By Monk Barsanuphius (Bogoslavsky) of Mount Athos,
Disciple of Elder
Raphael (Berestov) (+2026)
Written / shared in January 2018 in
three parts.
(Part One)
PROLOGUE
In the history of the Universal
Church, it is not difficult to observe the following paradox: in the struggle
against heresies, many zealots for the truth, often without realizing it
themselves, became heresiarchs or teachers of schism. Perhaps nine out of ten
heretics became such while combating some particular heresy.
Often, even when the struggle
itself was correct, certain minor yet noticeable distortions arose in the
Church’s dogmatic teaching—remaining within the bounds of Orthodoxy—and these
later became the soil from which new heresies and schisms sprang, against which
the Holy Fathers then had to struggle anew.
Thus, in the long struggle
against Arianism, a certain “distortion” arose—an overly one-sided emphasis on
the Divine Nature of our Savior Jesus Christ—which, to some extent, contributed
to the emergence of the heresy of that “great intellectual,” Apollinarius,
Bishop of Laodicea. Or again, the not entirely precise terminology of Saint
Cyril of Alexandria provided the soil for the rise of Monophysitism and the
falling away from the Universal Church of an entire continent—all of Africa.
It was not by chance that, in the
previous “post,” I included the 32nd Oration of Saint Gregory the Theologian:
“On Maintaining Good Order in Discussion, and on the Fact that Not Every
Person, Nor at Every Time, May Discourse About God.” In it, Saint Gregory
convincingly shows that the cause of unjustified divisions and schisms is
excessive “ZEAL AND FORCE OF CHARACTER … JOINED WITH IMPRUDENCE AND IGNORANCE.”
So that something similar does
not occur under our present circumstances, we must wage war against both those
“on the right” and those “on the left”; we must fight on two fronts. On the
one, “left-hand,” side, we must resist and expose the spreading heresy of
Ecumenism. On the other, “right-hand,” side, we must not leave unnoticed
another malady: immoderate zeal and impetuosity, which lead to a rupture not
only with a heretically-minded patriarch and his like-minded followers, but
with Mother Church Herself.
FIRST DISCOURSE
The Narrow Path to
the Heavenly City
Reading the Lives of the New
Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, I often caught myself thinking that, in a
certain sense, I “envied” them. The Lord gave them the opportunity to manifest
their love for Him. Confess Christ before the godless authorities; make no
compromises with your conscience; do not agree to serve the NKVD; do not write
denunciations against your brethren; go into exile, to the camps, or before the
firing squad—and you are saved. Everything is clear and straightforward, even
if it may not be easy for cowardly flesh.
But now I see that the Lord has
appointed for us an even heavier cross. These are not openly brutalized and
satanic persecutors and destroyers of the order established by God, but cunning
and crafty heretics who seek imperceptibly to steal from us the most precious
thing we possess—the truth, and with it, Christ Himself, for Christ is the
Truth and the Way leading to eternal life. And because of the lack of God-wise
guides on the path of salvation, and because of our own lack of humility and
patience, this cross becomes still more difficult for us, and this path becomes
still narrower and more thorny.
How narrow the path leading to
eternal life is, Holy Scripture shows us very clearly.
The Prophet Ezra received a
revelation from God:
“…a city is built and set upon a
plain, and is full of all good things; but its entrance is narrow and set in a
dangerous place, so that on the right hand there is fire, and on the left deep
water; AND THERE IS ONLY ONE PATH LAID BETWEEN THEM, that is, between the fire
and the water, CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING ONLY A SINGLE HUMAN FOOT” (3 Ezra
7:6–8).
That is to say, neither more nor
less than A STRIP 10–12 CENTIMETERS WIDE OVER THE ABYSS OF ETERNITY.
And all of us must pass along
this narrow and terrifying path! There is no other road to the heavenly city,
the Jerusalem Above.
“On the right”—the fire of zeal
not according to knowledge, which casts one into the abyss of schism.
“On the left”—the turbid water of
the heresy of Ecumenism and indifference toward matters of faith.
Similar to this revelation to the
Prophet was a vision granted to a certain monk named Joasaph of the Russian
Monastery of Saint Panteleimon on the Holy Mountain of Athos, in the middle of
the nineteenth century. At first, he was very zealous in the ascetic struggle.
But later he grew cold and fell into spiritual laxity. Yet because he greatly
venerated the Great Martyr George the Victory-Bearer and loved to read the
Akathist to him, the Great Martyr did not disdain his prayers, but in a
wondrous vision led him to the King—Christ—and interceded for him.
This vision contains the
following passage:
“All the while that the
angel-like youth was speaking with the monk Joasaph, they were walking along a
narrow road, on both sides of which crosses were depicted upon the walls,
indicating the direction of the way. As he passed them, the beautiful youth made
the sign of the Cross and said: ‘We venerate Thy Cross, O Master, and we
glorify Thy Holy Resurrection,’ telling the monk Joasaph to do the same.
They walked for quite a long
time, and at last the narrow road came to an end. Beyond it began deep
precipices and cliffs.
Fear and trembling seized the
heart of the monk Joasaph when they approached the edge of an immeasurable,
dark, and gloomy abyss. IN BOTH LENGTH AND BREADTH THIS ABYSS WAS LIKE A
BOUNDLESS SEA, and the darkness above it seemed so dense that one could touch
it with one’s hand. Beyond the abyss, very far away, there could be seen an
exceedingly high mountain reaching up to heaven.”
Across the middle of the abyss
there stretched a terrifying little bridge—a round log NO WIDER THAN A HUMAN
PALM. One end of this bridge was fixed where the narrow road ended, while the
other reached the foot of the lofty mountain. WHEN THE WIND BLEW, THE BRIDGE
SWAYED AND TREMBLED LIKE A LEAF ON A TREE.
Fear and trembling seized the
monk Joasaph when he realized that, IN ORDER TO REACH THE MOUNTAIN ON THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ABYSS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CROSS IT BY THIS NARROW BRIDGE.
Then his wondrous guide again
reproached him for neglecting the Jesus Prayer and for thinking about things
that filled him with fear and timidity. “Brother,” he said to the monk Joasaph,
“give me your hand and continually say the Jesus Prayer, thinking of nothing
else.”
Thus, holding hands, they
fearlessly set out across the abyss on the bridge which, as we have said,
swayed and shook like a leaf on a tree. When they reached the middle of this
dark abyss, the monk Joasaph’s companion said to him: “HERE MAKE THE SIGN OF THE
PRECIOUS CROSS OVER YOURSELF AND IN YOUR PRAYER INVOKE THE JOYFUL NAME OF THE
ALL-HOLY THEOTOKOS AND EVER-VIRGIN MARY, SHE WHO IS FULL OF JOY, FOR IN THIS
PLACE HER ALL-HOLY NAME HAS GREAT POWER.”
Father Joasaph made the sign of
the Cross over himself and said inwardly: “MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS, HELP ME, A
SINNER.” And—O wonder!—such strength and boldness came upon him that all
trembling and fear vanished, even though the bridge continued to sway and shake.
After proceeding along the bridge for quite some time, they crossed the abyss
and found themselves at the foot of the mountain.
Again, it is that same narrow
path, only “ONE HUMAN FOOT” wide.
And one more image, this time
entirely contemporary. You and I have set out from Jericho for Jerusalem (the
analogy with the Gospel parable is obvious to everyone). Halfway there, we come
upon a complicated network of roads: a roundabout with numerous turnoffs
leading in different directions. Someone has decided to play a joke, removed
all the road signs, and written “JERUSALEM” everywhere.
FIRST. As we enter the
roundabout, we must reduce our speed and proceed slowly; otherwise, at high
speed, the car will simply run off into the ditch.
SECOND. If we do not know this
road well and have never traveled it before, it is better to make an extra
circuit around the roundabout, or even to stop for a while, switch on the
hazard lights, and wait for someone who knows the ONE true road well.
If you and I turn onto the wrong
road, then no matter how carefully we drive along it, and no matter how good
that road may be, we will never reach our destination. Nor does it matter that,
at first, it may run almost parallel to the correct road. Little by little, it
will nevertheless lead us away in another direction, and you and I will not
reach Jerusalem.
The excessive speed in this
parable is UNREASONABLE ZEAL AND IMPETUOSITY, mixed with PRIDE AND ARROGANCE,
which prevent the mind and heart from calmly and correctly perceiving the
present ecclesiastical situation. It causes a person to choose and select
canons and quotations from the Holy Fathers that correspond to the opinion of
the possessor of such unreasonable zeal, rather than to the one true mind of
the Church—a malady from which, without exception, all heretics and schismatics
suffer.
The “hazard lights” here are
earnest and humble prayer to God, that He Himself might send the right person
or the appropriate guidance in the dogmatic and canonical writings of the Holy
Fathers and teachers of the Church, so that one may discern the difficult
situation of today without error. Here it would also be fitting to recall the
vision of the Venerable Anthony the Great. When he saw the snares of the devil
spread over the whole earth and asked the Lord, “WHO, THEN, CAN ESCAPE THESE
SNARES?” the divine answer came to him: “HUMBLE-MINDEDNESS.”
As the Venerable Paisios the
Hagiorite says, we should try to place at the end of our assertions not an
exclamation mark, but a question mark; better still, two; and if we put three,
that would be better yet. Of course, this should not apply to fundamental—that
is, entirely evident—dogmatic and canonical principles. But if there is heated
controversy over certain “complicated” questions, and EVEN THE OPINIONS OF
ELDERS DIFFER, then is it for us, whose hearts have not been purified of the
passions, to draw extremely categorical conclusions?
STILL LESS SHOULD WE PRESUME TO
JUDGE THE OPERATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF THE OPERATION OF DIVINE GRACE. For this,
one must possess a pure mind capable of comprehending the depths of mystical
theology, and a pure heart, so as to perceive not one’s own thoughts, nor
thoughts suggested by the “tangalashka,” but THE WORDS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. As
Saint Gregory of Nyssa says: “...THEOLOGY IS, IN TRUTH, A HIGH MOUNTAIN, STEEP
AND PRECIPITOUS AND INACCESSIBLE, WHOSE VERY FOOT MOST PEOPLE SCARCELY REACH.”
And the very first thing that we
must always remember and never forget is the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who said: “AND THEN SHALL MANY BE OFFENDED, AND SHALL BETRAY ONE ANOTHER, AND
SHALL HATE ONE ANOTHER. AND MANY FALSE PROPHETS SHALL RISE, AND SHALL DECEIVE
MANY. AND BECAUSE INIQUITY SHALL ABOUND, THE LOVE OF MANY SHALL WAX COLD”
(Matt. 24:10–12).
In this well-known passage from
the Holy Gospel, I would especially like to draw attention to the Savior’s
words, “SHALL HATE ONE ANOTHER,” and to the words, “THE LOVE OF MANY SHALL WAX
COLD.” This is precisely the loss of spiritual balance, the loss of the
SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Whoever loses this balance will
undoubtedly fall into the abyss, and it makes absolutely no difference whether
to the left or to the right; the result is the same—the eternal perdition of
the immortal soul. As our dear ever-memorable Father Kirill Pavlov used to say:
“THE STRUGGLE FOR LOVE CONTINUES UNTIL ONE’S LAST BREATH.”
Only by remaining upon this firm
Christian foundation of love and humility can one attempt to reason about
anything: about dogmas, canons, heresies and schisms, heretics and schismatics.
WITHOUT LOVE I AM “SOUNDING BRASS OR A TINKLING CYMBAL.” WITHOUT LOVE I AM
“NOTHING.”
Holy Mountain, Athos. January 20,
2018. Feast of the Venerable Euthymios the Great.
(Part Two)
SECOND DISCOURSE
The Consequences
of Unreasonable Zeal
In this second discourse, I would
like to dwell on the consequences of that unreasonable zeal and impetuosity
which were discussed in the first discourse.
At present, here in Russia,
events are being repeated almost exactly as they occurred in the Local Churches
of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania nearly a hundred years ago, in connection with
those Churches’ adoption of the New Calendar.
This is hardly surprising, since
the inventor and teacher of all heresies and schisms follows the same script in
every age; only certain “scenery” changes.
And now we are observing the very
same thing among some of our zealots of immoderate impetuosity: first, a pious
separation from heretics, that is, the cessation of the commemoration of the
heretically-minded Patriarch Kirill; then the very same disputes concerning the
presence of Grace—first of all in the Mysteries, and afterward in the entire
Local Church.
Before beginning the polemic and
demonstrating, from the patristic Tradition of the Church, the validity of the
Holy Mysteries and the presence of the Grace of the Holy Spirit in the
Universal Orthodox Church—and in the Russian Orthodox Church in particular—let
us cite the historical example of our Greek brethren, the zealots: an example
of precisely what such disputes about Grace and the Mysteries led to, and of
the very conclusions that can now often be heard from brethren of extreme zeal.
“The Old Calendarists, also known
as zealots (from the Greek, zilotaí), also known as the Resisters, also
known as the ‘Genuine Orthodox Christians’ (GOC), constitute an ecclesiastical
movement that arose in Greece in the 1920s. In 1923, without any consultation
with the other Local Churches, the Church of Greece introduced into its
liturgical use the so-called ‘Revised Julian Calendar,’ according to which all
fixed feasts began to be celebrated according to the new (Gregorian) calendar,
while the movable feasts continued to be observed according to the Julian Paschalion
(Old Calendar).
This transition to the new
calendar created a whole series of inconsistencies in the liturgical order of
the Church of Greece. In addition, it caused enormous disorder in the
ecclesiastical life of Greece, giving rise to a popular “resistance movement” against
this unjustified reform. At first, this movement was led by zealot monks who
had been expelled from the Holy Mountain of Athos for refusing to commemorate
their New Calendarist ecclesiastical authorities and for preaching schism. The
Greek government unleashed severe persecutions against the Old Calendarists,
while the Church subjected them to harsh ecclesiastical censures. They, in
turn, also went to the opposite extreme and declared all who had accepted the
“Revised Calendar,” OR WHO WERE SIMPLY IN COMMUNION WITH SUCH PERSONS, TO BE
APOSTATES WHO HAD FALLEN AWAY FROM THE CHURCH AND BEEN DEPRIVED OF GRACE. They
proclaimed themselves “Genuine Orthodox,” and all New Calendarists heretics.
In the years 1925–1930, there
were about 800 parishes of Genuine Orthodox Christians in Greece, and by 1934
the total number of those resisting the reform was approaching two hundred
thousand. But until the mid-1930s they did not have a single Old Calendarist
bishop of their own. Then, in 1935, three metropolitans of the Church of
Greece—Germanos of Demetrias, Chrysostomos of Florina, and Chrysostomos of
Zakynthos—announced their adherence to the Genuine Orthodox Church (GOC).
Having declared all New Calendarists schismatics DEPRIVED OF THE GRACE OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT, they consecrated four more hierarchs from among the zealot
hieromonks. Thus the Old Calendarists acquired their own hierarchy, “parallel”
to that of the Church of Greece.
The Church of Greece, naturally,
did not recognize the consecrations performed by the three censured
metropolitans and declared them themselves deposed from the episcopate. Soon
afterward, all seven Old Calendarist hierarchs were sent into exile by the
Greek authorities. Three of them—Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Zakynthos and two
of the newly consecrated bishops—after some time repented and returned to the
fold of the Church of Greece. The four remaining zealot hierarchs, having
quickly returned from exile, formed the Holy Synod of the Greek Old Calendarist
Church.
In 1937, the first major division
occurred within the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. HAVING FAILED TO AGREE
ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE MYSTERIES OF THE NEW CALENDARISTS POSSESSED
GRACE OR WERE DEVOID OF GRACE, the zealots split into two groups: a moderate
group headed by Metropolitans Germanos of Demetrias and Chrysostomos of Florina,
and a radical group headed by Bishops Matthew of Vresthena and Germanos of the
Cyclades, whom they had consecrated in 1935. Thus arose the two principal
currents within the Greek “resistance movement”: the Florinites (so called
after the title of their ideological leader, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of
Florina) and the Matthewites (who received their name from the “fanatical”
Bishop Matthew).
In 1943, further divisions
occurred: Metropolitan Chrysostomos broke communion with Metropolitan Germanos
after the latter began seeking reunion with the Church of Greece, while Bishop
Matthew quarreled with Bishop Germanos, who seven years later, in 1950, joined
the Florinites. In 1945, two of the “zealot” bishops whom Metropolitan
Chrysostomos had consecrated in 1935—Chrysostomos of Megara and Polykarpos of
Diavleia—once again left the Church of Greece and joined Metropolitan
Chrysostomos, only to return again to the Church of Greece nine years later, in
1954.
Left in proud isolation, Bishop
Matthew in 1948 ventured upon an absolutely uncanonical act: he single-handedly
consecrated (!) four new “bishops” from among his associates. By this act, the
“fighter for canonical purity” violated a whole series of strict canons of the
Universal Church—the First Apostolic Canon, Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical
Council, and Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Thus there arose an
independent, but entirely unlawful, self-consecrated Matthewite “hierarchy.”
The “zealot of Vresthena” died in 1950 and is venerated by his followers as a
“great hierarch and wonderworker.”
The Florinites, who were more
moderate and tolerant in their attitude toward the Church of Greece, did not
wish to aggravate the existing division within the Greek Church and therefore
refrained from carrying out new episcopal consecrations (although, unlike the
Matthewites, they possessed all the external conditions necessary for doing
so). After the successive deaths of Bishop Germanos in 1954 and Metropolitan
Chrysostomos in 1955, the Florinites were left without a hierarchy and for five
years were governed by a council of archimandrites.
In 1960, two bishops of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, without the blessing of their Synod
(!), consecrated the Florinite Archimandrite Akakios as a bishop. Then, in
1962, another ROCOR hierarch, together with him, performed five further
episcopal consecrations for the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, likewise
without the authorization of the ecclesiastical authorities of the Russian
Church Abroad. In this way, the Florinite hierarchy was restored.
For more than ten years, the
Florinites maintained unity among themselves. In 1971–72, there was even, for a
short time, a reconciliation between them and the self-consecrated Matthewites;
that is, for almost a year, the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece once again
acquired some semblance of unity, twenty-four years after its first schism.
But this unity did not last long.
Two years after the renewed rupture with the Matthewites—that is, beginning in
1974—the Florinites themselves gradually began to fragment into small
“factions” and “concords,” existing in a state of permanent internecine
conflict.
Thereafter, the fragmentation of
the zealot groups assumed the character of a geometric progression. The
Florinites especially “excelled” in this. But the Matthewites as well
eventually split into three self-consecrated synods anathematizing one another (the
most recent schism in their ranks occurred quite recently, in June 2003,
following the election of the new primate of the so-called Andrewite branch of
the Matthewites—“Archbishop of Athens” Nicholas).
As of today, there are around
twenty (!) Greek Old Calendarist churches at enmity with one another. And their
“multiplication by division,” sad as it is, will most likely continue. In the
early 1990s, some of the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece opened parishes in
Russia and the countries of the CIS as well, gathering under their wing a small
portion of our homegrown zealots.
Besides Greece, analogous “Old
Calendarist” movements also arose in Romania and Bulgaria, as well as among the
monks of the island of Valaam during the period when it was under Finnish
jurisdiction—that is, in those countries whose Orthodox Churches had adopted
the New Calendar. (“Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotism,” note on pp.
87–90).
As we can see, the picture is
extremely sad and unseemly. And saddest of all is that, to repeat, all of this
is now taking place before our very eyes in Russia, almost exactly as before:
the same zeal not according to knowledge among certain brethren who have ceased
commemorating the heretically-minded Patriarch Kirill; the same assertions that
the Mysteries in the Russian Orthodox Church are “devoid of grace.”
From all this there naturally
arises the question: what, then, are we to do so as not to repeat the mistakes
of the Greek zealots? In this connection, Elder Gabriel of Koutloumousiou put
it well: “WE CEASE COMMEMORATING HERETICALLY-MINDED BISHOPS, AND NOTHING MORE.”
“And nothing more” here means:
FIRST, that we do not create any “synods” of our own; SECOND, that we do not
leave and join any other “synods or jurisdictions” whatsoever, but remain
within those Local Churches in which we were born unto eternal life, and within
those Local Churches bear witness to the purity of Orthodoxy; THIRD, that we do
not touch upon the question of whether the Mysteries possess grace or are
“devoid of grace,” but await the convocation of a lawful Local Council or, if
God grants it, an Ecumenical Council, for the condemnation of the heresy and
the heretics; FOURTH, that we admonish and call upon, but do not judge or
condemn, our fathers, brothers, and sisters who have not yet realized the full
gravity and extent of the apostasy of Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew (and
those of like mind with them), and who have not yet ceased commemorating
heretically-minded hierarchs.
This position completely
coincides with the position and ecclesiology of the Hieromartyr Kirill of
Kazan, to a detailed examination of which, God willing, we shall return in the
future. THE CESSATION OF COMMEMORATION AND THE BREAKING OF EUCHARISTIC
COMMUNION WITH A HERETICALLY-MINDED BISHOP IS A MEANS OF COMBATING THE SPREAD
OF HERESY WITHIN THE CHURCH. IT IS, SO TO SPEAK, AN ADDITIONAL ENCLOSURE WITHIN
THE CHURCH’S ENCLOSURE, protecting against wolves in sheep’s clothing who have
entered within the Church’s enclosure and are destroying the rational sheep.
The difference lies only in the
fact that the “opposition” to Metropolitan Sergius was headed by bishops and,
in numerical terms, considerably exceeded the present movement of those who
commemorate “every Orthodox episcopate.” Of course, another significant
difference is that Metropolitan Sergius’s violations were of a canonical
character, whereas the violations of Patriarch Kirill—in his words, deeds, and
writings—are of a clearly dogmatic character.
Nevertheless, this does not
permit us, in our struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, to go beyond the limits
strictly established by the Holy Canons of the Church. Otherwise, as the
proverb says, it is a case of “out of the frying pan and into the fire.” For
what difference does it make whether one falls from the ark of the Church into
the stormy sea from the “left-hand side” of Ecumenism and indifference toward
matters of faith, or from the “right-hand side” of immoderate impetuosity and
unreasonable zeal? The result is the same—eternal death outside the Church, and
therefore outside Christ, outside God.
Here I want to add a
qualification, since I have already been criticized for the phrase: “the spread
of heresy within the Church.” Naturally, when I say “within the Church,” I mean
within the “ecclesiastical organization,” and not within the Church as the Body
of Christ. Heretics, as individuals, are cut off from the Church—the Body of
Christ—from the moment they accept heresy in their mind, that is, from the
moment of their inward assent to the heresy (just as with other sins:
fornication, murder, hatred of one’s neighbor, and so forth). But until their
conciliar condemnation, until their lawful deposition from the priesthood,
their sacred ministrations and the Mysteries celebrated by them remain valid,
just as the Mysteries celebrated, for example, by a priest living in
fornication and continuing to serve the Liturgy—to his own condemnation—remain
valid.
May our Lord Jesus Christ and His
Most Pure Mother, the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos, help all of us to preserve
our spiritual balance during this difficult period of the raging storm of
heresy, and not to drown in the waves of extremes and passions; to preserve
love, patience, and forbearance toward our fellow brothers and sisters in
Christ, serenity of spirit, and discernment of mind.
I ask forgiveness from everyone
if I have caused anyone to stumble in any way, and I ask for your blessing and
holy prayers, that the Lord may not permit me to go astray, nor to lead others
astray unto perdition. I tremble at the responsibility, but I also fear
disobedience and the carrying out of my own reasoning. Your brother in Christ.
Holy Mountain, Athos. January 23,
2018. Feast of the Hieromartyr Clement of Ancyra and the Martyr Agathangelos.
(Part 3/Final)
THE PRINCIPAL
ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF THE GRACE-FILLED CHARACTER OF THE MYSTERIES IN THE
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
Vision of the
Fiery Chalice During the Divine Liturgy. Contemporary Footage
In our two previous discussions,
we spoke about the narrowness and danger of the path leading to the Jerusalem
Above, and we also considered the question of unreasonable zeal, impetuosity,
and their consequences in ecclesiastical matters. Now let us present the
arguments in defense of our position, for which I often have to endure
reproaches and accusations of being “loyal” to heretics and of allegedly
holding an “indecisive and ambiguous” position.
To begin with, I would like to
say that in the Church of Christ no personal opinion or desire whatsoever has
any right to exist. Such a thing simply cannot exist by the very nature of the
Church as the one theanthropic organism, whose soul, according to the Holy
Fathers, is the Holy Spirit Himself—the Spirit of Truth. The task and meaning
of man’s entire existence in the Church is to conform all his thoughts and
desires to the thoughts and desires of the Most Holy Trinity. Therefore, we
must consider and accept not what Patriarch Kirill, or Priest Georgy Maximov,
or Priest Alexey Moroz, or Dmitry Zadornov, or I myself, and so forth, think
and desire, but what the Holy Spirit says and wills.
Did the monk Barsanuphius simply
take it into his head, for no reason at all, that the Mysteries are celebrated
among heretics, and so begin saying such “foolish things”? Or did the more
“right-wing” zealots—Father Alexey Moroz, Hieromonk Gabriel Kondrashev, or
Dmitry Zadornov—simply decide that the Mysteries among heretics who have not
yet been condemned by conciliar judgment cease to be celebrated, and so they
“ceased to be celebrated”? But since it is clear to any reasonable person that
two opposing opinions cannot both be correct at the same time, IT IS FOR US TO
DETERMINE WHICH OF THESE TWO OPINIONS CORRESPONDS TO THE MIND AND COMMAND OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
It is clear to all of us that the
will of the Holy Spirit, and with Him of the entire Undivided Trinity, is
expressed in Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Church, in the
decrees of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and also in the prevailing
opinion of the Holy Fathers, the so-called consensus patrum.
I would also like to emphasize
that in Orthodox theology, unlike Roman theology and still more Protestant
theology, there are and in principle can be no contradictions whatsoever. There
are dogmas and revelations given by God to man which cannot be fully expressed
in human words—for example, the consubstantiality and indivisibility of the
Holy Trinity, or the manner of the unconfused union of the two natures in
Christ. BUT THERE SIMPLY ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY, NOR CAN
THERE BE. Therefore, the presence of a direct contradiction in anyone’s
opinions or assertions indicates that those opinions or assertions are
erroneous.
Having initially made just one
error of some kind, a person, without noticing it himself, sets out upon the
wrong road and, by a logical chain, draws further erroneous conclusions. Had
that first error not been made, his entire logical chain would have been
correct. He “quite reasonably” wonders, and at times even becomes indignant, as
to why others do not believe him or listen to him.
Let us begin from this point. THE
FIRST POSTULATE of those who have deviated “to the right” is: THE MYSTERIES ARE
NOT CELEBRATED AMONG HERETICS. Among heretics who have been condemned by a
Council of bishops, the “mysteries” indeed ARE NOT CELEBRATED—for example,
among Nestorians, Monophysites, Latins, or Protestants. But in the case of
those who received the grace of the episcopate or priesthood through the lawful
laying-on of episcopal hands and SUBSEQUENTLY deviated into heresy and preach
heresy, but have not yet been condemned by a Council of bishops, the Mysteries
continue to be celebrated until their conciliar deposition from sacred orders.
THE SECOND POSTULATE of the
“right” follows directly from the first. In a polemic responding to our
preceding assertion (below we shall see that this is not our own assertion, but
a patristic one), the “right,” who, in the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian,
“wish to be more right than the right,” say: THE HOLY FATHERS DID
NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HERETICS WHO HAD BEEN CONDEMNED BY A COUNCIL AND THOSE
WHO HAD NOT YET BEEN CONDEMNED.
AND IT IS PRECISELY HERE THAT THE
MAIN ERROR OF THE “RIGHT” LIES. This is the point at which they take the wrong
turn. If one accepts this postulate of theirs, then they are correct:
Patriarchs Kirill and Bartholomew are heretics in exactly the same sense as the
Nestorians, Monophysites, the Pope of Rome, or Protestants. Consequently,
following the logical chain, all those who remain in Eucharistic communion with
them themselves become heretics—merely by commemorating them—are deprived of
the Grace of the Holy Spirit, that is, of Chrismation, while priests are
deprived of the grace of the priesthood; and naturally, the Mysteries are not
celebrated by them.
And this, dear brothers and
sisters, is what the “right” say ABOUT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, ABOUT ALL
THE PATRIARCHATES. That is to say, no more and no less, that in their opinion
the “Church” consists ONLY OF THEM—a few hundred, or perhaps two or three
thousand, people.
Here I will present an argument
of my own, which I call a “popular” argument. Why “popular”? This argument, of
course, has no canonical force, but it often has a very sobering effect on
those who are wavering or who have not yet become firmly established in their
error.
As we have said, the “right”
maintain that THE ENTIRE UNIVERSAL CHURCH has fallen away from the truth,
fallen into heresy, and been deprived of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and that
now THEY, THE “RIGHT,” ALONE CONSTITUTE THAT VERY UNIVERSAL CHURCH AGAINST
WHICH THE GATES OF HADES SHALL NOT PREVAIL!
That is to say: at the
Trinity-Sergius Lavra, by the relics of the Venerable Sergius; at the Kiev
Caves Lavra, by the relics of the Venerable Anthony and Theodosius; at the
Pochaev Lavra, by the relics of the Venerable Job; at Diveyevo, by the relics
of the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov—and inside the “Holy Ditch” as well; in
Jerusalem, at the Holy Sepulchre; on the Holy Mountain of Athos—EVERYWHERE
HERETICS ARE SERVING AND NOWHERE ARE THE MYSTERIES BEING CELEBRATED? THAT IS
QUITE A CLAIM, IS IT NOT?
When I presented this argument to
one sister in Christ who had deviated “to the right” and fallen under the
influence of Hieroschemamonk Daniel Filippov, in an attempt to keep her from
sliding into schism, she simply erupted into an incredible torrent of vile
abuse against the monastic fathers of the Lavra and the nuns of Diveyevo. This
showed what sort of spirit such misguided “zealots” can be led by. I do not
wish to condemn them. I pity them just as I pity those other brothers and
sisters in Christ who are lukewarm and indifferent in matters of faith and who
have clung to a “blind,” “deaf,” “mute,” and unreasoning “obedience” to the
ecclesiastical authorities, “for fear of the bishop.”
But within this “popular,”
non-canonical argument, as I have called it, there is one INDISPUTABLE FACT
proving that the Grace of the Holy Spirit remains in the Universal Church and
that her Mysteries are valid. On Great Saturday, the HOLY FIRE descends not
upon some “ultra-correct” Greek zealot “synod,” nor among our “Genuine Orthodox
Christians” or “catacomb Christians.” Nor does it descend upon Father Alexey
Moroz, Daniel Filippov, Gabriel Kondrashev, or other priests who speak of the
Mysteries in the Universal Church as being devoid of grace.
But the HOLY FIRE DESCENDS AT THE
HOLY SEPULCHRE, IN THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM OF THE UNIVERSAL ORTHODOX
CHURCH.
[Note: see https://zenit.org/2026/09/07/does-a-fire-miraculously-ignite-at-the-holy-sepulcher-in-jerusalem-the-matter-ends-up-in-court-a-greek-court-provides-an-answer/
for a different viewpoint on the issue of the Holy Fire. – Blog Admin.]
And we all know perfectly well
that it cannot descend among heretics. The split column bears witness to this.
Heretics seized the Holy Sepulchre by force, and the Holy Fire descended not
inside the Edicule, but where the Orthodox were standing. Two Athonite monks
whom I know personally were at the Holy Sepulchre this past Great Saturday and
personally witnessed the descent of the Holy Fire. One of them was close to the
Edicule, and when the Holy Fire reached him, he “washed” his face with it. His
hair and beard were not singed in the slightest (at a considerable distance
from the Edicule, when the fire begins to burn, the beards of some daring monks
and priests even catch fire).
Now let us consider the strictly
canonical and patristic testimonies showing that, in the case of those who
preach heresy but have not yet been condemned by a Council of bishops, the
Mysteries continue to be celebrated until their conciliar deposition from
sacred orders.
At the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, the question arose as to how the iconoclast heretics were to be
received: whether they were to retain the right to exercise the priesthood and
remain in their existing clerical rank. A whole series of canons and testimonies
was examined: 1) Apostolic Canon 51; 2) Canon 9 of Nicaea; 3) Canon 3 (2, 4) of
Ephesus; 4) Saint Basil the Great to Amphilochius—188; letters of Saint Basil
the Great—251, 263, 99, 240; 5) the decree of the Council of Ephesus concerning
the Messalians; 6) letters of Saint Cyril of Alexandria—57, 56; 7) Saint
Athanasius, “To Rufinianus”; 8) examples from the histories of Socrates and
Theodore the Reader, from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and from the
Life of Saint Sabbas—concerning the reception of those who had been ordained to
the priesthood by heretics.
A number of patristic opinions
and historical analogies spoke in favor of economia. Thus, Saint Basil
the Great considered it proper that the Encratite heretics, when received into
Orthodoxy, should be rebaptized, but he did not wish thereby to frighten them
away from the Church; nor did he object to those cases in which certain Encratites
had already been received in their existing episcopal rank. The Third
Ecumenical Council decreed that the Messalian heretics were to be received in
their existing rank. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, one of the most zealous
champions of the purity of the faith, advised against being overly exacting
toward repentant Nestorians, “for,” in his words, “the matter requires great economia.”
The more zealous Studite monks
proposed for consideration the letter of Saint Athanasius the Great “To
Rufinianus,” in which the practice of the Council of Alexandria of 362 toward
Arian clergy was set forth: the “leaders of impiety” were to be forgiven, but
were not to be given a place among the clergy, while “those drawn in by
necessity and coercion” were to be forgiven and permitted to remain among the
clergy. As we can see, the issue here is whether or not they were to be
permitted to exercise the priesthood, but there is not even the slightest
suggestion that the Mystery of the priesthood was invalid in the case of
preachers and adherents of heresy.
Further examples were also cited
of heretics being received in their existing rank: Marcellus of Ancyra; and, at
the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Berytus.
I would like at once to
anticipate a possible objection to this argument. If one wished, one could
object and cite the example that even those received from a heresy already
condemned by Councils, such as the Latin heresy, are often received “by economia”
in their existing clerical rank. In such a case, the Mystery is effected—or, as
some say, supplied—not among the heretics, but when the heretics are received
into the One Catholic Church. THAT IS, AT THE MOMENT OF THEIR REPENTANCE.
Therefore, the reception of heretics in their existing rank is not irrefutable
proof that the Mysteries are celebrated among heretics who have not yet been
condemned by conciliar judgment. I fully agree. But the following argument
constitutes SIMPLY IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the Mysteries are indeed celebrated.
During the consideration of the
reception of the iconoclast heretics AT THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, THE
ORDINATION OF HERETICS WHO HAD NOT YET BEEN CONDEMNED WAS UNQUESTIONABLY
RECOGNIZED. The following examples were cited: the Hieromartyr MELETIOS OF
ANTIOCH (a friend of Saint Basil the Great) WAS ORDAINED BY ARIANS; Saint CYRIL
OF JERUSALEM WAS LIKEWISE ORDAINED by Acacius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of
Scythopolis, FERVENT ARIANS (with whom Saint Basil the Great was not in
Eucharistic communion); Saint ANATOLIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE WAS ORDAINED BY THE
HERETIC DIOSCORUS; JOHN OF JERUSALEM WAS ORDAINED BY SEVERIANS; and THE
MAJORITY OF THE FATHERS OF THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL WERE ORDAINED BY
MONOTHELITES.
So far, not one of the
“right-wing” zealots has been able to refute this argument for me. Indeed, by
its very nature it is simply impossible to do so. EITHER ONE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THE MYSTERIES ARE CELEBRATED BY PREACHERS OF HERESY WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN
CONDEMNED, OR ELSE THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED HOLY FATHERS WERE NOT BISHOPS AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, NOT HIERARCHS—which is unquestionably blasphemy against the
Church of God, which glorifies them as hierarchs. And while one might suppose
that the ordination of heretics themselves, after they had converted from
heresy, was “supplied” when they were received into Orthodoxy, in the present
case THERE WAS SIMPLY NO SUCH RECEPTION, because they had not “fallen out” of
the Church. Accordingly, ORDINATION PERFORMED BY HERETICS WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN
CONDEMNED BY A COUNCIL IS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT RECOGNIZED AS VALID.
Now let us cite two specific and
clear patristic statements on this point. THE VENERABLE NICODEMUS THE
HAGIORITE, in the second note to his commentary on the Third Apostolic Canon in
the Pedalion, clearly states that if there has been no deposition from
sacred orders by a council, then the Mysteries are celebrated.
“…However, IF A COUNCIL DOES NOT
ACTUALLY CARRY OUT THE DEPOSITION OF PRIESTS FROM SACRED ORDERS, OR THE
EXCOMMUNICATION FROM THE CHURCH, OR THE ANATHEMATIZATION OF LAYMEN, THESE
PRIESTS AND LAYMEN ARE NOT IN FACT DEPOSED FROM SACRED ORDERS, EXCOMMUNICATED
FROM THE CHURCH, OR ANATHEMATIZED. They are, however, liable here to deposition
from sacred orders, excommunication from the Church, and anathematization, and
there—to the judgment of God. Therefore, THOSE FOOLISH PEOPLE GREATLY ERR WHO
SAY THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME ALL WHO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED UNCANONICALLY ARE IN
FACT NOT ORDAINED. Those who say such things simply delight in condemning
everything sacred, and they do not understand that THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE
CANONS, IF THERE IS NO PRACTICAL INTERVENTION BY A SECOND PARTY, THAT IS, BY A
COUNCIL, DO NOT TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND ARE NOT EXECUTED OF THEMSELVES
BEFORE JUDGMENT.
The Divine Apostles themselves
show us in Canon 46 that A BISHOP OR PRESBYTER WHO ACCEPTS THE BAPTISM OF
HERETICS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEPOSED FROM SACRED ORDERS; RATHER, THE ORDER IS
GIVEN THAT THEY BE JUDGED, AND IF THEIR GUILT IS PROVED, LET THEM BE DEPRIVED
OF THE PRIESTHOOD: THUS DO WE COMMAND.”
Here I would like to emphasize
this patristic thought. Nowadays, not only among the “right,” but also in our
own circles of moderate zealots, one often hears—and sees on Internet
pages—such a concept as “self-anathema.” Here the Venerable Nicodemus the Hagiorite
states clearly and unequivocally that “self-anathema,” in the sense in which
many now understand it, SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. They fail to take account of the
particle “LET” in the episcopal and priestly oath: “let me be deprived,” “let
me be condemned.” That is: “I ought to be condemned; let me be condemned; I
agree to this if I preach heresy.” But this does not mean that he is
automatically already condemned from the moment he begins to preach heresy. And
the overwhelming majority of the canons, with the rarest exceptions, contain
this particle “LET.” This means that an ecclesiastical trial must take place
and the person must be condemned for the ecclesiastical offense in question.
But until an ecclesiastical judgment has taken place, no “self-anathema” takes
effect. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
Another saint, the VENERABLE NIKODIM
(MILAŠ), in his commentary on Canon 4 of the Council of Antioch, states clearly
and explicitly:
“IF A BISHOP BEGINS TO PREACH
HERESY or organizes a schismatic community, HE DOES NOT THEREBY YET LOSE THE
RIGHT TO PERFORM ORDINATIONS; but if such a bishop, for this or some other
grave offense, were condemned by a council and definitively deposed from his
rank, he would lose all his hierarchical rights, BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
DEPRIVED OF THE GRACE OF THE PRIESTHOOD AND OF THE RIGHT TO BE A MEDIATOR OF
THIS GRACE TO OTHERS; that is, such a person can no longer ordain anyone,
BECAUSE DEPOSITION—BY WHICH WE MEAN, OF COURSE, COMPLETE DEPOSITION (παντελὴς
ἀφορισμός)—IS PRECISELY THAT CANONICAL ACT BY WHICH A GIVEN PERSON LOSES
THE SACRED AUTHORITY WHICH HE HAD POSSESSED UNTIL THEN and is reduced to the
status of a layman, such as he was before his ordination.”
Here attention should be paid to
the words “COMPLETE DEPOSITION.” This means, then, that there is also a “NON-COMPLETE”
deposition? Yes, precisely. It is this “NON-COMPLETE” deposition that we mean
when we say that heretically-minded hierarchs are false patriarchs and false
bishops. They are “FALSE” because they preach heresy and lead the blind sheep
obedient to them into the pit of perdition, but not because the Mysteries are
no longer celebrated by them. While the period of struggle against heresy
continues—a period which in the Church has sometimes lasted fifty or sixty
years—until the heresy, in the form in which it is preached by the heretics,
and the heretics themselves are condemned at a great council of the whole
Church, the Lord exercises economia with regard to the Mysteries
celebrated by heretically-minded hierarchs for the sake of the people, who are
sometimes unable to understand clearly a complicated ecclesiastical situation.
The Lord is not a tyrant who merely waits for us to make a mistake so that He
can immediately cast us all into hell. He is longsuffering until the storm
subsides, the ecclesiastical sky clears, and the sheep can clearly see who is a
shepherd and who is a false shepherd.
CONCLUSION
In concluding this discourse, I
would like to add a qualification. Just as in every discourse that calls for
zeal for the purity of the faith, for the cessation of commemoration of the
heretically-minded Patriarch Kirill or Bartholomew and other heretics, I try to
add a qualification warning against the extremes of schism, so here too such a
qualification is necessary.
Despite the fact that the
Mysteries are celebrated by hierarchs who have not yet been condemned, this
must not become an excuse for complacency or indifference toward the
lawlessness taking place in the Church, toward the spread of the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism, or toward the construction by false patriarchs and false bishops of
a new religion of Antichrist. We must not lay down the weapons given to us by
the Holy Spirit Himself through the Holy Fathers and the Holy Councils, resting
calmly in “expectation” of the moment when grace will depart from the churches
and when it will finally become impossible to go there for confession and
Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ because the Mysteries will simply no
longer be there. Nor should we wait and indifferently watch while others, in
the words of the Venerable Paisios the Hagiorite, “pull the snake out of its
hole”—the “snake” of the pan-heresy and of the new religion of Antichrist.
Each of us is a small cell within
the one living theanthropic organism of the Church. And since the virus of a
deadly heretical disease has entered this organism, every cell, according to
its strength, must resist that virus, so that the whole organism may be healed
and so that the cell itself may not perish, infected by the virus of
indifference, and fall away from the fullness of the Church together with the
heretics.
And the most perfect and
effective means in this struggle—the one that heretics fear like fire—is the
cessation of commemoration of heretically-minded bishops and the breaking of
Eucharistic communion with them; the erecting of an additional enclosure within
the Church against the heretics; the exposure of their lawlessness; the
disregarding of their unjust ecclesiastical censures, which in such a case have
no force whatsoever; and the continuation by each person of his service to the
Church according to his own rank and in his own place.
I would also like to note that
all of this has been written not with the aim of somehow humiliating,
insulting, or “nailing down” our brothers in Christ who have deviated too far
“to the right.” We are all human, and anyone can make a mistake. If even the
Venerable Seraphim of Sarov said that he had erred when he “spoke from himself,
without first testing it in prayer,” then what can be said of all of us? I
sincerely wish that Fathers Alexey Moroz, Daniel Filippov, and their other
like-minded associates would humbly recognize their deviation and return to the
proper course of the struggle against the heresy of Ecumenism. Only the devil,
and one possessed by the devil, can rejoice in division. Therefore, if I have
hurt anyone by too harsh a word, I ask forgiveness, and I ask everyone for
their holy prayers.
Holy Mountain, Athos. January 25,
2018. Commemoration of Saint Gregory the Theologian.
The sinful monk Barsanuphius
Bogoslavsky
P.S. Four days ago, when I began
writing the third, principal part of On Unreasonable Zeal and Schisms, a
monk from our brotherhood approached me and showed me this photograph, which
had been sent to him by an acquaintance who is a hieromonk. The photograph
shows the Divine Liturgy being celebrated by one of the hierarchs of the
Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (see photo above).
Russian sources:
Part One: https://vk.com/id451801315?w=wall451801315_386
Part Two: https://vk.com/id451801315?w=wall451801315_388
Part Three (Final): https://amin.su/content/analitika/9/5484/
