Wisdom from the Matthewite Elder Gennadios of Akoumia (+1983)

 

Relevant to the confession of the Venerable Father is also the following incident (Stylianos Papadogiannakis describes it in his book)… When the blessed Gennadios “was caught up into Paradise,” he saw, among others who were saved, a Christian woman from Akoumia…Then a woman, whom Mr. Papadogiannakis characterizes as “hasty,” asked him:

“Father Gennadios, but how did this woman go to Paradise, since she lived according to the New Calendar?”

“How many people with the New,” the Venerable One clarified, “will be found in Paradise, and how many with the Old will be found in Hell! The old festal calendar is, without doubt, the correct one; however, the calendar alone will not save us, whether old or new, but our works, our Christian life, and above all the philanthropy of God.”

From this incident it follows that the blessed Father HAD NOT DOGMATIZED THE QUESTION OF THE CALENDAR, just as, moreover, the Genuine Orthodox Church has not dogmatized it either. The Elder taught that man’s salvation is “above all” the work of the philanthropy of God and not the result of a formal attachment to the Old Calendar; that man is saved in the Church and through the Church; that the Church is One, the very Church in which he himself lived, struggling, and was perfected, being sanctified: the Genuine Orthodox Church, which on the local level was expressed by his spiritual father, Hieromonk Kallinikos, and not by the New Calendarist priests of his area, with whom he maintained excellent friendly relations, but no spiritual relations at all.

- Ο Όσιος Γεννάδιος Ακουμίων Κρήτης (+1983), by Professor Antonios Markou. Translated from the original Greek.

 

Source: https://syghorisis.blogspot.com/2013/12/1983_29.html

St. Myrtidiotissa of Klissoura: “This is the Correct Calendar.”

Source: Eldress Myrtidiotissa: The Ascetic Struggler of Klissoura (1886-1974), by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA, 1999, pp. 77-79.

 

 

When the virtuous Sophia arrived in Greece, the Church Calendar had not yet been changed. In 1924, to the great national upheaval over the disaster in Asia Minor there was added turmoil in the Church over the introduction of the New Calendar.

Tightly knit populations, particularly in the provinces, and entire villages, refused to accept this innovation. They continued to observe the Feasts and to fast according to the traditional Calendar.

The saintly struggler of Klissoura also adhered to the Old (Church) Calendar. On Feast Days according to the New Calendar, when a great many people came to the monastery for Liturgy, she would withdraw to a hill, where she would hide and pray by herself. She was also accustomed to doing vigils in the Church without a Priest, together with other pious and virtuous believers who followed the Old Calendar.

And she would advise people thus: “The Fathers! The Old Calendar is their calendar. Go with the Old. That’s the right thing to do.”

This stand of hers was not undiscerning or taken without knowledge. She had been “informed” regarding this issue, too. On one occasion, she confided to me: “The Panagia told me: “This is the correct Calendar.”

If Old Calendar Priests would happen to go to the Shrine and Liturgize, the Saint would commune of the Immaculate Mysteries. She also kept the fasts according to the Old Calendar. During fasting periods according to the New Calendar, it often often so happened that compatriots of hers who followed the traditional reckoning would visit. She would rejoice and sit down with them to eat non-fasting meals, saying: “This (Calendar) is the correct one. Follow the Old Calendar.”

***

A very telling event that occurred in connection with this issue was the following.

In January of 1969, our monastery in Fili finally broke ecclesiastical communion with the New Calendar Church. This was the beginning of a period of great tribulations and various trials for us.

During those difficult times, a spiritual child of mine from Ptolemais went to Klissoura to have a Paraklesis served to the Theotokos.

“How is the Elder doing?” asked the ascetic.

“He’s fine, he’s fine. My father went to Athens and he stopped by the monastery. Things are fine,” the young man replied.

“He’s not fine,” said the ascetic with a frown. “They are going to close his monastery. Only now that you're going to Kailaria, phone him. Tell him that they’re going to close down the monastery. But that he shouldn’t be afraid. The Panagia is protecting him and he won’t come to any harm.”

My spiritual son was uneasy. When he returned to Ptolemais, he got in touch with me and informed me accordingly. My astonishment was indescribable! The Saint’s “message” was clear: she knew the present and the future.

***

On account of the profound impression that the “message” of the enlightened handmaiden of God had made on me and my spiritual child, I went to visit her very shortly. There she was at her fireplace, a queen on her throne, curled up in the bliss of poverty and obscurity.

In a hushed voice, so that those who were greeting her might not hear, she asked me: “How are things going?”

“Eldress, how did you hear about it?”  I stammered.

She raised her hand and her eyes to Heaven discreetly: “God revealed it to me!”

And she continued: “Don’t be afraid. You won’t come to any harm. I’m praying very hard for you. I have great love for you.”

And so it was. In spite of the difficulties and the hazards, the Panagia ultimately came to our aid. The ship of our monastery continued its journey to the Kingdom of Heaven in safety....

Dialogue Between an Elder and an Atheist

One morning Fr. Epiphanios [Theodoropoulos] was speaking with two or three visitors at his home. One of them was an ideological communist. At one point someone came in from outside and informed them that Athens had been filled with photographs of Mao Tse-tung bearing the inscription: “Glory to the great Mao.” It was the day on which the Chinese dictator had died.

 

Fr. Epiphanios: That is how it is, my child. There are no atheists. There are idolaters, who remove Christ from His throne and place their idols in His place. We say: “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.” They say: “Glory to the great Mao.” Choose and take your pick.

Communist: And you too, little father, take your drug. Only you call it Christ, another calls it Allah, a third calls it Buddha, and so on.

Fr. Epiphanios: Christ, my child, is not a drug. Christ is the Creator of the entire universe. He is the One Who governs all things with wisdom: from the multitude of the boundless galaxies down to the infinitesimal particles of the microcosm. He is the One Who gives life to us all. He is the One Who brought you into the world and has given you so much freedom that you are able to question Him, and even to deny Him.

Communist: Little father, it is your right to believe all these things. But that does not mean they are also true. Do you have proofs?

Fr. Epiphanios: You consider all these things fairy tales, do you not?

Communist: Of course.

Fr. Epiphanios: Do you have proofs? Can you prove to me that what I believe is false?

…

Fr. Epiphanios: You do not answer, because you too have no proofs. Therefore, you too believe that these things are fairy tales. I, for my part, speak of faith when I refer to God. You, however, while rejecting my faith, in essence believe in your unbelief, since you cannot substantiate it with proofs. But I must tell you that my faith is not groundless. There are certain supernatural events upon which it is founded.

The Criterion of Truth

Communist: One moment! Since you are speaking about faith, what will you say to the Mohammedans, for example, or to the Buddhists? For they too speak of faith. They too teach lofty moral teachings. Why is your faith better than theirs?

Fr. Epiphanios: With this question of yours, the criterion of truth is being raised. For certainly the truth is one and only one. There are not many truths. But who possesses the truth? Behold the great question. Thus, it is not a matter of a better or worse faith! It is a matter of the only true faith!

I accept that the other beliefs also have moral teachings. Certainly, the moral teachings of Christianity are incomparably superior. But we do not believe in Christ because of His moral teachings. Not because of “Love one another,” nor because of His preaching about peace and justice, freedom and equality. We believe in Christ because His presence on earth was accompanied by supernatural events, which means that He is God.

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

Communist: Look. I too acknowledge that Christ was a remarkable philosopher and a great revolutionary, but let us not make Him God now…

Fr. Epiphanios: Ah, my child! That is where all the great unbelievers of history stumbled. The fishbone that stuck in their throat and that they could not swallow was precisely this: that Christ is also God.

The leader of the chorus of deniers, Ernest Renan, cries out concerning Christ: “For tens of thousands of years the world will be uplifted through You”; You are “the cornerstone of humanity, so that for someone to remove Your name from this world would be equal to shaking it from its foundations”; “the ages will proclaim that among the sons of men no one greater than You has been born.” But there they stop, both he and those like him. Their next phrase? “But You are not God!”

And the poor wretches do not understand that all these things constitute an inexpressible tragedy for their soul! The dilemma is inevitably relentless: Either Christ is God incarnate, in which case truly, and only then, He constitutes the most moral, the holiest, and the noblest figure of humanity. Or He is not God incarnate, in which case it is impossible for Him to be any of these things. On the contrary. If Christ is not God, then He is the most wretched, the most dreadful, and the most hateful existence in human history.

In other words: Any man who demanded this sacrifice from his followers would be the most wretched figure in history. But Christ both demanded it and achieved it. Nevertheless, by those who deny His divinity He has been proclaimed the noblest and holiest figure in history. Therefore: Either the deniers are reasoning absurdly by calling the most wretched the holiest, or, in order for there to be no absurdity, but for the coexistence of Christ’s demands and His holiness to have logic, they must necessarily accept that Christ continues to remain the noblest and holiest figure of humanity only on the condition that He is also God! Otherwise, He is, as we have said, not the holiest, but the most dreadful figure in history, as the cause of the greatest sacrifice of the ages in the name of a lie!

The divinity of Christ is proven on the basis of the descriptions given of Him by His deniers!…

Communist: What did you say?

Fr. Epiphanios: You heard me! The statement is weighty, but absolutely true. And here is why: What did all the truly great men of humanity say about themselves, or what idea did they have of themselves?

Socrates, “the wisest of all men,” proclaimed: “One thing I know, that I know nothing.”

All the great men of the Old and New Testaments, from Abraham and Moses to John the Forerunner and Paul, describe themselves as “earth and ashes,” “wretched,” “untimely births,” and the like.

The behavior of Jesus, by contrast, is strangely different! And I say strangely different, because the natural and logical thing would have been for His behavior to be similar. Indeed, as superior and greater than all the others, He should have had an even lower and humbler opinion of Himself. Being morally more perfect than anyone else, He should have surpassed all the aforementioned persons, and anyone else from the creation of the world until the end of the ages, in self-reproach and humble-mindedness.

But the exact opposite occurs!

First of all, He proclaims that He is sinless: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46). “The ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (John 14:30).

He also expresses very lofty ideas concerning Himself: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

And now I ask you: Has anyone ever dared to claim for himself the love of men above even their very life? Has anyone ever dared to proclaim his absolute sinlessness? Has anyone ever dared to utter the words: “I am the truth”? (John 14:6). No one, anywhere! Only a God could do these things. Can you imagine your Marx saying such things? They would have taken him for a madman, and no one would have been found to follow him.

Now think how many millions of people sacrificed everything for the sake of Christ, even their very life, believing in the truth of His words about Himself! If His proclamations about Himself were false, Jesus would have been the most wretched figure in history, leading so many people to such a heavy sacrifice. What man, however great, however important, however wise he may be, would be worthy of such a great offering and sacrifice? Who? No one! Only if He were God!

In other words: Any man who demanded this sacrifice from his followers would be the most wretched figure in history. But Christ both demanded it and achieved it. Nevertheless, by those who deny His divinity He has been proclaimed the noblest and holiest figure in history. Therefore: Either the deniers are reasoning absurdly by calling the most wretched the holiest, or, in order for there to be no absurdity, but for the coexistence of Christ’s demands and His holiness to have logic, they must necessarily accept that Christ continues to remain the noblest and holiest figure of humanity only on the condition that He is also God! Otherwise, He is, as we have said, not the holiest, but the most dreadful figure in history, as the cause of the greatest sacrifice of the ages in the name of a lie! Thus the divinity of Christ is proven on the basis of these very descriptions of Him by His deniers!…

The Historical Evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ

Communist: What you have said is indeed impressive, but it is nothing more than reasoning. Do you have historical evidence that establishes His Divinity?

Fr. Epiphanios: I told you previously that the proofs of His Divinity are the supernatural events that took place while He was here on earth. Christ was not content merely to proclaim the above truths, but He also confirmed His words with a multitude of miracles. He made the blind see, the paralyzed walk; He fed five thousand men, and many times more women and children, with two fish and five loaves; He commanded the elements of nature and they obeyed Him; He raised the dead, among whom was Lazarus, four days after his death. But greater than all the miracles is His Resurrection.

The whole edifice of Christianity rests upon the event of the Resurrection. I am not the one saying this. The Apostle Paul says it: “If Christ has not been raised, our faith is vain” (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ did not rise, then everything collapses. But Christ did rise, which means that He is Lord of life and death, and therefore God.

The Testimony of the Holy Apostles

Communist: Did you see all these things? How do you believe them?

Fr. Epiphanios: No, I did not see them. But others saw them: the Apostles. They then made them known and even signed their testimony with their blood. And, as everyone accepts, the testimony of life is the highest testimony.

Bring me someone who will tell me that Marx died and rose again, and who will sacrifice his life for that testimony, and I, as an honest man, will believe him.

Communist: Let me tell you. Thousands of communists were tortured and died for their ideology. Why do you not also embrace communism?

Fr. Epiphanios: You said it yourself. Communists died for their ideology. They did not die for facts. But in an ideology, delusion can very easily enter in. And since it is characteristic of the human soul to sacrifice itself for something in which it believes, this explains why many communists died for their ideology. But this does not oblige us to accept it as correct.

It is one thing to die for ideas and another to die for facts. The Apostles, however, did not die for ideas. Nor for “Love one another,” nor for the other moral teachings of Christianity. The Apostles died bearing witness to supernatural facts. And when we say fact, we mean that which falls under our senses and is perceived by them. The Apostles bore witness “to that which they heard, which they saw with their eyes, which they beheld, and which their hands touched” (1 John 1:1).

Pascal’s Reasoning

On the basis of a very fine argument of Pascal, we say that one of three things happened with the Apostles: either they were deceived, or they deceived us, or they told us the truth.

Let us take the first possibility. It is not possible that the Apostles were deceived, because what they report they did not learn from others. They themselves were eyewitness and earwitnesses of all these things. Moreover, they were not at all fanciful, nor did they have any psychological predisposition toward accepting the event of the Resurrection. On the contrary, they were terribly unbelieving. The Gospels are fully revealing of these dispositions of their souls: they disbelieved the assurances that some had seen Him risen.

And something else. What were the Apostles before Christ called them? Were they perhaps ambitious politicians or visionaries of philosophical and social systems, who were waiting to conquer humanity and thereby satisfy their fantasies? Far from it. They were unlettered fishermen. And the only thing that interested them was catching some fish to feed their families. For this reason, even after the Lord’s Crucifixion, despite all that they had heard and seen, they returned to their boats and their nets. That is, there was in them, as we have said, not even a trace of predisposition toward the things that were about to follow. And only after Pentecost, “when they received power from on high,” did they become the teachers of the inhabited world.

The second possibility: Did they perhaps deceive us? Did they perhaps tell us lies? But why would they deceive us? What would they gain by lies? Money? Positions? Glory? For someone to tell a lie, he expects some benefit. But the Apostles, preaching Christ, and Him crucified and risen from the dead, secured for themselves only hardships, labors, scourgings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, nakedness, dangers from robbers, beatings with rods, imprisonments, and finally death. And all this for a lie? It is completely foolish even to think it.

Consequently, the Apostles were neither deceived, nor did they deceive us. Therefore, the third possibility remains: that they told us the truth.

Indeed, I must also emphasize the following to you: The Evangelists are the only ones who wrote true history. They narrate the events, and only the events. They do not proceed to any personal judgment. They praise no one; they condemn no one. They make no attempt to magnify one event or to erase or diminish another. They let the events speak for themselves.

The Resurrection of Christ as Apparent Death

Communist: Is it impossible that, in the case of Christ, there was an apparent death? The other day the newspapers wrote about some Indian whom they buried and then, after three days, dug up again, and he was alive.

Fr. Epiphanios: Ah, my little child. I shall recall again the saying of blessed Augustine: “Unbelievers, you are not hard to convince. You are the most gullible. You accept the most improbable, the most absurd, the most contradictory things, in order to deny the miracle!”

No, my child. We do not have an apparent death in the case of Christ. First of all, we have the testimony of the Roman centurion, who assured Pilate that death had occurred.

Then the Gospel informs us that the Lord, on the very day of His Resurrection, walked along and conversed with two of His disciples on the way to Emmaus, which was more than ten kilometers from Jerusalem. Can you imagine someone having suffered what Christ suffered, and three days after his “death” an apparent death occurring to him? At the very least, for forty days they would have had to feed him chicken broth so that he could open his eyes, not have him walking and conversing as though nothing had happened.

As for the Indian, bring him here so that we may scourge him with a flagellum—and do you know what a flagellum is? A whip to the ends of which they added balls of lead, or broken bones, or sharp nails—bring him, then, so that we may scourge him, place a crown of thorns on him, crucify him, give him gall and vinegar, pierce him with a lance, place him in the tomb, and if he rises, then we shall talk.

Communist: Nevertheless, all the testimonies that you have invoked come from disciples of Christ. Is there any testimony concerning this that does not come from the circle of His disciples? That is, are there historians who certify the Resurrection of Christ? If so, then I too will believe.

Fr. Epiphanios: Wretched child! You do not know what you are asking! If there were such historians who had seen Christ risen, then they would necessarily have believed in His Resurrection and would henceforth have reported it as believers, in which case you would again deny their testimony, just as you reject the testimony of Peter, John, and so forth. How is it possible for someone to certify the Resurrection and at the same time not become a Christian? You are asking us for “a roasted partridge on a wax skewer that also sings”! Ah, it cannot be done!

Nevertheless, since you ask for historians, I remind you of what I mentioned to you earlier: namely, that the only true historians are the Apostles.

Nevertheless, despite all this, we also have just such a testimony as you want: that is, from someone who did not belong to the circle of His disciples. Paul’s testimony. Paul was not only not a disciple of Christ, but even persecuted His Church with fury.

Communist: But they say of him that he suffered sunstroke and, because of it, had a hallucination.

Fr. Epiphanios: My dear child, if Paul had had a hallucination, what would have emerged would have been his subconscious. And in Paul’s subconscious the Patriarchs and the Prophets held a lofty place. He should have seen Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, not Jesus, whom he regarded as a deceiver of the people and an impostor!

Can you imagine some faithful old woman, in her dream or in her delirium, seeing Buddha or Zeus? She will see St. Nicholas and St. Barbara. For these are the ones in whom she believes.

And one more thing. In Paul, as Papini notes, there are also the following wondrous things: First, the suddenness of the conversion: directly from unbelief to faith. No preparatory stage intervened. Second, the strength of the faith: without wavering or doubts. And third, lifelong faith. Do you believe that these things can take place after a case of sunstroke? These things are not explained in such ways. If you can, explain them. If you cannot, admit the miracle. And you should know that Paul, by the standards of his time, was a highly educated man. He was not some little nobody who did not know what was happening to him.

But I shall add something further. We, my child, live today in an extraordinary age. We are living the miracle of the Church of Christ.

When Christ said of His Church that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18), His followers numbered only a few dozen persons. Since then, approximately two thousand years have passed. Empires have dissolved, philosophical systems have been forgotten, worldviews have collapsed, yet the Church of Christ remains unshaken despite the continual and terrible persecutions against Her. Is this not a miracle?

And one last thing. In the Gospel according to Luke, it is mentioned that, when the Panagia, after the Annunciation, visited Elizabeth, the mother of the Forerunner, the latter blessed her with the words: “Blessed are you among women.” And the Panagia answered as follows: “My soul magnifies the Lord... For behold, from now on all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48).

What was the Panagia then? She was an unknown maiden of Nazareth. Who knew her? Nevertheless, since then empresses have been forgotten, brilliant names of women have faded away, wives and mothers of military commanders have been forgotten. Who knows or who remembers the mother of Napoleon the Great or the mother of Alexander the Great? Almost no one. Yet millions of lips, in every length and breadth of the earth and in every age, hymn the humble maiden of Nazareth as “more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim.” Are we or are we not, today, the people of the twentieth century, living the fulfillment of this prophetic word of the Panagia?

The very same things happen also with regard to one of Christ’s “secondary” prophecies: when, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman poured precious myrrh on His head, the Lord said: “Verily I say unto you, wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what this woman has done shall also be spoken of in memory of her” (Matt. 26:13). How large was the circle of His followers then, for one to say that they would do everything possible so that this prophecy of their Teacher might be fulfilled? And especially such a prophecy, which, by the criteria of the world, has no particular importance for the many?

Are these miracles or are they not? If you can, explain them. But if you cannot, admit them as such.

Was the Work of Christ Incomplete?

Communist: I confess that your arguments are strong. But I have something further to ask you: Do you not think that Christ left His work incomplete? Unless, of course, He abandoned us. I cannot imagine a God remaining indifferent to the drama of man: we are tossed about here and there, while He stands above, impassive.

Fr. Epiphanios: No, my child. You are not right. Christ did not leave His work incomplete. On the contrary, He is the unique case of a man in history who had the certainty that He had completed His mission, and that He had nothing else to do or say.

Even Socrates, the greatest of the wise, who spoke and taught for an entire life, at the end also composed an elaborate apology and, had he lived, he would have had still more to say.

Only Christ, in three years, taught what He had to teach, did what He wished to do, and said, “It is finished.” This too is a sign of His divine perfection and authority.

As for the abandonment which you mentioned, I understand you. Without Christ the world is a theater of the absurd. Without Christ you cannot explain anything. Why sorrows, why injustices, why failures, why illnesses, why, why, why? Thousands of enormous “whys.”

Understand this! Man cannot approach these “whys” with his finite reason. Only with Christ are all things explained: they prepare us for eternity. Perhaps there the Lord will count us worthy to receive an answer to some of these “whys.”

It is worth the trouble for me to read you a beautiful poem from the collection of Konstantinos Kallinikos, Daphnes and Myrtles, entitled “Question Marks.”

I said to the elder ascetic, the seventy-year-old,
whose hair waved like a branch of lilac:

Tell me, my father, why upon this sphere here below
do night and day walk inseparably?
Why, as though they were twins, do there spring up together
the thorn and the flower, laughter and weeping?
Why, in the most attractive greenery of the forest,
do scorpions and vipers nest, and cold venom?
Why, before the tender bud appears
and unfolds before the light its scentless beauties,
does a black worm come, give it a stab,
and leave it a lifeless rag in its cradle?
Why does the ear of grain need plough and sowing and laborers,
until it becomes bread and loaf,
and why is everything useful and noble and divine
paid for with tears and blood in life,
while parasitism grows strong by itself
and baseness seeks to swallow the whole earth?
Finally, why, amid so much harmony of the universe,
do confusion and disorder force their way in?

The ascetic answered with his deep voice,
raising his right hand toward the heavens:

Behind those golden clouds up there,
the Most Gracious One is embroidering a priceless tapistry.
And as long as we walk down below,
we see the reverse side, my child.
And so it is natural for the mind to see mistakes
where it ought to give thanks and glorify.
As a Christian, the day must come
when your winged soul will cleave the ether
and look upon God’s embroidery from the good side,
and then… all will appear to you as system and order!

Christ, my child, has never abandoned us. He remains near us, a helper and supporter, until the end of the ages. But you will understand this only if you become a conscious member of His Church and are joined to Her Mysteries.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/archim-epifanios-theodoropoylos-dialo/

Humility is not simply external submission and the acknowledgment of our inferiority.

 

Humility is one of the most central virtues in the Orthodox spiritual tradition, according to the Holy Fathers. However, humility is not simply external submission or the acceptance of our inferiority before other people or before God. True humility means the inner, deep, and sincere realization of our absolute dependence on the grace of God, of our weakness without His presence, and of our continual need for Him.

Humility is often misinterpreted as weakness or as the acknowledgment of inferiority. On the contrary, true humility does not entail the loss of dignity or self-respect. Rather, humility recognizes the truth about ourselves: namely, that we are weak and imperfect without the grace and guidance of God. Through this sincere awareness, the soul is cultivated and a deeper relationship with God is formed, since dependence on His love and providence leads us to spiritual maturation. The Holy Fathers teach that humility is the foundation of the spiritual life, because without it we cannot receive the grace of God. If we try to develop the other virtues without humility, they remain imperfect, because they are founded on pride and autonomy.

A humble person recognizes that all the virtues he possesses, and every progress he achieves, are not the fruit of his own efforts alone, but the result of his cooperation with God. Our struggle, however important it may be, must always be accompanied by the acknowledgment that without God we can accomplish nothing. One of the most powerful examples of humility mentioned by the Holy Fathers is the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.

The Publican, realizing his sinfulness, bowed his head and prayed with humility, asking mercy from God. The Pharisee, on the other hand, boasted of his virtues and of how superior he considered himself in comparison with others. In this parable we see how pride and self-justification close the door to the grace of God, while the humble acknowledgment of our sins and weaknesses opens the way to forgiveness and spiritual progress. In order to cultivate humility, we must begin with the disposition of the heart to see our faults sincerely and to accept that we need the guidance and strengthening of God. This inner work is not easy, because it requires us to confront the pride that leads us astray into believing that we can succeed by ourselves or that we are better than others.

Another example of humility is found in the lives of ascetics and monastics, who seek not only to accept the will of God in their lives, but also to humble themselves by serving others with selflessness and love. This humility is deeply internal and comes through continual prayer and the practice of self-knowledge.

How, then, can one begin to cultivate true humility? A first step is daily self-examination. Before we pray or ask for God’s help, we must reflect upon our actions, our thoughts, and our motives. Are we willing to accept that we are not perfect and that we need divine guidance? Are we ready to ask forgiveness for our mistakes, without defending ourselves or seeking excuses?

The Holy Fathers also propose participation in the Mysteries of the Church, such as confession and Holy Communion, as means for the development of humility. Through confession, we are called to face our weaknesses and to ask for the remission of our sins. Humility here does not concern only the acknowledgment of our faults before the priest, but also the acceptance that only through Divine Grace can we find healing and proceed toward our spiritual renewal.

Furthermore, our relationships with other people constitute critical moments for the practice of humility. The Holy Fathers emphasize that true humility is not developed only in prayer, but also in daily interactions with others. When we find ourselves in disagreement or conflict, how do we react? Do we try to impose our own opinion, or are we willing to listen and accept that perhaps we are mistaken? Humility at these moments shows our willingness to accept that the other person has his own view and to recognize our own weaknesses.

In summary, humility is not a simple external attitude or submission, but an inner state based on the sincere realization of our dependence on God. The Holy Fathers call us to struggle daily for the acquisition of humility through prayer, repentance, and self-knowledge. In this way we can find true spiritual progress and union with God, without falling into the trap of pride and self-justification.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/05/blog-post.html

 

Baptismal Theology

Professor Andreas Theodorou (+2004), University of Athens

 

 

It is a novel ecclesiological theory. According to it, wherever baptism is administered in the name of the Holy Trinity, there also is the true Church, and includes the heterodox. It is obvious that through this theory, which has ecumenist overtones, the boundaries of the Catholic Church are extended, under the umbrella of which many Christians can find shelter, irrespective of their more general theology, I believe, and their particular ecclesiological physiognomy. Something analogous occurs with the notorious Branch Theory of the Protestants concerning the interpretation of the Church. According to it, and of course vaguely, this theory is correct. Indeed, the confession of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the Faith is essential both for the foundation of the Church and for the salvation of humanity. But which doctrine? Of course, the true one, as it is taught purely and intact in the bosom of the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ. But is this also valid for heterodoxy? Surely not.

Let us look at this matter in some detail. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the Orthodox Faith focuses on three basic and fundamental points: essence, hypostases and divine energies. Essence is absolutely transcendental, indescribable, and indiscernible. Hypostases are theological distinctions of divinity, persons themselves, expressing the manner of the eternal existence of the divine, the hypostatic attributes of which are personal, unconfused, and incommunicable. And the divine energies are likewise theological distinctions of the divine, which do not constitute the simple nature of God, from which they eternally originate, as the innate riches of it, they are transmitters and communicators, through which the transcendent divine nature is expressed in its various external references and manifestations, creation, revelation and redemption. And they are uncreated energies, just as divine grace is uncreated, with which they are identified.

With the confession of these three points the true doctrine of the Holy Trinity of the Faith is constituted, the confession of which is necessary for salvation. And it is easily understandable that the slightest falsification of one or even several of these points deprives man of salvation. But what is happening with the heterodox? Do they rightly accept the chief doctrine of the Faith? Certainly not. Both the Papists and the more basic offshoots of Protestantism distort it on two key points: the hypostatic relation of the persons, and the divine energies, falling into a dreadful heresy, which cuts them off from the body of the true Church of the Lord. The first point on which they distort the Trinitarian faith is the Filioque. It mentions the order and hypostatic relations of the Triune Godhead. According to the Orthodox Faith, the Father is unborn, the Divine Source, from which eternally originate the other two Persons of the Trinity, the Son by birth and the Holy Spirit by emanation. According to the Filioque (and from the Son) the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. In this way the principle of the Father as the only Divine Source of the Trinity is abolished, duality is introduced, the order and the hypostatic attributes of the Persons are confused, and the truth and the work of the third Person of the Holy Trinity are downgraded. The second point is the uncreated divine energies. The heterodox reject this. According to the papists, one such distinction destroys the simplicity of the divine nature, bringing synthesis into it. Wrongly, however. Because, just as the hypostases are divine distinctions that do not violate the simplicity of the divine nature, in equal measure the distinctions of the uncreated divine energies also do not. The papists indeed accept divine energies, however created ones, but not uncreated ones. According to them, the Holy Divine Light was created, just as grace is created, which God creates in order to communicate with the external world and to sanctify man. But with such perceptions can the heterodox be included in the catholic aspect of the Church, as embodied and expressed by the Orthodox Catholic Church? Baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, in order to have validity and power, presupposes the true confession of the Trinitarian Faith; otherwise, it is simply an irrelevant phrase.

The same applies to Holy Baptism. It also must be authentic and genuine, if it is to define the true Church of Christ. Indeed, according to the Orthodox Faith, baptism defines the Church. Through it man sheds the dirt of ancestral transgression (the original sin), is purified from sin and is spiritually reborn. And automatically, he becomes an authentic member of the Church, is joined to the mystical Body of Christ and obtains the right to participate also in the rest of the sacraments, the ministers of the redemptive divine grace. However, in order for baptism to be able to define the Church, it must fulfill basic defined presuppositions:

a) it must be administered on the grounds of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church of Christ,

b) it must be administered in the name of the Most Holy Trinity through a triple immersion and emersion in sanctified water, and c) it must be administered by a canonical minister, bishop or priest.

And one may reasonably ask, does the baptism of the heterodox fulfill the above presuppositions? Of course not. First and foremost, it does not take place on the grounds of the Church, which the Lord founded, as in general both heterodox "churches" and Christian confessional communities do not belong to it. According to exact doctrine, the baptism of heretics is invalid and unsubstantial. This last characterization is of course not absolute. Under definite presuppositions (the most important of which is that it be administered in the name of the Holy Trinity), this baptism has some basis. With this basis and by dispensation, the baptism of heretics can be accepted in principle, and only in cases of heretics coming into the bosom of the Orthodox Catholic Church. But from this point to the point where the baptism of heterodox people is considered a priori valid, and even defines the Church, there is a great distance.

Then, heterodox baptism also suffers from another very important reason. While for us, baptism, in order to be valid, must be administered by a triple immersion and emersion in sanctified water, an act which symbolizes the burial and resurrection of the Lord, the heterodox (Papists and Protestants) have violated this condition, baptizing by pouring over and sprinkling. This type of baptism was of course also practiced in the ancient Church. But it was extraordinary, administered in instances of necessity, when it was not easy to immerse in a baptismal font (baptism on a sickbed, those who were bedridden due to illness). It was also a baptism of dispensation. But the introduction of this as a canonical law of the Church is impermissible, as it would damage the completeness of the holy sacrament. Baptismal Theology, consistent with what we have stated above, is not objectionable if the baptism that defines the Church is a canonical baptism, administered on the grounds of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. And as canonical baptism defines the Church, which is established by the historical flesh (its human members), so also the holy sacrament of Holy Communion, when properly administered, similarly defines the Church as a Eucharistic community around the bishop, expressing the indissoluble connection of the Body of Christ, faith, love and its divine dynamism. Baptismal theology becomes suspicious and rejectable, when, surmounting the doctrinal barriers, it tends to accept, on the grounds of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, heretics and heterodox as canonical members, simply and only because they perform baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, regardless of the rest of their ecclesiological identity, and the misbelief, heresy and error that plague them. Really, how can Papism, with its multitude of heretical trinitarian and ecclesiological heterodoxies (Filioque, denial of uncreated divine energies, Papal infallibility and primacy) - not to mention its more general ecclesiastical ethos, its propensity for novelty, arrogance, its secular spirit - define the true Church, which Christ established on earth? Or how can Protestantism, with its unbridled individualism, its lack of the concept of Catholic doctrine, its absence of ecclesiastical authority and coherence, with its doctrines of an invisible and Imaginary Church, with both its division and its profile, find authentic accommodation in the Holy Church of Christ, by the mere fact that it may administer baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity? But are these things serious? We Orthodox honor the doctrine of the great faith of the Church. And that is why, at the point in the sacred Creed where it is confessed: "in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", we make the sign of the cross. This expresses our extreme sensitivity and our living faith in the Church which Christ established on earth to save man from sin, which Orthodoxy embodies absolutely. We proclaim this faith of ours everywhere and always. Those who hide it or refuse to confess it are not Orthodox. Unfortunately, this sad phenomenon, that a segment of the Orthodox do not boldly and completely express their ecclesiological identity, is observed today in the ecumenist circles of the inter-Christian world, where there is a minimization of the importance of doctrines, a relaxation of ecclesiastical traditions and an untimely and careless haste to unite the churches. I wonder how many of the Orthodox who participate in ecumenist philanthropic conferences boldly express their ecclesiological identity, rejecting the basic Protestant principle of the Branch theory, which constitutes the soul of the "World Council of Churches" ecclesiology? But much caution is also required regarding the newly emerging theory of baptismal theology. That this theory also comes from Protestant ecclesiology is obvious. The trend toward the enlargement of the historic Church is aimed at sheltering in it Christians who have been cut off from it. If this indeed happens, the matter is very dangerous for Orthodoxy, which believes that it is the only true Church of Christ on earth. And it is dangerous for another very serious reason. If it is going to be a commonly accepted basis, that is, if baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, no matter who it comes from, defines the Church, the doctrinal barriers separating the Churches are automatically removed, intercommunion is now an actuality, and the union of the Churches absolutely becomes a reality. But can we accept such things?

 

About Author

Andreas Theodorou, a well-known professor at the Theological School of the University of Athens, who held the Chair of the History of Dogma and Symbolic Theology, recently reposed at the age of eighty-two (he was born in Larnaka, Cyprus in 1922). The ever-memorable professor, aside from his prolific literary activity on the subjects in which he specialized, was particularly renowned for his zeal for Orthodoxy, which he repeatedly expressed in a vigorous way through his distinctive speeches and articles against Papism and Ecumenism.

“Saint Sophia” or “Saint Myrtidiotissa”? Historical Truth as a Precondition for the Grace-Filled Presence of a Prototype in Its Icon

The Grave Responsibility of the Iconographer

Monk Gabriel

Director of the Icon Studio of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Phyle, Attica

 

 

 

At the link http://hsir.org/p/2u there is a posting by His Grace, Bishop Klemes of Gardikion, in which he presents some important testimony regarding a very serious ecclesiastical issue which has arisen. This issue inevitably has implications for iconology, since Orthodox iconography is at the service of the Church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth,” according the Holy Apostle Paul (i St. Timothy 3:15).

Thus, we read the following comments in this justified—as we believe—and necessary testimony, which puts matters on the correct footing:

In the relevant materials that are being circulated (articles, Icons, etc.), the Saint is constantly presented as a simple lay woman, Sophia, without acknowledging the monastic vocation of the holy ascetic Eldress, and with absolutely not a single reference to her monastic name, viz., Myrtidiotissa. ...[T]he holy Eldress was so fully conscious of and re­sponsive to her monastic vocation and her monastic name, that she appointed that it be given to a child who was born after her departure to the Lord.

***

Since this matter has, in its ico­nological aspect, preoccupied us for some years now (from the time when we first saw a depiction of “St. Sophia” at an exhibition of Icons, which came—we must admit—as an unpleasant surprise), permit us to present, for the first time, a sign of the holy Eldress’ good pleasure at the holy Icon of her as “St. Myrtidi­otissa”—not, of course, on account of its technical mastery, but because it portrays her in monastic garb and with her monastic name.

Following an obedience that we received from our spiritual Father, His Eminence, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle, we were vouchsafed, in 2001, to paint an Icon of the holy Ascetic.

We were intensely concerned about the problem of how she should be depicted in her Icon, since it is well known from her Life that she did not wear her monastic apparel, preferring to continue, even after her tonsure, the struggle of blessed foolishness for Christ’s sake.

What prevailed, however, was that Saints should not be portrayed in their holy Icons as they were (as in a photograph), something which does happen and is certainly not reprehensible in religious painting, but as they will be (in eternity), clearly expressing in this way the eschatological nature of Orthodox iconography.

For this reason, St. Myrtidiotissa was arrayed in especially deco­rous monastic attire, thereby enjoying in her Icon that of which she voluntarily deprived herself in her earthly life “in a fully conscious and responsive manner,” for love of Christ.

***

The Icon was painted at a Metochion (dependency) of our Monastery, and when, by the Grace of God, the painting was finished, it was conveyed to the Monastery and presented to His Eminence. We noticed a certain hesitancy in his expression when he first set eyes on the Icon and venerated it.

Having himself been in close contact with the Saint during his lifetime, he preserved in his memory her ascetic and unkempt ap­pearance. The Icon disclosed something “else,” something unwonted.

Kindly and discrete, as always, His Eminence was in no hurry to speak, offer observations, or reprove. He simply let his bemusement show somewhat and ordered that the Icon be placed on the Holy Table in the Katholikon (main Church) of the Monastery for forty days, in keeping with the existing pious tradition.

The next day, after the Divine Liturgy, the bell was rung. At a special assembly of the Brotherhood, His Eminence, wearing an ex­pression of manifest enthusiasm and emotion, made known what had happened to him that morning.

When he entered the Altar and venerated the Holy Table, he prayerfully took the Icon of the Saint in his hands in order to kiss it. The same sense of doubt induced hesitation and perplexity in his mind, as he told us, and led him to pray at greater length on this subject.

A miraculous heavenly fragrance then emanated from the Icon and enveloped him. His Eminence, attentive and humble, as usual, neither accepted nor rejected the sign, but merely puzzled over what had happened.

He attended the Divine Liturgy in a prayerful spirit, communed of the Immaculate Mysteries, and, as he was leaving the Altar, went to venerate the Icon of the Holy Eldress once again.

The same fragrance, more intense this time, wrought in him the “good transformation” and informed him, as he told us, of the good pleasure of the Holy Eldress regarding her Icon, dispelling all thoughts of doubt that he had and granting him a sense of the Saint’s presence and protection.

***

In his detailed study of iconology, “The Grace-Filled Presence of a Prototype in Its Icon, According to the Iconology of the Church,” Professor Demetrios Tselengides makes the following important points, among others:

Orthodox Iconography, in accord with the theology of the Church, en­deavors, through its technique, to render perceptible the presence of uncreated Divine Grace and Energy in the Icons of its deified members. In this way, the Orthodox Icon corresponds to the truth of the persons of the ‘new Creation’ that it portrays, since it strives both to affirm the historicity of the persons depicted and to express the Divine Grace that is inseparably united with them.... Through the iconographic represen­tation of the Saints, the Church underscores for its faithful the personal identity of its glorified members.

***

It became evident from the foregoing that it was necessary to write this article for the purpose of averting the confusion that pre­vails on this particular issue by reason of certain misunderstandings about iconography.

We chose the subtitle, “The Grave Responsibility of the Iconog­rapher,” in order to communicate the extent to which an iconogra­pher ought to weigh his every choice, since, according to the wise Solomon, “A passionate man acts inconsiderately, but a sensible man bears up under many things” (Proverbs 14:17).

We consciously phrased the title in the form of a question, “‘Saint Sophia’ or ‘Saint Myrtidiotissa’?” in order to make it clear that the foregoing commentary was written, not in a spirit of reproof, but in a collegial spirit. It is addressed with love to our fellow iconographers, in conformity with the Scripture: “Give an opportunity to a wise man, and he will be wiser: instruct a just man, and he will receive more instruction” (Proverbs 9:9).

 

Source:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2012/07/06/E20120706aOsiaMytidiotissa%20Folder/E20120706aOsiaMytidiotissa.pdf

Do not be troubled by afflictions

Hieromartyr Varlaam, Archbishop of Perm (+1942)

 

 

Afflictions and infirmities are sometimes difficult (for example, warfare of fornication, carnal feelings, bleeding, and the like), but they are permitted by God for our salvation; they lead to humility, to the awareness of one’s own sinfulness, they compel one to fear sin and to think about the salvation of the soul. Afflictions, even, for example, warfare of fornication, are not counted as sin if they arise apart from our will. They must be endured with humility, as a cross: do not murmur, but give thanks, because for patience God will give a crown and salvation. Without afflictions and patience there will be neither crown nor salvation.

Do not lose heart if you bear infirmities and afflictions; do not become irritated. Through them you will receive eternal profit. So endure them with thanksgiving, and do not regard the vexation and impatience that arise in you as your own, but attribute them to the demon, who through them strives to deprive you of the crown.

Do not seek tears in prayer, and do not look back too much at past and confessed sins, if this leads you into despondency and shakes your hope in the mercy of God. This too is a snare of the enemy: looking back disquiets a man and makes the path forward toward God more difficult. Not without reason did the Lord say: “No man, having put his hand to the plough and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). And the Angel forbade Lot and his wife to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah. Look forward, and cast the past upon the mercy of God. Concern yourself with the acquisition of prayer, humility, patience, remembrance of death, and love for your neighbors, and do not rummage through the former dirty laundry, once it has been effaced by confession and washed clean by contrition.

Do not trust your own mind; do not converse with demons through thoughts, but occupy yourself with work or prayer. The main thing is to serve your neighbor for God’s sake and as the Lord Himself: bring him peace, direct him toward what is good, pray for him—and thus you yourself will more quickly be delivered from the passions by the grace of God.

If you have sinned in anything, again, do not be troubled and do not lose heart: cry out to God from the heart with repentance—and the sin is forgiven (tell it in confession), and be at peace in your soul; by this you will gladden the Lord. “Acquire the spirit of peace, and thousands around you will be saved,” said Venerable Seraphim of Sarov.

 

Russian source: Господь не осудит смиренного: наставления преосвященного старца / архиеп. Варлаам (Ряшенцев), Parish of the Church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, 2016.

On Saint Justin (Popović) of Ćelije’s relationship with the Ecumenist Patriarch German (Đorić) of Serbia

 

“Saint Justin did not concelebrate with Patriarch German, nor did he commemorate him, but he commemorated his own bishop, Jovan Velimirović [of Šabac and Valjevo, nephew of St. Nikolai of Ohrid and Žiča], who was not an ecumenist. Patriarch German knew very well Father Justin’s answer to his desire to come to Ćelije Monastery and serve. Saint Justin sent him word through the abbess of Ćelije [Mother Sara (Vasiljević)]: he may come; he will enter through one gate, and I will go out through the other; let him serve, and I shall go into the forest until he leaves.”

Serbian source: Хорепископ Максим: Допринос исправном схватању и примени 15. канона Прводругог цариградског сабора [A Contribution to the Correct Understanding and Application of Canon 15 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople], by Chorbishop Maxim of Novo Brdo and Panonia, dated May 21, 2016:

https://www.eparhija-prizren.org/horepiskop-maksim-doprinos-ispravnom-shvatanju-i-primeni-15-kanona-prvodrugog-carigradskog-sabora/

 

Metropolitans Chrysostomos (Kiousis) and Akakios on Archbishop Auxentios after the 1979 Counter-Consecrations

 

“The ‘three hierarchs’ [Archbishop Auxentios with Metropolitans Gerontios of Piraeus and Kallinikos of Phthiotis] blatantly and scandalously nourished for years the ground for the creation of suitable conditions for these consecrations... of people who do not have a good external or internal image... You removed Synodal hierarchs for no other reason than that they sought moral and legal order in the Church administration and the cleansing of the clergy... You displayed unbelievable vengefulness against those hierarchs who rebuked your iniquities… You consecrated without any examination the uneducated, the elderly and paralyzed, and others who were weighed down by accusation concerning moral and other crimes of which they had been officially charged in the Holy Synod... We judge your act to be worse than the uncanonical act of Bishops Anthony and Kallistos...”

- Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Kiousis) of Thessalonika (later Archbishop of Athens) and Metropolitan Akakios (Pappas) of Diavleia, on the 1979 consecrations administered by Archbishop Auxentios. Cited in Thirty Years of Trial: The True Orthodox Christians of Greece, 1970-2000, by Vladimir Moss (2010), p. 16.

The Consecration Address of His Grace, Bishop Auxentios

Sunday, January 7/20,1991 Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Greece

 

 

Your Eminence, Most Holy Bishops, Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, and Sisters in Christ:

In the Evevgetinos, we read the story of a spiritual disciple whose Elder, a wise and experienced guide in the path toward Christian perfection, directed him to go into the Church, seize the holy book that was being read there by one of the brothers, and throw it into the furnace. Trained in obedience, the monk did not hesitate for a moment to do as he was told. Though such an act might seem to some blasphemous, the disciple's obedience was pleasing to God. Thus, the book was recovered from the fire, untouched by the flames.

Assuming today the awesome rank of the episcopacy, I could be accused of blasphemy, in thinking myself worthy of such a calling. What reasonable person would think it possible that the fullness of the priestly Grace of the Holy Spirit should come and rest on him? However, like the monk who threw something holy into the furnace, I believe that obedience will save me from the accusation that I am defiling something holy by my unworthiness and will thus deliver me from the flames of self-condemnation.

Only out of obedience to Metropolitan Cyprian and to my spiritual Father, Bishop Chrysostomos— whose voice, through the mystery of his own obedience, is one with that of the Metropolitan—, do I accept this awesome service to the Church. I affirm no faith in my own abilities to fulfill the demands of the episcopacy and the Will of God. I rely, again, on the spiritual power of holy obedience, trusting, as Abba Moses once told a young man, that obedience "aids the good disciple in keeping all of the commandments for the whole of his life."

I have read that in the Early Church, as late as the fourth century, Bishops could still be found who, together with perhaps only one Presbyter, served a single community of believers, even a small village. St. Ignatius of Antioch says that "there," in such communities, "is the Catholic Church," since in these communities Christ makes Himself known in the immediate and intimate manifestation of obedience and the love between Christians which prompts true obedience. Obedience, then, also establishes us in the Orthodox Church.

In times such as ours, when apostasy and confusion reign; when wolves in the guise of sheep use slander and every form of deception to cloud the witness of God's true servants; when "officialdom" dares to usurp the privileges of truth and lays false claim to authenticity; when those in error falsely condemn and revile those who have risen up in lawful resistance against innovation and betrayal of the Faith; and when impostors and seekers after personal glory take our name and exploit even the resistance that we True Orthodox, the so-called Old Calendarists, have undertaken—in such days, there are those who may wonder where the Church Catholic actually is.

In serving the Church, may my obedience also tell others where the Church is. May our small missions and Churches, formed in obedience and love, call our errant Orthodox brothers back to the standard of the Faith, in these days of such confusion, and back to an earlier and purer image of the Church. To this end I devote my episcopal service and aim my obedient work for God's Church.

Since I am a convert to the Orthodox Church, as a Bishop I could be likened to a guest who has taken the seat of the host. This is not the case. Since the Church Catholic lies in obedience and love, there comes to be no ultimate distinction between the guest and the host. Obedience to one another engenders love. And where there is love, things which are distinct and separate are made one and the same. Indeed, Christ Himself, the Master of all, by obedient love became one with us, His own creation, allowing us, therefore, to share in his mastery over all. Though remaining God above and beyond what we are, He nonetheless lifts us up and grants us by Grace to take part in His very divinity.

In obedience, therefore, to Metropolitan Cyprian and Bishop Chrysostomos, I would ask that you here in Greece, in the holy bosom of Orthodoxy, accept my love, making me, your guest, also your host. I would ask that you pray for me that I may worthily serve the Holy Synod and our Exarchate in America and bring others to a vision of the Church as I have portrayed it.

I would also ask that you pray to God that, as a Bishop, I will always remain faithful to the Canons and Traditions of Holy Orthodoxy. Today, many clergy are tempted by the lure of the demonic "officialdom" of which I have spoken. Others are too weak to endure the scorn of those who call us True Orthodox schismatics, fanatics, and "antiques" from a past age of ecclesiastical narcissism for believing that we hold in our hands the pristine teachings which "the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved." And some, Priests and Bishops alike, have reckoned the very Canons and Traditions of the Church— which demand that we separate from error, endure unjustified reproach, and stand firm in the Faith given to us by Christ—to be man-made and expendable.

Yet, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite tells us that the "Canons of the Holy Ecumenical and Regional Synods" and all of the customs and Traditions attached to them are inspired by God. "For," he writes, "the Holy Synods and the divine Fathers did not utter words of their own, nor did they speak with the spirit of this world, as do worldly men, but they spoke with the illumination and Grace of the Holy Spirit, and their words are Divine teachings that lead men to the Kingdom of God." Pray that, seeing this, I will remain firm in my resistance to the apostasy which now eats away at the Orthodox Church worldwide and that, ignoring the epithets, evil threats, and perhaps even persecution of the modernists, I will heed rather the call of love which thunders so quietly in the virtue of obedience.

Since the Scripture calls us to honor our fathers and mothers, I would like, on this most auspicious day—perhaps the most significant of my worldly life—, to thank my father and mother, who are here today, for the love and care with which they reared me. I would also like to thank my four brothers for their affection and for their support. Though they are not Orthodox, I owe much to my family for laying the Christian foundation of morality, dedication, sacrifice, and upright living upon which the zenith of Christianity, our Orthodox Faith, is built.

But since the Scripture also warns us that nothing, even father and mother, must stand in the way of our love of God, I must also thank my spiritual family, given to me by God, for its prayers, patience, guidance, and affection. I would like to thank, above all, Metropolitan Cyprian, who is my primary spiritual guide. He is such, first, because obedience to the command of my spiritual Father, Bishop Chrysostomos, makes him so; he is such, second, because my affection, loyalty, and respect for him permit nothing less. In these two "masters" I serve only one, for they are made one themselves, again, by obedient love. By thanking one, therefore, I also thank the other.

I would also like to thank Archimandrite Akakios, Abbot of the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, of which I am a brother and in which I will remain a simple brother, for his fatherly guidance and his holy and selfless example, together with the Fathers and Brothers of our synodia. I can only hope one day to rise to the stature of Father Akakios and hope that, through their prayers, I can emulate the spiritual growth of the brothers under his able hand.

To Mother Elizabeth and the Sisters of the Convent of St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess of Russia I likewise owe a great debt for their exemplary lives of self-denial and self-sacrifice. They have served as an inspiration to me and have shown me the fullness of the witness of the Church, which exalts both men and women and makes of them brothers and sisters in the Lord.

The clergy of our missions in America are like the air. Without them, I would have no life. It is in their service, with deep appreciation for their sacrifices, that I will work in America.

And finally, I would like to thank Bishop Chrysostomos of Christianoupolis and the Fathers of the mother monastery of our monastery in Etna, the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, of which I am also a brother and in which I will also remain a brother, for their guidance and example. If, in serving the Church as a Bishop, I can add to the vessel of my soul even one drop of the humility, kindness, sacrifice, obedience, and brotherly affection that I have seen in the monks here in Fili, I will have added an ocean of virtue to myself. In taking the high position of a Bishop, I am not worthy to reach up and touch the soles of their feet. They are always for me "angels in the flesh" who have soared to lofty heights on the wings of their spiritual Father, Metropolitan Cyprian, to whom, in imitation of my spiritual Father, I say "Many Years," seeing my episcopacy only in the shadow of his.

Through the prayers of our Holy Metropolitan and with the protection of the Most Holy Theotokos, may I prosper in this service.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VIII (1991), No. 1, p. 13.