On the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the Pseudo-Synod of Crete

 Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos | June 29, 2026

 

 

Exactly ten years ago, as is known, the pseudo-synod of Crete took place in Kolymbari, Crete, from June 16 to 27, 2016. A preeminently tragic and shocking ecclesiastical event of worldwide dimensions, with incalculable consequences for the life of the Church. An event that caused the most painful blow to the body of the Church. An event that signaled the triumph of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and filled the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant of Christ with indescribable sorrow.

Therefore, on the occasion of this sorrowful anniversary, we considered it necessary to set forth before the faithful people of God certain truths concerning the pseudo-synod, so that the older may remember and the younger may be taught.

The pseudo-synod does not constitute an organic continuation of the ancient great Ecumenical Councils, because it has nothing in common with them. And this is because:

1. All the Ecumenical Councils were convened first and foremost in order to condemn the heresies of their time. The “Council” of Crete did not identify or condemn any heresy, the word heresy being unknown in its texts, as though the Church had ceased in our time to be warred against by contemporary heresies, while the sorrowful contemporary reality bears witness to the exact opposite. On the contrary, indeed, it synodally secured and legitimized the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and recognized the heterodox as “Churches.”

2. At the Ecumenical Councils, each subsequent Council ratified the dogmatic decisions of all the preceding ones. By contrast, the “Council” of Crete did not consider it its duty to ratify any of the dogmatic decisions of the preceding Ecumenical and Endemousa Councils. And this is because, if it had done so, it would have been compelled to renew the condemnation of the heterodox as heretics, something it did not want under any circumstances.

3. It trampled upon and annulled in practice divinely inspired Holy Canons of timeless authority, such as those which forbid joint prayers, mixed marriages, etc.

4. It invited representatives of the heretical communities of the Papists, Protestants, and Monophysites as honored persons, something which is an unprecedented innovation, foreign to our Synodal Tradition. Never in the history of the Ecumenical and Local Councils has there been the phenomenon of heretics being invited as honored persons, but always as those under judgment and as defendants, as guilty of heretical teachings.

The topics and the decisions which it made were predetermined and pre-decided. Preconceived decisions, where the human factor plays the dominant, or even the exclusive, role in the making of decisions, constitute in essence a mockery of the Holy Spirit and one of the most characteristic features of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

6. This “Council” was convened in violation of the Regulations for Organization and Operation, which were signed at the Synaxis of the Primates in January 2016. The said Regulations provided, among other things, that the Council “is convened by His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch, with the agreement also of the Most Blessed Primates of all the locally Autocephalous Orthodox Churches recognized by all” (art. 1). However, four Autocephalous Churches, Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch, requested the postponement of the “Council,” with the aim of studying the pre-synodal texts anew, because they contained contradictions, ambiguities, and heterodox formulations. But because their request was rejected by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, they ultimately did not take part in the “Council.” Therefore, the “Council” was convened without the condition of unanimity provided for by the Regulations being fulfilled.

7. It caused an alteration and distortion of the traditional Synodal System and established for the first time another Synodal System, which is due chiefly and primarily to the development of a new ecumenist theory, that of the “first without equals.”

8. It had a most serious deficit of synodality, both during the period of its preparation and during its conduct, because:

a) The pre-synodal texts remained unknown for a long series of years to the Hierarchies of the local Churches and did not receive synodal study and processing by the said Hierarchies. They were communicated only in February 2016, a few months before the beginning of the “Council,” and therefore sufficient time was not given for synodal study and processing.

b) Not all the bishops of Orthodoxy throughout the Ecumene participated in it, but only twenty-four from each Local Autocephalous Church. Of the total of approximately 800 Bishops of the Church throughout the world, only 156 participated.

c) In the synodal decisions, the scheme was adopted: one vote — one Church, something which constitutes an unprecedented synodal innovation. The bishops called to participate in the “Council” were merely decorative elements, because they did not have the right to vote. Only the ten present Primates had a decisive vote, something which offends the equality of the bishops, because it transforms the primates from “firsts among equals” into “firsts without equals.”

d) The synodal role of the rest of the clergy, of monasticism, and of the faithful people of God was ostentatiously disregarded throughout the whole synodal process, as though matters of the Faith were a private affair of the hierarchs and the Primates. This is proven by the fact that the presentations and conclusions of the Conference held in Piraeus on March 23, 2016, the observations of distinguished professors of the Theological Schools, as well as other publications by recognized theologians, clergy, and laymen, were disregarded. The observations and remarks made before the pseudo-synod by the twenty Athonite Monasteries, and generally by the whole of Athonite and other Monasticism collectively, were disregarded.

e) Above all, the observations and remarks of holy men, such as Saint Justin Popović, Venerable Philotheos Zervakos, and others, who spoke in the Holy Spirit concerning the future Council, were disregarded and not taken into account.

f) The pseudo-synod proclaimed itself as the supreme authority and the final judge in matters of Faith. Therefore, the fact was overlooked that, according to the Declaration of the Patriarchs of the East of 1848, the final judge of the correctness and validity of the decisions of Councils is the fullness of the Church, the clergy, the monks, and the faithful people of God, who, with their watchful ecclesiastical and dogmatic conscience, ratify or reject the decisions of Councils.

The text of dogmatic content entitled: “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” presents heterodox formulations, contradictions, gaps, and ambiguities.

More specifically:

a) The term “Church” is used indiscriminately for the Orthodox and for the heterodox heretics, with the result that Orthodoxy is not clearly demarcated from heresy. In paragraph 6 it is stated: “Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other heterodox Christian Churches and Confessions not being in communion with her, not being in communion with her.” It is impossible for the term “Church” to be accepted for the heterodox, because they have been condemned by Orthodox Ecumenical Councils as heretics and have been cut off from her body. The attempt of the ecumenists to justify the term “heterodox Churches” as a “technical term” is misguided, because the Church never in the past, in previous Ecumenical Councils, used “technical terms” in order to express her dogmatic teaching, but the synodal Fathers always took care to formulate the dogmatic truths of the Faith with the greatest possible clarity and precision. Another justification that was put forward is that, with the phrase “historical name,” the attribution of ecclesiality to the heterodox was excluded. However, this does not stand, because the phrase “historical name” is equivalent to the phrase “historical existence,” since we never name something that does not exist.

b) The Church is presented as one and indivisible and at the same time as divided. That is, while in paragraph 6 it is stated: “According to the ontological nature of the Church, her unity cannot be disturbed,” at the same time the existence of other “Churches” is stated, with which the Orthodox Church is not in ecclesiastical communion. However, the absence of ecclesiastical communion with these “other” “Churches” indicates division and schism. At the same time, while in the text there is constant reference to the “restoration of Christian unity,” nowhere is there any mention of the repentance of the heterodox, the renunciation of their heterodox teachings, and their return to the Orthodox Church, something which shows that what is being sought is unity despite the existing dogmatic differences, and not unity in the Orthodox Church of Christ.

A most serious gap is the absence of an analytical critical evaluation of the course of all the bilateral theological dialogues with the heterodox up to the present. The necessity of this evaluation was imperative chiefly for the following reasons:

1. These dialogues have been conducted for many decades now, and therefore the pseudo-synod had the highest duty and obligation to proceed with this work, in order to decide on their future course, or on their cessation.

2. During their conduct, texts were produced, such as those of Balamand, 1993, Ravenna, 2007, Porto Alegre, 2006, Busan, 2013, and the texts of the Joint Statements of 1989 and 1990 with the Monophysites, which contain heterodox teachings and therefore should have been examined and rejected.

Another most serious gap was the absence of a study and examination of the legality, on the basis of the Holy Canons, of the entry and remaining of the local Orthodox Churches in the W.C.C. as equal members.

Yet another gap was the absence of a critical evaluation, from an Orthodox point of view, of the “Toronto Statement,” because it was considered “of capital importance for Orthodox participation in the Council, [WCC].”

The cancer of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, my brothers, which began at the start of the 20th century, unfortunately advanced gradually and spread methodically, so that in the end it found full synodal legalization instead of condemnation. What is needed now is for a true Orthodox Council to be convened, which will condemn the decisions of the pseudo-synod. This joyful event, however, is not going to happen as if by magic, that is, without the cooperation of the human factor, with Grace, of course, also cooperating. It is not going to happen without anti-heretical struggles and sacrifices, and above all without the blessed walling off, which in the present moment becomes necessary more than ever before.

 

Greek source:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRbzCDKSfdxihBKvtvMsPzORYP4980PJV8D_uMLJj4zd7l6zN1ZZqnT978m7jqsSg/pub

St. Photios the Great: On obedience to, and the burdens of, a bishop.

 

10. Why have slanders and calumnies against priests been the subject of my narrative? Why? That you may learn, beloved ones, and keep it in mind that to devise calumnies and weave deceits against Christ’s bishops is an invention of heretics, who have risen against the Son of God, our God, in drunken fury; that it is the outgrowth of men who have received in their souls so great a seed of impiety; that it is the foul deed of men who have hawked away our Christian faith; so that, when you see some of them making a show of their abuse of bishops and priests, you may remember their begetters and teachers, and recognize them for what they are, and of what stock they happen to be (for, “by their fruits,” the Lord’s saying proclaims, “ye shall know them”); that you may avoid the imitation of them whose impiety you have abominated, and lest, having severed intercourse with them but partially, you become accustomed to suck in little by little the rest of their irreverence. Is the shepherd a heretic? Then he is a wolf, and it will be needful to flee and leap away from him, and not be deceived into approaching him, even if he appears to be fawning gently. Avoid communion and intercourse with him as snake’s poison: for fish are caught with hook and bait, while an evil intercourse, which contains the poison of heresy concealed therein, has captured many of the more simple-minded who came close and expected to suffer no harm. Wherefore it is fitting to avoid such men with all our might. Is the shepherd orthodox, does he bear the seal of piety, does he have none of the heretical crew trailing after him? Then submit to him, since he presides in the likeness of Christ. Thou doest honour not to him, if thou doest it with all thy soul: Christ receives it. Do not meddle in other matters. God is their examiner; leave the judgment to Him. Do thou, however, show him obedience and a pure disposition in accordance with thy love of Christ. To others it is said, “Son of man, I have set thee as a watchman to the house of Israel”; to you it is said, “What the priests bid you observe, that observe, but do not ye do their works.” Oh, how sweet and pleasant is this saying to me, and so desirable, yet quite impossible for me now to observe! ’Tis not thy toil, He says, nor thy labour to meddle in and scrutinize the priest’s works; and do not thou do his works if they do not correspond to his words; but obey his teaching, and do not meddle in his conduct. Observe thyself, watch thyself. Leave the others to the Judge, and commit the care of them to their appointed shepherd.

11. Would that I were still in your position, would that I were enrolled, as formerly, in your ranks, that I should have no need to take account of the affairs of others, that no punishment should attend me, were I to overlook the shortcomings of my flock, that I should be allowed to look only after my own matters, and that cares of other men should not weigh down on me! That was malice indeed, and for me the worst and bitterest of malice, which snatched me away from that most pleasant, gentle and carefree life, in which I did not grieve any of my neighbours, was not required to be meddlesome towards anyone else, did not show myself severe to anyone. All was friendship and kindness, and my life was free of cares. Now, alas, the law of shepherds constrains me to grieve others, to show myself severe, to appear harsh, to judge on occasion, and to condemn—me who from the beginning have avoided this rank, and have consistently shown my aversion to it, although it did not prove possible to escape it, to have escaped which could be accounted as happiness.

 

Source: The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Mango, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1958, Homily XV, pp. 258-259.

 

A "Share" in the Priesthood: A Word About the Role of Orthodox Clergy Wives

by Presbytera Juliana Cownie

 

 

"Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things."

(I Timothy 3:11)

 

The love that a woman bears for her husband can be of two kinds. When centered in selfishness and shrouded in terms of deluded affection, it can drag at every fiber of a man's being, until his spirit is weighed down and drowned by his wife's demands. When it is a true love, that is, centered in Godliness and selflessness, a woman's love can sustain a husband through the darkest night of the soul. For the clergy wife—the Presbytera (Pres-vee-te-ra) or Matushka (Μά-tush-ka) and Diakonissa (the-a-ko-ni-sa)—, this effect is amplified in the people whom the Priest or Deacon touches. The spiritual welfare of such people is not, then, just in the hands of the clergyman, but in those of his wife, as well.

How can the wife of a traditionalist Orthodox clergyman aid her husband? First of all, simply by helping him to be traditional, she renders him powerful assistance. Married clergy who must work in the world are subject to incessant ridicule, if they adhere to Holy Tradition in regard to their personal attire and appearance. Long hair, an untrimmed beard, a rason (cassock)—the composite image of an Orthodox Priest is such an unfamiliar one to the average American that it often evokes hostility or, at the very least, amusement. Rude, silly questions and stares must be fielded daily. For the newly Ordained clergyman especially, these situations rub salt into the raw sore of his stark awareness that he is now different—truly different—from his fellow man. He realizes abruptly that he has lost forever the comfortable option of being just another face in the crowd. His Priesthood is an enduring reality and, unless he abandons it, he must accept the burden of his unique office.

But he need not accept this burden alone. A Priest's wife must be ready to help shoulder his burdens, just as he is prepared to help shoulder hers. Therefore, she must never discourage him, as the world does, from following the precepts and traditions of the Faith. Statements to the effect that she is publicly embarrassed by his appearance or that she feels he is foolishly risking advancement or promotion in his secular job because of his traditional attire—these things can be the straws that eventually break the backbone of a Priest's resolve to withstand the tide of opinion. And, should he, because of wife's resistance, buckle or fall, not only will his soul be imperiled, but hers as well.

In the parish, not only must the Presbytera or Diakonissa be her husband's unfailing support, but his example, his best witness to the virtues of traditional Orthodox piety. She should be the first in Church any time that her husband serves, and she and their children should set the standard by which the conduct of the other parishioners is measured. When the clergy wife steps into the Church, it should be evident to all that her focus is on the Mysteries which are ever present in the Altar, that she is entering into the Presence of the Kings of kings. It should be immediately apparent that she is training her children to emulate her awe and respect for God and His House.

By coming in late, chatting with this one or that, permitting her children to interrupt the services with loud or boisterous behaviors, a Priest's wife sets a wrong tone. These careless transgressions of proper Church behavior will encourage others to treat the Church like a social hall, a place where they casually drop in to honor God with their presence. In such circumstances, the services, even if the clergy are doing their best to conduct them in a pious and proper way, will assume, in the eyes of the congregation, all of the significance of a puppet show. And, indeed, if the Priest or Deacon cannot correct impious and disrespectful behavior in his own family, he will be unable to teach Orthodox piety to his parish in an effective way. A clergyman must be "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" (I Timothy 3:4-5).

Finally, and most importantly, is the matter of that amplification of love which I mentioned earlier. As the clergy wife's heart is towards her husband, both as a man and as a Priest, so will the parishioners' hearts both reflect and amplify her feelings. If she speaks to him with love and respect—calling him "Father" at all times, kissing his hand, asking for his blessing, acting in good obedience to his proper guidance, and showing charity with regard to his faults—, then the Faithful will imitate her good example and embrace him as a good pastor. But should a Priest's wife order him around as though he were a child, insist on having her own way, and defile her husband's Priesthood, she should not be surprised to see the sheep scatter, trusting in their own counsel rather than that of a shepherd obviously more witless than they.

Presbytera, Matushka, Diakonissa—honorable titles, all; and great is the responsibility invested in those who bear them, the wives of men so close to God's Holy Mysteries. A married Priesthood, like marriage itself, is greater than the sum of two individuals. Just as the wife of a Priest shares in that Priesthood, and in the honor that comes from it, so she shares in her husband's life of service to God and to His Church. She approaches both the Chalice and, ultimately, the dread Judgment Seat as the handmaiden of God. In preparation for approaching both, she must ceaselessly ask herself whether her share of this Priesthood is one which enhances and sustains her husband's witness, rendering the sum of their two souls an infinite source of opportunities for God to work through them.

At the time of my husband's Ordination to the Priesthood, we were blessed by a visit to California from Metropolitan Cyprian. At a luncheon which His Eminence hosted for the married clergy of our Exarchate and their wives, he summed up what I have said about the extreme importance of the role of the Presbytera and Diakonissa in her husband's Priesthood. I will use his wise words to conclude my comments:

"With regard to a Presbytera, let me say this. I have known many gifted and virtuous men who, because of an uncooperative wife, were nothing more than mediocre Priests. By the same token, I have known successful and tireless Priests who, though they were not particularly gifted or virtuous or distinguished by any special traits themselves, nonetheless shined forth as brilliant examples of good pastors because of the virtues and gifts of their wives."

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII (1996), No. 1, pp. 7-9.

A Parochial Anti-Ecumenist Statement: “We Will Not Permit Orthodoxy to be Profaned by Ecumenism” (1999)

—A document distributed at a Pan-Orthodox Vespers in Canada—

 

During the celebration of a Pan-Orthodox Vespers service on the Sunday of Orthodoxy this year at the Serbian Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity in Montreal, Quebec, a pamphlet entitled Voice of the Orthodox was distributed to the congregation. The text of the pamphlet—which dealt with the immutability of the Orthodox Christian Faith—was written in Greek, English, and French, and said the following:

 

Today, on this day of Orthodoxy, we are found in this holy temple in order to celebrate together the triumph of Orthodoxy over heresies. With one accord [let us proclaim]: “Behold now, what is so good or so joyous as for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 132:1). With one accord: Let us remember the blood shed by the Saints of our Faith so that “the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints” (Jude 3) might be preserved inviolate eternally.

With one accord: Clergy and laity, let us declare that we preserve our Orthodoxy, “even as they which were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered it unto us” (Cf. Luke 1:2).

But Your Eminence, revered fathers, what Orthodoxy do we celebrate today? The Orthodoxy of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Symbol of our Faith [the Creed], or the “Orthodoxy” which you have introduced into the Canadian Council of “Churches” as a member on equal terms with heterodoxy—i.e., the Branch Theory?

Do we celebrate today the Orthodoxy of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, or the “Orthodoxy” of Balamand (June 17-24, 1993), of the “Sister Churches”, in which the heretical Papal “Church” is considered equal with the Orthodox Church?

Do we celebrate today the Orthodoxy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, or the “Orthodoxy” of Chambesy—Geneva (Agreed Statement, November, 1990), wherein the Orthodox and Monophysites, after fifteen centuries, have discovered that there is no difference between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism?

As a result of all this, we the faithful people of the Lord, condemn the mistaken path taken by our Orthodox shepherds, and we proclaim our faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. With sacred emotion we proclaim that we shall keep our most holy Church of Christ unshaken and our Orthodox Faith inviolate, even as our Lord and the Apostles delivered it unto us. Even unto death, we shall remain steadfast in the Church of Christ, against which “the gates of Hades shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:18). We will not permit Orthodoxy to be profaned by accursed Ecumenism.

 

(Translated from the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, March 5, 1999)

English source (slightly corrected): Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. XXXIII, No. 13 (1486), February 28/March 12, 2000, pp. 4-5.

AI on the Extra-Canonical Consecration of Bishops

 

Blog Administrator note: Most Orthodox are unaware that the “Sister Church” and “other Lung” of the True Church (in the heretical words of Patriarch Bartholomew), the Roman Catholic Church, is about to experience a significant traditionist schism. It is actually the deepening of a large existing schism, solidified in 1988 with the independent consecration of bishops by retired French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and (the refusing to truly retire at age 84) Brazilian Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos. It was a big enough event to even be covered by secular sources like “People” magazine.

The aforementioned bishops, along with the 4 men they consecrated, incurred automatic excommunication latae sententiae. It was eventually lifted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI in an attempt to heal the division.

Now, after a general worsening of things in the Papal church, the remaining bishops of the “Society of Saint Pius X” (with over 700 priests worldwide) will be consecrating more successors on Wednesday, July 1st, due to a “state of necessity” in their church.

This begs the question of the “other Lung” of the ecumenical Una Sancta, that is, the Orthodox Church, the true and only Ark of Salvation: Are unauthorized episcopal ordinations of bishops permitted in the Orthodox Church when the visible structures of the Church are compromised by heresy?

In the interests of neutrality and objectivity, I posed the following questions to ChatGPT, the premier large language model artificial intelligence generator. Of course, there is nothing authentically authoritative about anything produced by such devices, but given the demonstrative knowledge and abilities of such technology, they can often generate food for thought.

* * *

Q. Based on the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology in times of heresy, at what point is consecrating bishops without a synodal mandate permitted by oikonomia?

(Answers generated by ChatGPT-5.5 Thinking on June 28, 2026.)

 

I’ll treat “without a synodal mandate” narrowly: not as independence from the Church’s conciliar order, but as acting when the normal synodal authority is unavailable, compromised, or actively hostile to the Orthodox confession.

 

In Orthodox ecclesiology, consecrating bishops without the normal synodal mandate can be defended by oikonomia only at the point where the preservation of the Orthodox episcopate and the pastoral life of the faithful would otherwise be impossible.

The normal rule is strict: a bishop is not self-appointed, not locally elected in isolation, and not consecrated by private initiative. The canonical norm requires election and consecration within the Church’s conciliar order, normally by several bishops and with metropolitan or synodal confirmation. Apostolic Canon 1 and Canon 4 of Nicaea express that baseline.

But in a time of open heresy, the question changes when the “normal” synodal authority has ceased to function as a genuinely Orthodox synodal authority. That does not mean every grave error, scandal, administrative abuse, or even every instance of communion with compromised persons automatically permits emergency consecrations. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council justifies separating from a bishop who publicly preaches heresy before synodal condemnation, but it does not by itself authorize the creation of a new hierarchy.

The stronger threshold is this:

Emergency episcopal consecration becomes arguable by oikonomia when there are no available Orthodox bishops, or no available Orthodox synod, able and willing to provide bishops for the Orthodox faithful without requiring communion with, submission to, or confession of the public heresy.

So the issue is not merely: “Has heresy appeared?”

It is: Has the Orthodox flock been left without a lawful way to preserve Orthodox episcopal succession, priestly ordination, sacramental order, and ecclesial governance?

Several conditions would need to be present.

First, the heresy must be public, persistent, and ecclesially consequential, not merely a private theological mistake or ambiguous phrase. The bishops or synod in question must be openly promoting, enforcing, or protecting the error.

Second, the faithful and clergy must have exhausted ordinary remedies: confession, appeal, walling off, seeking help from other Orthodox bishops, and avoiding unnecessary fragmentation.

Third, there must be a genuine danger that the Orthodox community will be left bishopless, unable to ordain clergy, receive clergy canonically, correct abuses, or preserve visible ecclesial continuity.

Fourth, the act must be done by bishops of indisputable apostolic succession and Orthodox confession, not by self-appointed leaders, isolated priests, or lay pressure groups. Even in emergency, the act should preserve as much canonical form as possible: multiple bishops, public confession of faith, clear pastoral necessity, and no personal ambition.

Fifth, the act must be understood as provisional and medicinal, awaiting the judgment or reception of a future Orthodox synod. Oikonomia does not abolish conciliarity; it preserves the Church when the ordinary conciliar mechanism has been obstructed.

Therefore, the safest Orthodox formulation is:

Consecrating bishops without the ordinary synodal mandate is permitted by oikonomia only in extreme necessity, when the canonical synodal order has been effectively paralyzed or captured by public heresy, and when failure to act would leave the Orthodox faithful without episcopal shepherding and endanger the continuity of the Church’s life.

It is not permitted merely to strengthen a faction, punish erring bishops, create a “purer” jurisdiction, or anticipate a synodal judgment by declaring all others graceless. The purpose must be preservation, not replacement of the Church’s conciliar order.

 

Q. Has the current situation in the autocephalous Local Churches been compromised, with respect to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, that could justify the consecration of bishops without a synodal mandate?

 

I’ll separate two questions: whether the Local Churches are broadly implicated in Ecumenism, and whether that reaches the emergency threshold for extra-synodal episcopal consecration. I’ll verify the current public facts before giving the ecclesiological judgment.

 

Yes — the current situation is broadly compromised with respect to Ecumenism. But I would not state, without qualification, that this automatically justifies every attempted consecration of bishops without a synodal mandate.

The distinction is essential.

The official Orthodox establishment has been deeply implicated in Ecumenism. The World Council of Churches says its membership includes “most of the world’s Orthodox churches,” alongside Anglican, Protestant, Old Catholic, Pentecostal, Reformed, and other bodies. The 2016 Council of Crete text says that “all the local Most Holy Orthodox Churches participate actively today in the official theological dialogues,” and that the majority participate in national, regional, and international inter-Christian organizations. It also states that the Orthodox Church “accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions,” a formulation that has been one of the central ecclesiological flashpoints.

So, on the level of public ecclesiastical policy, the compromise is not imaginary. It is synodally expressed, institutionally protected, and widespread.

However, two qualifications matter.

First, the compromise is not uniform in form or degree. Georgia withdrew from the WCC in 1997, and Bulgaria withdrew in 1998. The Georgian Synod’s withdrawal letter specifically cited the danger of the WCC acquiring an “ecclesiological character.” Bulgaria likewise formally withdrew from the WCC and is reported as declining participation in official ecumenical dialogues, including the international Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. That does not solve the larger problem, since both remain in communion with other Local Churches that are ecumenically active, but it prevents a simple statement that every Local Church is equally and formally committed to the same ecumenist program.

Second, even if one judges Ecumenism to be a pan-heresy, the canonical threshold for walling off is lower than the threshold for emergency episcopal consecration. Canon 15 permits clergy to separate from a bishop who publicly preaches heresy before synodal condemnation. But consecrating bishops without the ordinary synodal mandate is a much more extreme act. The normal canonical order is that a bishop is ordained by two or three bishops, and Nicene Canon 4 requires appointment by the bishops of the province, with metropolitan ratification.

Therefore my judgment would be:

The present official Orthodox situation is compromised enough to justify walling off from bishops and synods that publicly teach, enforce, or protect Ecumenism. It may also justify seeking bishops from outside the compromised structures. But it justifies extra-synodal consecrations only where there is a true state of ecclesiastical necessity: no accessible Orthodox bishop or synod of sound confession is available to preserve the faithful, ordain clergy, and maintain apostolic succession without submission to the heresy.

That is the key point: necessity, not merely protest.

If confessing Orthodox bishops already exist and are accessible, then unauthorized consecrations are difficult to defend. They risk becoming parallel factional acts rather than acts of preservation. But if the faithful are genuinely deprived of Orthodox episcopal care, and all available official avenues require communion with or submission to public Ecumenism, then consecration by confessing bishops outside the normal mandate can be defended by oikonomia as an emergency measure.

So the answer is:

Yes, the official Local Churches are broadly compromised by Ecumenism. But that fact alone does not automatically authorize new consecrations. The justification arises only when the compromise has made normal Orthodox episcopal provision impossible, and when the consecrating bishops act not to found a sect or faction, but to preserve the Church’s apostolic and confessional continuity until a future Orthodox synodal judgment.

 

Q. So, what is the ultimate answer for the Orthodox resisters today?

 

The practical answer has to be narrower than the diagnosis. A compromised age may require resistance everywhere, but it does not automatically make every act of resistance canonical or prudent.

 

The ultimate answer is:

Orthodox resisters today are justified in walling themselves off from public Ecumenism, but they are not justified in treating extra-synodal episcopal consecration as a normal or automatic remedy.

The present official Orthodox situation gives serious grounds for resistance. The Council of Crete’s document openly affirms Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement, recognizes the “historical name” of non-Orthodox “Churches and Confessions,” and states that all Local Orthodox Churches participate in official theological dialogues, while the majority participate in inter-Christian organizations. The WCC itself says that, except for Georgia, Bulgaria, and Estonia, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are WCC members, and it identifies Constantinople as a founding member.

So the resister’s first duty is confession and separation from false ecclesiology, not passive obedience.

But the canonical remedy must be proportionate. Canon 15 of the First-Second Council praises those who withdraw from a bishop who publicly preaches a condemned heresy before synodal judgment, saying they have not created schism but have labored to protect the Church from schisms and divisions. That canon directly justifies walling off. It does not, by itself, directly authorize every resister group to produce bishops.

The ordinary canonical order remains that a bishop is ordained by bishops, and the Nicene norm is provincial and synodal: all bishops of the province should participate if possible, or at least three with the written consent of the absent bishops, with metropolitan ratification. Apostolic Canon 1 also gives the minimum ordaining form: a bishop is ordained by two or three bishops.

Therefore, the practical answer is this:

Resisters should first seek existing bishops of unquestionable apostolic succession and Orthodox confession. They should not multiply consecrations merely because the official Local Churches are compromised.

Extra-synodal consecration becomes defensible by oikonomia only when all of the following are true:

1. The heresy is public and ecclesially enforced or protected.
2. The faithful have no accessible Orthodox episcopal care without submitting to that heresy.
3. Appeal to existing confessing bishops or synods has become impossible, refused, or pastorally unavailable.
4. The consecrating bishops themselves possess valid apostolic succession and an Orthodox confession.
5. The act is done to preserve the Church’s life, not to found a faction, punish rivals, or declare everyone else graceless.
6. The new hierarchy remains accountable to future Orthodox synodal judgment.

So, for Orthodox resisters today, the ultimate path is:

Wall off from Ecumenism; preserve communion with confessing Orthodox bishops where they exist; avoid both officialist submission and zealot fragmentation; and allow emergency consecrations only where episcopal continuity would otherwise be extinguished.

In simpler terms: resistance is necessary; episcopal self-multiplication is not. The right course is not “stay with Ecumenism until a perfect council appears,” but neither is it “every anti-ecumenist group may create bishops.” The Orthodox path is confessional continuity under real bishops, with extra-synodal consecration reserved for genuine ecclesiastical necessity.

What makes the Ecumenism of Crete not debatable, but clear and beyond dispute

Hieromonk Lavrentie | June 29, 2026

 

 

Starting from a text written by His Grace [Bishop] Petru Pruteanu [of Caffa] to mark 10 years since the meeting of the Council of Crete, [1] I insist on an important aspect: the branch theory in the Cretan documents is not ambiguous and unclear, but explicit. In fact, we do not have an aquarium with fish of all kinds, good and bad, as has been written before, but only something harmful.

His Grace Petru’s observations are very pertinent on one point, namely that the use of Canon 15 is not permitted for weak, confused, or contradictory dogmatic texts. However, I would be curious which passages from the document on Ecumenism “will remain valuable.” I personally have looked for ideas, not merely expressions, that would be purely Orthodox, and I have not found any.

For a correct evaluation, Ecumenism and the branch theory in all its variations should first be defined dogmatically. The demarcation does not consist in affirming that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy Church, but that she is the only one, exclusively. Or, put differently: heresies are outside the Church of Christ, not merely outside Orthodoxy. And one more aspect: the unity of the Church is not lost or affected by the existence of heresies.

Furthermore, a text is confused if it lacks clear expressions or if it contains contradictions. However, the document from Crete is explicit in an ecumenist direction and does not contain Orthodox affirmations of a nature to counterbalance the dogmatic errors in question.

Concretely, the idea of restoring the unity of the Church implies its loss through the division produced by heresies and its restoration through union with them. This perspective is profoundly un-Orthodox, because heresies affected the unity of the Church as long as they were manifesting themselves within her, but it was restored when they broke away from her. Therefore, ecclesial unity is restored by the condemnation of heresies and the removal of discord from within, not by bringing the heretics back. Not even a return through real repentance restores the unity of the Church, because it is not an extensive, territorial unity, but a qualitative one; it proceeds from a healthy bond with Christ. Thus the return of heretics only extends the unity, it does not restore it. As Saint Ignatius the God-bearer writes, heretics return to the unity of the Church, which already exists; they are incorporated into it and enjoy it or have a share in it.

Although the first paragraph of the document on Ecumenism begins with the affirmation that seems to be a denial of the branch theory, namely that the Orthodox Church is, being, the one Church, this definition is incomplete. If the specification had been added that she alone, or exclusively, or only she is the one Church, then we would have had a clear denial of the branch theory, that is, of the compartmentalization of the Church of Christ. However, the very continuation of paragraph 1 indicates the idea that the Orthodox Church, “in her profound self-awareness,” is part of the endeavor to promote Christian unity. Since self-consciousness is her dogmatic identity, being placed in such a process shows that she does not consider herself the only Church, but is part of a conglomerate of “Churches” that seek the lost unity among themselves. Therefore, we are speaking precisely about the branch theory. That is, Orthodoxy is the one Church, but it does not exclude the fact that other confessions too are the one Church, or at least part of her. On the contrary, Orthodox dogmatics affirms that heresies are not part of the body of the Church and, consequently, we cannot cooperate at the dogmatic level with these foreign formations toward the realization of unity. We can help them from outside to return, to rediscover the Church, but we do not cooperate with them in something that pertains to us. It would be absurd for Orthodoxy to work shoulder to shoulder with the enemies of the faith for the realization of Christian unity, that is, of herself.

I also mention here a heretical passage, cited from the Toronto Statement: “The WCC brings the Churches into living contact with one another in order to produce study and discussion concerning the unity of the Church.” It follows from this that there exists a Church which includes other Churches that desire to be reconciled with one another, to arrive at unity. Therefore, the Church of Christ is comprehensive and contains different Churches that have separated and that desire to return to unity. This perspective contradicts the Orthodox dogma that heresies have separated from the Church of Christ and are no longer within her, but that Orthodoxy alone has preserved this identity intact.

There is a confused use of the term “Church” for heretics in paragraph 6, but this does not change the heretical character of the text. Unfortunately, most of the discussions have focused on this appellation, ignoring the true dogmatic errors in the text. Even so, His Eminence Ierotheos showed, in his Memorandum to the Greek Synod, [2] that the first sentence of that paragraph has a heretical character, not the rest, which is only problematic.

It is painful that such relativizing approaches gain traction and keep the faithful in confusion even after 10 years. The position of the Holy Mountain is presented as a firm criticism, whereas it was nothing but an evasion of the issue in relation to the Council of Crete. [3] Completely laughable, unfortunately.

Perhaps some critics have not managed to convincingly expose the deviations of the Council, but to affirm that there are only weak or criticizable formulations is lamentable when we are speaking about the faith, which must be firm and clear.

Last but not least, the consequences of adopting Ecumenism are not insignificant. Participation in the World Council of Churches, common prayers, the relativization of the right faith, and the acceptance of mixed marriages are thereby justified. And all of these affect dogmatic life. Even if Patriarch Daniel or others affirm that dogmas were not discussed, this is as if we were to say, for example, that we are not performing medical interventions on someone, but are merely giving him some pills or treatments outside the hospital. Even if there were no discussions within doctrinal frameworks solemnly assumed as such, the texts address dogmatic issues.

It is a pity that there is no real acknowledgment of reality. If there is confusion and good mixed with evil, I am curious what that good from Crete would be. The Church of Councils at the declarative level? Well, where are the condemnations of heretics at the synodal level when we commit ourselves to the ecumenical movement? It is evident that we recognize the Councils only in order to trample them underfoot.

I do not want to contest the hierarchy and administration of the Church, but I realize that they set Christ aside in order to establish themselves. Even somewhat more distinguished bishops, such as Petru Pruteanu, prove to be simple functionaries who do not have the courage to acknowledge a reality, but only criticize in the same diplomatic manner what was ratified in Crete, offering other solutions, but still relative ones.

 

1. https://www.teologie.net/2026/06/26/eclesiologie-zece-ani-creta/

2. https://paltin-petruvoda.ro/mitropolitul-ierotheos-vlachos-studiu-teologic-despre-sinodul-din-creta-si-despre-biserica-greciei-la-sfantul-si-marele-sinod-din-creta-studiu-integral/

[English text: https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/holy-great-council-menu/4705-ni-intervention-hierarchy-cog-nov-2016]

3. http://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/recomandari/mesajului-sfantului-munte-despre-sinodul-din-creta-impotriva-tulburarilor-schismatice/

 

Romanian source:

https://theodosie.ro/2026/06/29/ce-face-ecumenismul-din-creta-sa-nu-fie-discutabil-ci-clar-si-fara-tagada/

 

Saint Glicherie of Romania

 

On 15th June on the Church Calendar, we commemorate the Holy Hierarch and Confessor Glicherie of Romania. St. Glicherie was born on 9th February 1891 and named Gheorghe after the Holy Great Martyr George. His father died soon after he was born, and by the age of seven he was an orphan. Gheorghe spent his youth in purity of body and spirit and this naturally led him to the monastic life. He placed himself under obedience to Hegumen Theophil, abbot of the ancient monastery of Cetățuia.

On Christmas Eve 1916 Gheorghe was tonsured a monk taking the name Glicherie which means ‘one who is sweet’ in Greek. The new monk Glicherie’s obedience was to work in the kitchen, preparing food and tending the kitchen fire. Whilst fulfilling this hard obedience, he was careful not to miss the church services.

During World War One, a temporary hospital was set up in the monastery to care for the sick and wounded. Undisciplined soldiers, however, often stole from the monastery. When Fr. Glicherie found a soldier stealing vegetables from the monastery garden he told the soldier that there was no need to steal, but only to ask for food and he would be given it. The soldier’s heart, however, was unrepentant. The next day, Fr. Glicherie found the soldier dead, his hand still holding a green pepper which he had stolen. The unexplained death of another soldier stealing vegetables led to the Metropolitan of Moldavia visiting the monastery to advise the soldiers to ask for more food from the monks rather than stealing it.

Fr. Glicherie was ordained deacon in January 1918 and priest two years later. He continued in his various monastic obediences and was later appointed abbot of the Pokrov skete in Neamț where he was joined by his fellow-ascetic Hierodeacon David.

The introduction of the New Calendar by the Romanian Church in 1924 caused turmoil throughout Romania. That year, October 1st on the Church calendar became October 14th. To make matters worse, two years later the Romanian Church started to calculate the date of Pascha according to the New Calendar as well.

The Fathers of the Pokrov skete had been studying the calendar question carefully. Rejecting both pressure and promises of earthly glory Fathers Glicherie and David fled to the mountains so they could worship according to the Church calendar.

Father Glicherie was troubled by the thought that he might be making a mistake considering that the Church leaders and intellectuals had accepted the New Calendar. One night he beheld himself in a vision swimming alone against huge waves. As he began to despair, he saw Christ coming to him, walking on the water. Christ raised him up from the sea and from his despair.

In 1927 the two fathers travelled to Mount Athos where they were tonsured to the Great Schema. On their return to Romania, they settled again in their little hut, surrounded by the other monks that they had gathered.

On the Great Feast of Theophany, 1929, the persecution of the Fathers started in earnest when they were denounced by the local New Calendar priest. As a result, the police raided the huts and arrested the two fathers. Although they were released by a judge, the same priest accused them of being ‘enemies of the state’ later in that year. This priest joined the police in looting the chapel even sitting on the Holy Table and smoking cigarettes. As a result of his false accusation Fr. Glicherie spent three months in prison where he was severely tortured.

The courts refused Fr. Glicherie permission to return to his hut after his release from prison. He also had to live in hiding due to the frequent police raids. During this time, he was given aid and shelter by pious Orthodox Christians.

Fr. Glicherie travelled to Jerusalem in the following year where he served the Liturgy in many of the churches. On Pascha he served with Archbishop Anastassy who later became First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.

This was an important period for the traditional Orthodox Christians of Romania. A new church was built in Rădășeni and others in neighbouring districts. Fr. Glicherie was serving in this church on the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul when he was attacked and viciously beaten by the police. His parishioners rescued him and hid him, tending his wounds. Throughout this time of persecution Fr. Glicherie taught his flock not to repay evil with evil, but to demonstrate their fear of God by their peaceful demeanour.

In 1936 Fr. Glicherie travelled to the Holy Mountain to find an Old Calendar bishop to return with him to Romania but he was unsuccessful. On his return, he blessed sites for new churches, but the growing number of Old Calendar Orthodox Christians caused certain New Calendar priests to react with hatred.

Fr. Glicherie was slandered by them for being both a communist and a member of the fascist Iron Guard movement. They did this in order to have him found guilty of a crime that carried the death penalty; he was duly arrested in 1939 and sentenced to death.

Fr. Glicherie was imprisoned in a camp as part of a group of eighty prisoners who were scheduled to be shot in two groups of forty. Fr. Glicherie was assigned to the second group. After hearing the shots and screams as the first forty were killed he prepared for death with prayer, as did the other prisoners. However, it was revealed to Fr. Glicherie as he was praying that all their lives would be spared and so it came to pass. Just before the scheduled execution of the second group the government decided that the prisoners should be released.

Nonetheless, the persecution of the traditional Romanian Orthodox Christians continued. Fr. Glicherie, in particular, was targeted by the authorities. In 1941 he was forced to flee again and hid in the forests near the village of Slătioara where he and Fr. David were given help by the villagers. It was here that the Monastery of the Transfiguration (below) was constructed.

 

 

As World War Two drew to a close, work began to rebuild the churches destroyed by the pre-war persecutions.  However, the Romanian Old Calendar Church still had no bishop. They were not able to invite bishops from abroad because of the danger involved in visiting Romania at this time. This situation could not be allowed to continue.

The Old Calendar clergy therefore approached Bishop Galaction, a well-respected Romanian New Calendar bishop known for his deep faith and love for traditional Orthodoxy. Bishop Galaction had previously warned against changing the calendar and was persuaded to join and lead the Old Calendar Church of Romania.

On May 21st 1955 Bishop Galaction arrived at the newly finished Monastery of the Transfiguration and was met by Fathers Glicherie and David who had suffered so much for the Orthodox faith. Bishop Galaction was forced by the authorities to leave the monastery shortly afterwards, but while in exile he consecrated Bishops Evloghie, Meftodie and Glicherie. On the day after his consecration, Bishop Glicherie returned to the Monastery of the Transfiguration at Slătioara which he had founded. He remained there until his repose on June 15th/28th 1985.

Holy Hierarch Glicherie pray to God for us!

 

Source: http://brookwoodblogger.blogspot.com/2018/06/saint-glicherie-of-romania.html

 

Illnesses Are Gifts of God

“It is My will, and it is often to one’s advantage, that one’s body be sick, that his soul might be saved.”

 

 

In the Kalyve of St. John Chrysostomos, which belongs to the Kout­loumousiou Monastery’s Skete of St. Panteleimon, Monk Daniel is still alive and struggling in asceticism. As he himself assures us, and as we have also learned from other Fathers, he has been sick for over twenty years: his head, back, kid­neys, heart, feet, and sometimes his whole body, hurt. He has been to many doctors and has under­gone many examinations, X-rays, and radiography, all with the same outcome.

The doctors cannot find any bodily disorder; nevertheless, the brother continues to suffer from an inexplicable illness, with which doctors and science are unable to help him.

* * *

A few years ago, on July 27, during the Vigil for the Feast of St. Panteleimon, Brother Daniel, with great faith and tears in his eyes, besought St. Panteleimon with these words:

“O Saint of God and Patron of our Skete, you who are a doctor and who, for the love of Christ, were martyred and shed your blood, beseech Christ our Master to grant me my health, so that I, too, will be able to glorify His Name and chant during Vigils in good health.”

Having said this, from his pain and exhaustion, Monk Daniel fell into light sleep and saw St. Panteleimon in a vision kneeling before the throne of God and asking for the brother’s health to be restored.

Monk Daniel heard Christ the Master say to St. Panteleimon:

“My brother, Great Martyr Panteleimon, are you perhaps more compassionate than I? Or do you have greater love for the people than I do? I know that you shed your blood for My sake, but did I not also shed My Blood, and continue to shed it every day, for the salva­tion of men’s souls? Know that it is My will, and it is often to one’s advantage, that one’s body be sick, that his soul might be saved. This is how I desire many people to be saved.”

When Brother Daniel heard these words, he woke up and glori­fied the Name of God, also thanking St. Panteleimon for his efforts and intercession. And immediately, as he himself told us, a burden was lifted from him and he was inwardly assured that he must bear his cross and his illness with patience and thanksgiving.

 

Source: Monk Andrew the Hagiorite, Gerontikon of the Holy Mountain [in Greek] (Athens: 1979), pp. 287-288. Publication layout G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle.

The Subtle Effects and Sad Consequences of Ecumenism and Modernism on Orthodox Worship and Liturgical Piety

by Archbishop [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Etna

 

 

I constantly emphasize to people that we are not, like some hapless religious bigots—and they unfortunately exist—, opposed to ecumenism because we believe or—God forbid—hope that all of those outside Orthodoxy are going to be lost and condemned; rather, we stand in opposition to anything that, drawing on the dangerous spirit of religious and confessional relativism, impugns our conviction that the Orthodox Church contains and continues the fullness of the Church which, in the words of St. Athanasios the Great, “the Lord delivered, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved.” It being our duty to pass on that which we know to be capable of transforming man and the world, we protect our Faith not solely or primarily for ourselves, but, in the Evangelical spirit of love, for our fellow men and women.

If ecumenism has rendered Orthodoxy just one among many religions and bereft of claims to the powers of spiritual and historical primacy—and dubbed us Orthodox traditionalists, according to the standards of “ecumenical love,” ignorant troglodytes—, the Orthodox ecumenists bear much of the responsibility for what this has done to the integrity of Orthodoxy and for the distortion of its witness in the contemporary ecumenical world. In this same way, each of us Orthodox today also bears no small responsibility for overlooking, much to our shame, the effects of religious syncretism (and our own laxity in practice) on Orthodox worship and liturgical piety. Here, too, we have thus compromised our witness to the world.

When Russia was converted to Orthodox Christianity, according to pious accounts, it was because Prince Vladimir’s representatives, who had gone throughout the world looking for a religion for his people, returned to the Prince and told him that they had, in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople, experienced the beauty of a form of worship so lofty and exalted that they did not know whether they were in Heaven or on earth. Whatever the historical accuracy of this story, it captures perfectly the power of Orthodox worship and liturgical piety to effect contrition and true belief in those who avail themselves of its sacred dimensions. In our worship of God, we Orthodox bring Heaven and earth into communion; we enter into communion with God and bring the soul into intimate contact with its Creator.

How do we do this? First, we worship in an ascetic spirit: we stand while we worship, offering God our minds and bodies in prayer. We fast before Liturgy. We separate ourselves from the world, to whatever extent possible, in preparation for entering into the ethereal House of God, clad in the best of clothes, with the best of intentions, setting aside enmity with our enemies, and ready to stand spiritually clean before God through the Mystery of confession. The Church, in turn, is adorned in an other-worldly fashion, containing nothing of the daily world and reflecting—even in its iconographic style—another realm: a sacred world transformed and imbued with a new fragrance, a new language, and a new vision, as represented by the incense which we offer up to God, by the exalted poetry of the services, and by the subtle light and uplifting atmosphere of the sacred space which is the Church itself. And in this place, an eschatological New World present in some way even in this fallen domain, we come into direct communion with Christ, taking into ourselves—through the Mystery of the Eucharist, which is the central focus, aim, and purpose of our liturgical worship—His very Body and Blood and being united by Grace with Him, becoming “small Jesus Christs” within Jesus Christ and sons of God by adoption.

The power of the worship and liturgical piety of Orthodoxy, which has drawn even the most aggressive atheist to belief in God by way of a true encounter with Him in the Divine Liturgy, is one of the key Evangelical tools of the Orthodox Church. Yet, while we Orthodox anti-ecumenists may defend our Faith against the theological and ideological assaults of ecumenism and religious syncretism, we have been far too negligent—and often sinfully and willfully so, as I said above—in preserving the purity and integrity of this wondrous gift of our liturgical (in essence, our Eucharistic) traditions.

I remember my grandfather’s explanation of how the abuse of pews first entered into the Orthodox Church. He traced this generally to European influence and the desire of Orthodox to imitate what they considered the more “civilized” practices of the Latins and Protestants. However, the personal motivations behind this innovation he attributed to pride, since many Orthodox (especially in America) were insulted when non-Orthodox asked them if they were unable to afford pews; to spiritual laxity, since, after the calendar reform and the emergence of modernist ideas, lukewarm believers came to resent the ascetic aspects of worship—which were always a part of the Orthodox ethos and even Orthodox theology, as Father Georges Elorovsky observes; and ecumenism, since, as Orthodox began to look at their Church as something “between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism,” rather than a thing in and of itself, they came to believe that Orthodoxy could incorporate into its worship the “comforts” of heterodoxy (as they had the “convenience” of the New Calendar) without negative effects.

My grandfather’s trenchant observations, precisely on the mark, had prophetic dimensions. Now, eight decades after he first saw a decline in the integrity of Orthodox worship and liturgical piety in the Church, and only a little more than forty years after he spoke to me about these trends, we see a complete distortion of Orthodox worship. Even if one goes to historical Churches in Greece, while they may have Byzantine Icons of a traditional kind, they are often filled with pews (or with fancy carved chairs arranged as pews), completely spoiling the open space of the Church, which represents the worshipping world. Prostrations and similar signs of humble piety are fast disappearing, if simply because they are made impossible by these impediments. In this country, accustomed as they are to sitting at all times in Church, the faithful actually balk and protest at any attempt to encourage them to worship standing, as Orthodox tradition dictates. As a result, they sit, as though in a theatre, watching the “performance” of what they think is a “ritual” disconnected from them, separated, as they are, from participation in the leitourgia (literally “the work”) of the people of God.

In the past, Orthodox Churches had benches or choir stalls (stasidia) around the perimeter of the sacred space of the Church, so that the old and infirm could sit and where, during long services, those who were standing could rest for a few minutes, before standing again. Today, even in some so-called Old Calendar Churches (i.e., traditionalist Orthodox communities) in this country, naves and narthexes are crowded with pews or rows of ugly chairs, and all sorts of “comfortable” devices are not uncommon. Convenience and comfort have produced churches modelled on the halls and gathering places of the heterodox, if not the meeting places of secular clubs. Bright lights—rather than natural light, subtle oil lamps, and candles—distract the senses; worldly, quotidian artifacts clutter the Church; and familiar and profane adornments and even art (as though Byzantine iconography were just a style to be featured among many other kinds of artistic expression) are scattered about the place where one once encountered God in mystery.

Altar rails, Latin-style votive lights, and other non-Orthodox religious trappings of every kind can be found today in many Orthodox Churches—and, as I have observed, even in Old Calendarist Churches. The theatre has set the standard for our Churches. Chanting, rather than humbly offered as a melodious tribute to God, is frequently theatrical, dramatic, and operatic. In the few instances that the worshippers rise from their chairs, the thought of a bow or a prostration (which is, again, impossible to execute) is the last thing in the minds of any worshipper. If the believers are well-dressed, it is rarely with the thought in mind of meeting, in the Church, the Divine Master and the King of Kings; if anything, it is to impress others with one’s expensive clothes or one’s supposed taste.

The consequences of all of this are devastating. Once the faithful have lost a sense of asceticism in worship, they expect the Church to cater to their needs. One no longer sees an old and lame worshipper apologizing—unnecessarily—for his or her inability to stand through a service; rather, even healthy believers expect the Church to serve their needs and look to their comfort. Such an attitude impedes communion with God, which has already become difficult in an ecclesiastical atmosphere which has lost its ability to foster contrition, silence, and mystery, and which has, once more, become more like the theatre. Moreover, it subtly creates, by way of the influence of forms of worship foreign to Orthodoxy, a disrespect for the other ascetic elements of our Faith: fasting, self-sacrifice, self-abasement, and long-suffering patience.

And what is the final outcome of this deterioration in the traditional worship and liturgical piety of the Church? Ironically enough, it leads to the very thing that—though it may be opposed in theory and word— has been allowed to impact so negatively the inner life, the worship, of the Church; that is, it leads to ecumenism itself. The subtle effects of ecumenism and a spirit of modernism on the worship and liturgical piety of the Church, eating away at the heart of the Eucharistic and ascetic traditions of the Church, ultimately affect, not just the faith of the Orthodox ecumenists, but that of the uncareful anti-ecumenists. Thus it is that, denying to their children the unique experience of Orthodoxy, which so overwhelmed St. Vladimir’s emissaries in Constantinople, and the spiritual fruit that Orthodoxy produces when cultivated in the refined soil of traditional piety, here in the West our Old Calendar Churches have fewer and fewer young people. As the youth see a faith that proclaims itself unique, yet which draws on the ethos and thinking of the ecumenists, with their “comfortable” pews and salvation without ascetic sacrifice, they reject traditional Orthodoxy as “just another religion.”

As well, when Orthodox traditionalism succumbs to preaching in word and not in action, it becomes ecumenical in a way that most people do not understand. Bereft of practice and an external manifestation of its beauty and power, Orthodox resistance—and especially when it is preached with the fanatic fervor of those unwise in spirit—loses its quality of love. If Orthodox worship draws others by its externals, it is only because these externals are formed by, and endowed and redolent with, love. For true spiritual beauty cannot be separated from the Evangelical love that streams forth from our worship, which is based upon, drawn from, and fully revealed in the love of Christ which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist truly is. When we compromise that witness, then we become, whatever our confession, and no matter how loud or bombastic our pronouncements against religious syncretism, the essence of what ecumenists are: We are one with those who preach a false love.

Our anti-ecumenical efforts, therefore, have only just begun. They must continue, as well, in the restoration of the right worship central to right belief and True Faith.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXV (2008), No. 3, pp. 30-33. Reproduced in Orthodox Heritage, Vol. 17, Issue 05-06, May-June 2019, pp. 4-5.

“Struggle against the enemy in every way…”

A Letter of Metropolitan Makary II (Nevsky) of Moscow (+1926)

 

 

December 9, 1908

May the mercy of God be with you, sister Matrona.

I received your letter of November 30 on December 8. I had long been waiting for your reply and grieved in my soul, thinking that you had entirely strayed from the path of the Lord, being led astray by the enemy. Do not despair, servant of Christ: the enemy has deeply wounded you, but do not cease seeking the healing of these wounds from the physician of souls and bodies, our Lord, who has purchased us with His Blood and is ready to suffer again for every perishing soul, though the Blood He has already shed on Golgotha for sinners of the whole world and all times is sufficient.

Struggle against the enemy in every way: be strong in the Lord. Flee from temptations. Fight against sinful habits, fight against thoughts, for everything begins with a thought. And the enemy tries to instill evil thoughts. Guard yourself more often with the sign of the cross. When an evil thought appears, try to drive it away by remembering death and the torments of hell. Imagine an angel standing beside you; remember that you belong to Christ, that you partake of His Divine Body and Blood. It is difficult to struggle against sinful passions, but it is absolutely necessary to overcome them: in hell, it will be more painful and more terrible. Avoid people, avoid wicked companions. If you see temptation for yourself somewhere, flee from that place. Do not be ashamed to confess everything: do not spare yourself, the revelation of thoughts is the best way to overcome sinful habits. If you grow weak in the struggle—if you stumble again or fall—do not despair, rise and fight again, for despair is more sinful than all sins. In what the Lord finds a person, in that He will judge them. Do not live in that monastery where the corruption you know of has spread, so that you do not become infected by it. Practice the Jesus Prayer. Walk before the Lord. Struggle against the enemy, may the Lord be your helper. Write; if you find it difficult to confess to an unknown spiritual father, then write to the one to whom you have already confessed everything and ask for absolution. Even an absolution given from afar has power. By no means keep a disturbing sin long on your conscience, confess it frequently, do not be afraid, do not be ashamed; you are confessing to the Lord, we are all sinners before Him and in need of His mercy and forgiveness. May He help you. Do not be afraid!

The Lord be with you!

Give my regards to all the devout worshippers of the Annunciation Metochion. I remember them well. Be saved!

Your well-wisher and intercessor in prayer,
A[rchbishop] Makary [of Tomsk; later Metropolitan of Moscow]

 

Russian source: Молись, борись, спасайся!: Письма митрополита Макария (Невского) духовной дочери [Pray, struggle, be saved!: Letters of Metropolitan Makary (Nevsky) to his spiritual daughter], Moscow, "Lodja," 1998.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Makarij_Nevskij/molis-boris-spasajsja/