On a Struggle for Canonical Baptism in the Moscow Patriarchate: An Interview with Archpriest Joachim Lapkin (1990)

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 42, No. 3, May-June 1991, pp. 25-37.

 

This past summer [in 1990], Archpriest Joachim Lapkin, a cleric of our [ROCOR] church in Siberia, visited Germany. He attended several parishes of our Diocese, familiarizing himself with the church life and the conditions of freedom.

We asked him to tell us about the conditions of church life in Russia, and of the impressions which he acquired from his tour of the German Diocese.

* * *

QUESTION: Father Joachim, a significant event occurred in your life this year: you came under the protection of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Please tell us what prompted you to take such a responsible step?

ANSWER: Even before our petition to the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, we, i.e., those priests from Siberia, who now came under the protection of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, have always been looking for a way out of the critical situation which has formed today in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. This is a time when many of the canons are being violated, beginning with the first mystery, Baptism, which is done not by full immersion, but rather by wetting the forehead. I have always tried to oppose this, at least to draw closer to the observance of the canonical norm, but have met opposition from the reigning bishop and elder priests. Of course I objected to this. I no longer trusted the human authority, but rather the authority of God and the authority of the Holy Fathers who established rules for us. But it is hard to fight against those in power, and during all my years of serving I have received, one might say, many lumps.

Until 1987, the Omsko-Tiumensk cathedra position was held by Archbishop Maxim. He was a bishop who, in general, was concerned about the Church, its dignity, and the moral state of the priesthood; therefore, with him it was still bearable. You were able to meet with him and discuss various questions. He always came to help us. In other words, there was some sort of understanding from his side. But it is evident that bishops live “like fish in a frying pan”; they have to satisfy the authorities and at the same time cannot offend those deserving archpriests who go along with the authorities hand in hand.

Therefore, if they go against the authorities, they could be transferred to another (even worse) diocese. If the bishop still believes and has any fear of God, he has to at least try to please Him.

In 1987 Archbishop Theodosius was sent to the diocese of Omsko-Tiumensk. For a short while he served here in Germany, but for some reason was quickly sent off and appointed to our diocese. You see, the Siberian dioceses are considered exile for bishops and, according to all the rules, those who are guilty of committing some sort of an offense are sent there for not towing the line of the authorities or some uncanonical or immoral action. In comparison to the previous bishops, everything changed with Theodosius. There was resistance and soon his moral behavior became evident. Then our spiritual father, Father Evtichky Kurochkin, a hieromonk from our diocese, rose against him. A letter was sent by Father Evtichky to the Synod concerning the moral behavior of the bishop. The documents were forwarded by the Synod back to Theodosius. Of course they soon got even with Father Evtichky. From the parish where he served in the city of Ishim they transferred him to a newly opened parish. This parish of the Great Martyr Katherine was reopened because during the years of Soviet rule it was a warehouse. Since it is a good church and an architectural landmark it was opened. A small group of twenty people or so was organized to whom the church was given. Father Evtichky was transferred there, despite the fact that he has a very sick mother whom he looks after.

Concerning my position, in 1988 I submitted a report to the Synod concerning the violation of canonical rules during the administering of the Mysteries. There was no answer. Of course the bishop resented this and accused me of schism. The fact is, that in our parish we, i.e., the senior priest, Father Michael and I, built a large baptistry and started baptizing only by full immersion and making adult catechumens one month before baptism. We began to have discussions on Holy Scriptures Sunday nights after the service and at the same time answer people’s questions. Even children began to come. This was not well received by the spiritual authorities. Many aspects of church life are overlooked by the civil authorities today. Although the Law of 1929 prohibiting homilies and catechetical studies after official services, as well as charitable works, has not yet been abolished, it somehow does not seem to be in effect now. However, when our activities became more obvious, the representative of religious affairs H. J. Zamiatin told us directly to discontinue discussions, which are prohibited by the still unabolished law.

I wrote a letter addressed to the bishop and to all the senior priests of the churches in the diocese. Based on Holy Scriptures, resolutions of the Councils, and ancient practices of the Church, I defended everything concerning the Mystery of Baptism. I showed the letter to the bishop. He accepted it benevolently and said that I had worked out my argument well and that he supported me. I sent my letter to all the parish priests and they took it as an offense. That is, how could I, a young priest, dare to criticize them, although there was no personal criticism intended in the letter. There was only a description of how the sacrament of Baptism and the rite of making catechumens should be performed.

At the same time a second petition signed by various priests concerning the amoral behavior and uncanonical activity of Archbishop Theodosius was placed before the Synod. Only when this petition was sent to each member of the Synod did a reaction take place. A commission headed by Metropolitan Gideon of Novosibirsk and Barnaulsk and Archbishop John of Kiubishevsk was sent to us by the Synod. At the time I was on leave, in September of last year. The special commission summoned my colleagues who had signed the petition. They interrogated not only the priests, but also everyone who had been offended by the bishop, including women. I did not take part in this investigation. Both orally and in writing I only raised questions concerning baptism and violation of canons. The obvious violation of canons by the bishop in regard to ordination was the ordination of a man who was married three times, one of the wives still being alive. Nonetheless, the man was tonsured a monk and ordained. I expressed my opinion only orally and was still accused of attempting to teach the bishop. They wanted to enforce a canon which would defrock me, the one which reads, “If anyone attacks a bishop.” As if I had really attacked the bishop!

I was absent when the commission was in session. When I became aware of the meeting I called from Novosibirsk. I went to Omsk where the commission was in session. Archbishop John received me at the hotel. We spoke and again I only brought up the question of sacraments and canons. In general he supported me. The next day there was a conference at the cathedral with the diocesan deans and cathedral clergy in attendance. I was not invited to attend the conference but went anyway. There were other clerics present from parishes. The commission was called in order to defend the Archbishop and prove that what was written about him was a lie. It did not turn out as planned. Most of the attention was centered around my letter. We discussed the matter for more than two hours. I defended myself. The main argument centered around the accepted practice of baptism. Neither the Scriptures, nor canons, nor resolutions of councils were cited in defense of the common practice, only, “this is the way it is done now,” “such and such a priest did it like this before me and now I do it this way.” Other accusations were hurled against me but had no bases and therefore dissipated. Out of all the clergy only one defended me, the Archbishop’s secretary, Father Alexis Sidorenko. He stated that Father Joachim raises a serious question and has raised it before, for three years we have not been able to discuss this question as he has. I had in fact asked the Archbishop to meet and speak about this problem. There were only promises about next time. As a matter of fact, a month before the commission the Archbishop and the diocesan council met with me and threateningly said that it would benefit me to quietly leave, or else things would get worse. The bishop, the authorities and clergy were all against me. I thought it over, sought advice, and decided to seek a release, seeing that an open battle with them would be dangerous. One could expect anything from them. They are capable of treachery. I immediately wrote up a petition and they signed it on the spot. Besides the petition for a release I also asked for permission for a leave of absence, asking the favor in order to look for a position in another diocese. I had already been thinking about this at the time.

They summoned Father Michael, the elder priest, after me and demanded threateningly that he also ask for a release. He was told that if he did not write a petition now they would never release him, reminding him of his family and making other threats. He also wrote a petition for release. Thus we both found ourselves released from our duties. Other clergy were sent to our parish of All Saints in Tumen. The elder clergy at the cathedral took up arms against us more avidly out of jealousy, since baptisms were done like mass production. The main thing demanded was the fee of five rubles. The priest comes up to you and asks, “Did you pay?” “Fine, stand in line.” The business begins. The batiushka reads something over them, the people mumble something, then they go up to him, he wets their head a little, and thus the baptism is over.

When Father Michael and I began to baptize by full immersion in our church people of course took notice. The city was small and the people began to question, “Are you of another faith?” “What is this?” “I baptized my first infant in the cathedral or it might have been my friend who baptized her, and even as an infant they did not disrobe her, and here you wash them completely.” We attempted to explain why it was necessary to baptize thus by full immersion. “Why did they do it differently in the cathedral?” “Because of certain circumstances there.” In other words we tried to avoid open confrontation. They were very zealous in these matters and accused us of stirring up the people and our parishioners against the cathedral. I was told that I had ambitions of becoming the head of the cathedral and therefore instigated others and the parishioners of the cathedral against their priest.

QUESTION: Did you find that your parishioners understood the necessity of baptism by immersion according to the canons?

ANSWER: Of course. Before we instituted the practice of immersion at our parish we discussed it with the church council. Here we should probably mention that church councils in Russia are headed by a warden who is the authorities’ right-hand man. Frequently the warden is not a believer, sometimes even a militant atheist. Nonetheless he is appointed by the authorities. No one can be appointed without the authorities. Sometime the church committee chooses a warden and the authorities inform them that they can choose whom they wish but he will not be confirmed by the authorities. Choose another.

In our parish the warden was a believer, a God-fearing, good woman. Still, like everywhere, the committee fights for income. When we started to baptize in the proper way, the church council became fearful that no one would come to us for baptism, we would lose income. Father Michael and I remained firm. We repeated in every sermon how the mystery of Baptism was to be performed. We explained that it was not our fantasy but the practice of the Church, based on the Scriptures and the resolutions of the Councils, that it was always done in this manner from the first centuries and only due to our carelessness had it changed. The great Mystery of Baptism had been simplified. Gradually the church council began to understand us. In the beginning Father Michael and I did everything ourselves. We made a font, dug a pit lined it with tile, put in hot water, made a drain into a special pit, outside where the baptismal water could empty. Everything worked out very well. When we began to baptize, the candidates actually increased and the income as well. Then the church council settled down and began to support us completely.

QUESTION: Did those who were baptized understand the necessity of your so-called new institution?

ANSWER: Of course. No one ever refused to be baptized the proper way, although there was always the possibility that it might happen. It should be pointed out that the majority of people who come for baptism are not firm believers. They usually know only that it is necessary to believe. Generally they are not prepared. Although we prepare them for two or three months they never reach the level they should. They see the way baptisms are conducted in the cathedral and how in our parish and the majority of them say: “If my friend or someone else is to be baptized, I will tell them to come only here to the parish, since it is obvious that you baptize completely, ‘the real way.’ Thus even people far from a complete understanding of the faith like our attitude towards the Sacraments. They like the mysteries to be done zealously, properly, the way they should be done. There has never been a protest. Actually there was once, when the people wanted to be baptized, although they were not prepared. They went to the cathedral and were promptly baptized.

QUESTION: I would like to again raise the question of godparents. Is it true that godparents are chosen who are not only foreign to the church but sometimes unbelievers?

ANSWER: Yes, there are many such incidents.

QUESTION: Are you careful about such things?

ANSWER: Of course we take care. It sometimes happens that the sponsors are unbelievers. We ask if they believe in something. We look for even a spark of faith. If the person denies God completely then we do not accept him. But if a person says that he believes but knows little about the faith, about church matters, then we are condescending and do not reject him. We give him a New Testament and some other literature. We explain why a sponsor is necessary, what he represents to the newly-baptized. Imagine sending your son to a school where the student knows more than the teacher! Would you be satisfied that such a teacher should teach your child? Of course not, but what are we doing here? The godfather must instruct his godson in the faith, how to live like a Christian, how to enter the heavenly kingdom. If he himself does not know the way, how can he show your son? It all becomes just a formality. They came to baptism as to some sort of business deal. They think that if they baptize the infant he will grow up healthy and be lucky. A girl came to us and said, “Babushka says that if I am baptized then my husband will not be a drunkard, he will not beat me and I will be happy”. There are many examples of such thinking. First we explain to the candidate the meaning of the mystery, and do not baptize them the same day. They come to our lessons a few times, and all receive a New Testament, so that those who come to Baptism will have read at least one time the New Testament. They should at least be acquainted with who Jesus Christ is, understand that He is the Son of God, their Savior, but certainly not some sort of outer space man as some actually imagine. What is a confession of faith? We explain it in lessons on every section of the Creed.

QUESTION: Is it your opinion, according to your experience as a priest, that the general level of knowledge of the people coming to receive baptism in your parish and in general all over Russia is very low?

ANSWER: One cannot speak about general statistics. This is why I insist on catechism. Some feel I am too strict, that they will not come back to be baptized, but I say “Fine, so he does not come back.” If he does return I will insist that he is baptized in the proper manner. They must first be examined before I will allow a baptism to take place. Even in the secular world one is not initiated into a secret society before he passes a test, in order to prove that one is able to keep a secret. Baptism is a great mystery where someone has just been united to Christ; the union with Christ takes place but the soul remains totally ignorant of Him. In this case the fault lies with the spiritual father for not instructing the soul. Right from the baptismal font the soul again falls into fornication. The person has not yet learned the Christian way.

I would like to compare this situation with an example from daily life. What would you say if a new bride was unfaithful to her bridegroom on her very wedding night? In a similar manner we have a soul which has just been wedded to Christ through baptism, and immediately returns to its former way of life. This is spiritual fornication and it is terrible; before baptism one was free from this mortal sin (spiritual fornication), but now the transgression is committed.

QUESTION: Has there been a change in the last two or three years regarding the number of adult baptisms?

ANSWER: Certainly. We are recording a growing number of adult baptisms, and also noticing a change in the spiritual level of those coming to be baptized. Many now do not perceive baptism as only some sort of a lucky charm, but seek it because they are disappointed with the ideology with which they have been fed all these years. They are searching for something different and look to the Church for a certain renewal in their lives, for a spiritual foundation which they have been unable to find elsewhere. The people now realize that everything they were taught in school was only lies, and now their thirsty souls search. Therefore, many people come to the Church now asking the questions: What shall we do? How should we live? These are the types of questions we priests hear most often. We somehow try to reveal Christ to these people. Nonetheless I consider what we require of a candidate for baptism is still insufficient. We need to be much more serious about catechism. Presently, more importance is given to the quantity rather than the quality of the baptisms. In other words its better to attract as many baptismal candidates as possible in order to collect the five ruble fee; worry first about income. This will lead to ruin! We have to be concerned about quality first. A person must be prepared for his baptism, he must already be a Christian. Unfortunately, catechism is used little and we are beginning to see the consequences.

QUESTION: In the beginning of your priestly activity were you aware of a definite neglect of canonical rules, for example, when you were in seminary? Is it true that these distortions of the baptismal ritual have almost become the standard in modern Russian church life?

ANSWER: I completed the theological seminary through correspondence, and was already a priest when I was accepted into the course. Of course I posed such questions in the seminary. In regard to baptism, the lecturer in this area told me that the way baptism is practiced today, by wetting the forehead, is not known in the Orthodox Church. He said if something like this happens it would be a profanation of the sacrament of Baptism. He answered in a similar manner concerning the other sacraments, saying that they must be carried out according to the canonical requirements. To do otherwise is not Orthodox and therefore, unacceptable. He did add though that this is only theory.

In reality the rules are not kept anywhere. When Father Michael and I began in our parishes to baptize in the correct manner (by immersion) we were opposed by the older clergy first, and then by the bishop himself. They argued that we were provoking a schism, because we were the only ones to baptize in this manner, that it was done like this nowhere else.

QUESTION: Is it really done incorrectly everywhere in the Soviet Union?

ANSWER: It is done correctly only in certain places. For example in some churches in Moscow—I name only Peredelkino, but there are other places. In Siberia I know for sure about the town of Yeniseysk in the district of Krasnoyarsk. The priest there is Fr. Gennady; he is the only priest there and has a very large parish. He performs baptisms once or twice a month in the correct way, without being persecuted. It is when a town has two or more churches and they follow different practices for baptism that conflicts and jealousy arise.

Currently we are offering lectures in our church in the evenings, and many people from the Cathedral parish come because rarely does anyone preach there. We hold services daily and accompany each of our services with a sermon. Of course this aroused jealousy and ill will in others because they were afraid it would reduce their income. A typical case occurred in the town of Frunse in Kirgisien. The two priests there, Fr. Vladimir Svetkov and Hieromonk Leonid, built a baptismal font and performed adult baptisms with full immersion. However, within two years they were suspended by the ruling hierarch, Bishop Lev, for this practice. Eventually their suspensions were lifted and one of them was dismissed and transferred to the Novgorod diocese, I believe; the other priest was banished to Krasnovodsk in Turkmenistan, a desert near the Caspian Sea. The priest that replaced these two in Frunse closed the baptistry and did not perform baptisms by full immersion. Later they had the baptismal font destroyed.

Many try to do positive work, but cannot endure the pressure from their diocesan bishop and give in. Of course, eventually their conscience troubles and condemns them because they do not follow the correct practice of the Church. But where can they go? If you are rebellious they “get rid of you.” Very often a priest has a family with four or five children, so where can he go? These material problems present a great obstacle: if you rebel you will be thrown out of the parish house, and you have no home of your own to go to. Our priests do not have an easy lot; few even own a car.

QUESTION: Are you saying that even the bishops oppose baptism by full immersion as the Church requires?

ANSWER: Yes indeed. This is the problem. We looked to the Synod in Moscow for support, thinking they might do something to stop a disintegration of the Church by the bishops. We soon realized that the Synod was aware of these uncanonical actions. For example they were informed of the immoral behavior of Archbishop Theodosius, his sin is obvious to everyone and publicly ridiculed, yet they continue to support this archpastor and he is protected. News of his transfer was not even mentioned. Realizing that people in the Synod were of no help either, we had to find another way out. We had already thought earlier about the Russian Church Abroad, but had no possibility of making contact.

Originally there were three of us and then three more priests joined us, and we wrote a petition to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad asking to be received. This was in November of last year. In April they informed us that they had accepted our petition. We then wished to be united to the Church Abroad but it seemed impossible to find a way to practically realize this goal. If they had rejected us, I personally would have stopped celebrating services as a priest, though I would still pray and go to churches of the Moscow Patriarchate. When I stopped serving I still hoped to move to another diocese, but I soon realized that they would not let me celebrate the way I had resolved to serve. I decided to refrain from active service in the Church until it was possible to celebrate the way I should. When we received a positive answer from the bishops abroad, the priests of like mind with me, two who were co-serving in a large parish and a priest of another parish, informed their communities about the possibility of uniting with the Church Abroad and received full support from the people. Of course, misunderstandings arose, mostly out of ignorance. People asked, “What is this—the Russian Church Abroad?” Here in the Soviet Union the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is referred to as “the Karlovtsy Church.” Obviously it was difficult to explain the whole history to the old babushkas, and so one of the priests, Fr. Theophan, a villager himself said, “How can I explain this to you? Well, you know, it is that church which is faithful to the Tsar!” The babushkas then replied, “Yes, if it is the church faithful to the Tsar—then we are for it!” That was the solution. When the Patriarchal bishop sent his representative to our people they simply did not receive him and explained clearly that they did not need anyone, since they already have a priest.

QUESTION: Where are you going to serve now?

ANSWER: Right now Fr. Michael and I are without a parish, though all of our parishioners are willing to follow us, most of them being our spiritual children. Besides, they are very unhappy with the priests who were sent to replace us. The parish director is only interested in money. A parish not accustomed to this becomes dissatisfied. We could practically start to serve today, we do not have a bad parish, but we want to abide by the law and do everything in an official manner.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you are going to petition for the opening of a new church?

ANSWER: Exactly. Fr. Michael already handed in the official registration of the church parish to the authorities in Tiumen over a month ago. I have not been informed about the current situation, but I assume the official decision will be positive. Whether permission is granted or not, at least we have informed the authorities of our intentions.

* * *

QUESTION: If I understand you correctly, your parish did not know about the existence of the Russian Church Abroad? Most likely they are also not informed about the Russian Church situation as it developed after 1927. How familiar are people with the history of the Church during Soviet times?

ANSWER: It is true that the simple people do not know the whole history of the Russian Church Abroad. I myself learned about it only six years ago, after receiving several publications from the West. I only heard the term “Church Abroad” here and there and did not pay much attention to it. I even thought that “Church Abroad” referred to that part of the Moscow Patriarchate abroad. I had no idea that it was really referring to something else entirely. Villagers of course knew nothing. There are some Orthodox that call themselves “Josephites” (followers of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd) or “Tikhonites” (followers of Patriarch Tikhon), but they lead a completely separate existence. They do not celebrate in churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, and I do not think they know much about the Russian Church Abroad. They do know that the Church existing in Russia today is the Soviet Church, which works hand in hand with the authorities, and therefore does not possess any grace. If the church is with the Soviet government they consider it an abomination in the holy place.

QUESTION: Are they connected with Bishop Lazarus?

ANSWER: Of course not. In the 1960’s their last priests died and they are now left without the sacraments. Of course I can speak only of the situation in Siberia. I do know that some continue to receive Holy Communion in the following manner: the reserved Communion that was remaining after a priest died was broken into small pieces and mixed into freshly prepared dough, and from this mixture a new prosphora bread would be baked, and sent to others to receive Communion.

There are also another group of believers called the “True Orthodox Christians.” These people possess an even greater zeal for the faith, refusing to accept a Soviet passport and viewing any form of work for a Soviet sponsored firm to be a sin.

Ed. note. We have printed Father Iakim’s words exactly as he spoke them and in no way desire to cast a disparaging light on these elements of the Catacomb Church. The desire of the Church Abroad would be to regularize the position of all parts of the Catacomb Church and unite them together with the churches we have opened in Russia. The means to accomplish this are complex due to the various opinions among the diverse parts of the Catacomb Church and to some degree due to a lack of understanding of their position on our part.

QUESTION: During your stay in Germany you were able to observe the life in a monastery and in several of the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad. Did you find what you had expected?

ANSWER: To tell the truth I was disturbed at many aspects of parish life.

QUESTION: What are you referring to? Did you see any canonical errors?

ANSWER: Baptism is performed here the way it should be. I attended an adult baptism that Fr. Nikolai served and I liked it. I also appreciated the way he served, not simply from the Trebnik (priest’s service book) but from the whole heart. His was an example worthy to be imitated.

With respect to Confession, I saw only Vladika Mark himself hearing confessions, and once Fr. Alexander heard them when I was serving. Your parishes are not very large and usually only two or three people came for confession which was held in a special room. It was all done properly. But the outer appearance... the way the parishioners dress, their behavior in church—here I noticed different things. In your churches even older women stand without head coverings. Of course, I understand that the living conditions of people are quite different here, but the priest still must discuss this problem. Perhaps he should not be as strict as we are in Russia, but he should at least mention it. And, I believe those who are truly concerned for their salvation will understand this seemingly unimportant aspect of Christian life. In the Holy Scriptures it is written about how one should dress—dress yourselves as the saints. Was a woman saint ever depicted in trousers and without a kerchief? Those that come to church only out of tradition should not be an example to us. St. John Chrysostom used to be challenged: “John, you are too strict. Many will fall away into different sects.” He only replied, “Whoever wants to may go, but I will not stop speaking out, because God put me in this position and He commanded me: ‘Proclaim it to the whole world.’”

 

The Persecutions and Martyrdom of Saint Justin Popović

 

 

 

Introduction

Saint Justin Popović (1894–1979) was one of the most important figures of contemporary Orthodox Theology. His life was a continuous testimony — not only against the atheistic communist regime of Yugoslavia, but also against the compromising tendencies that entered into the Serbian Orthodox Church itself. His martyrdom had a twofold dimension: political and ecclesiastical. Both aspects of the persecution were inseparably connected with his uncompromising faith in the God-man Christ.

Political Persecution by the Communist Regime

Expulsion from the University (1945)

With the establishment of communist rule in Tito’s Yugoslavia in 1945, mass persecutions against the Church began. Justin Popović, as a man of the Church with openly expressed anti-communist positions, was expelled from his position as professor of Dogmatics at the Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade, together with another 200 professors.

Arrest and Condemnation to Death (1946)

Father Justin took refuge in the Holy Monastery of Sukovo in Pirot, in southern Serbia, where in 1946 he was arrested and imprisoned. Later he was tried and condemned to death as an “enemy of the people.” He was saved at the last moment thanks to the intervention of Patriarch Gabriel, who had only just returned from the Auschwitz concentration camp and demanded his release from prison.

Thirty-Year Confinement in the Monastery of Ćelije

From 1946 until his death in 1979 — for 33 full years — Justin lived essentially confined in the small women’s Monastery of the Archangels in Ćelije of Valjevo. Driven out from everywhere, without a pension and deprived of his human, religious, and political rights, he found refuge there as the spiritual father of the monastery.

The Monastery of Ćelije as a Spiritual Center of Orthodoxy

The Search for Refuge

At the Holy Monastery of the Archangel Michael in Ćelije, the persecuted Fr. Justin was deprived of human help and consolation, both on the religious level — through the deprivation of the faithful — and on the political level, since state law provided him with no means of livelihood. Thus he sought a place of residence in a monastery. In the monasteries to which he turned (Kalenić, Ovčar, Sukovo, Ravanica), no brotherhood accepted him. But the hope of the psalmic verse gave him strength on his path: “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, and the Lord shall deliver them out of them all.”

At that time the Serbian Church had several ancient monasteries, which exercised great influence over the local people. This led the communists to turn many of them into museums without monks, in order to prevent their activity. There were, however, smaller monasteries with limited influence only in the surrounding provinces, as a result of which they were regarded by the ruling authorities as harmless. Such a coenobium was destined to host Fr. Justin.

The Arrival at Ćelije

A nun, Mother Sarah, was initially at the Monastery of Ljubostinja. Together with several sisters, in 1947 she settled in the Monastery of the Archangel Michael, known as Ćelije (Cells — Ćelije), near Valjevo in western Serbia. A year later, in May 1948, in the small church of Saint Sava in Belgrade, Mother Sarah met Fr. Justin. Knowing his integrity, she proposed that he come to the monastery of Ćelije. He accepted her invitation and remained there until the end of his earthly life.

By the unanimous decision of the women’s sisterhood, he became their spiritual father, as well as that of the faithful pilgrims of the monastery. The daily celebration of the services of the daily cycle and of the Divine Liturgy was established, according to the monastic typikon. He became a luminous teacher of simple Serbs, educated and uneducated alike, as well as of professors from the fields of theology, history, philosophy, and other sciences. In an apt expression, he became “the hidden conscience of the Church of Serbia, but also of martyric Orthodoxy in general.”

The Rupture with Mother Sarah

Later, however, the unity of the sisterhood was shaken. Differing views and continual disagreements with Fr. Justin over questions concerning monastic obedience and the work of the monastery led, in 1958, to Abbess Sarah leaving Ćelije and, together with half of the sisterhood, heading to the Koporin Monastery.

After this tragic event, the remaining nuns had to elect a new abbess. At first they elected the nun Justina, while later, at her proposal, the nun Glykeria was elected. Mother Glykeria, then still young, with complete trust in the person and spiritual experience of Fr. Justin, proved capable in the administration of the monastery, with the result that it developed both spiritually and architecturally.

Persecution by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church

Isolation During Synodal Sessions

The political persecution by the communist regime had a particularly harsh dimension that was directly connected with the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church. Especially when the Holy Synod was meeting in Belgrade, he was forbidden any departure from the monastery for months, because of the authorities’ fear that he would come into contact with the bishops and influence them.

This prohibition had a twofold significance: on the one hand, the communist regime feared the spiritual influence of Justin, who was already recognized as the “hidden conscience of the Serbian Church.” On the other hand, this isolation had the result that Justin was excluded from the Church’s critical decisions, especially in matters concerning its stance toward Ecumenism and the World Council of Churches.

The Confrontation over Ecumenism

Justin Popović was a vehement critic of Ecumenism when it tended to relativize the Truth of God. He regarded Ecumenism as “a common name for the pseudo-Christianities, for the pseudo-churches of Western Europe,” and characterized it as a “pan-heresy.”

This stance brought him into conflict with the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church, which had decided on the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches. Justin sent a series of letters to the Synod, in which he expressed his strong disagreement:

• Letter of January 27, 1971: A reply to an anonymous card, in which he accused the bishops of preaching “the Ecumenism of Protestant syncretism and eclecticism based on a barren European humanism and a frenzied European anthropocentrism.”

• Letter of November 26, 1974 (“Memorandum”): In this historic text, which was published in the journal Koinonia (1975), Justin characterized the World Council of Churches as a “heretical, humanistic, humanized, man-worshipping union,” and the participation of the Orthodox Church in it as “apocalyptically horrifying in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy” and a “monstrous dishonor and unprecedented betrayal.”

• Letter of May 7, 1977: This concerned the convocation of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, in which Justin expressed his objections to the “neo-papal” tendencies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The Stance of the Holy Synod toward Justin

The Holy Synod of the Serbian Church did not accept Justin’s letters. On the contrary, the Church’s participation in ecumenical dialogue continued. Justin, as a simple archimandrite and not a bishop, had no right to vote in Synodal decisions. His isolation by the regime, especially during the periods of Synodal sessions, meant that he could not intervene in person and defend his positions before the bishops.

At the same time, the Synod took no action to lift Justin’s political persecution. Although Patriarch Gabriel had intervened in 1946 to save his life, the Serbian Church did not officially demand Justin’s freedom of movement or his restoration to academic and ecclesiastical life. Justin remained confined in the Monastery of Ćelije until his death, without ever being rehabilitated.

The Silent Acceptance of the Persecution by the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy

The stance of the Serbian Church toward Justin was silent and ambiguous. On the one hand, the bishops recognized the holiness of his life and his theological depth. On the other hand, their political line — which aimed at the survival of the Church under the communist regime — led to a de facto acceptance of Justin’s restriction. Justin himself, in his letter of 1974, accused the Synod that its stance toward Ecumenism was “disastrous and abhorrent in relation to Holy Tradition, slavishly lowering the Holy Church.”

* * *

The communist authorities did not leave Fr. Justin in peace, since they frequently summoned him for interrogation. The situation worsened when his books of theological and philosophical content, Philosophical Abyss and The Honor Shown to Saint Sava as a Philosophy of Life, circulated and became known abroad. Regarding the first work, they wanted to discover the manner of its “illegal export,” because it criticized the politics of communism. He, in a clever way, simply replied: a friend of his from Germany had asked him to read his work, and Fr. Justin was sending it to him by letters. His friend, when he had read it, published it.

Often, after interrogation, he would be detained by the atheist regime. Thus the nuns of Ćelije would go outside the prison of Valjevo, as a sign of protest, and would stand silently for hours before the state administration. This brought about the release of their spiritual father, because they feared an uprising of the Serbs of Valjevo, who were chiefly anti-communists, as was also a large number of Serbs from all the other regions.

Fr. Justin was also feared because of his influence over the Serbian people. In 1950 Patriarch Gabriel reposed, and, as the canons of the Church prescribe, it was necessary for the Serbian Hierarchy to be convened in order to proceed with the process of electing the new patriarch. It was certain that the communist authorities “participated” in the session for the election of the new ecclesiastical leader. Fr. Justin was informed about this and went to the Synod. Immediately, however, they approached him and said to him: “Please come to the car. You are going back to Ćelije.” This action confirms his deep influence over the bishops of the Serbian Church, something the atheist regime did not desire.

In similarly important and difficult events that arose in Belgrade, they forbade Fr. Justin to leave the Monastery of Ćelije for several months. This, however, did not prevent his interactions with the pilgrims of his monastery, who hastened to him, especially on Sundays.

Spiritual Martyrdom

Ascetic Life under Persecution

Despite the prohibitions, the exhaustion, the intimidation, and the threats, Justin prayed unceasingly and lived a strict ascetic life. He celebrated all the services of the daily cycle without fail. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy daily and fasted, eating nothing at all, every Friday, during the first week of Great Lent, and during Holy Week. He commemorated hundreds of names daily at the Divine Liturgy.

Literary Work as Testimony

His strict confinement did not prevent him from becoming known throughout the world. For 28 years he wrote his highly learned works without ceasing. His literary work includes his Dogmatics in three volumes, the Lives of the Saints in 12 volumes, the Interpretation of the New Testament in 7 volumes, and a multitude of other texts. His works were translated into many languages and made him one of the three most important Serbian theologians recognized internationally.

Spiritual Influence beyond the Borders

Thousands were the letters he received, and likewise thousands were his visitors, from Serbia and from all over the world. His reputation spread quickly and passed beyond the borders of Serbia. He was visited not only by Serbs, but also by many Greeks, Russians, and other Orthodox. Even the restrictions of the regime could not halt his spiritual influence.

The Canonization and Rehabilitation

Justin reposed on April 7, 1979, March 25 according to the Old Calendar, on the very day of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Theotokos — the same day on which he had been born. On April 29, 2010, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church canonized him, thus recognizing his holiness with a delay of 31 years. The uncovering of his holy relics took place in 2015.

His canonization by the very Synod which, during his lifetime, had not accepted his warnings about Ecumenism, constitutes a historical irony. Justin, who had been characterized as the “hidden conscience of the Serbian Church,” ultimately became an officially recognized Saint of the Church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Saint Justin Popović — Charalampos Andralis
Edition: Politeia bookstore

Saint Justin Popović: Life — Works — Holiness. Archim. Justin (Vasileios) Alexiou
Edition: AUTH (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), Doctoral Dissertation

Periodicals and Articles in Greek

Journal Koinonia (1975): Publication of the 1974 Memorandum.
Journal Parousia: Electronic edition of the Dogmatics.
Journal Halosis: Articles on his canonization and theology.
Journal Aktines: References to his theology of Baptism and Ecumenism.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_12.html

What is a Good Man?

By Archpriest Michael Azkoul

 

 

Too many people just assume that they know what a “good man” is. Because a man or an organization (composed of “good men”) builds hospitals, schools, an orphanage, an old-folks home, gives to medical research, to needy relatives, to charities, or because he is pleasant, honest, kind, loyal, refined, cheerful, honorable, or possesses those qualities which endears him to his neighbor, he is called “good,” a “good man.” I repeat, people assume that a “good man” is defined in this manner, but rarely do people critically examine the assumption to discover whether a “good man” may actually be what he is generally accepted to be.

The thinking on the “good man” has simply ignored Christianity and naturally Orthodoxy which is true Christianity. Christian experience, dogma, doctrine, canon law, are casually excluded as something personal and having little to do with the essential character of a “good man.” The Church is “what you make it” and very few people would include in their definition of a “good man” his religion. Surely, he is expected to have one and must live up to it, but as such, it is secondary in the analysis. Of course, he must believe in God (whatever that means), but “each in his own way and each in his own words.”

Now, can these ideas about the “good man” be reconciled with the Christian Truth? Is a “good man” (in the Christian and only sense) to be identified with the common conception of him? Is a “good man,” as is ordinarily believed, a man who does “good,” “good” as we usually think of it? Is the belief, any belief in God, sufficient to make a man “good?” What is the source of our opinions concerning the “good man?” Are they from God or men? Are the ideas that most of us hold on this matter given by our environment or are they the revelation of God? In any case, let us see what the Church has to say about the “good man.”

The Church teaches that three things are required for a man to be “good”: 1) conversion 2) grace 3) faith. Conversion means repentance (literally from the Greek, “change of mind”). Conversion necessarily requires faith, the right faith, the faith given, revealed, disclosed in Christ Jesus. A man must be converted to be “good.” He must be changed from a son of Adam to a son of God by grace. He must be “born again” (John iii, 3), renewed, made a “new creature” in Christ. The result is a new mentality, a “change of mind,” a new attitude and approach to all things. This is accomplished primarily by the Sacraments, especially, the Holy Eucharist, which give grace. “But God, Who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. ii, 4-6). It is grace, an energy of God, a gift, an undeserved favor, divine and activating, which converts us, which makes us “good.”

With a converted being a man receives “illumination,” “light,” “sight,” so that his faith in God has truth, direction, substance. The life of grace gives Christian faith. That faith is the faith of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride with Whom Christ is “one flesh.” This communion of Bride and Bridegroom, this common life of Head and Body, this mystical and Divine intimacy, gives rise to the experience of incomprehensible beauty. From it issues Truth, a Truth which is set in words, words which can hardly hold their meaning; and these words are Creed and canon and certitude. This is all obtained in sacred community with others in Christ, in the Church, not alone. Certainly, it must become a personal possession, but the acquisition comes through the common life in the Body of Christ. It is this experience, this knowledge, through conversion, through grace, through love and unity in the Beloved, Christ Jesus, that creates a “good man.” A “good man” is the result of what the Blessed Trinity and the Church has done. In other words, it is impossible to be a good man without Jesus Christ.

One may build hospitals, donate to charity, etc., be characterized by all those “moral” qualities which the world calls “good,” but they are meaningless and illusory without the Christian experience: conversion, grace, faith. The very definition of a “good man” relies upon his relation to Jesus Christ. Thus, as anti-Christian is utterly wicked and a true Orthodox only is fully a “good man.” Conversion, grace, faith, that without which a man cannot be “good,” no matter what the world thinks. In other terms, the more fully a man is integrated into the life of the Church, the better man he is, and without Jesus Christ and His Bride, goodness would be impossible. “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God, our Savior, appeared, He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that we might be justified by grace and become heirs of hope of eternal life. The saying is “sure” (Tit. ii, 3-8).

 

Source: The Word, November 1959, page 7. Reproduced in St. Nectarios Educational Series No. 55.

A Prayer in Time of Drought

by Saint Gregory Palamas

 

 

O Lord, Almighty God, pre-existing before all ages and abiding for ever, Who hast made all out of nothing and hast encompassed heaven in wisdom; Who supportest Thine upper chambers in the waters, and appointest the clouds for Thine ascent; Who bringest clouds up from the uttermost ends of the earth and waterest the mountains from Thine upper chambers; Who dost collect the water of the sea and abundantly pour it out again onto the face of the whole earth that it may be satisfied with the fruit of Thy works: we pray and implore Thee, Who art slow to anger and quick to help; turn not Thy face from us who pray to Thee because of the multitude of our failings. We know that our life is not worthy of Thine ineffable emptying for our sake, thy condescension into Hades and Thy most glorious return. But we also know Thine invincible love for mankind and Thine inexhaustible goodness. Hence, we throw ourselves into the ocean of Thy compassions and offer Thee this fervent supplication and implore Thee: take not Thy mercy away from those who ask and expect from Thine all-effective and supremely good providence a rain of goodness; but command Thy clouds to rain and to give us a fruitful shower; thus Thou wilt grant a voluntary rain to Thine inheritance and transform the drought and dryness into good weather, both healthy and wholesome. Fill the face of the earth with good weather and send down on it a fruitful rain that it may bring forth for us bread to eat, wine that maketh glad the heart of man and grass for the cattle. The eyes of all hope in Thee that they may receive from Thee food in due season. We have put our trust in Thee and we know none other God save Thee. For Thou art a merciful and man-befriending God, and to Thee do we send up glory, together with Thy Father Which is without beginning, and the life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

 

Source: Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. XXIX, No. 47 (1402), October 14/27, 1996, p. 7.

A Day in the Life of an Orthodox Christian

Father David Belden

Source: Orthodox Light, Vol. 4, 1988

(Presented at an Orthodox conference in 1987)

 

 

I would like to talk to you about what should be a typical day in the life of an Orthodox Christian, only it will not be exactly typical; we will have to make it a composite: that is, a day on which we would go to Liturgy, Confession, Vespers, etc. and since we probably would not do all these things on the same day, we will put them together on one day for the purpose of the talk.

Every Orthodox Christian should know that he has a definite purpose in life and that is to prepare himself for the Kingdom of Heaven. This is not some distant place far removed from our life here on earth. In the Gospel our Lord says clearly: “Behold, the Kingdom of God is within you....” St. Seraphim of Sarov, the great Russian saint of the nineteenth century says the same thing but in another way. He said that our purpose here on earth is to acquire the Holy Spirit and we know from St. Paul that the fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22). If we were filled with these virtues, we would indeed experience the Kingdom of God within us. Instead, we bear grudges against our neighbor; our tongues wag with gossip; we barely keep our mind on our prayers; we have ready excuses for missing church services or for not being able to help our less fortunate brother. Our hearts are filled with good intentions; we are drawn to that which is good. Why then is it so hard for us to make any progress toward our goal — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit?

The devil, you know, is a very smart and crafty enemy. Using the pleasures and riches of this world, he will do all in his power to take us away from God. The holy Fathers compare this life to a river. The Kingdom of Heaven is upstream. If we do not paddle very hard, we are going to move in the wrong direction. In fact, we have to paddle very hard if we do not want to stand still. If we choose to follow Christ, we must struggle to go in the opposite direction of the current. Again, we can think of life as riding a down escalator. If we do nothing, we shall have an easy ride to the bottom. How many of us have tried to run up a down escalator? It requires quite an effort to get to the top. The minute you stop, you are pulled down. This is how it is in the spiritual life. We must constantly strive and struggle. The minute we stop we do not just stand still; the minute we relax our efforts we are pulled down.

The idea of spending your life racing up a down escalator is pretty grim. If we had to depend on our own strength, we might as well give up in despair. But God is a God of love and does not expect the impossible from us. He is stronger than all the devil’s schemes put together and will give us the help we need if we ask him. It is unimportant whether we see any progress or not. Let God be the judge of that. Our judgement is not very accurate; if we think we are making progress, we better watch out. If we have repented, we should forget our sins. When God forgives, unlike us, he forgets. St. Paul says: “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before” (Phil. 3:16).

St. John Chrysostom says: “Lord if I have done nothing good in Thy sight, yet grant me according to Thy Grace to make a beginning of good.” When it is vacation time, we may be tempted to think we can take a little vacation from going to Church, saying our prayers, fasting, listening to our consciences, putting God first in our lives, leading an Orthodox way of life. If we give in to these thoughts, we are going to be carried to the bottom of the escalator and have to start all over again. We cannot take a vacation from God or the spiritual life. Our efforts must be constant. For example, it is better to pray briefly but regularly than to say lengthy prayers once in a while. The same applies to spiritual reading and fasting tell us that we should keep our rule of prayer "even if the world comes to an end". Do we even have a rule of prayer? If not, we must make up a rule of prayer for ourselves and ask our spiritual father's blessing on it. Do we have a spiritual father? Once we have found our spiritual guide, we should not move from one to another. It is alright to "shop around" in the beginning, but when we settle on someone, that is it. We must be obedient in all things save sin, knowing that by obeying our spiritual father we are doing the will of God. Even if he should be mistaken about something, God will make it right because of my obedience. My conscience will tell me if my spiritual father is asking me to do something which is not right. Obviously, if he falls into heresy, then, just as in the case of a bishop who has fallen into heresy, I am no longer bound to obey him.

Thus, before we can talk about a "Day in the Life of an Orthodox Christian", we must have a rule of prayer and before we can set up a rule of prayer, we must have a spiritual father who will help us.

When I open my eyes in the morning, my first thoughts must be of God. I must adore Him, thank Him, express repentance for my sins, and lastly, ask Him what I need. When most people think of God, it is to ask. There is nothing wrong with petition, but it must always come last. First, in my own words I must adore, thank, repent, and then request. God, I adore you. I thank you for your mercies, known and unknown; I am sorry for all the sins of my past life; help me to do better today; please give me what I need today. Make the sign of the Cross; let that be the first thing you do with your hands. Did you ever try to keep track of everything that you do with your hands in a day? Washing, dressing, eating, driving, writing, working ... let the sign of the Cross be the first conscious thing that you do with your hands. Someday I will not be able to make the sign of the Cross for myself and someone else will have to do it for me or over me. Some of us are on a roller coaster from the time we get up — sometimes very much against our will; we just do not have any choice. If we do not pray before we get out of bed, we may not pray again. As soon as I can organize my thoughts, they must be of God. My coming-to thought might be of the cat that has been yowling outside my window all night, but as soon as I am conscious enough, my thoughts must turn to God.

Either at this time or later at the icon corner I should pray for those near and dear to me, beginning with my own family; for all for whom I am bound to pray; for those who have asked for my prayers unworthy though I am; for those who have none to pray for them; and for those whom I have forgotten. Then, when I am washed and dressed, I should say my morning prayers using the Church's prayers from the Prayer Book. These are time honored, used by generations of Orthodox Christians including the saints — Holy God, the Lord's Prayer, the Six Psalms, a Supplicatory Canon of a Saint, Christ is Risen (during Pascha), O Lord and Master of my life (during the Great Fast) — as many of the morning prayers as I have time for, but unhurried and with as much attention and devotion as possible. Do not be upset when you are distracted and find your mind wandering. As soon as you are aware that this is happening to you, come back to your prayer. Prayer is not for our own self-satisfaction but for the glory of God and communion with Him. The prayer which costs me the most is the most acceptable to God. When I am fighting distractions; when I am fighting sleep; when I find it hard to pray and still do so: this is the prayer which is most acceptable and pleasing to God, not necessarily the prayer which makes me feel good.

Use prostrations, as many as I have time for. Maybe our spiritual father will give us a set number, in which case we should not do less because then we will not be fulfilling our obedience to our spiritual father and we should not do more because then we will be tempted to pride. Also, our prayer rule must include the Holy Scriptures; no day should go by in which the Orthodox Christian does not read the Bible, however briefly. A prayer rule is vital, it must have the blessing of our spiritual father, and it must be kept even if, as the holy Fathers say, the world comes to an end. The only way you can do that is to do it at the same time every day. Make the time. We cannot say: I am too busy right now, maybe later. Later never comes. Remember what Archbishop Antony of Los Angeles said last year? You find time to eat, don't you? If you don't eat your body will die. Well, you have got to find time to pray or your soul will die.

There should be spiritual reading each day. The Holy Scripture is minimal; it is a must. But there should be time to read from the lives of the Saints, the Fathers of the Church, etc. Maybe I will have an hour, a half-hour, fifteen minutes, or only five, but make use of the time. Do not waste your time. Every moment of our lives flies to God with our use of it or misuse of it or abuse of it. My life is made up of just so many moments, God alone knows how many, and I shall be judged on how I used those moments — for good or ill. Then, from the perspective of eternity, I will see how precious those moments were. Even if I only have five minutes, five minutes of attentive reading can be worth a half-hour of distracted reading in which I let my mind wander. If we do not have as much time to read as we like, many hours of tapes are now available. We can listen to these tapes while driving or walking. I can listen to the same tape three and four times and get something else each time that I missed before.

If our day is a fast day, we will eat accordingly. Remember the time-honored custom among the Orthodox during the fasts to eat only once in the day, not to eat between meals, and to have small portions when we do eat. We could spend much more time on the subject of fasting, but let us just say that there is no Orthodox life without fasting. “This kind is cast out only by prayer and fasting”, our Lord tells us in the Gospel. Our fasting is something we must work out with our spiritual father.

If we are going to Liturgy, then we should be fasting and prepared to receive Holy Communion. Canon 9 of the Holy Apostles says: “All the faithful who enter and listen to the scriptures, but who do not remain for prayer and the partaking of the Holy Mysteries must be excommunicated.” According to the explanation of the canon in a book called The Rudder, this means that all who remain after the exclamation “Catechumens depart” must receive Holy Communion. Our holy and God-bearing Fathers, who gathered in the Holy Spirit at Antioch, have directed us: “And those persons who enter the Church and listen to the Sacred Scripture but shun the participation of the Eucharist, we decree that these people be separated from the Church until they confess and exhibit the fruit of repentance.” (Canon 2 of Antioch). This canon is explained in The Rudder as referring to those who excuse themselves from receiving Holy Communion “on account of humility or reverence” but goes on to say that such humility is false since the greatest act of reverence to the Eucharist is to partake of it. So, according to Holy Tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the Canons of the Church we should be receiving Holy Communion at every Liturgy.

St. John of Kronstadt wrote: “The Divine Liturgy is truly a heavenly service on earth.” He himself celebrated the Liturgy daily. The holy Mysteries of Confession and Communion are not bound together in such a way that Confession is a necessary condition for admission to Holy Communion. If, however, you only go to Holy Communion two or three times a year contrary to Holy Tradition, then Confession should be obligatory before Holy Communion. A person who receives Holy Communion frequently goes to Confession only when he feels a special need for it or at his spiritual father's direction. Again, the frequency of our confession will depend on the direction of our spiritual father. We will never be worthy to receive Holy Communion; we pray only that we may receive not unto condemnation.

The Liturgy is much more than the receiving of Holy Communion. It is making present to us the events which we remember — not only the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ but also the Ascension, the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and the Second Coming. “As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye show forth the Lord’s death until He comes" (I Cor. 11:26). The Liturgy is the greatest Mystery that we can participate in; we should not come unprepared. At the Liturgy we are not simply remembering something which happened 2,000 years ago — that is Protestant theology; nor are we repeating something which cannot be repeated, which happened once and for all — that is Roman Catholic theology; we are present at the actual event we remember whether it be the Nativity, the Resurrection, or Pentecost. Actually, all these events are made present to us and we to them in a mysterious but nonetheless real way. God, Who is outside of time, sees all eternity at once. For Him the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ are now and He unites our poor worship to the event which we remember.

When the priest, at the beginning of the Liturgy, opens the Royal Doors and lifts the Gospel Book and says, "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," that Kingdom is opened to us. The Liturgy is the door between this world and the next. When the curtain is drawn back, the veil which separates heaven from earth is drawn back. When we are present at Liturgy, we should forget time; what we are going to do later; what is in the oven. Forget all of that and be taken for a while from time into eternity, from the here and now into timelessness. We say the same thing about the holy icons — that they are windows into heaven. When the curtain of the icon screen is drawn, we are admitted to eternity and that which has happened in the past is made present to us and we participate in it in a mysterious but nonetheless real way.

The Liturgy is the corporate worship of the people of God; most days we will be praying privately or, at most, as a family. Of what should this prayer consist? We have talked about our morning prayers and we will talk about our evening prayers; I would now like to talk about the Jesus Prayer. This kind of prayer is the duty of all Orthodox which must not be neglected. In order to begin the practice of the prayer of Jesus, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov teaches us that we must first lead a wise and disciplined life, avoiding all luxuries and carnal pleasures. We must watch over our sight, hearing, and other senses and limit our speech to the needful. This does not mean, however, that we should all retire into solitude. He who truly learns the prayer of Jesus learns well how to live in a true solitude. Several Fathers, like St. Alexis the Man of God, St. John the Hut-dweller, and St. Vitalius, practiced solitude of the heart and true seclusion while living in the world.

The words of the prayer are: "Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner". We can set aside special times to say the Jesus Prayer; we can include it in our prayer rule; we can substitute it for our prayers if we do not have a book or even if we do, if our spiritual father blesses this. The Jesus Prayer is meant to be said not only at fixed times but always and everywhere. If you have not yet read The Way of the Pilgrim, you should do so. This little book has done much to acquaint many with the Prayer of Jesus in particular and with Orthodoxy in general. The holy Apostle says in I Thess. 5:17 to "Pray constantly." There are many, many times in the course of the day in which we can use the Prayer — washing, dressing, eating, etc. The main thing is remembering to pray. We can wear our Prayer Rope, which will remind us to use it. We can only touch on the Prayer of Jesus now, but we must mention it in discussing a day in the life of an Orthodox Christian. It is a means of remaining in the presence of God during the day between our morning and evening prayers. Whatever occupies our time — whether we are students, housewives, executives, laborers, clergy — this prayer is for all Orthodox. Recently, a non-Orthodox came to me and wanted to discuss the Prayer of Jesus. I read him the following from an introduction to The Way of the Pilgrim: "The key for understanding the Prayer of Jesus is given first and foremost by belonging in doctrine and worship to the Church which gave it birth."

Let us not forget our prayers at meals, especially if we are eating out. We must not be ashamed to make the sign of the Cross in public: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38). Recently, all the crucifixes in a Toronto Roman Catholic hospital came down because a rabbi complained that they were offensive to Jews. There used to be one in every room. Remember also that the time is coming when I will no longer be able to make the sign of the Cross and someone else will make it over me.

We have mentioned morning prayers, Confession, reading, Liturgy, the Prayer of Jesus, prayers at meals; before we come to evening prayers, let us talk about Vespers. Apart from the Prayers Before Holy Communion, Vespers, along with Matins, is the best possible preparation for Liturgy. If we are absent from these services for a cause worthy of a blessing, as the prayers say, we should pray at home. Vespers is the evening worship of the Church and commences a new day. At Vespers we hear of the Saints we are remembering on the following day so we can read in the Lives of the Saints about them. If we do not attend Vespers or look at our calendar or read the troparia and kontakia of the day, the day will pass without our knowing of the Saints of the day. Vespers is the key to the forthcoming day. Every Orthodox Christian should know on any given day at least the names of the saints of that day, if nothing more. Perhaps we have Vespers only once or twice in the week, perhaps more often. We should avail ourselves of this service. It is sad to see Roman Catholic churches with their daily mass and Anglican churches, in downtown Toronto at least, with daily Morning and Evening Prayer, while the so-called Orthodox churches remain locked up tight from one Sunday to the next.

Now we come to the end of the day in the life of an Orthodox Christian, the time in which we say our evening prayers. We must have an icon corner not only where we can pray together as a family, but where we can pray privately. Again, as in our morning prayers our prayer should consist of Holy God, the Lord's Prayer, Christ is Risen (during Pascha), O lord and Master of my life (during the Great Fast), and as many of the evening prayers as I am moved to say — but unhurried and with as much attention and devotion as possible. We can make use of the Jesus Prayer; of the reading of Scripture, however brief, especially if you have missed it up until now; and of the Communion prayers.

Do not be upset when you are distracted and find your mind wandering due to fatigue or for whatever reason. As soon as you are aware that this is happening, come back to your prayer. Prayer is not an exercise in self-satisfaction, it is for the glory of God and communion with Him. The prayer which costs me the most is the most acceptable to God. This bears repeating. When I am fighting distraction, when I am fighting sleep, when I would rather do almost anything than pray and still do pray or try to pray: this is the prayer which is most acceptable to God, not necessarily the prayer that makes me feel good. Distrust your feelings. When you feel that you are making progress in the spiritual life, be wary! Let God be the judge of that; I am not capable of doing that. Do not let the devil deceive you by thinking that if I do not feel I love God, then I guess I do not. If I do not feel I am sorry for my sins, I guess I am not. The Christian life is never a matter of feelings, but of heart, mind, and will. I will to love God with all my heart and soul and being. I will to be sorry for my sins, whether I feel sorry or not. I must pray when I feel nothing. I must move my lips and form the words. Often, it is a case of the heart, mind, and will catching up with the mouth, as it were. If I do not even pray with my tongue or use a book when I feel nothing, there will be nothing for the heart, the mind, and the will to catch up with. Let us hear no more denigration of formal prayers, of formulas, of Prayer Books. I may be able to pray with my heart, mind, and will off the top of my head once in a while, but not all the time and for most of us, not most of the time. If we only pray when we feel moved in heart to do so, we will not "pray constantly" as the holy Apostle instructs us to do.

One of my favorite evening prayers, which should be said immediately prior to getting into bed, is the prayer of St. John of Damascus: "O Master that loveth all men, will not this bed be my grave? Or will Thou again enlighten my condemned soul with the day? Behold, the grave lieth before me. Behold death standeth before me."

This is one of the secrets of the Christian life — to live each day as though it will be our last. Not that we can literally do that, but that can be our goal, our aim. You will be amazed at what this attitude can do for you. Suddenly everything will take on its proper perspective. Everything will fall into place. One day it will be my last day and I do not know when that day will be. It could be in fifty or sixty years from now or it could be today or tomorrow. This does not mean that I have to be morbid. If I am trying to live each day as though it might be my last, far from being morbid, I will be filled with joy because my conscience will be right before God and that will produce peace and happiness in my soul.

Speaking of conscience, now is the time, at the end of the day to examine my conscience, to ask how I have sinned in the course of the day, how I have offended God and my neighbor. Now is the time to look into my soul and not to close my eyes in sleep until I have asked for God's forgiveness for whatever sins I have committed in the course of the day and to promise to try to do better. That is repentance. It will do no good to examine my conscience if I do not intend to do better. Then we have no real repentance. That is morbid!

Thus we come to the end of a day in the life of an Orthodox Christian. Just as my waking thoughts were of God, so now, as I close my eyes, my thoughts must be of Him. I can continue the Jesus Prayer; I may use the words of our Lord on the Cross: "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit" or the words of the holy first martyr, St. Stephen: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

"This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."

The Members of the Church: A Problem Weighing upon the Anti-Ecumenist Resistance

Andrei Mitocaru

 

 

Contents

• Radicalist Deviations in the Defense of the Faith: Who Are the Members of the Church?

• The Principle of Belonging to the Church in the Confessions of the Church

• The Establishment of Guilt vs. Automatic Exclusion

• The Teaching of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Non-Automatic Applicability of the Canons

• Conclusion: The Guarding of Orthodoxy Is Carried Out in the Spirit of the Holy Fathers

 

Radicalist Deviations in the Defense of the Faith: Who Are the Members of the Church?

In the context of the disturbances caused by the contemporary ecumenist movement, the confession of the unity and holiness of the Church has become a foremost duty for every vigilant Orthodox conscience. Yet, in the legitimate desire to guard the “rule of faith,” the risk has arisen of falling into the opposite extreme: a Matthewite-type view of belonging to the Body of Christ. This interpretation maintains that any dogmatic deviation entails automatic and de facto exclusion from the Church, without a synodal sentence being further necessary. However, a careful analysis of dogmatics and the canons shows us that such a position is foreign to the spirit of Orthodoxy.

The Principle of Belonging to the Church in the Confessions of the Church

According to the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1723 and the Confession of Dositheos of 1672, [1] the members of the Church are all those faithful who preserve the spotless faith of the Savior, proclaimed by the Apostles and confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. It is essential to note that the Church recognizes as members even those who “are liable to various sins”: [2]

“We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are all the faithful, and only they, of course, are those who preserve in holiness and truth the spotless faith of Christ the Savior, handed down, proclaimed, and examined by Christ Himself, by the Apostles, and by the Ecumenical Councils, although some of these may be liable to various sins. For if the faithful were not members of the Church and lived in sins, they would not be judged by the Church. But now, being judged by her, being called to repentance and guided on the path of the saving commandments, even if they are defiled by sins, yet only and precisely because they have not fallen into despair and because they persist in the Catholic [universal] and pious faith, they are and are recognized as members of the Catholic Church.”

The heretic, by the very nature of his error, is in a state of grave spiritual illness, but his cutting off from the ecclesial body is not a “mechanical” process. The Church, like a living organism, acts through her competent organs in order to establish the spiritual death of the member and to carry out his separation through deposition/excommunication/anathema. In this sense, Father Michael Pomazansky confirms these things:

“There is, however, a boundary beyond which, if sinners pass, they are cut off from the body of the Church, either by a visible act of ecclesiastical authority, or by the invisible act of God’s judgment.” [3]

The Establishment of Guilt vs. Automatic Exclusion

A fundamental error of Matthewite-derived thinking is the confusion between the sin of heresy, which separates the soul from interior grace, and the penalty of excommunication, which separates the person from the visible communion of the Church. The dogmatic sources teach us that heretics are those who “have corrupted the fundamental dogmas,” [4] but their exclusion is a “visible act of the authority of the Church.” [5] Moreover, Fr. Pomazansky also concludes,

“Therefore, the Church strictly guards the purity of the truth and excludes heretics from her bosom.” [6]

Saint Basil the Great explains that the hierarchy has the duty to remove the disobedient “as heathens and publicans,” [7] subjecting them to excommunication and anathema. This action presupposes a deliberative process: the Church judges, calls to repentance, and only after the conscious obstinacy of the heretic/heretics does she apply the definitive severance. Without this judicial act, we would arrive at the paradox in which the Church can no longer judge anyone, since the guilty person would be “automatically” outside her, and therefore beyond her jurisdiction.

The Confession of Dositheos emphasizes that the hierarch is the one who possesses the power to subject heretics to punishment, according to the evangelical model:

“…and in general the Fathers confess them [the episcopal powers] […] the grace given to them by the Lord to bind and loose […] and he removes the disobedient from the Church, as heathens and publicans, and delivers heretics over to excommunication and anathema.”

In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, one observes how excommunication and anathematization were the result of synodal processes in which the writings and attitude of those accused were examined, for example Prochoros Kydones:

“…this Prochoros, therefore, who was exposed synodally when his writings were brought forward and who, when asked either to refute them […] or to be cast under anathema, refused and persisted in such acts of irreverence…”. [8]

Likewise, in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, we find that

“every improper inducement tending toward the destruction of our blameless faith received from the Fathers is rightly condemned synodally.” (Point 17)

The Teaching of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Non-Automatic Applicability of the Canons

In the spirit of what was taught by Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite in the Pedalion, [9] the canons do not apply by themselves. At the beginning we find the Principles of Canonical Law, and Principle 10 (p. 8) points out the necessity of a synod to put into effect the prescriptions of the canons. Reference is made to note 22 on Apostolic Canon 3 (p. 32), where it is explained in detail how the canons must be applied. The language used is quite severe, warning that the application of the canons is not automatic:

“…A tongue slanderous of the holy ones is that which foolishly babbles such words, not understanding that the commandment of the canons, without the putting into action of the second person, that is, of the synod, is incomplete, not acting directly and before judgment by itself…”

Moreover, the history of the Church, reflected in documents such as the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, shows us that synods were convened precisely in order to clarify and to condemn nominally the heresies and their authors. If exclusion had been automatic, the struggle of the holy hierarchs for the convocation of synods and the drafting of anathemas would have been superfluous.

In the same Encyclical of 1848, at point 11, we find:

“Thus our Fathers also judged and condemned in Synod Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, and the others. For if the abomination of desolation sat in the holy place, according to the testimony of the Scriptures (Daniel 9:27; Matt. 24:15), why not innovation and heresy also upon a Holy Throne?”

Conclusion: The Guarding of Orthodoxy Is Carried Out in the Spirit of the Holy Fathers

In conclusion, resistance against Ecumenism must remain anchored in patristic humility, avoiding the radicalism that wishes to usurp the judicial authority of the Church. Belonging to the Church is a mystery that cannot be reduced to an automatic juridical formalism. Let us remember that the purpose of spiritual medicine is healing, and that the application of “punishment” (epitimion) is the final measure, taken with pain by the Mother-Church in order to guard the rest of the flock. Any interpretation that excludes economia and the necessity of a synodal sentence risks being transformed into an ideology which, although it claims to defend Orthodoxy, separates itself from the mind of the Holy Fathers.

 

NOTES

1. Their text is found in the PDF version here:

https://ro.scribd.com/document/736314770/1672-Marturisirea-Patriarhului-Dositei-OCR

2. The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos, Doxologia Publishing House, Iași, 2019, Decree 11, p. 39.

3. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Sofia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009, p. 197.

4. Idem.

5. Idem.

6. Ibid., p. 198.

7. The Confession…, p. 38. ↩︎

8. Archdeacon Prof. Dr. Ioan I. Ică Jr., The Byzantine Synodikon of Orthodoxy, p. 251.

9. The Pedalion, Dormition of the Mother of God Publishing House, Bucharest, 2015.

 

Romanian source: https://rezistentaortodoxa.org/2026/05/07/membrii-bisericii/