Testimonies from Councils and Fathers concerning the division of the one Church into two flocks (“healthy” and “sick”) due to heresy and an uncondemned heretic.

[With a brief commentary on so-called “Cyprianism”]

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 29, 2025

[An anti-Ecumenist priest walled-off from the Official Church of Greece.]

 

 

Introduction

From the book of Hieromonk Eugenios, The Concept of Defilement, we publish from pages 549–555 a text bearing the above title. The text is composed in plain, comprehensible language. At the end of the text, there are concise conclusions.

The main points of the text are the following:

“The Church is one, but in critical periods it appears divided into two flocks due to heresies or delusion:

• The ‘healthy’ flock consists of those who preserve the correct faith.

• The ‘sick’ flock includes those who have been led astray by false teachings, without having been officially condemned.

Despite the division, both flocks perform mysteries, while the Church remains one. The aim of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils was the unity of the Church, the restoration of the divided flocks, and the removal of delusion. The ‘illness’ of the second flock refers to the spiritual harm caused by heresy, and its removal protects the healthy flock and allows for its spiritual growth.

Overall, the distinction between ‘healthy’ and ‘sick’ flock is temporary and therapeutic, with the purpose of returning all to the unity of the One Church.”

Among the groups of the G.O.C., this is called Cyprianism and is even considered by many to be a heresy.

Opinion of the author [Fr. Dimitrios]

The term Cyprianism does not correspond to a historically recognized heresy, nor does it describe a structured dogmatic system that introduces an innovation of faith or alters the ecclesiological mindset of Orthodoxy.

The positions attributed to the so-called “Cyprianism” — especially that the heretic is mystically severed from the Body of Christ prior to synodal condemnation, while remaining canonically within the visible ecclesiastical structure until judged by a synod — do not constitute heresy, but rather a patristic distinction clearly attested in the writings of the Holy Fathers. The distinction between the mystical and the visible body of the Church is established in Orthodox ecclesiology and is presupposed both by the Holy Canons and by the synodal practice of the Church.

The accusation that this position nullifies the competence of Local Synods is a distorted generalization. Tradition fully acknowledges the authority of bishops and local synods to condemn heresies and those inclined toward heresy; at the same time, however, it teaches that when a heresy acquires a universal or pan-Orthodox dimension, a corresponding synodal judgment is required. This gradation is not “ecclesiological relativism,” but an expression of canonical exactness.

The argument concerning the “inability of the Church to expel heretics in the absence of an Ecumenical Council” is based on hypothetical reasoning and not on patristic ecclesiology. The Church acknowledges a second manner of severance from itself: apostasy and self-severance, when someone publicly and persistently accepts or preaches heresy.

The argument that the Church cannot expel heretics without the convocation of an Ecumenical Council comes into conflict with the long tradition of the Fathers and with Canon Law. Orthodox ecclesiology recognizes two primary ways by which a member ceases to belong to the Body of Christ:

1. The Synodal Condemnation

This constitutes the “judicial path,” whereby the official Church, through Local or Ecumenical Councils, identifies the delusion and pronounces the penalty of excommunication or deposition. However, the Council does not “create” the heresy, but ascertains and confirms an already existing spiritual condition.

2. Self-Severance (Apostasy)

According to patristic theology, heresy is not merely a legal offense, but a spiritual condition that severs a person from the Life of the Church. Saint Maximus the Confessor maintained that heretics, even before synodal condemnation, have been alienated from the Church due to the corruption of the faith. He himself broke communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople when it fell into Monothelitism, even before the convocation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council acknowledges the obligation of the faithful to cease commemorating a bishop who preaches heresy “with bared head” (publicly and openly), which has already been condemned by Councils, even before there is a specific synodal judgment concerning the individual. The Church exists where the word of truth is rightly divided. As Saint Gregory Palamas emphasizes, those who belong to the Church of Christ are those who belong to the Truth. Those who reject the Truth exclude themselves from sacramental and spiritual communion, regardless of whether an institutional body has had time to convene. Therefore, the expectation of an Ecumenical Council as the exclusive prerequisite for the identification of a heretic is often a pretext to avoid confession of the faith, for it transforms the Church from “the pillar and ground of the truth” into a bureaucratic institution that remains inert in the face of doctrinal distortion.

The application of the concepts of “Cyprianism” primarily concerns the heretics within the visible Church (the “Ecumenists”) who remain “sick members” until synodal condemnation or secession.

The Papists, on the other hand, are generally considered to be outside the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church, since the Schism of 1054 and the subsequent Councils (such as the Hesychast Councils of the 14th century) have condemned and anathematized them. As such, the teaching concerning “sick members” applies to Orthodox who align themselves with Ecumenism, and not to Roman Catholics who have already seceded.

***

Testimonies from Councils and Fathers concerning the division of the one Church into two flocks (“healthy” and “sick”) due to heresy and an uncondemned heretic:

 

Testimony of Saint Basil the Great (concerning the Arians):

“In such a critical time, great effort and much care are needed to assist the Churches. And the greatest benefit is for those parts which have until now been divided to be united.”

In another letter (the 92nd):

“For this purpose we especially need your help [of the Westerners]: so that those who confess the apostolic faith, having dissolved the schisms they devised, may henceforth submit to the authority of the Church. Thus, the Body of Christ will once again be whole, and all its members will return to fullness...”

Note: In this letter, Saint Basil the Great beseeches the bishops of the West to assist synodally in uniting the Churches of the East.

Testimony of Saint Cyril of Alexandria (to John of Antioch after their reconciliation):

“…and [I pray that God] may unite the divided parts and, having removed the scandals that came between us, may crown with concord and peace both our Churches and yours.”

Testimony of the same Saint (to Patriarch Maximian of Constantinople):

“Behold, look! The divided members of the body of the Church have been united once again with one another.”

Introductory Address of the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council:

“What other offering of gifts to God could be more precious from you than the fervent proof of your love and faith toward Him, and the peaceful state of the holy Churches which you have achieved? For this purpose, you have exerted very great efforts, beyond your other duties, striving for concord among those who had been divided. For you reign justly with the help of Christ, and Christ through you desires to grant peace to His Churches.

God Himself has now moved your serene authority and stirred you with zeal for Orthodoxy, so that you might convene this Ecumenical Council. The purpose was to overturn the criminal deed of heresy which had recently arisen and to confirm the preaching of the truth; thus, as this proceeds, the structure of the Church may be firm and without divisions.

For you did not consider it tolerable, most wise king, that we should agree and find common ground in other matters, yet be cut off and divided in the very subject of our life (the faith); and this, while we are members of one another and constitute the one Body of Christ, through our common faith in Him and with one another.

[…] Since, therefore, things stood thus, it was necessary that your Christ-loving benevolence should gather together this most holy and numerous assembly, deeming it right to achieve both: to remove the cause of the division of the Churches, and to restore to unity those things which had been separated. For you did not endure, God-honored sovereign, to see much longer the invention of false teaching recently woven, tearing the garment of Orthodoxy. But, as an instrument of the Holy Spirit —if we may dare to say so— together with us and through us, you rewove the torn portion and restored it to its wholeness.”

Testimony of Saint Tarasius (from the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council):

“For I observe and see that the Church of our Christ and God, which is founded upon the rock [of faith], is now divided and fragmented…”

Testimony of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (from a letter to Emperors Constantine and Irene):

“…so that, having driven away the division of the Churches, we may restore to unity those parts which have been severed…”

Testimony from the Feast of the Sunday of Orthodoxy (referring to the end of Iconoclasm):

“Beholding this greatest benefaction, let us applaud with joy that the divided members of Christ [the faithful and the churches] have been gathered again into unity, and let us glorify God who has granted us peace.” (Third troparion of the First Ode of the Canon)

It should further be noted that, just as occurred in the periods prior to the convocation of the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, as well as in the time of Saint Basil the Great, so also in other historical moments the Church appears divided in two (that is, into two flocks). This happened due to heresies and the activity of heretics who had not yet been officially condemned. The same phenomenon is observed also in the periods preceding the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Eighth Ecumenical (due to schism), and the Ninth Ecumenical Council.

According to the above, then, the Church is divided into two flocks: one is the “healthy” (those who uphold the correct faith), and the other is the “sick” (those who have been led astray by delusion or heresy).

As Saint Basil the Great calls them [the documentation is found at the end of this section], into the second flock has entered the illness and defilement of impiety, resulting in its transformation from a healthy part into a sick one. In contrast, the first part remained healthy precisely because it kept its distance from the second. But take heed of this: two Churches are not created; the Church is one. What happens is that the flock is divided in two, or that the local Churches are in a state of separation from one another.

To make this more understandable, let us look to Holy Scripture. The Lord says: “And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18). The Apostle Paul says: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). These two passages refer to the One Church that we confess in the Symbol of Faith.

In other places, the Apostle Paul says: “Then had the Churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), and elsewhere: “Greet one another with a holy kiss; the Churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16). Here, the reference is to the local Churches, which all together constitute the One Catholic Church of Christ, yet each one of them is also the Catholic Church. Ultimately, this is a mystery, but the phrase “the Churches” refers to the individual local Christian communities.

Now coming to the passages under examination: Saint Basil the Great speaks of “uniting the Churches which until now were divided.” Saint Cyril refers to “our Churches and yours.” The Sixth Ecumenical Council seeks “to remove the division of the Churches and to restore to unity those parts that have been separated.” Finally, the Seventh Ecumenical Council says, “so that [we may cast off the division of the Churches]” … “driving away the disagreement among the Churches, let us restore to unity those parts that have been separated.” And from the Sunday of Orthodoxy: “the separated members of Christ have again been gathered into unity.” In these texts, the meaning is that the local Churches must be united—or have been united—that is, their flocks are to become one again, ceasing to be in separation and without ecclesiastical communion. The phrase of Saint Tarasius (“I see the Church… torn and fragmented”) means that the Church of God appears as divided into two flocks or into two local Churches that are not in communion with each other.

Both of these parts perform mysteries as members of the Church. Saint Basil the Great and all the Orthodox held that the Arians had valid (substantial) priesthood. The same was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council concerning the “Council of Apostasy,” by the Sixth Ecumenical Council regarding Macarius and others, by the Seventh Ecumenical Council regarding the Iconoclasts, as well as by the Council of 843 concerning the Iconoclasts after the Seventh Ecumenical. The same occurred with the Fifth Ecumenical Council concerning the Nestorians of the West, the Eighth Ecumenical concerning the schismatic Ignatians, and the Ninth Ecumenical concerning the followers of Barlaam and Akindynos (see also regarding Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint Gregory Palamas).

The question is: what does the “sickness” (morbid state) of one part mean, and why must we distance ourselves from it, even though it performs mysteries? The answer to this very delicate issue is given throughout the entire book, but concisely in Chapter VII: “Final Conclusions.”

The designation of the two flocks of the Church as “healthy” and “sick” (diseased), according to Saint Basil the Great, is based on the following:

“These describe the image of those who distort the teachings of the Lord and do not genuinely learn from His word, but have been corrupted by the teaching of the evil one. These mingle with the healthy body of the Church [i.e., the Orthodox], with the intention of secretly transmitting their own spiritual harm to the more well-intentioned and simple-minded faithful.

“For the healthy part here [the portion of the Orthodox], which defends the piety of the Fathers, has suffered greatly, as the devil strives in many and varied ways to shake it. But may it be, through your prayers, that the evil heresy of Arius which misleads the people be extinguished, and that the good teaching of our Fathers gathered in Nicaea may shine again, so that the doxology to the Holy Trinity may be in harmony with the saving baptism.

“The most pitiable of all is that even the part which appears to be healthy [the Orthodox] has become internally divided... To us, in addition to the open war of the heretics, has been added the conflict with those who appear to believe the same as we do, a fact which has brought the Churches into a state of utmost weakness.

“We remain steadfast in the same position, while others are those who continually change [he refers to Eustathius of Sebasteia], and now openly join the camp of the opponents. You yourself know how highly we valued communion with them, so long as they still belonged to the healthy portion [the Orthodox].

“But you, our beloved and much-desired brothers, become physicians for the wounded and trainers for the healthy. Heal the sick [diseased] part [the Arians], and prepare the healthy part [the Orthodox] for the practice of piety.

“Remain steadfast in the faith; look around you throughout the whole world and see that this sick part [referring to the Pneumatomachians] is small. The entire rest of the Church, from one end of the world to the other, which received the Gospel, remains faithful to this sound and correct teaching.”

1. The Unity of the Church and the Division of the Flocks

The text highlights that the Church remains one, but in critical periods it appears divided into two flocks:

• The “healthy” flock: the faithful who preserve the correct faith and follow the teachings of the Fathers.
• The “sick” flock: the faithful who have been led astray by heresies or false teachings, without having yet been officially condemned.

This division does not create two Churches; the Church remains one, while the local Churches may be in a state of separation or have interrupted ecclesiastical relations with one another. Saint Basil the Great uses the metaphor of “illness” to describe the spiritual damage caused by heresy and delusion.

2. Aim of the Fathers and the Councils

All the cited texts emphasize that the aim of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils was the unity of the Church:

• Saint Basil the Great: seeks the union of the Churches that had been divided due to the Arians.
• Saint Cyril of Alexandria: prays for the union of the divided parts and the removal of scandals.
• Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils: explicitly state that the goal is the removal of division and the restoration of the flocks to unity.
• Sunday of Orthodoxy: celebrates the reunification of the “separated members of Christ.”

Overall, this line of thought shows that faith and unity are interlinked, and that the correction of heretics does not mean the dissolution of the Church, but the restoration of unity.

3. The Meaning of “Sickness”

The “sickness” or “morbid condition” of the second flock does not refer to an inability to perform the mysteries; the mysteries are celebrated properly and remain valid, even in a flock that has deviated in doctrine. On the contrary, the “sickness” is spiritual:

• It is the distortion of the truth of the Gospel and the spread of delusion.
• It poses a threat of transmission to the Orthodox faithful.
• Separation from the “sick” part protects the healthy flock and allows for its spiritual growth.
• Saint Basil the Great likens the work of the Fathers to that of physicians caring for the ill, with the goal of restoring the “sick” and preserving the “healthy.”

4. The Ecclesiological Perspective

The text emphasizes the unity of the One Church and the distinction between the local Churches and the Body of the Church:

• The One Church exists universally, while the local Churches are parts of the One Church.
• The Fathers and the Councils observe that division can occur among the local flocks without the unity of the Church being lost.
• Ecclesiastical divisions are temporary and can be healed through councils and the conciliar effort toward unity.

5. Conclusion

The main message of the text is:

• The Church is one, but it may appear divided due to heresies or delusion.
• The divided flocks are called “healthy” and “sick,” depending on their adherence to the truth of the faith.
• Despite the division, both flocks perform mysteries; however, spiritual guidance requires distancing from the sickness for protection and healing.
• The Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers always pursued unity and the restoration of the divided Churches.
• In other words, the division into two flocks is a temporary and therapeutic distinction, not a schism; the goal is the return of all to the unified body of the Church.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_40.html

St. Gregory the Theologian: “I’m staying away from every convention of bishops…”

 

Epistle 130 (Summer 382 A.D.)

To Procopius,

If I must write the truth, here’s how I’m doing: I’m staying away from every convention of bishops because I don’t see any happy ending to a synod that leans toward an increase in vices rather than a decrease. Yes, the contentious and power hungry will always be around, along with – don’t assume I’m being petulant when I write like this! – those who are [supposedly] superior to reasonable discourse. Anyone who passes judgment on vice in others is prosecuted for it no sooner than he puts an end to theirs. Therefore, I’ve contracted into myself and come to think of tranquility of soul as the only sure thing. And now I have an illness that protects my decision; I’m nearly always breathing my last and unable to make myself of any use. Therefore, let Your Magnanimity agree with me, and let the most pious emperor be persuaded by you not to condemn me as indifferent but to recognize the infirmity for which I need retreat before any other benefaction – something which he knew and conceded to me.

Source: Gregory of Nazianzus’s Letter Collection: The Complete Translation, Bradley K. Storin (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), pp. 159-160.

How a monk ought to flee from women and bishops.

 

In this context [“The Spirit of Vainglory”], here is an old saying of the fathers that is still current and that I, who could not avoid my own sister or escape the bishop’s hand, am unable to utter without embarrassment: A monk must by all means flee from women and bishops. For neither permit him, when once they have bent him to familiarity with themselves, to devote himself any longer to the quiet of his cell or to cling with most pure eyes, through insight into spiritual matters, to divine theoria.

- Saint John Cassian, Institutes, bk. 11, par. 18.

The Validity of Orthodox Mysteries and Spiritual Defilement through the Commemoration of a Heretical Bishop.

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 28, 2025

 

 

To examine the subject, which concerns baptized Orthodox Christians, we must consider the following:

A. What constitutes a valid Mystery, and what are the conditions for participation in a valid Mystery by Orthodox Christians.

B. When the Mystery acquires salvific dimensions.

C. What spiritual defilement means and how it arises.

***

A. The fundamental theological principle is that the true celebrant of the Mysteries is Jesus Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. The priest merely lends his hands and voice (“Thou Who offerest and art offered…”).

A Mystery is considered valid if the following conditions are met:

1. The officiating clergyman has a canonical ordination.

2. The rite established by the Church is observed.

3. The spiritual purity of both the celebrant and the participant.

The Fathers emphasize that the valid celebration of the Mysteries is connected not only with ritual correctness, but also with the spiritual purity of the celebrant (that there be no impediments to the priesthood) and of the participant. For example, Saint John Chrysostom writes that Holy Communion is a union with Christ, and no one should commune as a sinner or heretic without repentance.

***

B. In Orthodox theology, the Mystery acquires soteriological dimensions (that is, it contributes to the salvation and deification of man) when it is not merely a ceremonial act, but a true encounter between God and man that transforms existence.

The basic conditions for a Mystery to possess a salvific character are the following:

1. Synergy (Divine Grace and Human Will)

The Mystery does not act “magically.” What is required is synergy — that is, the offering of the uncreated Divine Grace by God and the free acceptance and Orthodox faith of man. Without repentance and the sincere disposition of the believer, the Mystery remains ineffective for his salvation.

2. Faith as a Bond with the Mystery

Orthodox faith is not merely an intellectual assent, but a confession that incorporates man into the Church. Without it, participation in the Mysteries — especially in the Holy Eucharist — is not permitted, as the Mystery is the seal of already existing Orthodox faith and not a means for its attainment.

3. Active Spiritual Life: Faith must be accompanied by works and repentance in order to be “salvific.”

4. In Orthodox ecclesiology, the commemoration of the Orthodox bishop by the priest during the celebration of the Mysteries is not a mere formal procedure, but a fundamental condition for their validity and salvific dimension.

***

C. The Mystery is considered “defiled” when it is performed outside the boundaries of Truth (heresy) or outside the boundaries of Order (schism/deposition), as well as when the believer participates in it with a conscience opposed to the will of God.

The commemoration of a bishop who preaches heresy “with bared head” (openly and publicly) is considered by many Fathers to be communion with delusion/error [πλάνη, pláni].  The believer who consciously follows a heretical bishop is in danger of corrupting his Orthodox mindset. Commemoration signifies unity of faith. If the bishop is a heretic, commemoration creates an ecclesiological illusion. It presents heresy as a part of the Church. This, according to Saint Theodore the Studite, constitutes “communion with darkness,” because the Divine Eucharist cannot conceal doctrinal deviation.

Participation in Mysteries where a heretical bishop is commemorated may remain “institutionally” valid (until synodal condemnation), but becomes spiritually dangerous. The believer is called to preserve the “Orthodox discernment” and to place faith above administrative conformity, since the Church is constituted by Confession and not merely by institution.

***

D. There are two kinds of heretical bishops: those who have been judged by Orthodox Synods and deposed, and those who are heretical but have not been judged by an Orthodox Synod. Both cases are referred to ecclesiastically as excommunicated. When a bishop preaches doctrine contrary to the dogmas of the Church, and according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, if the heresy has already been condemned by previous Synods, that bishop is essentially considered “excommunicated” by the very truth of things, even prior to the formal synodal act.

***

E. Within the framework of Orthodox Ecclesiology (as it is also analyzed in contemporary theological studies), a heretical bishop is considered to “defile” — not in a magical sense of the word, but in an ecclesiological and soteriological manner.

This “defilement” is manifested on three levels:

1. Defilement of Confession (False Witness)

The greatest “defilement” is the distortion of the Truth. Since the Church is constituted upon right faith, the bishop who preaches heresy introduces a “foreign body” into the teaching.

• When a priest commemorates such a bishop, he falsely affirms that this bishop “rightly divides the word of truth.”

• This false confession defiles the spiritual integrity of the local church, as the Divine Eucharist is celebrated upon falsehood and not upon Truth.

2. Spiritual Defilement of the Faithful (Communion with Delusion)

According to the Fathers (such as Saint Theodore the Studite), communion with a heretical bishop is not a mere administrative act, but a spiritual participation in his delusion. The believer who consciously follows the heretic is “defiled” because he accepts as true something that is false. This alters his Orthodox discernment (the sensibility of faith). While the grace of the Mystery may remain institutionally valid (until synodal condemnation), the believer who accepts the heresy ceases to cooperate with the grace, resulting in the Mystery not acting salvifically for him.

***

F. According to the strict patristic line, defilement is transmitted through commemoration and communion (participation in the Mysteries):

1. From the Bishop to the Priest: Through the commemoration of the name of the heretical bishop.

2. From the Priest to the Faithful: Through the participation of the faithful in the Liturgy where the heretic is commemorated, and through the acceptance of his teaching.

To avoid this defilement, the Church provides for walling-off (15th Canon of the First-Second Council). The breaking of communion with the heretical bishop is not schism, but spiritual disinfection: the faithful and the clergy cut off contact with the disease (heresy) in order to remain healthy members of the Body of Christ.

Summary: The heretical bishop defiles because he transforms the Mystery from a “manifestation of truth” into an “act of blind obedience” to delusion, thereby endangering the salvation of those who consciously follow him.

He who communes with the excommunicated is himself excommunicated.

In summary:

Those who accepted that the meaning of “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” applies also to a heretic not yet condemned by a synod are the following:

Saint Athanasius the Great, the monks of Tabennisi (and behind them all the monks and ascetics of Egypt, such as Venerable Theodore the Sanctified), Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Melania the Roman, Venerable Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem, Saint Nicephorus the Confessor Patriarch of Constantinople, Venerable Theodore the Studite, Saint Joseph Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod that signed the relevant text, Venerable Meletius of Galesion, Saint Athanasius Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph Bryennios, Saint Mark of Ephesus, and the Holy Dositheus Patriarch of Jerusalem. Finally, all the Saints, according to Venerable Theodore the Studite and Holy Dositheus.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council explains why the heretic must not be regarded as being in communion with the Orthodox: because the Mysteries are defiled through communion (commemoration) with the heretic. The term “defilement” here does not mean the removal of the essence of the priesthood nor the non-existence of the Mysteries. From the interpretation of the Fifth Council, it follows that the principle “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” applies also to a non-deposed (“not yet condemned”) heretic.

This principle must not be interpreted as applying only after excommunication, as the official interpreters claim, but also before it, as is evident from the apostolic and patristic testimonies that have been presented.

First Millennium:

This commandment was observed by the flock of the Orthodox during the periods of: Saint Athanasius the Great, Saint Basil the Great, and Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. During this era also lived Venerable Theodore the Studite, for whom the matter likewise concerned the Holy Hierarchs Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. Notable too was the contribution of Saint Melania the Roman, who confirms the observance of the principle even in regard to uncondemned heretics. According to Venerable Theodore, this commandment pertains to all the Saints up to his time, and its observance by all constitutes a consensus Patrum — a common acceptance by the Fathers.

Second Millennium:

Leaders of this period were Saint Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph Bryennios, Mark of Ephesus, and Meletius of Galesion.

The principle “he who communes with the excommunicated shall himself be excommunicated” remained in force during this period as well, not only regarding communion with the Papists but also with uncondemned heretics, as is evident from the acceptance of the letter of Saint Basil the Great to the “Monastics” and from the application of the principle by Saint Athanasius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

In sum, this principle constitutes an ancient and patristic tradition, that is, a consensus Patrum, and it is a commandment that originates from great figures of holiness and has remained unchanged throughout the centuries, even to our own time.

 

[Further information can be found in the book (in Greek) by Hieromonk Eugenios, “The Concept of Defilement”…]

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_28.html

Metropolitan Demetrius of America: Elder Ephraim of Arizona and the Old Calendar Zealots

The untold story of miracles and holy men

 

 

A transcript of a talk by His Eminence Metropolitan Demetrios of America (GOC-K) in response to a question regarding the book "My Elder Joseph the Hesychast" by Elder Ephraim of Arizona. The talk can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rDMZyVC2R0 . 

Transcribed by Michael Chacra.

***

PART 1: 0:00 – 4:15

…With all due respect, certain things need to be clarified with regards to statements made by Elder Ephraim of Arizona in his book called “My Elder Joseph the Hesychast”. He’s got a section in there about the Old Calendarists, about the zealots. And Father Ephraim claims that Father (Elder) Joseph stated that the zealots are “planamenoi”, meaning that they are in delusion, or deceived. And this is a very general statement, and it is problematic for Fr. Joseph himself, if he really made this statement, because just a day before Elder Joseph was a zealot himself. So it creates a Gordian knot [a complex unsolvable problem – Transcriber] and there is a reason why Elder Joseph was a zealot, was because he discovered that the righteous fathers of the holy mountain of Athos who have progressed in prayer, who knew something about the hesychastic life, who knew something about the power of the Jesus Prayer, were themselves zealot fathers.

Those fathers themselves are actually mentioned by name in his book. For example, Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast (of Katounakia). Elder Kallinikos was a practitioner of the Jesus Prayer, and he was a true hesychast. He lived in Katounakia, in the desert region of Mount Athos, and he was – if anyone would be called a hesychast – he was the hesychast of the time. He was THE hesychast. And he was a zealot. And I would say that he was probably one of the stricter types of the zealots. Because the zealots were divided into two factions. The Old Calendarists were either Matthewites or Florinites. Of course, at this time, Mathew himself was not ordained bishop. But the difference between the two was that the Matthewites were the ultra-conservatives who believed that the New Calendarists all were graceless from 1924 onwards. And the Florinites were called Florinites because they were the followers of [St.] Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly the bishop of Florina, who stated that you can’t really come up with such conclusions so fast.

But Elder Kallinikos was of the stricter faction. He believed that the New Calendarists were graceless. In fact, there is a famous quote that is referenced to him. Apparently, he said that the New Calendar baptism is a bath and not baptism. And of course, for us that sounds very extreme, especially at that time. But anyhow, he was a holy man. A god-bearer really. As someone who really understood the power of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So much so that his mind was so illumined that at the time of heresy he was ready to defend the Orthodox Church.

There was another holy elder that was mentioned there, Elder Daniel, who belonged to Megisti Lavra, the monastery of the Great Lavra, but he wasn’t a monk of the monastery. He was a monk in one of the kellia, one of the cells, and he was a hesychast. He would pray the liturgies and Elder Joseph and Elder Arsenios would go to these liturgies and they would call those liturgies of elder Daniel “a mestagoigia”, i.e., it was a grace-filled event and it was just, they would be saturated from the holiness coming from this holy elder who would pray the Divine Liturgy, then he would say a few words after the Divine Liturgy, and then he would go and do his hesychastic business. This elder Daniel, was also as we said, a zealot. And these were his two most influential elders at the beginning of Elder Joseph’s boria, his path in this hesychastic life. So elder Joseph himself was aligned with these fathers who believed that the NCs were graceless.

But then he started getting thoughts.

PART 2: 4:10 – 11:02

And he prayed about things. Apparently, it says there in the life that he prayed, and then they left the stricter faction to join the synod of Met. [St.] Chrysostomos of Florina who was a righteous man of God and he had heard about that. And he wrote a letter to him asking for forgiveness, and Met. Chrysostomos wrote back to him and said “All is fine. And I accept you all.” And then he had another vision, and then he left Met. [St.] Chrysostomos and decided to leave the zealots altogether, and then eventually he started commemorating the Patriarch, and then eventually his synodia went back and forth.

One thing is consistent and the one consistent thing is that there are a lot of inconsistencies with regards of what is going on here. Because of this Gordian knot that I am talking about which is actually confusing – most people that read this book can’t really read behind the lines. They just read this statement and they think: “Well Elder Joseph then it must be the end of the story”. Well, these other holy fathers did not believe that.

There’s another elder mentioned in this book, Elder Ieronymos of Aegina. Elder Ieronymos was exceptional man of prayer. He had compunctionate prayer. He had the prayer of the heart. And the situation of Elder Ieronymos was actually the opposite. Elder Ieronymos continued to serve under the so-called official churches after the change of the calendar, but he was having conscious pangs about it. And he prayed and he prayed, and then God made it clear to him that he join the zealots. So, he went to Met. Chrysostomos of Florina. And then he continued with the synod. The bishop that buried him was Met. Akakios of Diavleia. He is one of our bishops. He is still alive. He is in his 90s [Met. Akakios reposed in late 2019 – Transcriber].

Elder Ieronymos had a greater gift of clairvoyance than Elder Joseph. It is pretty evident from his life and from the people that knew him. And even foreknowledge, because they are two different things. Sometimes God reveals certain things; sometimes God does not reveal certain things. St. Macarios of Egypt says in one of his ascetical homilies, he says that even the disciples of Our Lord themselves weren’t exactly able to work miracles every single time that they wanted to, because that was up to God. God is the one works miracles. So, Saint Ieronymos met with Elder Arsenios, the co-ascetic of elder Joseph before Fr. Arsenios met elder Joseph, in the Holy Land, at the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the Jordan. So elder Arsenios learned a few things about prayer from elder Ieronymos and he had a very, very high opinion about Elder Ieronymos. Finally, the nun who was with elder Ieronymos and stayed with him up to his death is the sister according to the flesh of Father Arsenios.

There was another contemporary of Elder Ieronymos. His name was elder John of Amphiali [Saint John the New Almsgiver of Amphiali]. He was the founder of the monastery of Saint Demetrious in Piraeus and also of the Holy Trinity in Amphiali. This man literally raised the dead. He was a miracle worker, both during his life and after his life. At one time he went to visit Elder Ieronymos, and Elder Ieronymos said “Please leave”. This was a shock to sister Evpraxia, the nun who was with the elder, and she said to Elder Ieronymos, “how could you do such a thing. How could you ask Fr. John to leave. This is the Fr. John. “And elder Ieronymos said, “Nun, leave me. I did not see a human being; all I could see was an effulgence of light. And that man is a Saint of God and I am not worthy to hear his confession, and I am not worthy to be in his presence.” And this St. John of Amphiali, whom we consider a saint, because he is a Saint, was the confessor of Met. St. Chrysostomos of Florina. And it was revealed to Fr. John of Amphiali that Met. Chrysostomos was going to repose, and so he went to see the bishop and he told him about his revelation. And the Metropolitan said I had the same revelation, and so, the one confessed to the other and he took Holy Communion and he had reposed with a righteous ending.

So, these are the people now who are under Met. Chrysostomos. And so, on the one hand he’s [i.e., Elder Ephraim in his book] praising Elder Ieronymos, but on the other hand they are considering Met. Chrysostomos to be I guess a schismatic, they don’t come out and say ‘schismatic’. They don’t use that word. In any case, this is the conclusion that a lot of people can get from reading this book.

There are a series of books written in Greek by Father Cherubim called “Contemporary Ascetics on Mount Athos.” These books were translated and printed by the Saint Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, CA. They are really good lives, very edifying, particularly for monastics. One of the lives comes to mind, Father Joachim, who was one of the fathers of St. Anne’s Skete [Elder Joachim of St. Anne’s Skete]. He was a zealot father, meaning he was a non-commemorator. He belonged to the synodia which did not commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople for matters of faith, as many fathers of the time did. And he was in America, and he was scandalized by the fact that many of the modernistic clergy in America cut their hairs, trim their beards, shaved their beards, and wouldn’t wear a rasa, so he prayed to the Mother of God to be deemed worthy to always wear his rasa until his last breath, to have long hair, long beard. So here we see a very unique phenomenon. His beard grew down to the floor, and he used to carry it in a sack. There is a photograph of him in the life, and once again, he also was one of those fathers who did not commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople.

You know we can write volumes and volumes about all these Old Calendar elders (there were many more of them). There is also Elder Moses of Athikia. He is just an absolutely phenomenal person. This is just …the details of his life are unbelievable. He reposed in the 1940s. Elder Ieronymos reposed I think in 1966. They were all contemporaries.

PART III - 11:02 – 16:32

Then, just a few years before Elder Joseph’s repose, he received an encyclical. Now this was the thing that really prompted this move. To leave the zealots. He received an encyclical from the synod of the GOC under Met. Chrysostomos stating that the official so-called New Calendar church of Greece was graceless. And he thought, “wait a second now, we came here so we don’t have to deal with all that”. And of course, even here, the rumor ran “there was one encyclical, there was another encyclical” It’s not exactly clear. It was a prospathia. It was an endeavor to bring together all the Old Calendarists, the two factions. Met. Chrysostomos didn’t totally believe that, that they were graceless. He made that statement so that he could bring the other faction together.

So, elder Joseph was upset, he was quite irritated over this encyclical. So, he said “Fathers” -- now reading from the life it seems he already made up his mind – but he said “Fathers, we need to pray”. So, he went in and closed himself in his cell and prayed for three days and then he came out and said “Fathers, we’re leaving.” So, they did not all accept it very easily. In fact, the older fathers had a problem with it. Father Arsenios, he had a problem with Patriarch Athenagoras. The younger ones had no problem - –Father Ephraim, Father Joseph, Father Charalambos. But, Father Ephraim himself [of Katounakia] – another Father Ephraim [not of Arizona] who is not exactly part of the synodia but had Elder Joseph as his spiritual father – said something very significant to him that is recorded in his life. He said: “Geronda, Elder, you know that even the chosen, even the elect can fall into delusion in the last days.” Well of course, even in the first centuries of the church, the elect were always faced with the problem of demons appearing as angels of light. So, you see, this is very, very sort of a danger zone, when we are dealing with dreams, particularly dreams, visions, and voices. I am not saying that it does not happen. Because if I say that, then I might as well just cut out a lot of the lives of the saints, the details of the lives of the Saints. Because you find this obviously. But the fathers, even some of those fathers themselves who had these visions, did say that you had to be very cautious. St. John of the Ladder said don’t accept any dreams. It could be – and I am not saying that Elder Joseph was planamenous himself – that he was totally in delusion, but it could be that there was a delusion here or there. That happens.

But now we are continuing with the inconsistencies. Because, on the one hand, we read, in this life, the dreams that he had at that time. And in another life, I think it was Fr. Joseph of Dionysiou, who wrote the life of Elder Ephraim of Katounakia -- Something different. In this life, it says that “Elder Joseph had a dream, that he was in church, that were bickering among themselves. He says yes, we are in the Church but we had no elefthreo pnevma – the spirit of freedom, or a free spirit.” So, of course you can come to the conclusion that perhaps, they are all part of the Church but the zealot fathers are too busy bickering so that you don’t want to be with them because you are not going to have a free spirit. On the other hand, the book written by this Father Joseph [of Dionysiou] says something different. It says that Elder Joseph found himself on a piece of land that was separated from the Holy Mountain of Athos, and then he jumped off and went onto the main land, for safety. And then after he jumped off that little piece of land fell to the sea. So, it is different. There is no reference to this at all in this book written by Fr. Ephraim. But I think I’ve heard three or four different types of visions about this. Another thing, about worms or something. It’s just… So we have a little bit of, or perhaps a lot of, inconsistencies. And then after this, one wonders why he didn’t just have the one vision about the one certain Patriarch. Why leave the Matthewites, go to the Florinites, and then stop commemorating, and then after that commemorate the Patriarch. Because, when they left the zealot fathers, they didn’t start commemorating the Patriarch right away. There was a period when they did not commemorate him either. Then they started commemorating the Patriarch and then after the lifting of the anathemas [in 1965], which happened after the repose of Elder Joseph, the synodia themselves stopped commemorating. And at that time, although they did not align themselves with the zealots again, they were just non-commemorators. Which there are still some of those types on Mount Athos. They aren’t exactly with the zealots, they aren’t exactly with the Old Calendarists, but they don’t commemorate.

Part IV - 16:32 – 22:01

And Fr. Ephraim of Katounakia, then, at this time when Elder Joseph decided to leave the zealots, protested a little bit and Elder Joseph said, “If you’ve got a problem, go back to your elder”. So, you see he belonged to another synodia, but he felt a close connection to elder Joseph. He was almost part of his synodia in a way, because he felt Elder Joseph was his spiritual father. But then he says he felt so closely connected to Elder Joseph, he had a problem of conscience: “They’re not with the zealots, they started commemorating, and I’m here with the zealots, what do I do?” So he prayed about it too. And then he asked a couple of elders, I think one of them was Fr. Gabriel of Dionysiou, I think the other one was Fr. Gerasimos of Mikragiannanites who was a famous hymnographer, and they said “Stay with you elder” So for many years after that Fr Ephraim of Katounakia remained a zealot. He stayed with the zealots.

Now, this is very strange, because in the book written by Fr. Joseph, they are praising him for that because of his obedience. But we know that obedience to disobedience is not obedience. If you believe that’s not the Church, you need to be with the Church. No elder is above the Church. And there is a very clear chain in what I was talking about. On top there is the Lord himself who is the head of the Church, then there is the body, the Church, then we have the synod, after the synod then we have the bishop, then we have the priest, then we have the deacon, the monastics and the lay people and so and so forth. So, we have this chain. But if there is a disconnect somewhere, in between Jesus Christ, the Church, and you, you have to make sure you are connected to the Church. So, he’s saying there, i.e., Fr. Joseph is saying in his book, that he was honoring the Church by staying with the zealots because of the teaching of the Church of obedience. Now, of course, the Church teaches obedience. This is why Adam fell from paradise, because of his disobedience, and our Lord came to us by His obedience. And you know we have a lot of people who aren’t really thinking like Orthodox Christians. They try to reshape Orthodoxy. They are affected by Protestant thought, perhaps. And they try to underestimate the chain that we’re talking about. You have to have a spiritual father, you have to have a bishop, you have to have a synod, you have to have a church, you have to be obedient. If you’re obedient to Father, you are obedient to Christ. Yes, that’s true, and we don’t deny that. But if your Father is not connected to the Church, you have a problem. You have to connect with the Church.

And in another time, we hear that Father Ephraim of Katounakia heard a voice saying: “the Church is in Constantinople.” But on the other hand, he’s continuing to commemorate. So, this is really a Gordian knot like I said. But people don’t really know, and they can’t make these connections, and they can’t read betweeen the lines. So, Fr. Ephraim says that when Elder Joseph made his move, it was apotoma, it was a sudden change. So that’s why some of the fathers, the older fathers particularly, were surprised to a certain degree by his decision. I can sympathize to a certain degree with Elder Joseph’s frustration with the zealot fathers, because some of the zealot fathers did in fact have zeal not according to knowledge. Some of them were a little too fanatical. But, to be fair, that happens everywhere. The New Calendarists themselves have fanatics, both those who are ecumenists, those who are anti-ecumenists. You’re going to find fanaticism everywhere. It just happens to be a problem. But you can’t base your opinions upon one or two or three or four people. It has to be based upon the truth.

So, we mentioned our Saints, our own Elders, which Elder Joseph himself had connection to in some way, to some of them. I know that Fr. Ephraim [of Arizona – Transcriber], I mentioned that there were some inconsistencies going on, I know that at one time as we said, when they lifted the anathemas they stopped commemorating, at one time he went to visit Archbishop Auxentios, at one time Archbishop Auxentios read of prayer of cheirothesia over him, then he went back. They all started commemorating the Patriarch when they became Abbots of monasteries. Then, I think it was 1991 or 92, Fr. Ephraim decided to join the ROCOR, then a few months after that, he left. And of course, people were saying the Panagia told him to go to the ROCOR. He left after that. So, you know, did Panagia make mistake, or what is exactly is going on, I don’t know. But I know that, they were, during this period when they left the zealots but they were also not commemorating the Patriarch, that they were very much sympathetic towards the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad [ROCA].

Part V - 22:01 – 25:55

The ROCA rather is where we got our ordinations from. And the ROCA is the church that supported the traditionalist Orthodox. And there also is another bishop [St.] Nikolai Velimirovich who used to provide Holy Chrism for the Old Calendarists of Greece. St. John Maximovitch, the patron Saint of our little monastery, visited my Cathedral, St. Markella, on numerous occasions. He was up on the throne during services. And there are pictures of him at the cathedral. Metropolitan [St.] Philaret and the ROCOR produced a lot of holy people. These were our bishops, and here in America we of course have a very close connection to them. And in 1969, Met. Philaret wrote, together with his entire synod, a letter to our synod in Greece, officially proclaiming a recognition, recognizing them as a sister church. They were aware of what happened. They were aware of the persecutions against the Old Calendarists after 1924 when the calendar changed. And, you know, often times when God needs to, he makes things clearer to the flock of Christ, for one reason or another.

In 1925, the Old Calendarists decided that they were going to have a vigil service for the Feast of the Holy Cross at the church of St. John the Theologian, and it became a huge event. It wasn’t just ten, twenty, thirty people. It turned out to be 2000 people. The authorities heard about it and they sent the police to stop the vigil. And, the police arrived there around 11:30pm, and once they saw a multitude of people looking up the sky, they looked to the sky and they saw the Sign of the Cross over the church, as a verification to the faithful who were celebrating according to the Orthodox calendar the feast of the exaltation of the Holy Cross. (Even the police fell down on their knees). Now when you read, you can find two other instances of this taking place in the history of the Church, in the Menaion. It’s commemorated in the Menaion. This is the third time. And this is a big event. We’re not talking about yia yia or papouli, you know grandma or grandfather, babush kadezh, whatever you want to call them having some kind of dream or one or two people seeing something. We’re talking about 2000 people! God doesn’t make mistakes. And those people remained faithful to the traditions of the Church. There was no such miracle among the New Calendarists, verifying their mistake.

But after that, it was one thing after another too, but this was a major event because there was 2000 people. And as I say even the police themselves fell on their knees, beseeching the Lord for mercy. So, there was no way that they were going to arrest the priest and cause a roughness there at that service.

So, we are called ta logoika provata. We are called the rational flock of Christ. So, we are supposed to use our mind. And, this is abundantly clear I think to anybody who is rational, so you can’t be making statements like “the Old Calendarists are all planamenoi” because I think the miracle of the Cross taking place speaks a lot more than one or two people making such blank statements.

PART VI - 25:56 – 31:29

Another instance of one of the many miracles which took place, because, as I said, there were many miracles which took place in order to verify for those who were trying to preserve their Orthodox faith and tradition that they were doing the right thing by following Met. Chrysostomos. There were times when clergy were invisible, or people in general were invisible, and I’ve heard this even from people who are commemorators today. Clergy who commemorate the Patriarchate, because some of them were zealots at one point. It was an undeniable fact for them that there were times when the police would go to arrest people, and the people were just not visible. And one of those times was with Father [St.] John [The New Almsgiver] of Amfiali, he was in church, in the sanctuary, and the police went to arrest him, but he was right there, and if you’ve ever been to the church. I went to the church that he founded, of St. Demetrious, and the sanctuary is very small. And the police went in and they didn’t see him at all. Other times they would be chanting and they wouldn’t hear the chanting. So, God was working definitely with these people. God was with these people.

And then on, there were numerous different miracles which took place. I remember one of the monasteries that I went to in Attiki, in Attika, in honor of the Zoodochos Pigi, the Life-Giving Spring. The elder there, his name was Fr. Dhopetosis [? - not clear] – yeah, they were nuns that lived there – he was hiding in the mountains during the time of the persecution of the Old Calendarists, because the Old Calendarist clergy would be imprisoned, their beards would be shaved, they would take off their rasas. Sometimes we would hear horrific events like turning over the Holy Communion chalice. Other times would be toppling off the Epitaphios on Holy Friday. So the nuns were in church mourning the fact that they had no priest to for the Feast of the Theophany to bless the waters. And while they were in church, saying their prayers in tears, right underneath the icon of the Life-Giving Spring, the marble cracked open and water came out. Of course, they understood that this water was Holy Water. And I didn’t mention also for St. John, remember I mentioned to you about Elder John of Amphiali. After his repose, he was buried at the monastery of Holy Trinity that he founded. And every year, on the monastery feast day, the bishop would go out and have a memorial service at his grave, and once they started this memorial service, water would come out of his grave, and the faithful would collect it, and I know people that witnessed it many times, and miracles would happen from this water that came out of the grave of Fr. John. Then of course the relics came out, and after the relics came out, the miracle stopped. By God’s grace, we have a rib of St. John at our monastery, and also relics of St. Ieronymos and of St. Chrysostomos.

So, it’s not so simple. You can’t just say… If you know anything about history, you can’t really just say that the Old Calendarists are schismatics, especially if you have any connection with Elder Joseph the Hesychast, because his whole upbringing, or call it his whole formation as a Hesychast was with the zealot fathers. It was only in the last few years of his life that he left. And perhaps this is one of the reasons why the New Calendar Patriarch has not glorified officially him, whereas he’s glorified others like Fr. Paisios, who was recently reposed I think in 1994. I said glorify, meaning official proclamation.

But the real issue of course, the most problematic issue is, when you’re dealing with matters of faith, you believe what your bishop believes. So, so if your bishop is preaching some type of a heresy, then he’s…you’re believing in him, you can’t just say “well, the bishop is the bishop and he can do whatever he wants. That’s his business. And I believe what I believe.” Because on top of the Holy Table we have the antimension which is signed by the bishop, which gives the permission to the priest to serve the Divine Liturgy and the Divine Liturgy takes place in his name. The priest is his representative really. And this is the teaching of St. Ignatios the God-bearer and the fathers of the Church. And we can bring to reference many statements made by a lot of these bishops which are extremely problematic because they are not really Orthodox statements. And perhaps we could save that for another time.

So…let’s just hope [? inaudible] that answers your question.

Preparing for Baptism: “Don’t have a hypercritical attitude.”

Letter No. 264 of St. Seraphim of Platina

 

 

April 20/May 3, 1979

St. Theodore Trichinas

Dear Barry,

CHRIST IS RISEN! May the blessing of our Lord be with you!

We were very happy to receive your letter and hear of your path to Orthodoxy. May God send you His grace abundantly and grant you eternal salvation in His True Church!

The light you saw, and the presence you felt, I am sure, are from God. Such a thing is fairly frequently experienced by converts to Orthodoxy, and the remembrance of it is often of great help in the temptations that come upon one in leading a true Christian life. However, don’t think much about it, and especially don’t make any “theories” about it! Just know that God is close and sometimes lets us feel that closeness.

As you prepare for Baptism, I would give you several words of advice:

1. Don’t allow yourself to get stuck on the outward aspect of Orthodoxy—whether the splendid church services (the “high church” to which you were drawn as a child), the outward discipline (fasts, prostrations, etc.), being “correct” according to the canons, etc. All these things are good and helpful, but if one overemphasizes them one will enter into troubles and trials. You are coming to Orthodoxy to receive Christ, and this you should never forget.

2. Don’t have a hypercritical attitude. By this I don’t mean to give up your intellect and discernment, but rather to place them in obedience to a believing heart (“heart” meaning not mere “feeling,” but something much deeper—the organ that knows God). Some converts, alas, think they are very “smart” and they use Orthodoxy as a means for feeling superior to the non-Orthodox and sometimes even to Orthodox of other jurisdictions. Orthodox theology, of course, is much deeper and makes much better sense than the erroneous theologies of the modern West—but our basic attitude towards it must be one of humility and not pride. Converts who pride themselves on “knowing better” than Catholics and Protestants often end by “knowing better” than their own parish priest, bishop, and finally the Fathers and the whole Church!

3. Remember that your survival as an Orthodox Christian will depend very much on your contact with the living tradition of Orthodoxy. This is something you won’t get in books and it can’t be defined for you. If your attitude is humble and without hypercriticism, if you place Christ first in your heart, and try to lead a normal life according to Orthodox discipline and practice—you will obtain this contact. Alas, most Orthodox jurisdictions today (such as the OCA) are losing this contact out of simple worldliness. But there is also a temptation on the “right side” which proceeds from the same hypercriticism I just mentioned. The traditionalist (Old Calendar) Church in Greece today is in chaos because of this, one jurisdiction fighting and anathematizing another over “canonical correctness” and losing sight of the whole tradition over hyper-fine points. Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is in the best possible position in this regard, being rather in the middle of these two extremes and maintaining a balanced position (for example, grieving and occasionally remarking on the loss of Orthodoxy by the other jurisdictions, but not going to the extreme of declaring them to be “without grace”). We have recently written an article, in this connection, on Blessed Augustine, whom some converts (and Greeks) would like to regard as simply a “heretic,” without seeing that despite his errors he is actually more Orthodox than the modern, formally-correct “theologians” who criticize him

You yourself have had enough experience in life to avoid these temptations, which are actually those of the young and inexperienced; but it is good to keep them in mind.

You are already probably fairly well prepared for Baptism in outward knowledge (that is a lifelong task in any case, and one is never really “prepared”!). I would advise you to read some things that give more the “feel” of Orthodox Church life. The Confessions of Blessed Augustine is good reading for repentance and the warming up of the heart, and the ascetic and devotional literature of the Church is also very good—Lives of Saints, Desert Fathers, collections like the Lausiac History and the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great (who is much loved in the East). I am sending you separately our newest publication—some Homilies of St Symeon the New Theologian, which serve as a kind of catechism of the meaning of our Christian life, and also (in case you haven’t seen it) our article on Blessed Augustine from last year’s Orthodox Word.

As for serving God in the clerical state—that can be seen better after you become Orthodox. It is best not to think too eagerly of it in the beginning for fear of going “too fast” and not absorbing the lessons right in front of one. God will show. Just this Saturday (two days from now) we will have the ordination here of a young convert from Roman Catholicism. He joined the Church about 9 years ago and matured through various trials into someone who is just “ripe” for pastoral service. You must definitely meet him, and will gain much from talking with him. (He is Alexey Young, editor of the missionary periodical Nikodemos. He will take over our missionary labors in the southern Oregon area. By the way, the latest issue of Nikodemos is an excellent appeal to Roman Catholics to come to Orthodoxy—you should read it. We will have some extra copies soon in case you don’t subscribe.) There are many complications in pastoral labors today, and there is more hope for success in them if one “matures” into them rather than follow a standard path of “being assigned to a parish.”

This summer we will have our St. Herman Pilgrimage again on August 8-9, and then a week of courses on various Orthodox subjects (this year it will probably be a rather intense course). It would be good if you could attend. Of course, you are welcome to come and visit us any time. Please feel free to write about any questions you may have, also.

May God guide your steps into His Church and make you a fruitful laborer for Him!

With love in Christ,

H.S. [Hieromonk Seraphim]