A Homily on Confession

by Archbishop [Metropolitan] Chrysostomos of Etna (+2019)

 

 

One of the most difficult things for the Orthodox Christian — and especially for converts from denominations in which confession is almost unknown — is the development of a true appreciation for the Mystery of Confession, which is, as St. Gregory Palamas tells us in his very eloquent language, essential to our spiritual “cleansing” (“Homily XXV,” Hapanta ta Erga, ed. Panagiotis K. Chrestou, Vol. X, p. 169). Many people think that Confession is somehow an optional aspect of Orthodox spiritual life, while others imagine that some personal confession to God, bereft of that emptying-out of the ego before a Priest that marks a true first step towards genuine repentance, is somehow a substitute for the Church’s Mystery. Such thinking is quite unfortunate and leads not a few believers to an inauthentic Orthodoxy and to spiritual ruin. What is said in the “closet” (St. Matthew 6:6) surely helps one spiritually, and particularly those few who have that intense “friendship” with God that comes only with many years of spiritual experience and a certain charism from God. But even for such individuals, like those of us who are spiritual neophytes, the Church’s Mystery of Confession is indispensable.

What, indeed, could ever replace that humbling experience of putting off all social pretense, posturing, hypocrisy, self-assertion, and ego-generated bravado — the general self-advocacy that all of us embrace before others and before the world — and uncovering our inner selves before Christ in the form of a fellow human? We are lifted up in such humility, transformed by such honesty, and comforted in the good counsel of our spiritual Father and by the Presence of Christ, Who hears through the Priest our inner repentance and our fervent desire for transformation and Who, “alone having the power to forgive sins,” forgives us through the Priest of our shortcomings. And what experience could ever replace that wonderful feeling of inner cleanliness and sense of genuineness that inevitably comes to us when, having opened up our true selves to a Priest, Christ Himself comes to dwell in that vacuum which is left when our acknowledged sins, confessed in humility and with sincerity, have been wholly obliterated? Is there anything more upbuilding for the soul? More comforting for the mind? Sweeter to the heart?

It behooves us, then, to seek out this comfort of confession, this tremendous force which brings us to true knowledge of ourselves and which is such an effective therapy for the disease of sin that separates us from the image of God within us. Unfortunately, in this search, we are hindered, not only by the aforementioned misunderstanding of the indispensability of the formal Mystery of Confession, but also by our improper grasp of the dimensions of confession. I often hear our faithful say that they need only to confess that which bothers them. This is akin to saying that one need only clean the visible spots from a soiled fabric. In fact, unless one removes the unseen soil and contaminants from the hidden fibers of a fabric, they will eventually rise to the surface and create more visible spots. And finally, if these are not cleaned, the surface of the fabric will become permanently corrupted, as the underlying layers that support it deteriorate and rot away. So it is with the soul. We must openly and sincerely confess those sins which naturally bother our consciences; but in seeking spiritual counsel and in examining our consciences, it is also necessary to seek out the hidden sins that eat away at our souls without our being aware of them. Confession greatly helps in this examination, since often the Grace of God reveals to a Priest or spiritual guide things that we do not see and which he can help us to see.

It is also the case that many individuals, even if they avail themselves of regular confession, will, whether out of shame or pride, conceal things from their spiritual Father. In this vein, the very finest work that I have read on the Mystery of Confession is Metropolitan Cyprian’s Écheis Eisitério? Patrick Barker [now Hieromonk Patapios] and I translated this book into English some years ago, under the title, Do You Have a Ticket? Published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies in 1994, it is still very popular among English-speaking readers. The central theme of this simple, straightforward, but profound book is the danger of concealing sins during confession and the liberating, transforming effect of revealing such sins, with the aid and persistent but gentle exhortation of a concerned spiritual Father, even after years of concealment. I have encountered many individuals, including some who are present here, today, who, after reading this book, benefited immensely from His Eminence’s words and, confessing some sin that had remained secret in their hearts for years, experienced a liberating joy that in many ways changed and transformed their spiritual lives.

It follows by inference, from what I have said, that the Mystery of Confession must never involve superficial, meaninglessly general, and vague revelations of sins. Of course, and especially with regard to sins of the flesh, details of a graphic kind are not only unneeded, but inappropriate. However, one must permit his sins to emerge for what they are, and with enough candor to facilitate a deeper understanding of their effects on the mind and soul. A true revelation of sins certainly involves the uncomfortable process. again, of setting aside social pretense and the “artificial self” that so many present in daily life, thereby wishing to impress others or to create an untrue impression of themselves. Each time that we allow our spiritual Father to see us for what we really are (and a true Confessor benefits himself, too, in this process, since he is able to see in himself what others reveal about themselves), we are changed. At least momentarily, we free ourselves from the tyranny of that “created self” that, if it is not regularly exposed in the Mystery of Confession, will soon come to overtake us and, in deluding us from within, alienate us from our true selves and from the image of God which dwells within us.

There are many reasons that are invoked to justify ignoring all that I have written about confession. The most frequent is that many Priests cannot be trusted to abide by confessional confidence. In the first place, there are few serious clergy who would use confession to harm or discredit a spiritual ward. In fact, I know of many instances in which, having confessed this-or-that sin, and then feeling misgivings about doing so, a penitent will falsely accuse his Confessor of revealing a sin, either to discredit him (fearing he may in fact reveal the sin confessed) or as an excuse not to confess sincerely and openly. In the second place, a truly sincere person is willing, in the end, to suffer the consequences of his sins, whatever they may be. This point was brought home to me during the several years that I spent in post-Communist Eastern Europe. I happened to mention to a very erudite professor, with whom I was discussing the awful effect of the former atheist regime on his country (one which was predominantly Orthodox), the many people who had asked to Confess to me, some after years of avoiding confession because of the fear that a Priest might, in fact, be an agent or collaborator. This professor replied to me: “Not once did I let this fear impede me. Confession was more important to me than the consequences that might have befallen me, had I confessed to the wrong person. If some Priest had betrayed me. then the sin would have been his. I would still have benefited from the spiritual relationship that went beyond him as a man.” I have always remembered that amazing affirmation. We should all keep it in our minds, as we so unwisely seek reasons not to avail ourselves of the Grace of the Mystery of Confession.

Let me say that I am not preaching to you as a Confessor and someone special. I am speaking with you as a fellow sinner, with all of the deficits, sins, and weaknesses that you have. I am not advising you to do something that I do not apply to myself. In fact, it is imperative that Priests and clergy confess frequently, sedulously seeking spiritual guidance, emptying themselves out. If they do not do this. they can begin to imagine themselves gurus, offering to others what they need themselves. They can come to imagine themselves exempt from confession because of their Priestly status, opening themselves up to the demonic delusion of thinking that, since they do not confess, their sins do not impede them. A good Confessor is a Confessor who feels the need to confess. And one who feels that need is one who is growing in spiritual life. For the closer that we get to God and the more that we submit ourselves to His guidance and feel and observe His Goodness, the more aware we become, simultaneously, of our own sins. We come to see that anything and everything that separates us from the Presence of Christ within us is a sin of the greatest magnitude. And in the end, it is that separation which makes sin what it is, and not the extent of our transgression. Thus, if a man repents of murder and is reconciled to God, the image of God is restored within him. By the same token, if a man entertains a hidden thought of enmity towards someone who has deeply wronged him, he is estranged from God and the image of God within him is obliterated. It is the sincerity of our confession — not the magnitude of our sin — which effects forgiveness. So it is, then, that one who serves God, however apparently minor his sin, must feel the depth of his sin and must seek forgiveness with fervour.

Finally, let me say something about the breadth of the phenomenon of confession. As I have averred, there is something beneficial that derives from confessing one’s sin in the “closet.” It is also the case that confessing to one another — laymen to laymen, as the Lord’s brother says (St. James 5:|6) — is of spiritual benefit. In older times, moreover, a Priest often, in addition to Confession, would send his spiritual children to an experienced monk or spiritual advisor, and even one who was not a Priest, for spiritual counsel and guidance. Such spiritual advisors were sought out by the faithful with great fervour, as evidenced by those who flocked to the pillars of the ascetic Stylites, hoping for some small word of guidance or spiritual counsel. And in monasteries and convents, the “confession” (revelation) of thoughts to the Abbot or Abbess of the community is an ancient and very important custom. Though this kind of “confessional” activity may lie outside the Mystery of Confession, it has tremendous spiritual value and often touches at the core of an individual’s spiritual life. Indeed, it was in seeking the spiritual counsel of the Blessed Fool-for-Christ, Matushka Paraskeva, that the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia, revealing their sins, apparently learned of their tragic future fate from this clairvoyant woman.

Despite this breadth of spiritual practice and custom, which we must acknowledge and deeply honor as a significant part of the charismatic life of the Orthodox Church, these things are not sufficient. It still stands that absolutely nothing can replace the Mystery of Confession and the sacerdotal forgiveness of sins, which, while forgiveness comes from Christ, is bestowed only through the Grace of the Priesthood. Even if monastics may confess or reveal their thoughts to an Elder or Eldress; even if enlightened and holy Saints may reveal the hidden things of God to those who seek their counsel; even if one chooses to seek out God in the privacy of the “closet of the heart“; and even if our spiritual Fathers may at times entrust us to the counsel of some spiritual person, the Mystery of Confession and the Prayer of Absolution, which are administered solely by a [Bishop or] Priest, remain always and indubitably indispensable. Thus it was that St. Mary of Egypt, who lived like a citizen of Heaven in the desert. who was taught by the Holy Spirit, who walked on water, and who conversed with Angels — thus it was that she, joined by Grace to God, sought out before her death a Priest to whom she could confess, from whom she could receive absolution, and from whom she could Commune.

Those who seek to live without the succor of regular, sincere, and heartfelt confession, who seek reasons to justify their avoidance of a Priest — on whatever grounds and for whatever reason, whether real or contrived — imperil their souls, distort the teachings of the Church, become alienated from themselves and their fellow believers, and, above all, deny themselves that Mystery by which they are made whole (psychologically, spiritually, and ontologically), reconciled to God, and truly enlightened, becoming one with Christ. May we all heed this!

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Volume XXII (2005), No. 2, pp. 35-38.

Comments on the Greek Clergy Association’s announcement on gay marriage and adoptions in Greece

Who is right, the Holy Scripture and the Fathers or today’s cassock-wearers: The degeneration of the clergy through an announcement of their association

 

 

From this platform, it has been said not a few times that the principal culprits for the evils that afflict society are not only the politicians but also the clergy of every rank (these concern us more).

The Holy Association of Clergy of Greece, on the occasion of the decision of the Council of State concerning the marriage of same-sex couples and the possibility of adoption by them, published an announcement in which, among other things, it also says the following: “Never (the homosexuals) did they consider that the Orthodox Church had any hostility toward them. On the contrary, many of them, well-known and not well-known, believed and believe deeply in God, place in God the hope of their salvation, lived and live with confession and repentance. Those among us clergy who are spiritual fathers know many such cases.”

[Full translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/03/announcement-on-gay-marriage-and.html]

With the above words, the clergy, through their association, declare that homosexuals believe in God and regard the Church not as their accuser but as their friend. Of course, the Church does not hate and accepts all of us, PROVIDED that we repent. And “I repent” means for all of us that I stop sinning; therefore, in this case, do I stop being homosexual? But if we repent and yet refuse to change, and indeed in regard to our most grave sins, what is the meaning of church attendance? How are we friends of God while nullifying His commandments? How the Church (not the association of clergy, in which the clergy speak as trade unionists and state employees who do not wish to be persecuted, rather than as clergy) stands against the very grave sin of homosexuality we see in the following:

The Apostle Paul in his epistles:

Romans 1:26–27: He describes “dishonorable passions,” where women and men, because of their unbelief, abandon the natural relation for homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10: He mentions the “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” (terms interpreted as those participating in homosexual acts) among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9–10: He includes the “arsenokoitai” in a list of transgressors of the law.

St. Basil the Great writes: “From those who are drunken come the alterations of nature, seeking in the male the female, and in the female the male.” When the fear of God is lost, this “anchor,” as he calls it, “when we depart from the commandments of God,” then follows the “abandonment by God,” and all desires enter in, and indeed the “intensification of carnal desire.” The “satanic doctrine” of the denial of God is followed by a “diabolical life.”

St. John Chrysostom, in his Fifth Homily, interpreting verses 18–27 of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, emphasizes that the change of the natural use of sex into that which is against nature is a “passion of dishonor,” as the Apostle Paul writes. Those who commit these “dishonorable passions” have reached a strange frenzy, “they have rushed into this strange madness,” inasmuch as they abandoned the natural enjoyment and came to that which is against nature, and have even insulted nature itself.

And the holy father continues, saying the following terrible things: “But if you ask, from where does this power of desire come? The answer is: from the abandonment by God. And the abandonment by God—from where? From the lawlessness of those who abandoned Him, committing indecency, men with men.”

Another great Father of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria, writes (“Denunciatory discourse against eunuchs” 23–27), demonstrating that today’s clergy are unworthy of the cassock they wear: “These are to depart far from the sacred enclosures and to be driven away from the holy assemblies [of the Church] as an abominable defilement and God-hated. For, having with the most shameful and worst will altered and transformed the good and divine work into evil and a condemned doctrine, and having compelled spiritual eunuchry to serve the forbidden act, they are worthy not only to receive the punishment of legal judgment, but also to be altogether driven away into the so-called outer darkness of hell, according to the evangelical and apostolic judgment. For concerning them Moses said: ‘One crushed or mutilated shall not enter into the Church of the Lord.’”

We therefore ask: Holy Scripture and the Fathers consider those who are unrepentant, and also those who, despite their repentance, consciously remain homosexual, as abandoned by God, without hope of salvation, and for this reason they teach that they must be expelled from the Church. How then do today’s unionized clergy act in the opposite way, and not only this, but also teach the flock to imitate them? How do they publish positions that have no relation to the teaching of the Church? At last, as faithful, we must raise a wall against anyone who distorts the word of the Church!

- Adamantios Tsakiroglou

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/03/blog-post_95.html

1978 Meeting of Archbishop Anthony of Geneva with Roman Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Translation from the Synod Minutes of Protocol #6, September 5/18, 1978, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

 

 

9. In connection with the discussion of the Western Rite, Archbishop Anthony of Geneva reports on his visit to the Catholic Archbishop Lefebvre at Écône [Switzerland]. He received him very cordially. He considers himself a representative of true Catholicism and the late pope a heretic, explaining that such recognition is only formally possible after the death of the pope. He could not explain which of the Pope's speeches are ex cathedra and therefore infallible. He said that he could ordain bishops and had not yet done so only for tactical reasons.

Archbishop Anthony's message is noted.

Russian source: http://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201978%20Prot.htm

 

The Essence of Patriotism

Russian source: excerpt from "Православие и патриотизм" [Orthodoxy and Patriotism], by Priest Alexei Shlyapin.

 

 

Patriotism is the obliviation of the meaning of the Babylonian curse. After all, the division into languages is a curse, a consequence of sin. Yet patriotism cultivates this division into languages.

Thus, patriotism is a pagan worldview.

Moreover, patriotism is obliviating the fact that the Babylonian curse has already been overcome on the Day of Pentecost. "When He came down and confused the tongues, the Most High divided the nations; but when He distributed the fiery tongues, He called all to unity..." (Kontakion of Pentecost).

Cult

Cultivated by the nation

Patriotism is cultivated, first of all, by the nation (language). Here, the instinctive sense of national self-preservation plays a role, and accordingly, an instinctive distinction of “one’s own,” parochialism. And pride.

The extreme, radical manifestation of patriotism concerning the nation is nationalism, which is paganism, as is evident even from the Slavic etymology of the word “nation” – “language.”

Cultivated by the state

Secondly, by the state. When the authorities, instead of fully subjecting the interests of the nation and the state to the will of God, are guided by the instinct of self-preservation of the existing order, the existing regime. And by pride. They are not content with what is “Caesar’s” (i.e., the external) and the purely practical reverence for the existing authority and the observance of state laws (which follows from Scripture, according to the commandment “honor the king” [1 Pet. 2:17]), but they lay claim to the human heart, demanding service to themselves.

For this purpose, the ideology of patriotism is instilled and cultivated in the consciousness of the people. That is, in fact, the cult of the “motherland,” the cult of the “fatherland.”

After all, it is clear that a Christian will approach everything critically, evaluating from a heavenly perspective the moral permissibility of participating in this or that war or state program. And this evaluation will by no means always coincide with the earthly interests of the state. But patriotism, being an entirely earthly, carnal, instinctive ideology, conveniently aligns with the earthly interests of the nation and the state, literally coinciding with them. This is why authorities seek to cultivate not Christians, but patriots; not citizens of Heaven, but citizens of the earth. For it is precisely the citizens of the earth who are easy to govern. And this is a monstrous substitution.

And they seek to use Christianity only insofar as it can provide an ideological basis for patriotism, thus creating a grotesque hybrid called "Christian patriotism." This is nothing other than a dilution of Christianity, an attempt to mix it with the human and the earthly. Or rather, an effort to smuggle an earthly, carnal, instinctive ideology—one that aligns with the earthly interests of the state—into the minds and hearts of people under the guise of Christianity, wrapped in a Christian covering.

And this is an abuse by the state, an overstepping of the authority given to it by God. The state has no God-given right to its own ideology. Christians should neither share nor respect the ideology of the state, but only pay taxes ("what is Caesar’s"), respect authority, and obey the laws (according to the commandment "honor the king" [1 Pet. 2:17]). That is, to render only what is external and practical—nothing more. Without the participation of the heart, without any ideology distinct from the Word of God.

Thus, the ideology of patriotism is nothing other than a religion, a kind of state cult—that is, plain and vile paganism.

This is a repetition of the sin of building the Tower of Babel.

The citizens of the earth want to enslave the citizens of Heaven, seeking to make them build the earthly city together with them. But Christians must be citizens of Heaven (ouranopolitai), directing all their efforts toward striving for the Heavenly City, rather than devoting their strength and aspirations to securing earthly comfort for those who seek to settle on the earth.

If the state needs Christianity for its proper functioning, this does not mean that the Church needs patriotism or any state ideologies. Just as an organism does not need its parasites. Here, the interest is entirely one-sided.

For the Church, pure Christianity, the Gospel, is sufficient. No other, additional ideologies are acceptable.

Paganism

People themselves created the ideology of patriotism and elevated it to the status of a religion. The concepts of "motherland," "fatherland," "land," "Russia," and "Rus'" have become idols for patriots.

The confirmation of this is the sacralization of these concepts by patriots, attributing ideological value to them.

For example, on what basis do patriots call their earthly homeland "mother," artificially placing it under the protection of the Fifth Commandment? The Word of God gives no grounds for this.

Mother is a specific person. But "homeland" is an abstract, indefinite, and multifaceted concept. Comparing "homeland" to a mother is incorrect and unfounded.

My earthly mother is not "land," not a "country," not "Russia." She is a completely specific woman whom I love, honor, and remember the Fifth Commandment.

Why should I consider or call the land, or the country, or Russia my "mother"?! This is an ideological fantasy.

Moreover, this is crude paganism, idolatry. Because the concept of "Mother Earth" (or "Earth Mother") is a cult of the earth, characteristic of many pagan religions.

Considering concepts such as "homeland," "fatherland," "land," "Russia," etc., as "sacred" is also crude paganism. A sacred object is something set apart from the world and partaking in the holiness of God. These concepts, however, are purely earthly.

There is no basis for considering them "sacred." Because the sacred is that which is dedicated to God and, accordingly, can no longer be used for earthly purposes or directed toward earthly goals. Which cannot be said about these concepts.

By the way, it is not fitting for Christians to write the words "homeland" and "fatherland" with a capital letter (unless referring to Paradise and the Kingdom of Heaven). These are common nouns. It contradicts the rules of the Russian language. And since this is not dictated by an orthographic motive, the reason for capitalizing these words is therefore ideological.

To ascribe any ideological meaning to the concepts of "fatherland" or "homeland" is paganism, idolatry.

The human heart is too precious to be bound to earthly concepts and ideologies. It rightfully belongs only to the Creator.

Therefore, patriotism is an ideology unworthy of a Christian. It is a pagan ideology, incompatible with Christianity.

A consistent patriot is a pagan. Because the most "Russian," the most "national" thing is paganism. This is evident even from the Slavic etymology of the word "people" or "nation"—"language."

The logical conclusion of patriotism and its essence is concrete, classical paganism.

By the way, the expression "on the altar of the fatherland" (in reference, for example, to soldiers killed in war) is nothing other than outright paganism and idolatry. Christians once destroyed the Altar of the Fatherland in Rome.

Incidentally, [Russian] patriots even have their own idol, the "Motherland" statue on Mamayev Kurgan.

Corrupt Practice

That patriotism leads to paganism and idolatry is evident even in the modern corrupt practice of "laying wreaths" at monuments and soldiers' graves, which is nothing other than offerings to the dead, a cult of the dead, and prayers before monuments that bear inherently foreign, anti-Christian, and pagan symbolism (for example, the five-pointed star) and before the symbol of the "eternal flame."

It is clear that a Christian should not fear pagan signs and symbols or assign them any significance. However, in this case, it is worth recalling the analogy with food sacrificed to idols, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul. Pagan signs and symbols in themselves are nothing. A Christian, in private, may ignore them. However, in this case, there is a deliberate standing before monuments in which these symbols hold central significance, in the sight of the people, including those for whom these symbols are meaningful and those who know that this symbolism is anti-Christian and pagan. That is, it is an open cause of scandal and an occasion for reproach against the Church. It is analogous to a Christian eating food sacrificed to idols in the presence of a pagan who knows that the Christian is aware of it—which the Apostle Paul forbade (1 Cor. 10:25-29).

As for the laying of wreaths, it is obvious that this is not merely the decoration of graves. This act is irrational, possessing a ceremonial character. That is, it does not have a practical but an ideological motive. In other words, it is a religious, sacred act—a form of service. But not to God. It takes place outside the context of the Church and has no foundation in the Tradition of the Church. Thus, it is evident that in this case, a religious act is being performed outside the Church and service is being rendered not to God. Therefore, it is clear that this is a violation of the Commandment to serve only God (Ex. 20:2-5; Deut. 6:13).

And the question arises: to whom are these wreaths being offered? Obviously, not to God, since offerings to God are made within the context of the Church. This offering of wreaths, which has a sacred character, is directed toward the deceased. This is precisely the meaning of this practice. That is, it is an obvious and blatant offering to the dead, a cult of the dead. This is a classic pagan (folk) practice, deeply rooted in the consciousness of the Russian people as well. Yet, a sacrifice to the dead is an abomination before God (Deut. 26:14).

In fact, this is complicity in a pagan (folk) cult, which is recognized by the state at an official level, that is, in the state cult. This is classical idolatry.

The Church must not, and has no right before its Bridegroom, Christ, to follow the lead of state and folk ideologies and cults.

It is closer to the truth to acknowledge the mistakes of the past than to continue a corrupt practice out of inertia. Christians honor the departed with prayer and offerings to God for them, not to them.

The practical uselessness of patriotism

Patriots, in fact, have no reason to accuse the uranopolitans.

Is it really about not defending one’s neighbors, women, children, the elderly, and Christian holy sites?

Or do patriots believe that only patriotism is capable of motivating a person to self-sacrifice and the defense of their neighbors? We, however, believe that love is preeminently capable of this. The Gospel holds the same view, where the commandment of self-sacrifice is directly linked to the commandment of love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13) (and not a word about patriotism).

Love for a specific person, without attachment to nationality, culture, or anything else, is entirely sufficient, according to Christ’s Commandment, to give one’s life for him, to protect him from invaders. To care not for the well-being of society as a whole, but for the concrete individuals who make up that society.

Therefore, patriots are mistaken when they claim that "only thanks to patriotism do Orthodox nations still exist." When a person's family, friends, and loved ones are in danger, it is precisely love for them (and, of course, zeal for the faith and holy sites) that moves him to take up arms against invaders. He does not need patriotism for this.

If a person is a Christian, then simply by virtue of being a Christian, he will go to defend his neighbors—women, children, the elderly, and holy sites—from invaders, that is, the people inhabiting the country. This is entirely independent of any patriotism as an ideology. For him to fulfill his duty of defending his neighbors in a defensive war, he does not need to consider or call himself a patriot. It is enough to be a Christian. Without any additional ideologies. A Christian simply does not need the crutch called "patriotism," neither as an ideology nor as a designation. Christianity alone is sufficient. Christ’s Commandment of love is sufficient.

Likewise, concern for the well-being of the people inhabiting a country can arise not only from the ideology of patriotism but simply from a Christian attitude toward specific individuals living in the country, without any additional ideology. Moreover, it must arise from love and care for the sake of Christ’s Commandment, not from the ideology of patriotism.

Thus, in practice, when it comes to defending one’s family and neighbors, as well as caring for the people inhabiting the country, uranopolitism is in no way inferior to patriotism.

So, patriots have no reason to reproach uranopolitans.

Thus, the reason for the opposition of patriots to uranopolitism is not practical but rather the ideological rejection of patriotism by uranopolitans—their refusal to adopt an additional ideology alongside Christianity.

The Ideological Uselessness of Patriotism

Thus, patriotism is a pagan ideology, foreign to and incompatible with Christianity.

The attempt to introduce "Christian patriotism" is a dilution of Christianity (2 Cor. 2:17). Priest Daniil Sysoev called such a policy "Christianity and...". In the words of C.S. Lewis: "As soon as 'Christianity and' arises, Christianity dies."

This is where the falling away from Christianity begins—when Christianity is adapted for the earth, for something earthly.

Is Christianity alone really not enough for us to fulfill everything required of us before God?!

After all, this can be understood from the simplest logic:

If patriotism contains something commanded by God, then it is already contained within Christianity itself, and patriotism is not needed to fulfill it. But if patriotism contains something that God has not commanded, then it is neither necessary to fulfill nor needed at all.

A Christian simply does not need the crutch called "patriotism," neither as an ideology nor as a designation. Is the name "Christian" not enough for us? Or is Christianity somehow lacking, that it needs to be supplemented with something else?

If patriotism is identical to Christianity, then why is it needed under a separate name? And if it is not identical, then it is all the more unsuitable for a Christian. In any case, it is evident that it is not identical.

We must carry forth the pure Word of God, without any admixture of other ideologies. As the Apostle says: "For we are not as many, which corrupt (literally from Greek: do not peddle, do not dilute with water) the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Cor. 2:17).

The only "ideology" the Church needs is the Gospel, which a wise and God-fearing person would not dare to supplement with their own ideologies. As it is written: "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:6).

The very existence of Christianity in the world excludes the permissibility of any other ideologies besides Christianity itself.

Uranopolitism

An Orthodox Christian must be a Uranopolitan (i.e., a citizen of Heaven).

"Uranopolitism" (a term introduced by Fr. Daniil Sysoev) means heavenly citizenship.

"Uranopolitism – (from Greek Uranos – heaven, polis – city) is the doctrine asserting the primacy of Divine laws over earthly ones, the primacy of love for the Heavenly Father and His Heavenly Kingdom over all natural and sinful inclinations of man. Uranopolitism affirms that the primary kinship is not by blood or country of origin, but kinship in Christ. Uranopolitism asserts that Christians do not have eternal citizenship here but seek the future Kingdom of God, and therefore, they cannot give their hearts to anything on Earth. Uranopolitism declares that in the mortal world, Christians are sojourners and strangers, and their homeland is in heaven." (Fr. Daniil Sysoev)

"The heavenly city is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture (Rev. 21–22; Heb. 11:10–16; 12:22; 13:14), and therefore the expression 'Uranopolitism' or 'heavenly citizenship' is simply biblical." (Fr. Daniil Sysoev)

"The word 'Uranopolitan' (ouranopolitis) is found in many of the Holy Fathers; in particular, Saint John Chrysostom uses it five times." (Deacon Georgy Maksimov)

One can perfectly do without this term. It is simply practical when speaking with patriots to designate plain Orthodox Christianity, unburdened by additional ideology.

The emergence of this term is a reaction to the prolonged illness of the Russian Local Church—to cleanse ecclesiastical consciousness from excessive, additional state ideology, which has become so ingrained in people's minds that many believe it to be the norm.

Conclusion

Thus, those who suffer from patriotism require metanoia (Greek), that is, repentance, a change of mind.

For the Lord warned: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:21). And in the Kingdom of Heaven, there will be no earthly homelands.

We must repent of patriotism, condemn and cast it off like chaff, like a scab, like a tick that has long parasitized the body of the Church—so that we may preach pure Christianity, without any additional ideologies.

 

Russian source online: https://orthoview.ru/ierej-aleksij-shlyapin-xristianstvo-i-patriotizm/

 

St. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina on Demonic Fornication and Joining ROCOR (1979)

 

Letter #263

March 7/20, 1979

St. Paul the Simple

Dear Anna,

May the blessing of the Lord be with you!

Thank you for your letter. I think it reveals less confusion than you think—perhaps your ideas are still somewhat confused, but I think your basic attitude is correct, and if you persevere in spiritual struggle your ideas also will straighten themselves out.

Your battle with “demoniac fornication” is not as unusual as you may think. This passion has become very strong in our evil times—the air is saturated with it; and the demons take advantage of this to attack you in a vulnerable spot. Every battle with passions also involves demons, who give almost unnoticeable “suggestions” to trigger the passions and otherwise cooperate in arousing them. But human imagination also enters in here, and it is unwise to distinguish exactly where our passions and imagination leave off and demonic activity begins—you should just continue fighting.

That the demons attack you in dreams is a sign of progress—it means they are retreating, seeing that you are resisting conscious sin. God allows this so that you will continue fighting. Often this demon goes away altogether for a while, and one can have a false sense of security that one is “above” this passion; but all the Holy Fathers warn that one cannot consider this passion conquered before the grave. Continue your struggle and take refuge in humility, seeing what base sins you are capable of and how you are lost without the constant help of God Who calls you to a life above these sins.

About our Russian Church Abroad—I think it is not a bad description to say that it is in a way the “conscience” of Orthodoxy today. One Greek priest once told us a very similar thing. Of course, we in this Church are all very human and weak ourselves, but we do try to keep the standard visible, from which almost all the Orthodox churches are falling away at a rapid pace.

I think the Protestants are not too far off about the “one world church,” the harlot of the Apocalypse—but, like all their apocalyptic ideas, they add many distortions to their ideas. From the experience of the Council of Florence in the 15th century (when the Greek Churches did for a time join the Pope of Rome), and from the recent pronouncements of Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople and Pope John Paul II—I don’t see how anyone can deny that the “Union” of most Orthodox Churches with Rome (and through Rome to at least some of the Protestant bodies) is rather close. As for the Catacomb Church in Russia, it certainly exists, and quite a bit of material has been published on it (from eyewitnesses) in the Russian language/press in recent years. Its chief bishop, as far as we know, is still Metropolitan Theodosius (who is of course a different person from the OCA Metropolitan), who issued a declaration that was circulated in Moscow and Leningrad when the present Patriarch Pimen was elected in 1970.

About your joining the Synod: let this decision come naturally and peacefully. We are not out to make “fanatics,” but to speak the truth of age-old Orthodoxy which most Orthodox Christians today are abandoning (in fact, many Orthodox people aren’t even aware of them, so great is the level of ignorance today). If you are to marry Timothy, this is something you will decide together. Since our parishes in Sacramento and Calistoga have no English services or English-speaking priest, you would probably do best to continue attending OCA services there while you think and pray about this question. We certainly recognize the sacraments of other Orthodox jurisdictions, and there is no doubt that you have been baptized Orthodox. Your decision (if you make it) to join the Russian Church Abroad will mean that you want to join the small band of strugglers who recognize the process of apostasy in the Orthodox Churches and consciously want to separate yourself from it. We tell our own spiritual children that, wherever there is no Synod church, they can attend other Orthodox churches, but that they should not receive Holy Communion there (except in case of mortal necessity)—this is basically the position of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, one of the Catacomb bishops of the 1930’s.

I will be serving Liturgy in our Redding mission church this Sunday (March 25) and conducting a “Bible Study” afterwards. You are very welcome to attend if you can. Liturgy will be early (around 8 a.m.), followed by lunch and Bible study around noon. The address is 1972 Jewell Lane (in the southern part of town, just off Business Route 99). If you were to come by bus, someone could pick you up at the station; you could call 241-1732 (the telephone number of Mrs. Valentina Harvey, in whose garage our service are held). I would be glad to talk with you then.

With love in Christ,

Unworthy Hieromonk Seraphim

Announcement on Gay Marriage and Homosexual Adoptions

Announcement of the Holy Association of Clergy of Greece [ISKE] regarding the decision of the Council of State concerning the marriage of same-sex couples and the possibility of adoption.

Athens, March 23, 2026

 

 

It constitutes a central news item in the mass media that the Council of State ratified the legality of the marriage of couples of the same sex and gave them the green light for adoption. Certainly, Greece, as a secular state, is able to proceed to enact laws that run counter to religious rules, such as the present one. However, it is regrettable that the Council of State did not take into account the age-old tradition, religious and social, of this land, but also the conscience and the sentiment of the Greek people.

Such kinds of legislative measures do not respond to the needs and concerns of Greek society, such as the demographic problem and the low birth rate that afflict our land, but constitute an imitation of practices of certain Western societies, which in recent years proceeded to similar legislative measures, such as the attempt to impose and prioritize social gender over biological sex, having truly lost the measure and the limits, as our people would also say.

It does not befit us and is not proper for us to ape models that are transferred uncritically into Greek society. Indeed, an attempt is even made to impose them, and the result, instead of uniting, divides. Greek society was always inclusive, it cared for the “we,” whereas now, with all these novel theories of identity that we mentioned above, it is led to the “us” and “them”: on the one hand the heterosexuals and on the other the homosexuals. There always were, there are, and there will be homosexuals. They never considered that the Orthodox Church had any hostility toward them. On the contrary, many of them, both well-known and not well-known, believed and believe deeply in God, place in God the hope of their salvation, lived and live with confession and repentance. Those of us among the clergy who are spiritual fathers know many such cases.

This is precisely also the crucial issue of the said decision of the Council of State: the inability for it to become normality. We will not put forward complex philosophical arguments, nor is it necessary for someone to have particular scientific knowledge in order to demonstrate that any marriage whatsoever between couples of the same sex can never be, literally and essentially, a marriage, even if its proponents call it such. The biological order, which exists in nature, testifies that the union of same-sex couples may be contractual and bureaucratic or on the level of emotional sentiments, but never a marriage, because it cannot lead to the biological acquisition of children, who would be the combination of the genetic material of these two persons who entered into a marital union. For this reason, the advocates of these theories proposed adoption as a solution. However, if there is talk of defending the rights of homosexuals, who will defend the rights of the infants who will be adopted by homosexual couples and who will be deprived either of the paternal or the maternal model? Who will ask them? Who will speak about the rights of the surrogate mothers, who will be used for this purpose? Who will speak about the instrumentalization, many times, of poor women, who will be called to bear children who will be given for adoption to homosexual couples?

Let us not overlook that the Christian tradition understands the family as a communion of persons, founded upon the relationship of man and woman, which is blessed and sanctified within the sacrament of Marriage. Within this framework, the upbringing of children is connected with the complementarity of the two sexes and the all-around development of the personality of the child. With the adoption of children by couples of the same sex, we will see persons growing up in the social sphere with a host of problems and great imbalance in comparison with children who come from conventional families, as relevant studies in the USA have shown.

We see, therefore, that this entire undertaking has neither biological nor social foundations. It is based upon a delusion in which same-sex couples are held fast, who cannot understand that biology and the natural order are not ideology and emotionalism, but a tangible and concrete reality, which no living being can transcend. Biology, the natural functions of the human body, constitute destiny; they express an inexorable necessity and lawfulness, which no one can surpass and overcome, however many legislative acts some supreme Council may legitimize.

FROM THE HOLY ASSOCIATION OF CLERGY OF GREECE

 

Greek source: https://iersynklellados.blogspot.com/2026/03/blog-post.html

On Praying for Suicides

By Archpriest Gregory Williams (+2016)

 

 

If one looks at the present-day world in the light of the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the holy fathers, a terrible picture unfolds before one’s eyes. We see that, not knowing God, or falling away from Him, all of hapless humanity becomes suicidal, for the soul that does not know God in this life is unable to pass over to Life everlasting. It was the first man—Adam—who became the first suicide. Fashioned an immortal being by the all-good Creator, he cut himself off from God, the Well-spring of immortality. By his offense he slew himself for life in God, for eternity. And even though Adam lived for many more years after his transgression, his was a life subject to corruption, a continual dying and drawing nigh to death, to the gloom of hades.

God recreates everyone who approaches the Mystery of Baptism, returning the grace of the Holy Spirit, begetting unto life everlasting, reuniting with Himself. Each person is given time to choose either life or death.

Life is to be found in Christ, in His Holy Church, in its Mysteries, in the fulfillment of the commandments of God, in communion in prayer with Him. Death consists of being apart from Christ and His Church, of a certain violation of the commandments, in all manner of sins.

The devil is now reaping an abundant harvest. According to the teaching of the Church, the unbaptized and the heterodox, as ones unregenerated by Holy Baptism, follow death into everlasting death; and the same fate will overtake all baptized Orthodox Christians who have died without repentance. Life lived in sins, in thrall to the passions, separates man from God, and he enters into fellowship with Satan. Dying without repentance, without being reconciled with God, the soul passes over to Satan as a thing belonging to him.

Of all the deadly sins, suicide is the most terrible, since for every other sin there is time to repent, and there is no sin that the Lord will not forgive for the one who sincerely repents. But suicide deprives a man of repentance: at the same time as the body is dying, the soul renders itself incompatible with an eternity of blessedness and falls away from God.

But what if a man kills himself to keep one of God’s commandments, for the sake of his soul’s salvation? In such a case the words of the Lord are fulfilled: “He who loseth his life for My sake shall find it” (Mt. 10: 39). Such a man, who out of love for the Lord decides that it is better to die, does not violate the commandment, but truly finds his soul in eternity and is honorable in the sight of the Lord and His Church. Such a suicide does not separate a soul from God, but unites it with Him for all eternity. This means that the crux of the matter lies in the intention, in the disposition of a man’s heart, in whose name a man deprives himself of life. The criminality of suicide lies in the fact that a man rebels against the creative and providential order of the Divine and, to his own detriment, intentionally cuts short his own life, which does not belong to him alone, but to God and his neighbor, and which was given to him to perfect and so as to seek after God. He repudiates all the responsibilities that lie upon him and shows that he is not called to life beyond the grave.

The Apostle Paul tells us that our earthly life belongs to God: “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself…. Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14: 7, 8).

The suicide also tramples upon the natural law: “No man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it” (Eph. 5: 29).

It is said that not every person is capable of deciding upon this audacious step. Among the heathen suicide is even praised as a heroic feat. In sects dedicated to the works of Satan, those who collaborate with him are obliged to end their lives by suicide, thereby expressing their enmity with God. Suicide is not heroism, but cowardice; for the one who does not desire to bear his own cross in life hopes in this manner to escape it.

But woe to the soul of the suicide! Once it has passed the threshold of death, it is revealed to it how the evil enemy had deceived it; for death is shown to be not a deliverance, but the beginning of true and endless sufferings.

Every suicide is the fruit of the labors of regiments of dark demons and a great triumph for them. “The fallen angels do not cease to vex all human societies and each person individually. There is no evil deed, no crime, of which they are not sponsors and participants” (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, “Homily on Death”).

Our whole life is a constant war against the fallen evil spirits. Battle is waged against each soul, and the field of battle is the heart of man. A multitude of people perish because they are ignorant of this invisible warfare, since they are weaponless against a mighty and pitiless foe.

Yet we must not despair of our salvation. Over all creatures lie the incomprehensible judgments of the Creator, which guide the whole world toward the good. They are unknown and incomprehensible to us, whose earthly reasoning ability is limited; we can but reverently humble ourselves before our omniscient God, entrusting ourselves to Him. And He, in His great love for us, has given us the weapons with which we will be able, in the Lord, to fend off all the assaults of the adversary until the end of our life. Just what these weapons are we will attempt to show in the following cases.

The account of the servant of God N: “It was the Great Fast, and the first Lent of my life. I fasted strictly. Only once did I break the Fast. When the fast was over, I had an inflated opinion of myself, as though I had accomplished something, and that I no longer had any need to be afraid of Satan. All of this took place after Pascha, during Bright Week. I went to my room and said: ‘Satan, I am no longer afraid of you: I kept the fast.’ (that is, I did it, and all without God’s help). Right after that I began to drink, and not merely to drink, but to drink heavily. One day I returned to my home in the morning, drunk. My parents began to reproach me for being inebriated so early in the day. This I found unbearable. I went into the kitchen, and my hands, as if by themselves, snatched up a knife. And when I drove the knife into myself, I noticed that my hands seemed to be covered with fur (it seemed to be velvety, but was not tangible). The sense was that my hands were being controlled from outside. I lost consciousness. I came to on the operating table.”

The Lord permitted His servant N. this trial because in his arrogance he forgot that without the help of God we are incapable of doing anything good. Yet in His mercy the Lord preserved him from destruction, giving him time to repent and amend his life, and to provide an example for our edification. When he told us of what had happened to him, he humbled his pride and shamed the devil, exposing him. Let us fear puffing ourselves up with pride and, now and ever after, let us call upon the help of God, and for all our successes and accomplishments let us give thanks to the Lord. The first weapon in our warfare is humility.

The second is the sign of the Cross. Suicides are not found wearing crosses. Prior to their act, the enemy inspires them to remove their crosses. He thus gains control over the person who has rejected the Cross, and with it their Savior.

Saint John of Kronstadt writes: “Glory, O Lord, to the power of Thy Cross, which never fails! When the enemy oppresses me with a sinful thought or feeling, and I, lacking freedom in my heart, make the sign of the Cross several times with faith, suddenly my sin falls away from me, the compulsion vanishes, and I find myself free… For the faithful the Cross is a mighty power which delivers from all evils, from the malice of the invisible foe.”

The third weapon is prayer. Here is how prayer saved the handmaid of God L. She was continually being tormented by a voice which urged her to hang herself. She stumbled across some rope which someone had left lying around, and began to consider carrying out the enemy’s suggestion. That night, the evil one cried out: “So, are you going to wait around forever? Go and hang yourself!” She took up all that she had made ready and was ready to leave, when she suddenly remembered that she had forgotten to pray. She prayed with all her soul, and did not notice when dawn broke and others went forth to work. Then she, calmly and serenely, also got up to go to work.

The fourth weapon is repentance. From the life of Elder Hilarion of Optina: “A thirty-five year old merchant from the Bogoroditsky District of the Province of Tula, a sober man, had been suffering for a sickness of soul for more than a year: It seemed to him that certain men whom he did not know were persecuting him and were intent on killing him. These delusions gave him no rest day or night, and several times the thought occurred to him to commit suicide, which terrified his whole family. At the insistence of his mother, I. V. went to the monastery and explained what was happening to him to the Elder Hilarion. The elder several times spoke with him at length and perceived that he had been harboring a secret sin which he had not confessed to the priest, since he doubted that he would be forgiven for it. The elder persuaded him that the sin does not exist that God’s love will not forgive, if it is repented of. In confession the merchant offered up repentance for it, and when he had received absolution, he was admitted to the communion of the Holy Mysteries. At the time of Communion, the elder said to him: ‘Go with God. They will now persecute and bind you no longer.’ And such was indeed the case. I. V. completely recovered from his tormenting ailment.”

With the help of God we avoid the snares of the enemy. But what happens to those who fall into those snares? Is it possible to alter their terrible doom? Must we, who are close friends or relatives, pray for our hapless suicides?

The Church does not pray for them, for they died unreconciled with it, alienated from it. But whom does the Church call a suicide? We find the answer in The Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils & the Holy Fathers, among the canonical answers of the most holy Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria. Question 14: “If someone, having lost his mind, lifts his hand against himself or casts himself from a height, must an offering be made for such a one, or not?” The answer of St. Timothy:

“Concerning such a one, the priest must consider whether [the suicide] might really have done such a thing while out of his mind. For often those who are close to one who has suffered at his own hand, desiring to arrange that an offering and prayer be made for him, act unjustly and say that he was out of his mind. It is possible that he did this because of some human offense or in some other case out of cowardice. For this reason, the priest must assuredly ascertain [the truth] with all care, lest he incur condemnation [for himself].”

This means that, according to the teaching of the Church, only he who kills himself intentionally is properly called a suicide, while those who are out of their minds, the spiritually ill, it rightly does not consider as suicides when it prays. But in each case the priest must decide whether the person killed himself while insane or not; and if he reaches the conclusion that the hapless person was sick in soul, he may offer up prayers in church for his soul and perform the divine Sacrifice. For upon such is the violence of the enemy brought to bear, just as it was on the young man described in the Holy Gospel, who was brought to the Lord by his father to be healed. Here is how that father described the state of his son: “Master, I have brought unto Thee my son, who hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth;… and ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him” (Mk. 9: 18, 22).

But for those of us whose relatives have lifted up their own hands against themselves, we ought not to argue or put anything to the test, but should first of all humble ourselves, and from this state of humility pray for them as the holy fathers teach us.

Saint Theophanes the Recluse says: “The Church does not command [us to pray for suicides]. How then dare its sons and daughters to pray [for them]? What is evident here is an attempt to show that we are more merciful than the Church, than God Himself. It is better to limit ourselves to feeling pity for them, entrusting them to the immortal compassion of God, and praying for them in our private prayers, that He deal with them according to His loving-kindness and according to your faith in that loving-kindness.”

The Optina elders also permitted prayers to be said for suicides within the context of private prayers. The elder Leonid (Leo, in the schema) thus consoled his disciple, P. T., whose father had ended his own life by suicide: “Entrust yourself and the fate of your father to the will of the Lord, which is all-wise and omnipotent. Take care through humble-mindedness to strengthen yourself within the bounds of moderate grief. Pray to the all-good Creator, thereby fulfilling the debt of love and filial duty—in the spirit of the virtuous and wise, thus: ‘O Lord, watch over the perished soul of my father, and if it be possible, have mercy upon him. Thy judgments are unfathomable. Do not consider this my prayer to be a sin, but may Thy holy will be done.’ Pray simply, without testing [God], placing your heart in the right hand of the Most High. It was not, of course, the will of God that your father come to such a bitter end, but now he is totally under the will of the Mighty One, and, soul and body, he is cast into the fiery furnace, which humbles and exalts, kills and gives life, brings down into hades and raises up [therefrom]. Furthermore, He is so kind, omnipotent and overflowing with love, that the good qualities of all mortals are nothing compared to His most exalted goodness. For this reason, you must not grieve beyond measure. You say: ‘I love my father, which is why I am sorrowing inconsolably.’ But God, incomparably more than you do, loved and loves him. It is therefore necessary for you to leave the eternal fate of your father to the goodness and loving-kindness of God. And if He deigns to have mercy, who will gainsay Him?”

Saint Ambrose also approved of such a prayer, and said that he knew of many instances when it consoled and calmed many and turned out to be effective in the sight of the Lord.

The great ascetic Schema-nun Athanasia, on the advice of Pelagia Ivanovna the Blessed, of Diveyevo, three times fasted and prayed for forty days, reciting “Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos…” one hundred and fifty times a day for her own brother, who had hanged himself while drunk; and she received a revelation that through her supplications her brother was freed from torments.

Thus, in general, every feat of prayer performed in the memory of the living or the dead is pleasing to the Lord and brings a certain benefit, not only to those in whose memory this is done, but also to those who perform it. “For he who makes offering for the dead comes to share in their reward, as one who shows love for the salvation of his neighbor, just as one who pours forth sweet-smelling ointment upon another is the first to receive the fragrance thereof.”

There might first of all be a desire to do something for the sake of those whom one loves; there might be zeal for prayer, and humility and obedience to the Holy Church. Then, and without violating its rules, the ways and means will be found to pour out our love for the dead in prayer for them. The commemoration of suicides, in humility and obedience to the Church, which is transferred to our private prayers, will be more valuable in the eyes of God and more heartening for them than that which is performed in church, but in violation and disregard of the rules of the Church.

Particular attention must be paid to the giving of alms in their memory. The Optina elders commanded that alms be offered in memory of suicides. Alms may lie not only in tangible and monetary aid, but also in prayerful, oral and active aid, in taking care of the sick and children, in visiting, comforting and helping the sorrowful and sick, in caring for irrational creatures—in the words of many divinely enlightened people, it is very heartening to the souls of the departed when birds are fed for their sake.

The handmaid of God T. had a dream in which her father, who had shot himself to death while drunk, appeared to her as though beyond a pane of glass, terrible in his appearance, his hair matted, covered with scabs. She wanted to pray, and with great effort raised her hand and made the sign of the cross over herself. Her father also lifted up his hand, but was unable to make the sign of the Cross. Then she crossed herself a second time, and her father was able more freely to raise his hand, and the matted hair and scabs began to fall from his face. When she crossed herself a third time, he was also able to cross himself with her, and suddenly his countenance cleared up entirely, and his face shone with light.

By this dream the most merciful Lord comforted the handmaid of God T. and all of us, showing how great the power of prayer is. Let us commit ourselves and all our relatives to the most perfect and good will of God, and let us strive diligently and with feelings of love for them to pray and do every good work for their sake.

The Elder Nectarius, and also Metropolitan Gregory of Novgorod & Petrograd, permitted prayers to be offered up for suicides in the context of a private prayer rule, but only when those praying had first entreated mercy in case they were angering the Lord. The Elder Nectarius blessed Metropolitan Benjamin to find two other men with whom to read for a suicide a canon for the departed every day for forty days, and afterwards to commit his or her soul to the will of God. This canon, compiled by Metropolitan Benjamin from the canons for the departed in the Octoechos, here follows. One should read it, as has been stated above, with humility and the fear of God, and having first obtained the blessing of one’s spiritual father.

 

Canon of Prayer for Those Who of Their Own Will Have Ended Their Own Life:

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/03/canon-of-prayer-for-those-who-have.html

Elder Savvas Lavriotes on the complete cessation of communion with heretics in the light of the Holy Canons and the Holy Fathers

May 13, 2022

 

We publish below a word received from Father Savvas Lavriotes (a transcription from a short recording) in which he was asked to give us a useful word for correctly confronting heresies, to once again confess the Orthodox teaching handed down to us by the Holy Fathers, and to show that those who claim that participation in heresy is allowed in Orthodoxy are mistaken.

* * *

Those who say that Canon 15 is optional because it does not impose penalties and that no Orthodox who has communicated with heretics has received penalties must know that this is a lie.

We have several situations. The first situation is mentioned by St. Athanasius the Great in his letter to Bishop Ruffinian, where he refers to the priesthood. There we see that those who were the first to begin preaching heresies, after they repented, were no longer allowed to be bishops. Meanwhile, priests who communicated with heretics explained that they did not break communion in order to protect the flock, to prevent an overt heretic from taking their place. These priests were not punished but were left in their positions, in their seats. However, they were subjected to ecclesiastical judgment and synodal investigation, which means that they made a mistake. Yet, they were allowed to remain in their positions because their intention was good, based on their purpose. Therefore, the claim that Orthodox Christians who communicated with heretics before being judged never received a canon (penalty) is a mistake.

And secondly, it is said about Canon 15 that it does not contain a penalty. Yet, it does. The Canon states that those who break communion with heretics before synodal investigation not only do not create schism but also deliver the Church from schisms and heresies. What does this mean? If those who break communion with heretics protect the Church from schism, what do those who do not break communion with heretics do? They create schism! Is schism not sanctioned, not punished? It is very clear that those who do not break communion with heretics are schismatics, are outside the Church, and the greatest penalty, the greatest canon, is that they create schism.

Saint Gregory Palamas never communicated with Kalekas nor with those who commemorated Kalekas. That is why he was imprisoned, because he completely severed communion with heresy.

So, there are certain people who say that it is a mistake not to have communion with those who are considered Orthodox but are in communion with the heretical bishop, using as an argument the Second Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great (letter to Ruffinian). Is there anything in the history of the Church to support what they say? No, of course not. Saint John Chrysostom says: “Enemies of Christ are the heretics, but also those who are in communion with them.” Saint Basil the Great says: “Not only are heretics enemies of God, but also those who consider themselves Orthodox yet are in communion with them.” That is why Canon 2 of the Synod of Antioch states that he who is in communion with the one who is not in communion is also not in communion (vasa communicantia ["communicating vessels"]). This applies to both condemned heretics and, as we see in Saint Basil the Great, Saint Theodore the Studite, and other Holy Fathers, it also applies to heretics who are not yet condemned or deposed (in the case of clergy).

 

Romanian source:

https://ortodoxlogos.ro/2022/05/13/gheron-sava-lavriotul-despre-intreruperea-totala-a-comuniunii-cu-ereticii-in-lumina-sfintelor-canoane-si-a-sfintilor-parinti/