disagreements with Fr. Justin over questions concerning monastic obedience and the work of the monastery led, in 1958, to Abbess Sarah leaving Ćelije and, together with half of the sisterhood, heading to the Koporin Monastery.

After this tragic event, the remaining nuns had to elect a new abbess. At first they elected the nun Justina, while later, at her proposal, the nun Glykeria was elected. Mother Glykeria, then still young, with complete trust in the person and spiritual experience of Fr. Justin, proved capable in the administration of the monastery, with the result that it developed both spiritually and architecturally.

Persecution by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church

Isolation During Synodal Sessions

The political persecution by the communist regime had a particularly harsh dimension that was directly connected with the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church. Especially when the Holy Synod was meeting in Belgrade, he was forbidden any departure from the monastery for months, because of the authorities’ fear that he would come into contact with the bishops and influence them.

This prohibition had a twofold significance: on the one hand, the communist regime feared the spiritual influence of Justin, who was already recognized as the “hidden conscience of the Serbian Church.” On the other hand, this isolation had the result that Justin was excluded from the Church’s critical decisions, especially in matters concerning its stance toward Ecumenism and the World Council of Churches.

The Confrontation over Ecumenism

Justin Popović was a vehement critic of Ecumenism when it tended to relativize the Truth of God. He regarded Ecumenism as “a common name for the pseudo-Christianities, for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe,” and characterized it as a “pan-heresy.”

This stance brought him into conflict with the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church, which had decided on the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches. Justin sent a series of letters to the Synod, in which he expressed his strong disagreement:

• Letter of January 27, 1971: A reply to an anonymous card, in which he accused the bishops of preaching “the Ecumenism of Protestant syncretism and eclecticism based on a barren European humanism and a frenzied European anthropocentrism.”

• Letter of November 26, 1974 (“Memorandum”): In this historic text, which was published in the journal Koinonia (1975), Justin characterized the World Council of Churches as a “heretical, humanistic, humanized, man-worshipping union,” and the participation of the Orthodox Church in it as “apocalyptically horrifying in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy” and a “monstrous dishonor and unprecedented betrayal.”

• Letter of May 7, 1977: This concerned the convocation of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, in which Justin expressed his objections to the “neo-papal” tendencies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The Stance of the Holy Synod toward Justin

The Holy Synod of the Serbian Church did not accept Justin’s letters. On the contrary, the Church’s participation in ecumenical dialogue continued. Justin, as a simple archimandrite and not a bishop, had no right to vote in Synodal decisions. His isolation by the regime, especially during the periods of Synodal sessions, meant that he could not intervene in person and defend his positions before the bishops.

At the same time, the Synod took no action to lift Justin’s political persecution. Although Patriarch Gabriel had intervened in 1946 to save his life, the Serbian Church did not officially demand Justin’s freedom of movement or his restoration to academic and ecclesiastical life. Justin remained confined in the Monastery of Ćelije until his death, without ever being rehabilitated.

The Silent Acceptance of the Persecution by the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy

The stance of the Serbian Church toward Justin was silent and ambiguous. On the one hand, the bishops recognized the holiness of his life and his theological depth. On the other hand, their political line — which aimed at the survival of the Church under the communist regime — led to a de facto acceptance of Justin’s restriction. Justin himself, in his letter of 1974, accused the Synod that its stance toward Ecumenism was “disastrous and abhorrent in relation to Holy Tradition, slavishly lowering the Holy Church.”

* * *

The communist authorities did not leave Fr. Justin in peace, since they frequently summoned him for interrogation. The situation worsened when his books of theological and philosophical content, Philosophical Abyss and The Honor Shown to Saint Sava as a Philosophy of Life, circulated and became known abroad. Regarding the first work, they wanted to discover the manner of its “illegal export,” because it criticized the politics of communism. He, in a clever way, simply replied: a friend of his from Germany had asked him to read his work, and Fr. Justin was sending it to him by letters. His friend, when he had read it, published it.

Often, after interrogation, he would be detained by the atheist regime. Thus the nuns of Ćelije would go outside the prison of Valjevo, as a sign of protest, and would stand silently for hours before the state administration. This brought about the release of their spiritual father, because they feared an uprising of the Serbs of Valjevo, who were chiefly anti-communists, as was also a large number of Serbs from all the other regions.

Fr. Justin was also feared because of his influence over the Serbian people. In 1950 Patriarch Gabriel reposed, and, as the canons of the Church prescribe, it was necessary for the Serbian Hierarchy to be convened in order to proceed with the process of electing the new patriarch. It was certain that the communist authorities “participated” in the session for the election of the new ecclesiastical leader. Fr. Justin was informed about this and went to the Synod. Immediately, however, they approached him and said to him: “Please come to the car. You are going back to Ćelije.” This action confirms his deep influence over the bishops of the Serbian Church, something the atheist regime did not desire.

In similarly important and difficult events that arose in Belgrade, they forbade Fr. Justin to leave the Monastery of Ćelije for several months. This, however, did not prevent his interactions with the pilgrims of his monastery, who hastened to him, especially on Sundays.

Spiritual Martyrdom

Ascetic Life under Persecution

Despite the prohibitions, the exhaustion, the intimidation, and the threats, Justin prayed unceasingly and lived a strict ascetic life. He celebrated all the services of the daily cycle without fail. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy daily and fasted, eating nothing at all, every Friday, during the first week of Great Lent, and during Holy Week. He commemorated hundreds of names daily at the Divine Liturgy.

Literary Work as Testimony

His strict confinement did not prevent him from becoming known throughout the world. For 28 years he wrote his highly learned works without ceasing. His literary work includes his Dogmatics in three volumes, the Lives of the Saints in 12 volumes, the Interpretation of the New Testament in 7 volumes, and a multitude of other texts. His works were translated into many languages and made him one of the three most important Serbian theologians recognized internationally.

Spiritual Influence beyond the Borders

Thousands were the letters he received, and likewise thousands were his visitors, from Serbia and from all over the world. His reputation spread quickly and passed beyond the borders of Serbia. He was visited not only by Serbs, but also by many Greeks, Russians, and other Orthodox. Even the restrictions of the regime could not halt his spiritual influence.

The Canonization and Rehabilitation

Justin reposed on April 7, 1979, March 25 according to the Old Calendar, on the very day of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos — the same day on which he had been born. On April 29, 2010, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church canonized him, thus recognizing his holiness with a delay of 31 years. The uncovering of his holy relics took place in 2015.

His canonization by the very Synod which, during his lifetime, had not accepted his warnings about Ecumenism, constitutes a historical irony. Justin, who had been characterized as the “hidden conscience of the Serbian Church,” ultimately became an officially recognized Saint of the Church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Saint Justin Popović — Charalampos Andralis
Edition: Politeia bookstore

Saint Justin Popović: Life — Works — Holiness. Archim. Justin (Vasileios) Alexiou
Edition: AUTH (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), Doctoral Dissertation

Periodicals and Articles in Greek

Journal Koinonia (1975): Publication of the 1974 Memorandum.
Journal Parousia: Electronic edition of the Dogmatics.
Journal Halosis: Articles on his canonization and theology.
Journal Aktines: References to his theology of Baptism and Ecumenism.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_12.html

What is a Good Man?

By Archpriest Michael Azkoul

 

 

Too many people just assume that they know what a “good man” is. Because a man or an organization (composed of “good men”) builds hospitals, schools, an orphanage, an old-folks home, gives to medical research, to needy relatives, to charities, or because he is pleasant, honest, kind, loyal, refined, cheerful, honorable, or possesses those qualities which endears him to his neighbor, he is called “good,” a “good man.” I repeat, people assume that a “good man” is defined in this manner, but rarely do people critically examine the assumption to discover whether a “good man” may actually be what he is generally accepted to be.

The thinking on the “good man” has simply ignored Christianity and naturally Orthodoxy which is true Christianity. Christian experience, dogma, doctrine, canon law, are casually excluded as something personal and having little to do with the essential character of a “good man.” The Church is “what you make it” and very few people would include in their definition of a “good man” his religion. Surely, he is expected to have one and must live up to it, but as such, it is secondary in the analysis. Of course, he must believe in God (whatever that means), but “each in his own way and each in his own words.”

Now, can these ideas about the “good man” be reconciled with the Christian Truth? Is a “good man” (in the Christian and only sense) to be identified with the common conception of him? Is a “good man,” as is ordinarily believed, a man who does “good,” “good” as we usually think of it? Is the belief, any belief in God, sufficient to make a man “good?” What is the source of our opinions concerning the “good man?” Are they from God or men? Are the ideas that most of us hold on this matter given by our environment or are they the revelation of God? In any case, let us see what the Church has to say about the “good man.”

The Church teaches that three things are required for a man to be “good”: 1) conversion 2) grace 3) faith. Conversion means repentance (literally from the Greek, “change of mind”). Conversion necessarily requires faith, the right faith, the faith given, revealed, disclosed in Christ Jesus. A man must be converted to be “good.” He must be changed from a son of Adam to a son of God by grace. He must be “born again” (John iii, 3), renewed, made a “new creature” in Christ. The result is a new mentality, a “change of mind,” a new attitude and approach to all things. This is accomplished primarily by the Sacraments, especially, the Holy Eucharist, which give grace. “But God, Who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. ii, 4-6). It is grace, an energy of God, a gift, an undeserved favor, divine and activating, which converts us, which makes us “good.”

With a converted being a man receives “illumination,” “light,” “sight,” so that his faith in God has truth, direction, substance. The life of grace gives Christian faith. That faith is the faith of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride with Whom Christ is “one flesh.” This communion of Bride and Bridegroom, this common life of Head and Body, this mystical and Divine intimacy, gives rise to the experience of incomprehensible beauty. From it issues Truth, a Truth which is set in words, words which can hardly hold their meaning; and these words are Creed and canon and certitude. This is all obtained in sacred community with others in Christ, in the Church, not alone. Certainly, it must become a personal possession, but the acquisition comes through the common life in the Body of Christ. It is this experience, this knowledge, through conversion, through grace, through love and unity in the Beloved, Christ Jesus, that creates a “good man.” A “good man” is the result of what the Blessed Trinity and the Church has done. In other words, it is impossible to be a good man without Jesus Christ.

One may build hospitals, donate to charity, etc., be characterized by all those “moral” qualities which the world calls “good,” but they are meaningless and illusory without the Christian experience: conversion, grace, faith. The very definition of a “good man” relies upon his relation to Jesus Christ. Thus, as anti-Christian is utterly wicked and a true Orthodox only is fully a “good man.” Conversion, grace, faith, that without which a man cannot be “good,” no matter what the world thinks. In other terms, the more fully a man is integrated into the life of the Church, the better man he is, and without Jesus Christ and His Bride, goodness would be impossible. “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God, our Savior, appeared, He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that we might be justified by grace and become heirs of hope of eternal life. The saying is “sure” (Tit. ii, 3-8).

 

Source: The Word, November 1959, page 7. Reproduced in St. Nectarios Educational Series No. 55.

A Prayer in Time of Drought

by Saint Gregory Palamas

 

 

O Lord, Almighty God, pre-existing before all ages and abiding for ever, Who hast made all out of nothing and hast encompassed heaven in wisdom; Who supportest Thine upper chambers in the waters, and appointest the clouds for Thine ascent; Who bringest clouds up from the uttermost ends of the earth and waterest the mountains from Thine upper chambers; Who dost collect the water of the sea and abundantly pour it out again onto the face of the whole earth that it may be satisfied with the fruit of Thy works: we pray and implore Thee, Who art slow to anger and quick to help; turn not Thy face from us who pray to Thee because of the multitude of our failings. We know that our life is not worthy of Thine ineffable emptying for our sake, thy condescension into Hades and Thy most glorious return. But we also know Thine invincible love for mankind and Thine inexhaustible goodness. Hence, we throw ourselves into the ocean of Thy compassions and offer Thee this fervent supplication and implore Thee: take not Thy mercy away from those who ask and expect from Thine all-effective and supremely good providence a rain of goodness; but command Thy clouds to rain and to give us a fruitful shower; thus Thou wilt grant a voluntary rain to Thine inheritance and transform the drought and dryness into good weather, both healthy and wholesome. Fill the face of the earth with good weather and send down on it a fruitful rain that it may bring forth for us bread to eat, wine that maketh glad the heart of man and grass for the cattle. The eyes of all hope in Thee that they may receive from Thee food in due season. We have put our trust in Thee and we know none other God save Thee. For Thou art a merciful and man-befriending God, and to Thee do we send up glory, together with Thy Father Which is without beginning, and the life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

Source: Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. XXIX, No. 47 (1402), October 14/27, 1996, p. 7.

A Day in the Life of an Orthodox Christian

Father David Belden

Source: Orthodox Light, Vol. 4, 1988

(Presented at an Orthodox conference in 1987)

 

 

I would like to talk to you about what should be a typical day in the life of an Orthodox Christian, only it will not be exactly typical; we will have to make it a composite: that is, a day on which we would go to Liturgy, Confession, Vespers, etc. and since we probably would not do all these things on the same day, we will put them together on one day for the purpose of the talk.

Every Orthodox Christian should know that he has a definite purpose in life and that is to prepare himself for the Kingdom of Heaven. This is not some distant place far removed from our life here on earth. In the Gospel our Lord says clearly: “Behold, the Kingdom of God is within you....” St. Seraphim of Sarov, the great Russian saint of the nineteenth century says the same thing but in another way. He said that our purpose here on earth is to acquire the Holy Spirit and we know from St. Paul that the fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22). If we were filled with these virtues, we would indeed experience the Kingdom of God within us. Instead, we bear grudges against our neighbor; our tongues wag with gossip; we barely keep our mind on our prayers; we have ready excuses for missing church services or for not being able to help our less fortunate brother. Our hearts are filled with good intentions; we are drawn to that which is good. Why then is it so hard for us to make any progress toward our goal — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit?

The devil, you know, is a very smart and crafty enemy. Using the pleasures and riches of this world, he will do all in his power to take us away from God. The holy Fathers compare this life to a river. The Kingdom of Heaven is upstream. If we do not paddle very hard, we are going to move in the wrong direction. In fact, we have to paddle very hard if we do not want to stand still. If we choose to follow Christ, we must struggle to go in the opposite direction of the current. Again, we can think of life as riding a down escalator. If we do nothing, we shall have an easy ride to the bottom. How many of us have tried to run up a down escalator? It requires quite an effort to get to the top. The minute you stop, you are pulled down. This is how it is in the spiritual life. We must constantly strive and struggle. The minute we stop we do not just stand still; the minute we relax our efforts we are pulled down.

The idea of spending your life racing up a down escalator is pretty grim. If we had to depend on our own strength, we might as well give up in despair. But God is a God of love and does not expect the impossible from us. He is stronger than all the devil’s schemes put together and will give us the help we need if we ask him. It is unimportant whether we see any progress or not. Let God be the judge of that. Our judgement is not very accurate; if we think we are making progress, we better watch out. If we have repented, we should forget our sins. When God forgives, unlike us, he forgets. St. Paul says: “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before” (Phil. 3:16).

St. John Chrysostom says: “Lord if I have done nothing good in Thy sight, yet grant me according to Thy Grace to make a beginning of good.” When it is vacation time, we may be tempted to think we can take a little vacation from going to Church, saying our prayers, fasting, listening to our consciences, putting God first in our lives, leading an Orthodox way of life. If we give in to these thoughts, we are going to be carried to the bottom of the escalator and have to start all over again. We cannot take a vacation from God or the spiritual life. Our efforts must be constant. For example, it is better to pray briefly but regularly than to say lengthy prayers once in a while. The same applies to spiritual reading and fasting tell us that we should keep our rule of prayer "even if the world comes to an end". Do we even have a rule of prayer? If not, we must make up a rule of prayer for ourselves and ask our spiritual father's blessing on it. Do we have a spiritual father? Once we have found our spiritual guide, we should not move from one to another. It is alright to "shop around" in the beginning, but when we settle on someone, that is it. We must be obedient in all things save sin, knowing that by obeying our spiritual father we are doing the will of God. Even if he should be mistaken about something, God will make it right because of my obedience. My conscience will tell me if my spiritual father is asking me to do something which is not right. Obviously, if he falls into heresy, then, just as in the case of a bishop who has fallen into heresy, I am no longer bound to obey him.

Thus, before we can talk about a "Day in the Life of an Orthodox Christian", we must have a rule of prayer and before we can set up a rule of prayer, we must have a spiritual father who will help us.

When I open my eyes in the morning, my first thoughts must be of God. I must adore Him, thank Him, express repentance for my sins, and lastly, ask Him what I need. When most people think of God, it is to ask. There is nothing wrong with petition, but it must always come last. First, in my own words I must adore, thank, repent, and then request. God, I adore you. I thank you for your mercies, known and unknown; I am sorry for all the sins of my past life; help me to do better today; please give me what I need today. Make the sign of the Cross; let that be the first thing you do with your hands. Did you ever try to keep track of everything that you do with your hands in a day? Washing, dressing, eating, driving, writing, working ... let the sign of the Cross be the first conscious thing that you do with your hands. Someday I will not be able to make the sign of the Cross for myself and someone else will have to do it for me or over me. Some of us are on a roller coaster from the time we get up — sometimes very much against our will; we just do not have any choice. If we do not pray before we get out of bed, we may not pray again. As soon as I can organize my thoughts, they must be of God. My coming-to thought might be of the cat that has been yowling outside my window all night, but as soon as I am conscious enough, my thoughts must turn to God.

Either at this time or later at the icon corner I should pray for those near and dear to me, beginning with my own family; for all for whom I am bound to pray; for those who have asked for my prayers unworthy though I am; for those who have none to pray for them; and for those whom I have forgotten. Then, when I am washed and dressed, I should say my morning prayers using the Church's prayers from the Prayer Book. These are time honored, used by generations of Orthodox Christians including the saints — Holy God, the Lord's Prayer, the Six Psalms, a Supplicatory Canon of a Saint, Christ is Risen (during Pascha), O Lord and Master of my life (during the Great Fast) — as many of the morning prayers as I have time for, but unhurried and with as much attention and devotion as possible. Do not be upset when you are distracted and find your mind wandering. As soon as you are aware that this is happening to you, come back to your prayer. Prayer is not for our own self-satisfaction but for the glory of God and communion with Him. The prayer which costs me the most is the most acceptable to God. When I am fighting distractions; when I am fighting sleep; when I find it hard to pray and still do so: this is the prayer which is most acceptable and pleasing to God, not necessarily the prayer which makes me feel good.

Use prostrations, as many as I have time for. Maybe our spiritual father will give us a set number, in which case we should not do less because then we will not be fulfilling our obedience to our spiritual father and we should not do more because then we will be tempted to pride. Also, our prayer rule must include the Holy Scriptures; no day should go by in which the Orthodox Christian does not read the Bible, however briefly. A prayer rule is vital, it must have the blessing of our spiritual father, and it must be kept even if, as the holy Fathers say, the world comes to an end. The only way you can do that is to do it at the same time every day. Make the time. We cannot say: I am too busy right now, maybe later. Later never comes. Remember what Archbishop Antony of Los Angeles said last year? You find time to eat, don't you? If you don't eat your body will die. Well, you have got to find time to pray or your soul will die.

There should be spiritual reading each day. The Holy Scripture is minimal; it is a must. But there should be time to read from the lives of the Saints, the Fathers of the Church, etc. Maybe I will have an hour, a half-hour, fifteen minutes, or only five, but make use of the time. Do not waste your time. Every moment of our lives flies to God with our use of it or misuse of it or abuse of it. My life is made up of just so many moments, God alone knows how many, and I shall be judged on how I used those moments — for good or ill. Then, from the perspective of eternity, I will see how precious those moments were. Even if I only have five minutes, five minutes of attentive reading can be worth a half-hour of distracted reading in which I let my mind wander. If we do not have as much time to read as we like, many hours of tapes are now available. We can listen to these tapes while driving or walking. I can listen to the same tape three and four times and get something else each time that I missed before.

If our day is a fast day, we will eat accordingly. Remember the time-honored custom among the Orthodox during the fasts to eat only once in the day, not to eat between meals, and to have small portions when we do eat. We could spend much more time on the subject of fasting, but let us just say that there is no Orthodox life without fasting. “This kind is cast out only by prayer and fasting”, our Lord tells us in the Gospel. Our fasting is something we must work out with our spiritual father.

If we are going to Liturgy, then we should be fasting and prepared to receive Holy Communion. Canon 9 of the Holy Apostles says: “All the faithful who enter and listen to the scriptures, but who do not remain for prayer and the partaking of the Holy Mysteries must be excommunicated.” According to the explanation of the canon in a book called The Rudder, this means that all who remain after the exclamation “Catechumens depart” must receive Holy Communion. Our holy and God-bearing Fathers, who gathered in the Holy Spirit at Antioch, have directed us: “And those persons who enter the Church and listen to the Sacred Scripture but shun the participation of the Eucharist, we decree that these people be separated from the Church until they confess and exhibit the fruit of repentance.” (Canon 2 of Antioch). This canon is explained in The Rudder as referring to those who excuse themselves from receiving Holy Communion “on account of humility or reverence” but goes on to say that such humility is false since the greatest act of reverence to the Eucharist is to partake of it. So, according to Holy Tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the Canons of the Church we should be receiving Holy Communion at every Liturgy.

St. John of Kronstadt wrote: “The Divine Liturgy is truly a heavenly service on earth.” He himself celebrated the Liturgy daily. The holy Mysteries of Confession and Communion are not bound together in such a way that Confession is a necessary condition for admission to Holy Communion. If, however, you only go to Holy Communion two or three times a year contrary to Holy Tradition, then Confession should be obligatory before Holy Communion. A person who receives Holy Communion frequently goes to Confession only when he feels a special need for it or at his spiritual father's direction. Again, the frequency of our confession will depend on the direction of our spiritual father. We will never be worthy to receive Holy Communion; we pray only that we may receive not unto condemnation.

The Liturgy is much more than the receiving of Holy Communion. It is making present to us the events which we remember — not only the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ but also the Ascension, the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and the Second Coming. “As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye show forth the Lord’s death until He comes" (I Cor. 11:26). The Liturgy is the greatest Mystery that we can participate in; we should not come unprepared. At the Liturgy we are not simply remembering something which happened 2,000 years ago — that is Protestant theology; nor are we repeating something which cannot be repeated, which happened once and for all — that is Roman Catholic theology; we are present at the actual event we remember whether it be the Nativity, the Resurrection, or Pentecost. Actually, all these events are made present to us and we to them in a mysterious but nonetheless real way. God, Who is outside of time, sees all eternity at once. For Him the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ are now and He unites our poor worship to the event which we remember.

When the priest, at the beginning of the Liturgy, opens the Royal Doors and lifts the Gospel Book and says, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," that Kingdom is opened to us. The Liturgy is the door between this world and the next. When the curtain is drawn back, the veil which separates heaven from earth is drawn back. When we are present at Liturgy, we should forget time; what we are going to do later; what is in the oven. Forget all of that and be taken for a while from time into eternity, from the here and now into timelessness. We say the same thing about the holy icons — that they are windows into heaven. When the curtain of the icon screen is drawn, we are admitted to eternity and that which has happened in the past is made present to us and we participate in it in a mysterious but nonetheless real way.

The Liturgy is the corporate worship of the people of God; most days we will be praying privately or, at most, as a family. Of what should this prayer consist? We have talked about our morning prayers and we will talk about our evening prayers; I would now like to talk about the Jesus Prayer. This kind of prayer is the duty of all Orthodox which must not be neglected. In order to begin the practice of the prayer of Jesus, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov teaches us that we must first lead a wise and disciplined life, avoiding all luxuries and carnal pleasures. We must watch over our sight, hearing, and other senses and limit our speech to the needful. This does not mean, however, that we should all retire into solitude. He who truly learns the prayer of Jesus learns well how to live in a true solitude. Several Fathers, like St. Alexis the Man of God, St. John the Hut-dweller, and St. Vitalius, practiced solitude of the heart and true seclusion while living in the world.

The words of the prayer are: "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner". We can set aside special times to say the Jesus Prayer; we can include it in our prayer rule; we can substitute it for our prayers if we do not have a book or even if we do, if our spiritual father blesses this. The Jesus Prayer is meant to be said not only at fixed times but always and everywhere. If you have not yet read The Way of the Pilgrim, you should do so. This little book has done much to acquaint many with the Prayer of Jesus in particular and with Orthodoxy in general. The holy Apostle says in I Thess. 5:17 to "Pray constantly." There are many, many times in the course of the day in which we can use the Prayer — washing, dressing, eating, etc. The main thing is remembering to pray. We can wear our Prayer Rope, which will remind us to use it. We can only touch on the Prayer of Jesus now, but we must mention it in discussing a day in the life of an Orthodox Christian. It is a means of remaining in the presence of God during the day between our morning and evening prayers. Whatever occupies our time — whether we are students, housewives, executives, laborers, clergy — this prayer is for all Orthodox. Recently, a non-Orthodox came to me and wanted to discuss the Prayer of Jesus. I read him the following from an introduction to The Way of the Pilgrim: "The key for understanding the Prayer of Jesus is given first and foremost by belonging in doctrine and worship to the Church which gave it birth."

Let us not forget our prayers at meals, especially if we are eating out. We must not be ashamed to make the sign of the Cross in public: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38). Recently, all the crucifixes in a Toronto Roman Catholic hospital came down because a rabbi complained that they were offensive to Jews. There used to be one in every room. Remember also that the time is coming when I will no longer be able to make the sign of the Cross and someone else will make it over me.

We have mentioned morning prayers, Confession, reading, Liturgy, the Prayer of Jesus, prayers at meals; before we come to evening prayers, let us talk about Vespers. Apart from the Prayers Before Holy Communion, Vespers, along with Matins, is the best possible preparation for Liturgy. If we are absent from these services for a cause worthy of a blessing, as the prayers say, we should pray at home. Vespers is the evening worship of the Church and commences a new day. At Vespers we hear of the Saints we are remembering on the following day so we can read in the Lives of the Saints about them. If we do not attend Vespers or look at our calendar or read the troparia and kontakia of the day, the day will pass without our knowing of the Saints of the day. Vespers is the key to the forthcoming day. Every Orthodox Christian should know on any given day at least the names of the saints of that day, if nothing more. Perhaps we have Vespers only once or twice in the week, perhaps more often. We should avail ourselves of this service. It is sad to see Roman Catholic churches with their daily mass and Anglican churches, in downtown Toronto at least, with daily Morning and Evening Prayer, while the so-called Orthodox churches remain locked up tight from one Sunday to the next.

Now we come to the end of the day in the life of an Orthodox Christian, the time in which we say our evening prayers. We must have an icon corner not only where we can pray together as a family, but where we can pray privately. Again, as in our morning prayers our prayer should consist of Holy God, the Lord's Prayer, Christ is Risen (during Pascha), O lord and Master of my life (during the Great Fast), and as many of the evening prayers as I am moved to say — but unhurried and with as much attention and devotion as possible. We can make use of the Jesus Prayer; of the reading of Scripture, however brief, especially if you have missed it up until now; and of the Communion prayers.

Do not be upset when you are distracted and find your mind wandering due to fatigue or for whatever reason. As soon as you are aware that this is happening, come back to your prayer. Prayer is not an exercise in self-satisfaction, it is for the glory of God and communion with Him. The prayer which costs me the most is the most acceptable to God. This bears repeating. When I am fighting distraction, when I am fighting sleep, when I would rather do almost anything than pray and still do pray or try to pray: this is the prayer which is most acceptable to God, not necessarily the prayer that makes me feel good. Distrust your feelings. When you feel that you are making progress in the spiritual life, be wary! Let God be the judge of that; I am not capable of doing that. Do not let the devil deceive you by thinking that if I do not feel I love God, then I guess I do not. If I do not feel I am sorry for my sins, I guess I am not. The Christian life is never a matter of feelings, but of heart, mind, and will. I will to love God with all my heart and soul and being. I will to be sorry for my sins, whether I feel sorry or not. I must pray when I feel nothing. I must move my lips and form the words. Often, it is a case of the heart, mind, and will catching up with the mouth, as it were. If I do not even pray with my tongue or use a book when I feel nothing, there will be nothing for the heart, the mind, and the will to catch up with. Let us hear no more denigration of formal prayers, of formulas, of Prayer Books. I may be able to pray with my heart, mind, and will off the top of my head once in a while, but not all the time and for most of us, not most of the time. If we only pray when we feel moved in heart to do so, we will not "pray constantly" as the holy Apostle instructs us to do.

One of my favorite evening prayers, which should be said immediately prior to getting into bed, is the prayer of St. John of Damascus: "O Master that loveth all men, will not this bed be my grave? Or will Thou again enlighten my condemned soul with the day? Behold, the grave lieth before me. Behold death standeth before me."

This is one of the secrets of the Christian life — to live each day as though it will be our last. Not that we can literally do that, but that can be our goal, our aim. You will be amazed at what this attitude can do for you. Suddenly everything will take on its proper perspective. Everything will fall into place. One day it will be my last day and I do not know when that day will be. It could be in fifty or sixty years from now or it could be today or tomorrow. This does not mean that I have to be morbid. If I am trying to live each day as though it might be my last, far from being morbid, I will be filled with joy because my conscience will be right before God and that will produce peace and happiness in my soul.

Speaking of conscience, now is the time, at the end of the day to examine my conscience, to ask how I have sinned in the course of the day, how I have offended God and my neighbor. Now is the time to look into my soul and not to close my eyes in sleep until I have asked for God's forgiveness for whatever sins I have committed in the course of the day and to promise to try to do better. That is repentance. It will do no good to examine my conscience if I do not intend to do better. Then we have no real repentance. That is morbid!

Thus we come to the end of a day in the life of an Orthodox Christian. Just as my waking thoughts were of God, so now, as I close my eyes, my thoughts must be of Him. I can continue the Jesus Prayer; I may use the words of our Lord on the Cross: "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit" or the words of the holy first martyr, St. Stephen: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

"This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."

The Members of the Church: A Problem Weighing upon the Anti-Ecumenist Resistance

Andrei Mitocaru

 

 

Contents

• Radicalist Deviations in the Defense of the Faith: Who Are the Members of the Church?

• The Principle of Belonging to the Church in the Confessions of the Church

• The Establishment of Guilt vs. Automatic Exclusion

• The Teaching of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Non-Automatic Applicability of the Canons

• Conclusion: The Guarding of Orthodoxy Is Carried Out in the Spirit of the Holy Fathers

 

Radicalist Deviations in the Defense of the Faith: Who Are the Members of the Church?

In the context of the disturbances caused by the contemporary ecumenist movement, the confession of the unity and holiness of the Church has become a foremost duty for every vigilant Orthodox conscience. Yet, in the legitimate desire to guard the “rule of faith,” the risk has arisen of falling into the opposite extreme: a Matthewite-type view of belonging to the Body of Christ. This interpretation maintains that any dogmatic deviation entails automatic and de facto exclusion from the Church, without a synodal sentence being further necessary. However, a careful analysis of dogmatics and the canons shows us that such a position is foreign to the spirit of Orthodoxy.

The Principle of Belonging to the Church in the Confessions of the Church

According to the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1723 and the Confession of Dositheos of 1672, [1] the members of the Church are all those faithful who preserve the spotless faith of the Savior, proclaimed by the Apostles and confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. It is essential to note that the Church recognizes as members even those who “are liable to various sins”: [2]

“We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are all the faithful, and only they, of course, are those who preserve in holiness and truth the spotless faith of Christ the Savior, handed down, proclaimed, and examined by Christ Himself, by the Apostles, and by the Ecumenical Councils, although some of these may be liable to various sins. For if the faithful were not members of the Church and lived in sins, they would not be judged by the Church. But now, being judged by her, being called to repentance and guided on the path of the saving commandments, even if they are defiled by sins, yet only and precisely because they have not fallen into despair and because they persist in the Catholic [universal] and pious faith, they are and are recognized as members of the Catholic Church.”

The heretic, by the very nature of his error, is in a state of grave spiritual illness, but his cutting off from the ecclesial body is not a “mechanical” process. The Church, like a living organism, acts through her competent organs in order to establish the spiritual death of the member and to carry out his separation through deposition/excommunication/anathema. In this sense, Father Michael Pomazansky confirms these things:

“There is, however, a boundary beyond which, if sinners pass, they are cut off from the body of the Church, either by a visible act of ecclesiastical authority, or by the invisible act of God’s judgment.” [3]

The Establishment of Guilt vs. Automatic Exclusion

A fundamental error of Matthewite-derived thinking is the confusion between the sin of heresy, which separates the soul from interior grace, and the penalty of excommunication, which separates the person from the visible communion of the Church. The dogmatic sources teach us that heretics are those who “have corrupted the fundamental dogmas,” [4] but their exclusion is a “visible act of the authority of the Church.” [5] Moreover, Fr. Pomazansky also concludes,

“Therefore, the Church strictly guards the purity of the truth and excludes heretics from her bosom.” [6]

Saint Basil the Great explains that the hierarchy has the duty to remove the disobedient “as heathens and publicans,” [7] subjecting them to excommunication and anathema. This action presupposes a deliberative process: the Church judges, calls to repentance, and only after the conscious obstinacy of the heretic/heretics does she apply the definitive severance. Without this judicial act, we would arrive at the paradox in which the Church can no longer judge anyone, since the guilty person would be “automatically” outside her, and therefore beyond her jurisdiction.

The Confession of Dositheos emphasizes that the hierarch is the one who possesses the power to subject heretics to punishment, according to the evangelical model:

“…and in general the Fathers confess them [the episcopal powers] […] the grace given to them by the Lord to bind and loose […] and he removes the disobedient from the Church, as heathens and publicans, and delivers heretics over to excommunication and anathema.”

In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, one observes how excommunication and anathematization were the result of synodal processes in which the writings and attitude of those accused were examined, for example Prochoros Kydones:

“…this Prochoros, therefore, who was exposed synodally when his writings were brought forward and who, when asked either to refute them […] or to be cast under anathema, refused and persisted in such acts of irreverence…”. [8]

Likewise, in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, we find that

“every improper inducement tending toward the destruction of our blameless faith received from the Fathers is rightly condemned synodally.” (Point 17)

The Teaching of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Non-Automatic Applicability of the Canons

In the spirit of what was taught by Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite in the Pedalion, [9] the canons do not apply by themselves. At the beginning we find the Principles of Canonical Law, and Principle 10 (p. 8) points out the necessity of a synod to put into effect the prescriptions of the canons. Reference is made to note 22 on Apostolic Canon 3 (p. 32), where it is explained in detail how the canons must be applied. The language used is quite severe, warning that the application of the canons is not automatic:

“…A tongue slanderous of the holy ones is that which foolishly babbles such words, not understanding that the commandment of the canons, without the putting into action of the second person, that is, of the synod, is incomplete, not acting directly and before judgment by itself…”

Moreover, the history of the Church, reflected in documents such as the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, shows us that synods were convened precisely in order to clarify and to condemn nominally the heresies and their authors. If exclusion had been automatic, the struggle of the holy hierarchs for the convocation of synods and the drafting of anathemas would have been superfluous.

In the same Encyclical of 1848, at point 11, we find:

“Thus our Fathers also judged and condemned in Synod Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, and the others. For if the abomination of desolation sat in the holy place, according to the testimony of the Scriptures (Daniel 9:27; Matt. 24:15), why not innovation and heresy also upon a Holy Throne?”

Conclusion: The Guarding of Orthodoxy Is Carried Out in the Spirit of the Holy Fathers

In conclusion, resistance against Ecumenism must remain anchored in patristic humility, avoiding the radicalism that wishes to usurp the judicial authority of the Church. Belonging to the Church is a mystery that cannot be reduced to an automatic juridical formalism. Let us remember that the purpose of spiritual medicine is healing, and that the application of “punishment” (epitimion) is the final measure, taken with pain by the Mother-Church in order to guard the rest of the flock. Any interpretation that excludes economia and the necessity of a synodal sentence risks being transformed into an ideology which, although it claims to defend Orthodoxy, separates itself from the mind of the Holy Fathers.

 

NOTES

1. Their text is found in the PDF version here:

https://ro.scribd.com/document/736314770/1672-Marturisirea-Patriarhului-Dositei-OCR

2. The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos, Doxologia Publishing House, Iași, 2019, Decree 11, p. 39.

3. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Sofia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009, p. 197.

4. Idem.

5. Idem.

6. Ibid., p. 198.

7. The Confession…, p. 38. ↩︎

8. Archdeacon Prof. Dr. Ioan I. Ică Jr., The Byzantine Synodikon of Orthodoxy, p. 251.

9. The Pedalion, Dormition of the Mother of God Publishing House, Bucharest, 2015.

 

Romanian source: https://rezistentaortodoxa.org/2026/05/07/membrii-bisericii/

A.I. Summary of the zealot Hieromonk Eugenios’ unparalleled work in Greek, “The Concept of Defilement of the Orthodox from Ecclesiastical Communion with Uncondemned Heretics.”

Generated by ChatGPT-5.5 Thinking on June 11, 2026.

 

 

 

I’ll locate the online text first, then summarize its argument structure rather than just paraphrasing isolated passages. I’ll also flag where the work’s claims are interpretive or polemical rather than purely descriptive.

* * *

Below is an extensive English summary of Hieromonk Eugenios’ Greek work Η ΕΝΝΟΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΜΟΛΥΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΩΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ ΜΗ ΚΑΤΑΔΙΚΑΣΘΕΝΤΩΝ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΩΝ — The Meaning of the Defilement of Orthodox Christians from Ecclesiastical Communion with Heretics Not Yet Condemned. The online posting identifies the work as dealing with the defilement of Orthodox Christians through communion with uncensured / not-yet-condemned heretics, and the downloadable PDF is listed under the same title on the Agiorites Pateres site.

General aim of the work

The book is written as an anti-ecumenist canonical-patristic study. Its central concern is the meaning of μόλυσμος, “defilement,” when Orthodox Christians remain in ecclesiastical communion with hierarchs or clergy who publicly teach heresy but have not yet been formally condemned or deposed by a council.

The work is not merely asking whether heresy is spiritually dangerous in an abstract sense. Its more precise question is this: what exactly happens ecclesiologically and sacramentally when one communes with a heretic before that heretic has been synodically judged?

The author presents the study as a corrective to two opposite errors. The first error is the view that defilement from communion with an uncondemned heretic means automatic loss of priesthood and loss of sacramental grace before formal deposition. The second error is the view that because no automatic loss of priesthood occurs before deposition, no real defilement exists and therefore separation from such a heretic is optional. In the author’s framing, both positions distort the patristic and conciliar evidence.

Method: Ecumenical Councils and consensus Patrum

The author explicitly grounds his method in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils and the consensus Patrum, rather than in isolated patristic quotations. He argues that one must interpret particular passages from within the whole mind of the Church, not construct the whole doctrine from an isolated passage. He states that the infallibility of the Church is expressed through the Church as a whole, especially through Ecumenical Councils and the consensus of the Fathers.

This methodological point is important because the book is arguing against selective use of sources. The author believes that both rigorists and moderates sometimes take individual patristic phrases out of context. His stated approach is to examine how the Fathers and Councils actually treated heretical bishops in practice: whether they considered them already deprived of priesthood, whether they considered communion with them defiling, and when deposition took effect.

The author also treats the Councils of 879–880 under Saint Photios and 1341–1351 under Saint Gregory Palamas as ecumenical in ecclesial consciousness, even though he acknowledges that only seven Ecumenical Councils have been formally recognized in the usual official numbering.

The main thesis

The book’s thesis may be summarized as follows:

Communion with uncondemned heretics truly defiles Orthodox Christians, but this defilement does not mean that the uncondemned heretic has automatically lost the priesthood or that his mysteries have automatically become graceless before synodal deposition.

In the author’s terminology, defilement means participation in the heresy, condemnation, and schism of the heretic through ecclesiastical communion, not automatic ontological disappearance of priesthood before judgment. The author explicitly says that, according to the consensus Patrum, defilement is not to be understood as loss of priesthood in the way some rigorists claim, but as communion in the heretic’s heresy and ecclesiastical guilt.

This distinction is the key to the entire work. The author wants to preserve both principles:

1. Heresy defiles and communion with heresy must be avoided.
2. Deposition and loss of ecclesiastical rank occur by conciliar act, not automatically before judgment.

Thus, the book argues against the idea that the Mysteries of an uncondemned heretic are automatically invalid, but also against the idea that Orthodox Christians may safely or indifferently remain in communion with such a person.

Chapter A: The existence of defilement

The first chapter argues that defilement from communion with uncondemned heretics is attested in Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Fathers. According to the table of contents preserved in the online text, the chapter begins with “the existence of defilement from testimonies in Scripture, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers,” and then answers the objection that one who unites with condemned heretics does not lose priesthood without formal deposition.

The purpose of the chapter is foundational: before defining what defilement is, the author first establishes that such defilement exists. He is especially concerned with cases where the heretic has not yet been condemned. In his view, patristic practice does not allow the conclusion that no defilement exists merely because no council has yet deposed the heretical bishop.

The author’s argument is not that every association with a heretic has the same canonical consequence. Rather, he focuses on ecclesiastical communion: commemoration, liturgical communion, concelebration, and sacramental participation with those publicly teaching heresy.

Chapter B: Defilement and the subsistence of priesthood

The second chapter examines the relation between defilement and what the Greek text calls τὸ ἐνυπόστατο τῆς ἱερωσύνης, that is, the continuing concrete existence or subsistence of priesthood in a heretical cleric prior to deposition. The chapter studies this question through the Acts of several Ecumenical Councils, including the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth as the author numbers them.

The author’s conclusion is that the Fathers could regard heretical bishops as defiling, dangerous, and to be avoided, while still treating them as possessing priestly rank until formally deposed. This is especially important for the author’s rejection of the “automatic loss of priesthood” thesis.

The example of Nestorius is central. The author argues from the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council that Nestorius was not treated as already automatically deposed from the moment he began preaching heresy. Rather, the Council summoned him, examined his teaching, judged it heretical, and then pronounced deposition. The author highlights that the Council speaks of making a decision against him and states that Nestorius was deposed on June 22, 431.

For the author, this proves that the heretical bishop’s deposition is a real ecclesiastical act, not merely a declaration that something had already happened invisibly or automatically. Yet before that deposition, communion with him was still understood as spiritually and ecclesiastically dangerous.

Chapter C: The meaning of defilement according to the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the Fathers

The third chapter is the conceptual heart of the book. It examines the meaning of defilement in light of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the Fathers. The online text states that this chapter finds defilement to mean participation by knowingly communing Orthodox Christians in the heresy, condemnation, and schism of the uncondemned heretics. The author compares this to the principle of “communicating vessels”: communion transmits participation in the ecclesiastical condition of the one with whom communion is shared.

This is where the author most clearly distinguishes his position from a strictly sacramental-validity debate. He does not reduce defilement to the question, “Are the Mysteries valid or invalid?” Instead, he treats defilement as a matter of ecclesial participation and accountability. One who knowingly communes with a public heretic becomes implicated in that heresy, even if the heretic has not yet been formally deposed.

The author also examines patristic objections and passages often cited in the debate, including Saint John of Damascus and Athonite Fathers under Michael VIII Palaiologos, according to the contents shown in the online text.

Chapter D: “He who communes with the excommunicate is himself excommunicate”

The fourth chapter studies the principle:

ὁ κοινωνῶν ἀκοινωνήτῳ ἀκοινώνητος ἔστω

“He who communes with one out of communion, let him also be out of communion.”

The author argues that this principle applies not only to those already formally condemned, but also to those who are “ἀκατάκριτοι” or not yet judged, when they are nevertheless public heretics and therefore objectively outside Orthodox confession. The online text explicitly says the chapter concludes that this principle applies in the Fathers not only from a condemned “one out of communion,” but also from an uncondemned one.

This chapter is meant to show that the patristic tradition recognizes a real ecclesiastical contamination through communion, even before final synodal judgment. In other words, synodal judgment is necessary for deposition, but the faithful are not required to wait until final deposition before avoiding communion with manifest heresy.

This is also where the book’s practical anti-ecumenist thrust becomes clear. The author uses this principle to support the necessity of breaking communion with hierarchs who publicly teach Ecumenism.

Chapter E: Defilement and economy

The fifth chapter examines οἰκονομία, economy, and whether historical cases of temporary tolerance or reception of heretical clergy disprove the existence of defilement. The chapter studies seven economies, including cases connected with Saint Athanasius’ letter to Rufinianus, the father of Saint Gregory the Theologian, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Monoenergists and Monothelites, Saint Theodore the Studite, and the Franks.

The author’s conclusion is that economy does not prove that defilement does not exist. On the contrary, he argues that economy presupposes the existence of a problem that is being temporarily managed. Economy is not a denial of canonical danger; it is a limited pastoral handling of that danger under specific historical conditions. The online introduction states that the author examined seven economies and concluded that economy confirms rather than denies the existence of defilement from communion with heretics under judgment.

This chapter is especially important because it prevents the book’s argument from becoming simplistic rigorism. The author recognizes that the Church has sometimes used economy toward persons involved in heresy. But he insists that economy must be bounded, purposeful, and temporary; it cannot become a permanent excuse for communion with heresy.

Chapter F: “The omitted matters”

The sixth chapter, titled Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα, “The omitted matters,” functions as a large appendix of related canonical and ecclesiological issues. According to the online table of contents, it includes sections on the Councils, their definitions and Acts, the meaning of deposition, the meaning of anathema, objections concerning the Lateran Council, the 1983 ROCOR anathema, which council deposes the Ecumenists, and the interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council.

The chapter also includes extensive discussion of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, especially the phrase πρὸ συνοδικῆς διαγνώσεως, “before synodal judgment.” The author argues that this canon is not merely optional advice but expresses a binding patristic principle when the bishop publicly preaches heresy. The online text notes that the author is responding to the claim that treating defilement incorrectly leads some to view the second part of Canon 15 as optional.

The author also argues that ceasing commemoration of an uncondemned heretical bishop does not create schism when the separation is made because of the bishop’s heresy. Rather, the author’s position is that the heretic is the one introducing schism into the Church, while those who separate from his heretical teaching are preserving Orthodox communion.

Saint Basil and the distinction between healthy and diseased members

A major later section of the book treats Saint Basil the Great and his approach to heretics not yet condemned. The table of contents indicates that the author examines Saint Basil’s teaching on the existence of defilement, the relation of defilement to the subsistence of priesthood among heretics of his time, and Basil’s distinction between two flocks within the one Church: the healthy and the diseased.

The author uses Basil to argue that heresy creates a real wound within the visible ecclesiastical body before formal judgment. In this framework, there can be a diseased portion and a healthy portion, without implying that the Church herself has ceased to exist or that every cleric connected with the diseased portion has automatically lost ordination.

This is one of the book’s most important balancing points. It allows the author to say that uncondemned heretics are genuinely dangerous and defiling, while avoiding the conclusion that the Church has already vanished wherever such hierarchs remain administratively in place.

The book’s position on Canon 15 of the First-Second Council

The work strongly supports the use of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council in cases of public heresy. The author argues that ceasing commemoration before synodal judgment is not schismatic when done because of publicly preached heresy. In the prologue to the online posting, Geron Savvas Lavriotis says the book explains why breaking communion with un-deposed Ecumenist heretics is obligatory, what defilement of mysteries means, how anathema and deposition are to be understood, and how Canon 15 is to be interpreted patristically.

The author’s own introduction similarly frames the dispute: if defilement is wrongly denied, Canon 15 becomes optional; if defilement is wrongly equated with automatic loss of priesthood, one falls into another error.

Thus, for the author, Canon 15 is the canonical expression of a deeper dogmatic and ecclesiological reality: Orthodox Christians must not remain in communion with publicly preached heresy, even before formal conciliar judgment.

The work’s anti-ecumenist application

Although the book is historical and patristic in structure, its immediate target is contemporary Ecumenism. Geron Savvas’ prologue explicitly describes the book as written for the struggle against Ecumenism and says it addresses the necessity of breaking communion with un-deposed Ecumenist heretics.

The author’s epilogue, according to the introduction, applies the conclusions to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism in the present age.

The work therefore functions as a canonical-theological defense of walling off from Ecumenist bishops, but with a specific qualification: the author does not argue that such bishops automatically lose priesthood or that their mysteries automatically become graceless before synodal judgment. Rather, he argues that communion with them nevertheless brings defilement understood as participation in their heresy and ecclesiastical guilt.

The book’s overall conclusion

The work’s final position can be condensed into several propositions:

1. Defilement from communion with heresy is real. It is not a metaphor with no ecclesiastical consequence.
2. This defilement applies even before formal synodal condemnation, when the heresy is publicly preached and knowingly maintained.
3. Defilement does not mean automatic loss of priesthood or automatic invalidity of Mysteries before deposition. Deposition is a formal ecclesiastical act, as shown especially in the case of Nestorius.
4. Communion transmits participation. Those who knowingly commune with uncondemned heretics participate in their heresy, condemnation, and schism.
5. Economy does not abolish the principle. Historical economies are exceptional pastoral measures, not evidence that communion with heresy is harmless.
6. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council is not merely optional when public heresy is being preached; it expresses the patristic obligation to separate from false teaching before synodal judgment.
7. The contemporary application is Ecumenism. The book is intended to justify and encourage the cessation of communion with hierarchs who publicly teach or participate in Ecumenism, while avoiding the claim that such persons are automatically deprived of priesthood before a council.

In short, the book tries to occupy a middle but still militant anti-ecumenist position: no communion with public heresy, but no private declaration of automatic loss of priesthood before synodal deposition.

 

Scan of Hieromonk Eugenios’ 764-page Greek work (with 1,142 footnotes) online:

https://www.agioritespateres.com/i-ennoia-tou-molysmou/

If prayer has frozen, it is not your fault

Mykyta Rakytnianskyi | June 10, 2026

 

When the canons are long read only with the lips, while the heart remains silent like stone, this is not yet falling away from God. This coldness has an ancient name, and even the most ardent man of prayer has passed through it.

The eyes move over the lines of the prayer book from top to bottom, the lips repeat words we have known since childhood, while the mind is somewhere far away. It scrolls through the morning news or listens for whether the siren sounds. The rule is finished, a mental checkmark is made — and afterwards we will not remember a single line. Sounds familiar?

The hardest part here is not even the coldness in prayer itself, but the shame about it. We are afraid to admit to ourselves that we have long been standing before God like actors: sighing where it is required, making the sign of the cross where it is required, while inside there is emptiness and coldness.

Ice with an ancient name

This state has a precise name. The ascetics called it hardened insensibility. Saint John Chrysostom knew it so closely that he included a plea for deliverance from this affliction in his prayer: “O Lord, deliver me from all ignorance and forgetfulness, cowardice, and hardened insensibility.” This means that Christians fell into this coldness fifteen hundred years ago, long before world wars and modern social upheavals.

One naturally wants to ask about this difficult state someone who knew it not from books. Righteous John of Kronstadt is remembered by the people as a fiery pastor who celebrated the Liturgy in tears. His heart seemed to burn without pause. All the more striking is his diary, My Life in Christ. There, the man of prayer honestly recorded days when he stood before the Altar, while his heart was dry and cold. He does not judge us but supports us.

– Father, you knew this inner cold. We are praying, but the heart is like stone, the lips keep moving, and inside there is emptiness. Is this already betrayal of God?

Righteous John responds: “The evil one tries to scatter prayer like a heap of sand, to make the words like dry sand – disconnected, without moisture, that is, without the warmth of the heart.” According to him, prayer can be either a “house built on sand” or a “house built on rock”: those who pray coldly and distractedly build on sand, and such prayer falls apart on its own.

The saint did not pass judgment on us, but he named the cause of our disorder. It is the evil one who breaks our prayer into grains of sand and dries it out so that it crumbles. What is being stolen from us is nothing less than the life-giving and binding moisture of grace.

Amulet instead of God

– But we often cling to the prayer rule out of fear as well. We read a canon or the Psalter – and it feels as if we’ve covered ourselves with a shield: perhaps no missile will fall, perhaps the day will pass quietly. The prayer book has imperceptibly become an amulet. What should we do about this?

Father John responds sharply: one must not stand in prayer “with spiritual laxity.” And he recalls the stern words of the Savior: “This people draw near to Me with their lips… but their heart is far from Me.”

Here is the subtle substitution. When we read the rule only for the sake of safety, we become those who honor God with their lips, while their heart is far from Him. The amulet takes the place of God. What is frightening is not even that we are tired of war and have become accustomed to defending ourselves with prayer – it is that in such a state one can live for years without noticing the substitution.

– Then maybe we should abandon the rule altogether, if there is no feeling anyway? Not force ourselves?

The saint does not command us to abandon prayer. “Do not allow your heart to become cold, especially during prayer,” he writes.

This is not “stop praying,” but “do not let coldness enter the heart.” He does not break the framework of the rule. For when the inner core has been weakened, only the external structure keeps us afloat. To abandon prayer when nothing is felt is like removing the handrails from an icy staircase. The handrails will not warm you, but they will also keep you from falling down onto the ice.

Strength in emptiness

– And still: what can one say to God when there is real emptiness inside? When there is nothing left to force out of oneself?

Father John consoles: “The Lord is so merciful that He never despises our prayer, but graciously accepts every prayer, and Himself corrects what is imperfect in it – only let us turn to Him sincerely and not forget Him entirely.”

This is an answer that lifts a weight from the heart. An honest “Lord, I feel nothing toward You” is not a failure of prayer, but precisely the sincere turning to God that the Lord expects. We bring to God our emptiness as it is, and He Himself will make up what is lacking. The boldest thing a person numbed by coldness can do is to stop pretending to be a strong righteous person and tell the Creator the truth.

If one gathers everything the holy pastor has said, something unexpected emerges. Coldness in prayer is not a mark of separation from God. More often, it is a sign of an immense weariness of the soul from the grief and anxieties of the present days. And in this spiritual eclipse, what matters is not to forget the One to whom we once came and whom we have found in our lives.

And as a farewell, the holy righteous one leaves a counsel that helped him remain afloat: “Let every spirit be fervent in serving the Lord.” In these words there is no strict command to burn with forced zeal, only a quiet plea to preserve the last ember of faith.

One question perhaps remains. Will we ever have the courage to stand before God, feeling nothing, and quietly say: “Lord, I feel nothing toward You”

If one gathers everything the holy pastor has said, something unexpected emerges. Coldness in prayer is not a mark of separation from God. More often, it is a sign of an immense weariness of the soul from the grief and anxieties of the present days. And in this spiritual eclipse, what matters is not to forget the One to whom we once came and whom we have found in our lives.

And as a farewell, the holy righteous one leaves a counsel that helped him himself remain afloat: “Let every spirit be fervent in serving the Lord.” In these words there is no strict command to burn with forced zeal—only a quiet plea to preserve the last ember of faith.

One question perhaps remains. Can we ever have the courage to stand before God, feeling nothing, and quietly say: “Lord, I feel nothing toward You” – and believe that He who sees us through hears even such a whisper if we turn to Him sincerely? 

 

Source: https://spzh.eu/en/chelovek-i-cerkovy/93677-if-prayer-has-frozen-it-is-not-your-fault