The Stance of the Laity Toward Heresy-Professing Bishops According to Academic Theology

Monk Seraphim (Zisis)

 

 

The recent developments in the Church throughout the world, due to the heretical Council of Kolymbari—which consolidated the dogmas of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—once again bring to the forefront the issue of the participation of lay Christians in the defense of sound ecclesiastical dogmas. The subject is, of course, vast, and a full treatment requires deep knowledge of Ecclesiology, the History of Dogmas, Church History in general, as well as Patristic Theology. Here, we attempt a first simple approach.

Many of the sinning Bishops, as well as those who “not only do the same, but also take pleasure in those who do them,” [1] are inevitably compelled to resort to the (undoubtedly uniquely significant) authority of the episcopal office in order to justify the unjustifiable. Some even hint at a kind of “infallibility” for themselves and the Synods they convene. Here one could remind that in Papism too, the originating cause of many particular heresies and other calamities was the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility: who can adequately resist the heretical views of a religious planetary leader who, for centuries, has been clothed in worldly power and a... “divine” aura of “infallible” inspirations (he who once, before his fall, was the Orthodox Patriarch of Italian Rome)?

In the very Council of Kolymbari, this unhealthy “episcopocentrism”—which aims to deprive ordinary believers, lay Christians, of the right to judge matters related to Orthodoxy—found its expression in paragraph §22 of the 6th Text, entitled “The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”. There it is written that:

“...the preservation of the genuine Orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodal system, which has always constituted in the Church the supreme authority in matters of faith and canonical order (canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council).” [2]

As is evident from the testimony of His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, the Church of Greece attempted to mitigate this “episcopal monism” (the attribution of ecclesiological weight exclusively to the Bishops), by removing the word “only” from the above phrase, and by adding Canons 14 and 15 of the First-Second Council (861), which define the conditions under which the faithful may react against their Bishops. However, this proposal was unfortunately rejected. [3]

To show how even in this matter the Council of Kolymbari fell not only away from the timeless consensus of the Holy Fathers, but also from the more recent Orthodox ecclesiological position within the Ecumenical Movement, let us recall that thirty-six years ago (1981), in the dialogue with the Old Catholics (who had broken away from Rome in the 1870s–1880s because they rejected the infallibility and the other aspects of papal monarchy), different ecclesiological principles had been affirmed. In the joint text of the Orthodox and Old Catholics of 1981, it was declared that the supreme authority in the Church is the Ecumenical Council (and not vaguely the “Synodal System”), and with the safeguard that the decision of a General Council must agree with the phronema of the whole Church in order for it to be characterized as Ecumenical. [4] Now, at Kolymbari, these prerequisites were deliberately removed, to the glory of our own Eastern “monarchs” and leaders of Ecumenism, so that the reaction of the ecclesiastical body might be silenced, and the decisions of the “high-standing [and supposedly infallible]” might suffice.

The writer does not expect that this article will persuade any of the specific heretical-leaning Bishops to heed the voice of their rightfully reacting Flock; for, unfortunately, “if they hear not Moses and the Prophets” (nor the divinely inspired Canons and Holy Fathers...), “neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” [5]

We therefore present, for the sake of the faithful, the observations of earlier academic scholars concerning the right and the obligation of ordinary believers to struggle for the preservation of the Orthodox Faith—even against Patriarchs and Synods. We do not address the subject comprehensively, as it has been sufficiently treated in other studies, [6] but restrict ourselves to university theology and historiography, in order to expose—on the basis of modern academic texts alone—the indifference, ignorance, or cunning of the heretical-leaning in their attempted distortion of our ecclesiastical phronema and cohesive Orthodox Ecclesiology.

We pray that those Bishops who consented—through their vote or even through their words—in various ways to the heresies of Kolymbari may sincerely repent. Even Saint Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, sided with the Eutychian Monophysites against Orthodoxy and Saint Flavian of Constantinople—who was later martyred—at the Robber Council of Ephesus (the so-called “Second in Ephesus”) in 449. Yet at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, two years later, he stood with the Orthodox—and ultimately became a saint.

Protopresbyter Professor Georges Florovsky (1893–1979)

The Russian-born Protopresbyter and Professor (at the theological schools of St. Sergius in Paris, St. Vladimir’s, Holy Cross, and at the universities of Harvard and Princeton in the USA), [7] Fr. Georges Florovsky, was one of the theologians whose teaching marked the 20th century and the future of Orthodox Theology—especially its return to the phronema of the Holy Fathers. [8] A teacher of Protopresbyter (and later also Professor) Fr. John Romanides, Fr. Georges Florovsky was, nevertheless, at one point in his early theological journey, swayed and became a serious proponent of a “broad” (“inclusive”) ecclesiology. [9] Some ecclesiological passages from his book “Bible, Church, Tradition” are particularly significant for our subject and are quoted here at length:

“The entire body of the Church has the right to verify, and indeed the right—or rather the duty—to affirm. In precisely this sense, the Patriarchs of the East wrote in their well-known Encyclical Letter of 1848 that ‘the people themselves were the defenders of the Faith.’ Even earlier, Metropolitan Philaret said the same thing in his Catechism [...].” [10]

“The conviction of the Orthodox Church that the ‘guardian’ of Tradition and of piety is ‘the whole people,’ that is, the Body of Christ, in no way diminishes or restricts the right of teaching that was granted to the Hierarchy [...] The hierarchs received the right to teach not from the faithful people, but from the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, through the mystery of ordination. But this teaching finds its boundaries in the expression of the whole Church. The Church is called to bear witness to this experience, which constitutes an inexhaustible experience and spiritual vision. The bishop of the Church (episcopus in ecclesia) must be a teacher. Only the bishop has received full authority and commission to speak in the name of his flock. The flock receives the right to speak through the bishop. But for the bishop to do this, he must encompass within himself the Church; he must manifest its experience and faith. He must speak not from himself, but in the name of the Church, ex consensu ecclesiae. This is in full opposition to the formula of the Vatican: ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae.” [11]

“The bishop does not derive his full right to teach from his flock, but from Christ, through apostolic succession. Yet he has been given full authority to bear witness to the catholic experience of the body of the Church. The bishop is limited by this experience, and therefore in matters of faith the people must judge concerning his teaching. The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic rule, and the people have the right to accuse him—and even to depose him.” [12]

From the important position of the ever-memorable Professor Fr. Georges Florovsky—although we have cited it only in part—we note the following points:

1) The Bishop alone has the full right of teaching in the Church;

2) This right is not received from the people, but from Christ through sacred Ordination and apostolic succession (avoiding populism or the “socialization” of the Church);

3) The Bishop does not speak from himself, but on behalf of his Church; he teaches as the mouth of the timeless experience and Faith of his flock;

4) Consequently, the Bishop’s teaching is limited by the boundaries of the Church’s experience, by the “catholic rule”, because the people also have the right to express their unaltered Faith and experience through the voice of the Bishop;

5) The people, having the right to express themselves through the Bishop, also bear the synodally affirmed duty to confirm or reject what the Bishop teaches, as guardians of the Faith;

Finally,

6) when the Bishop deviates from ecclesiastical truth, the people have the right to disobey their Bishop, as well as to censure and depose him (“let even the king hear these things,” we might add!). [13]

The Byzantinist Sir Steven Runciman (1903–2000)

The eminent historian and Professor (and knighted as “Sir” in 1958) Steven Runciman is one of the most distinguished historians of “Byzantine” History—of our Romiosyne. In Greece, he became particularly beloved thanks to his well-known prediction that the 21st century would be the century of Orthodoxy. [14] Moreover, his love for our homeland was expressed on many occasions and in various ways. Sir Steven Runciman was essentially “the man who largely succeeded in freeing the image of Byzantium from the stigma that saw it as a period of decline, corruption, and intrigue [...] and Greece, in turn, acknowledges his contribution in promoting a positive image of a period in Greek history that many had overlooked.” [15]

In his work The Byzantine Theocracy, Runciman notes the following interesting points:

“The Emperor, by the very nature of his position, was obliged to be in some way a remote figure. The Representative of God had to know his place—a most honored one. [...] The same applied to the Patriarch: although he did not enjoy precisely the same mystical prestige, he was to conduct himself as a person worthy of reverence. Respect for the divine authority of the Emperor or the Patriarch did not prevent the Byzantines from rising in revolt against a man whom they deemed unworthy of such a position. But their revolution was directed against a human being—not against the sacredness of the role. In reality, they were revolting in order to preserve the authenticity of the role itself.” [16]

This testimony of Sir Steven Runciman confirms that “the Byzantines” (or rather, more properly, “the Romioi”):

1) rendered respect to the episcopal (as well as the imperial) institution because it possessed sacred authority and constituted divine power;

2) this sacred authority of the two institutions—of the Kingdom and the Priesthood—obliged the persons who held those offices to conduct themselves accordingly;

3) it was precisely this respect of the people for the two sacred institutions that also led the people to rise up and overthrow individuals (Emperor and Patriarch) who were unworthy of the holiness of the offices they served.

Professor Panagiotis Trembelas (1886–1977)

Professor Panagiotis Trembelas, one of the founding and leading figures of the theological brotherhoods “Zoe” (1907) and “The Savior” (1960), was undoubtedly an extraordinary figure in modern Greek theology—a distinguished and tireless exegete, dogmatic theologian, liturgist, apologist, and preacher. Widely known also among the faithful of the Church for the breadth and high quality of his writings, which address a wide range of practical needs of the flock and the demands of catechists and theologians, he likewise contributed to academic theology in the fields he served. [17]

The teaching of Professor Trembelas today is undervalued by the post-patristic theological establishment—not essentially because of Trembelas’ indirect questioning of certain elements of hesychastic and Palamite patristic theology (a significant, [18] though not decisive, error of his), [19] but because his systematic exposition of the dogmas of the Faith, as well as his apologetic writings against various heretical movements and subversive trends of modernism, serve as a silent obstacle to the effort of innovative heretical ecumenists and neo-leftist theologians to promote their own “synthesis”—a “soup” of dogmatic relativism and generalized theological fluidity. Thus, Trembelas is accused of being a “scholastic,” simply because he did not “philosophize” with a libertine intellect, unbound by dogmas and sacred traditions, in the manner of a few of his contemporaries and many of his successors (such as, we might say, the formidable but also “heretical” mind, the late Professor Nikos Matsoukas).

Even Fr. John Romanides himself—whose theology became a contested point of reference, yet also a pivotal turning point (or return) to the only truly ecclesiastical theology, the neptic and hesychastic tradition—writes about Panagiotis Trembelas, and despite his theological disputes with the elder Professor, he states: “Equally necessary is the study of the Dogmatics of the eminent Dogmatic Theologian and Professor of the University of Athens, the ever-memorable Panagiotis Trembelas, who also followed the path of returning modern Orthodox theology to the Patristic Tradition.” For this reason, Trembelas’s exegetical writings, too, can be used: “as a bridge to the interpretive monuments of the Fathers.” [20] It is clear that the ever-memorable Professor and leader of the “Soter” Brotherhood belongs among those who struggled on behalf of the Patristic Tradition [21].

We now cite (in modern Greek rendering) an ecclesiological passage from his Dogmatics, directly relevant to our topic:

“The authority of such popular recognition is fully explained when one considers that the pronouncements and formulations of the Holy Synods concerning Christian truth, as we have said, are made in accordance with the written and unwritten Apostolic Tradition, which does not constitute some dead and theoretical knowledge, but a living phronema of the entire Body of the Church—one which is testified to and constituted by the living faith of all Her members. The treasure of the faith, that is, which is contained in the Holy Scripture and in Apostolic Tradition in general, must be the possession of every Christian and lived out in his life. Therefore, the pronouncements of the Holy Synods, which pertain to this treasure and are made due to the contesting of life-giving truth by heretics—and which contestations are followed with unflagging interest by the living members of the Church—cannot possibly be met with indifference by the faithful, as long as they are not [spiritually] dead. Thus, the judgment of the ecclesiastical pleroma concerning synodal pronouncements appears spontaneous—at times even unrestrained—but simultaneously expresses the catholic phronema of the Church, which indeed has never ceased to be testified to and proclaimed by Her.” [22]

The conclusions of the professor are condensed in the following points:

1) The treasure of the Church’s Faith is not a dead letter of intellectual theory and knowledge, but a lived experience and phronema of all the members of the Church;

2) As a result, the contesting of the truth by heretics gives rise to holy Synods and is rightly followed with interest by the spiritually living (and not the dead) members of the Church;

3) The spontaneous (and potentially forceful) resistance of the ecclesiastical pleroma to synodal decisions also constitutes a manifestation of the Church’s enduring phronema—which is being wounded by heresy.

Professor Konstantinos Mouratidis (1918–2001)

Professor of Canon Law and Pastoral Theology at the Theological Faculty of Athens (from 1962), Konstantinos Mouratidis also served as President of the Panhellenic Union of Theologians (PETh) for 25 years and was the founder of its journal Koinonia. According to contemporary testimonies, he was: “a theologian with Patristic and ecclesiastical phronema and ethos […] Peaceful and a peacemaker, but also a confessor, struggler, and militant whenever the Faith was in danger.” [23] A wise and broadly learned scholar, “a defender of what is just, lawful, and fitting, he was not afraid to break with friends and collaborators, even with those holding high offices. For him, truth and justice stood above all human friendships and relationships.” [24] The ever-memorable Professor reposed on the ill-fated day of the Pope’s arrival and official institutional reception (as a bishop) in Athens—May 4, 2001. The following excerpts (in modern Greek rendering) from his important work on the essence and polity of the Church according to St. John Chrysostom are highly indicative:

“St. John Chrysostom considers the laity to be precious and indispensable collaborators of the clergy for the dissemination of the evangelical truth […] The neglect of this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, which is why Chrysostom regards as an enemy of the Church the one who neglects the duty of enlightening his fellow brethren, especially those who have been led astray by heretics.” [25]

“St. John Chrysostom not only taught that the active participation of all the faithful in the shaping of ecclesiastical life is necessary and imperative, but he was also the magnificent leader who inspired multitudes of believers and transformed them into valuable supporters and warriors of the good fight. In the laity, Chrysostom did not see adversaries who ought to be kept away from the organizational mechanism of the Church, but sought, with superhuman efforts, to achieve their active participation in it.” [26]

And after referring to the support shown by the pious citizens of Constantinople toward St. Chrysostom during the persecutions he endured from the powerful, Professor Mouratidis adds the inductive conclusion:

“From the importance of the above passage, it is made abundantly clear that the laity have been called not only to be concerned with the affairs of the Church, but also to contribute to the governance of the Church in accordance with the Canons. It is especially noteworthy that in critical moments for the life of the Church, when unworthy clergy were overturning the Laws of the Church—which they had been precisely called to protect and enforce—the laity were always those who saved the ship of the Church when it was in danger. The shining example of the Church of Constantinople during the time of Chrysostom is undoubtedly one of the most characteristic cases in ecclesiastical history. It is therefore not surprising that the great Chrysostom, addressing his marvelous flock, proclaimed: ‘I will put nothing into practice without you.’” [27]

The analysis of the Professor is perfectly clear; I do not think there is any need to schematize his positions.

Professor Vlasios Phidas (1936–)

Professor of the Faculty of Theology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mr. Vlasios Phidas, Emeritus since 2003, is undoubtedly one of the most distinguished scholars of Greek Theology—especially of Ecclesiastical History—and one of the earlier defenders of the canonical rights and institutions of Greek-speaking Orthodoxy. [28] Unfortunately, those of us who came to know and esteem him through his—mostly—remarkably valuable and richly written works (or even personally, as did the writer), cannot avoid the sorrowful comparison with his more recent ecclesiological positions, such as, for example, his positive evaluation of the Synod of Kolymbari, [29] as well as his general contribution to pan-heresy Ecumenism. Because of these things, the “ecclesiastical technocrat” has come into direct conflict with what he himself wrote as a church scholar. From his concise work Byzantium, we shall draw what pertains to our subject.

Writing about the relationship between the two sovereign “God-given authorities” of Romiosyne, namely the Priesthood and the Empire, as well as the relationship of the people with them, Professor Phidas observes that, while the people were not involved in the appointment (the election) of the bearers of the Empire and the Priesthood—that is, of the Emperors and the Patriarchs—nevertheless they retained the right of subsequent judgment of these persons:

“Certainly, however, immediately after the enthronement of the ‘chosen of God’ to either of the two God-given authorities in the empire, the people were automatically transformed into autonomous judges of the bearers of the two authorities, because their exercise had been entrusted to them by God for the service of the people; therefore the people exercised their sovereign rights primarily in judging the bearers of the two authorities and not in their appointment, which—both in political theory and in the political theology of the Church—was connected to the activation of the divine will in the life of the empire.’” [30]

And elsewhere he writes that the people:

“...usually showed greater sensitivity to the spontaneous anguish of the monks than to the calculated reasonings of the learned hierarchs or officials of the empire.” [31]

From this position of Professor Phidas, we retain four observations regarding history:

1) The practice of the non-participation of the people in the appointment of Patriarchs and Emperors did not entail that the people could not also judge them as possibly unworthy bearers of God-given authorities;

2) This sovereign right of the people stemmed from the fact that both the Priesthood and the Empire exist in order to serve the people;

3) Consequently, the people automatically and autonomously judged the bearers of the two authorities, Emperors and High Priests; and

4) The faithful people placed their trust in the disinterestedness of the Monks and not in the diplomatic reasoning of the “learned” Hierarchs or the secular officials. [32]

Epilogue

With the foregoing presentation of the views of distinguished scholars of the past regarding the reaction of the pious Orthodox people to potential theological lapses of their Shepherds, we believe that the historically substantiated practice of lay confessional reaction in the face of an emerging heresy is rendered clear. Its correctness is moreover testified to in the patristic writings (especially those of a historical nature), as well as in the holy Canons of the Church. This clear practice, as summarized in the above opinions of university professors, could be condensed as follows:

a) Preeminent teachers of the Church are the Bishops, who received this right of teaching from Christ.

b) The teaching of the Bishops is limited to expressing the experience of the entire Church, namely the written and unwritten Apostolic Tradition, which is a living mindset and not a dead intellectual letter; episcopal teaching constitutes a ministry to the people.

c) Right-believing Bishops are not in opposition to, but in cooperation with the laity, whom they strive to activate in a missionary way.

d) The faithful laity, who are rightfully expressed through their Bishop, have the right—or rather the duty—to observe and judge episcopal teaching. Many times, the simple laity discern in unworthy Clergy erroneous priorities, compromises, opportunistic motives, and contrived reasoning.

e) The observation by the laity of the progression of heresies and the autonomous confirmation or rejection of episcopal teaching is a sign of life within the ecclesiastical body and an exercise of its sovereign rights; the opposite is a sign of lifelessness.

f) The people have the right to disobey a deviating Bishop, even to the point of his deposition.

g) This revolt against the deviating Bishop stems from reverence and not from disrespect toward the holiness of the God-given episcopal authority, which the heretical Bishop unworthily represents; this revolt constitutes a manifestation of the offended timeless ecclesiastical mindset.

h) The neglect by the laity to guard their fellow faithful of the Church against sacred-canonical violations and especially heresies renders such negligent laypeople enemies of the Church.

i) Ecclesiastical history bears witness that many times the afflicted ecclesiastical Faith and sacred-canonical order were preserved by laypeople who opposed unworthy Clergy.

The opinions we have cited do not exhaust the full range of theological and ecclesiastical trends within recent academic theology; nevertheless, the harmony that distinguishes them is admirable. They are thus greatly reinforced through comparison and combination, thereby also proving the following:

The reaction of the Orthodox people against the ecclesiastical leadership when the Tradition of the Church—especially the dogmas—is violated, does not constitute an expression of pietistic populism or marginal zealotism, but rather of pure and God-loving ecclesiological right-mindedness and ecclesiastical health.

No more fitting place could be found here for a relevant saying of the blessed Cypriot ecclesiastical historian Fr. Pavlos Englezakis, referring to the Church of Cyprus at the threshold of the 19th and 20th centuries:

“That the Church was not what the refined sophists of that time or of today would have wanted it to be is not necessarily or always to its detriment. The Church, in its internal polity, was conservative because it was the Church of the people, and therefore of the peasants […] To the extent that Jesus identified Himself with the least of this world, the true history of the Church is not the history of the great and the powerful, but of the weak and the small. The theological-historical reflection […] is not concerned with what the great ones of the world did—even if they are called archbishops—nor with what the respectable middle class did, but it examines who, like God, were poor according to the system, that is, outside of it, without value, useless, and therefore available, and what the disciples of Jesus did for them. For he is saved who, in the faces of these poor ones, sees Jesus and serves Him. This is, according to the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the essential criterion of the true history of the Church.” [33]

May our ecclesiastical leaders reflect upon the weight of the scandalization of the Faithful caused by the alteration of the ecclesiological dogma at Kolymbari and act in repentance accordingly!

 

Endnotes

1. Romans 1:3

2. https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world

3. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios Hierotheos, “The decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece regarding the Holy and Great Council and their outcome,” Theodromia 18 (2016) 426–428, 433. See the same text also here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/325254627/ΝΑΥΠΑΚΤΟΥ-ΑΠΟΦΑΣΕΙΣ-Ι-Σ-Ι-ΓΙΑ-ΑΜΣΟΕ-ΚΑΙ-ΚΑΤΑΛΗΞΗ-ΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΙΟ-ΑΚΤΙΝΕΣ#from_embed, as well as here:

http://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/el/mitropolitis-3/ni-various-articles/4618-2016-09-25

4. This refers to the second text of the 4th Session of the Joint Theological Commission at Zagorsk, Moscow (15–22 September 1981), under the title The Infallibility of the Church. See Episkepis 259 (1981) 12: “The supreme organ of the Church for the infallible proclamation of its faith is only the Ecumenical Council [...] This, pronouncing under the oversight of the Holy Spirit, possesses its infallibility by virtue of its agreement with the entire Catholic Church. Without such agreement, no assembly is an Ecumenical Council.” (Quoted from Gr. Liantas, Pan-Orthodox Ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and of the Church of Greece and the contribution of the two Churches in the bilateral theological dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church, ed. Kornilia Sfakianaki, Thessaloniki 2005, p. 106f.).

5. Luke 16:31

6. Holy Monastery of Pantokratoros, Melissochori, “Are the laity allowed to involve themselves in matters of faith?”, Theodromia 12:3 (July–September 2010) 368–380. See also: http://www.impantokratoros.gr/769A2154.el.aspx

7. M. Baker – N. Asproulis, “Fr. Georges Florovsky (1893–1979): A brief biographical and bibliographical note,” Theologia 81, vol. 4 (2010) 7–19.

8. G. Bempis, “Florovsky, Georges,” Religious and Ethical Encyclopedia 11 (1967) col. 1184:
“Here he became the outspoken herald of the return to the Fathers and to the ‘sacred Hellenism’ and, clinging firmly to the Greek patristic Tradition, he inevitably clashed with the also famous Russian thinker and sophiologist Sergius Bulgakov.”

9. A critique of some early ecclesiological ecumenist views of Fr. Florovsky was also made by His Grace Bishop Athanasios (Jevtić), former Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina—himself now also among the champions of Serbian ecumenism—in an article on Fr. Florovsky’s ecclesiology. See: Bishop Athanasios Jevtić, “Fr. Georges Florovsky on the boundaries of the Church,” Theologia 81, vol. 4 (2010) 137–158.

10. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, Holy Scripture, Church, Tradition, trans. Dem. Tsamis, Works of Georges Florovsky vol. 1, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1976, p. 73f.

11. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p. 74ff.

12. Protopresbyter Professor G. Florovsky, ibid., p. 75.

13. St. Gregory the Theologian, Funeral Oration (43) for St. Basil the Great 50, PG 36, 561A: “To these things he hurled insults, threatened, do whatever you wish, enjoy your authority. Let even the king hear these things, for as for us, you shall neither win us over nor persuade us to join in impiety, even if you threaten more harshly.”

14. “The final interview of the great Byzantinist Sir Steven Runciman,” http://i-m-patron.gr/i-m-patron-old.gr/keimena/runciman.html (from the journal Pemptousia 4 [Dec. 2000–Mar. 2001]): “Sometimes—what can I say—I feel very disappointed by the other Churches of the West. However, I am glad at the thought that in the next 100 years Orthodoxy will be the only historic Church that will still exist. The Anglican Church is in very bad shape. The Roman Catholic Church is continually losing ground. But fortunately, there is the Orthodox Church. I am greatly impressed by the increasing number of those who are embracing Orthodoxy, especially in Britain. I believe that it offers the genuine spirituality which the other churches can no longer transmit. All these things lead me to the conclusion that Orthodoxy will endure, in contrast to the others.”

15. “Steven Runciman, Historian (1903–2000). The man who changed the Western world’s perception of Byzantium,” Orthodoxos Typos 1472 (20 Sept. 2002) 2 (republication from To Vima, 8.9.2002).

16. Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy, trans. Iosif Roilidis, Domos Publications, Athens 2005, p. 111ff.

17. For a brief memorial biography and profile of this great theologian, see P. N. Trembelas (1886–1977), Faint Profile (offprint from the book Selection of Greek Orthodox Hymnography), ed. “Ho Sōtēr,” Athens 1988.

18. See “The condemnation of the late Panagiotis Trembelas by Mount Athos,” Orthodox Martyria 42 (Winter 1994) 78–87. The said Athonite critique was published around the mid-1970s. The problematic positions of Professor the late P. Trembelas had been included in his book Mysticism – Apophaticism – Cataphatic Theology. Twenty years later, the unacceptable anti-patristic views of the considered anti-Western and supposedly patristically-oriented Professor of Panteion Christos Yannaras were also condemned by Mount Athos. See: “Refutation of the erroneous views of Mr. Christos Yannaras concerning our Father among the Saints Nicodemus the Hagiorite,” Orthodox Martyria 40 (Spring–Summer 1993) 1–10.

19. On this subject see characteristically: Manual: Correspondence between Fr. J.S. Romanides and Prof. P.N. Trembelas, ed. Fr. G. Metallinos, Harmos Publications, Athens 2009. See specifically also the view of His Eminence Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos (Introduction, ibid., p. 16): “Panagiotis Trembelas grew up in this scholastic climate and made a great effort and notable struggle to move toward patristic theology. This was a difficult task in his time […] He was a dynamic personality who brought about the major shift in Greece toward the Fathers of the Church.”

20. Protopresbyter Professor John Romanides, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. I, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 19994, p. 6ff.

21. Protopresbyter Professor Th. Zisis, “Genesis and development of patristic-opposing post-patristicism,” Patristic Theology and Post-Patristic Heresy, publ. Holy Metropolis of Piraeus, Piraeus 2012, p. 266.

22. P.N. Trembelas, Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. II, publ. “Ho Sōtēr,” Athens 1979, p. 408: “This power of lay recognition is fully explained when it is considered that the determinations and formulations of the holy Synods concerning Christian truth are made, as we have said, according to the written and unwritten apostolic tradition, which does not constitute some dead theory and knowledge, but a living mindset of the whole body of the Church, testified and composed by the living faith of all its living members. That is, the treasure of the faith contained in Holy Scripture and generally in apostolic tradition ought to be the possession of every Christian and to be lived in his life. Hence, the determinations of the holy Synods related to this treasure, made from disputes by heretics concerning the life-giving truth, being followed with unceasing interest by the living members of the Church, cannot meet with indifference among the faithful, so long as these are not dead. Thus, the judgment of the ecclesiastical body concerning synodal determinations appears spontaneous, and at times unrestrainable, yet it also reveals the catholic mindset of the Church, which has never ceased to be testified and proclaimed by it.”

23. Archim. G. Kapsanis, “Memorial for the blessed Professor,” Koinōnia 44, 2 (Apr.–June 2001) 121.

24. M. Orphanos, “Funeral oration for Professor Konstantinos Dor. Mouratidis,” Koinōnia, ibid., 118ff.

25. K. Mouratidis, The essence and polity of the Church according to the teaching of John Chrysostom (dissertation), Athens 1958, p. 212: “… the participation of the laity in the shaping of ecclesiastical life, under the implied conditions—on the one hand of respect for the competency and rights of the hierarchy, which is the primary bearer of ecclesiastical ministries, on the other hand of the auxiliary character of the participation of the laity […] The holy Chrysostom regards the laity as precious and necessary collaborators of the clergy for the dissemination of evangelical truth […] Neglect of this duty constitutes a most grievous sin, and thus Chrysostom considers the one neglecting the duty of enlightening other brethren, especially those led astray by heretics, as an enemy of the Church.”

26. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 216: “The holy Chrysostom not only taught as necessary and imperative the active participation of all the faithful in the shaping of ecclesiastical life, but he also was the superb leader who inspired the multitudes of the faithful and transformed them into precious supporters and combatants of the good campaign. Chrysostom did not view the laity as opponents who ought to be kept distant from the organizational mechanism of the Church, but through superhuman efforts sought to achieve their active participation in it.”

27. K. Mouratidis, ibid., p. 219: “From the importance of the above passage it becomes abundantly clear that the laity are called not only to care about Church matters, but also to contribute to the governance of the Church in accordance with the canons. It is characteristic that in critical moments for the life of the Church, when unworthy clerics overturned the laws of the Church—which they were precisely called to protect and apply—it was the laity who saved the endangered ship of the Church. The shining example of the Church of Constantinople during Chrysostom’s time constitutes undoubtedly one of the most characteristic related cases in Church history. It is therefore not strange that the great Chrysostom, addressing his excellent flock, declared: ‘without you I will do nothing.’”

28. See the article: “Vlasios Phidas” https://www.wikipedia.gr/wiki/Βλάσιος_Φειδάς

29. See the article by D. Anagnostis, “Mr. Vl. Phidas confesses and reveals about the Kolymbari (Crete) gathering,” http://aktines.blogspot.gr/2016/12/blog-post_999.html (from Orthodoxos Typos 2146 [30 Dec 2016] 1.4).

30. See Phidas, Byzantium (Life–Institutions–Society–Church–Education–Art), Athens 1990, p. 154.

31. Ibid., p. 317.

32. Which Professor Phidas calls “logic of compromises or of opportunistic expediencies of political leadership or ecclesiastical hierarchy” (ibid., p. 317).

33. Benedict Englezakis (Archimandrite Paul), “The Church of Cyprus from 1878 to 1955,” in Twenty Studies on the Church of Cyprus (4th to 20th centuries), publ. A.G. Leventis Foundation – MIET, Athens 1996, pp. 616–617.

 

Greek source: https://salpismazois.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_84.html

The “holy” tablet!

 

From “Athonite Conversations”:

Geronda, is it proper for priests and chanters to use electronic devices instead of booklets during the services?

Let us be careful to remain faithful to tradition and not fall into the invention of various “clever” tricks in order to avoid holy toil, for we will suffer the same fate as Uzzah.

Who was he?

As the Old Testament mentions (1 Chronicles 13:7), he was the one who, in order to relieve himself and the other priests from the burden of carrying the Ark of the Covenant on their shoulders, as the law prescribed, proposed that oxen pull it on a cart.

But very shortly afterward, he was the one who, by touching the Ark containing the commandments, died instantly and his life was cut off.

They told me that some priests, instead of booklets, have these cell phones and—what do they call them again?—tablets, and they even place them on the Holy Altar. They say it's more convenient.

But my blessed one, if during the Liturgy you accidentally press another button, do you know what will appear? All of Hades. And then, when that gadget breaks down, what will you do with it? Will you burn it in the furnace?

In a church in Northern Greece, I was told that last year during Holy Week the service was interrupted because the chanter didn’t have data on his phone and thus couldn’t see what he was to chant.

And besides, with chanters relying on such crutches, they’ll eventually forget the typikon and won’t even be able to perform a single Vespers on their own.

And what shall we say in defense, I wonder, to all those old monks who considered their sweat to be myrrh as they built stone benches in the heat of noon to subdue the inner man, and struck the stones with pickaxes, making cobbled paths so that we might have them today and walk comfortably?

Let us therefore leave behind all these “clever tricks” and let us love the blessed toil and sweat of Orthodox asceticism, for within it is found all the sweetness and paradise of Divine love.

 

Greek source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180820120250/http://yiorgosthalassis.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post_737.html

St. Chrysostomos the New Confessor: Is public criticism against the Hierarchy permitted?

(Source: from the “Introduction” of the book, Κρίσεις επί της σημερινής καταστάσεως της Ελληνικής Εκκλησίας και κοινωνίας [Judgments on the Present Condition of the Greek Church and Society], written by the Saint during his exile at the Monastery of Ypsilos in Mytilene in 1952.)

 

 

Does the revelation of the spiritual condition of the Body of the highest Hierarchy serve the common good, or on the contrary, does it harm it and morally damage it by informing it of the shortcomings and sins of those who direct the affairs of the Church and by causing scandal because of them?

And thus, I found myself for a moment as a defendant before the dreadful Tribunal of my conscience. Various thoughts then spontaneously arose from the depths of my soul, arguing in favor of the one or the other opinion, while I sat upon the bench of the accused.

First appeared the advocates for the prosecution, presenting in support of their position the following arguments:

“We too, Mr. President, do not deny that even Hierarchs, as men clothed with flesh and living in the world, cannot be free from the shortcomings and sins that come from human weakness, thereby confirming the Scripture, ‘no one is without sin, even if his life be but one day.’ Given this, the revelation and publication of the shortcomings and transgressions of the clergy—and especially of the Hierarchy—causes great harm to the laity, which, though incorrectly, equates the sacred ministers with the reality of the Church and its teachings. Thus, they are scandalized, and the reverence and devotion owed to the Church and its ministers is shaken to its foundations.

“And if, according to the saying ‘what happens at home should not be made public,’ scandals and disputes occurring within a household between parents, children, and relatives ought not be made known to the public so that the honor and dignity of the family is not exposed, then all the more is it not permitted for a Christian—and especially a clergyman—to reveal and publish the deficiencies and grave blemishes of the clergy, and especially of the Hierarchs. And this, because through the revelation and publication of the sins and offenses of the Hierarchs, it is not merely the honor and dignity of a household or a family that is exposed, but the divinely-founded house of God and His God-established Church.

“Given these facts, it is evident, Mr. President, that the one who reveals to the public the possible shortcomings and dark blemishes of the ministers of the Most High God becomes guilty before God and the Church, and appropriate penalties should be imposed against him for the public scandal he causes to the Christian community in which he dwells.

“Moreover, the respected Tribunal's Christian understanding does not overlook, nor is it unaware of, the Gospel saying of the divine Founder of the Church, Christ, who said: ‘Woe to the man through whom the scandal comes’ (Matt. 18:7). Therefore, I request the conviction of the accused, as falling under the penalty foreseen and defined by the ecclesiastical penal law for all those who cause moral scandals.”

After the conclusion of the pleadings by the advocates for the prosecution, the Honorable President invited the advocates for the defense to present their arguments on behalf of the accused.

“We too, Honorable Mr. President and honorable Judges, do not deny but rather agree with our opposing colleagues that both higher and lower clergy, being men, clothed with flesh and living in the world, cannot be free from the shortcomings and sins that arise from human weakness.

“However, when the faults and moral transgressions of the clergy—and especially of the Hierarchs—are such that they cannot be justified by human weakness, and as such cannot be covered up or silenced, then do you not think, honorable Judges, that the concealment and suppression of these wrongs causes greater harm than benefit—not only to the sinful clergyman, but to the entire community in which he has been appointed as teacher and moral guide for the direction and salvation of souls? In such a case, when the transgressions and offenses of the clergy do not stem from human frailty, from which no one is exempt, but from unbelief and moral callousness—up to and including contempt even for public opinion—then the cause of scandal in society is no longer the revelation and denunciation, but rather the concealment and silence regarding the vile and malicious acts of immoral and unworthy clergy.

“The toleration and concealment of such blatant sins and profanations by a clergyman, besides scandalizing the whole community, does not contribute to the correction and healing of such a spiritually ill and festering cleric. On the contrary, such toleration emboldens the depraved and corrupt clergyman, making him bolder and more shameless in sinning, and contemptuous even of public opinion about him—reckoning the scandal he causes to the religious conscience of the faithful as nothing, scandal which even shakes their faith in Christ to the foundation and leads them to imitate his actions.

“But perhaps our esteemed opponent will object, saying that in such a case what is called for is not public exposure of the moral character of such a disgraceful clergyman and his public shaming, but rather his denunciation to the governing Synod—the only authority competent to take the measures foreseen by the Canons for the punishment and correction of the clergyman who brazenly handles divine and sacred things—and for the root-healing of the evil.

“We too consider such an objection of our opponent to be just and reasonable, since by appealing to the higher ecclesiastical authority, there is hope that the stumbling and boldly sinning clergyman may come to his senses and that the public scandal to Christians may be safely prevented.

“But when the governing ecclesiastical authority, failing to rise to its high calling, instead of forwarding the complaint to the competent investigation, files it away ‘for fraternal love’—that is, ad Kalendas Graecas, as the ancients said—then the only remaining path toward punishment of the brazen and unrepentantly sinning clergyman, and toward root-healing of the evil, is to deliver him over to public opinion, the only avenger of shameless and flagrant crimes and offenses. Such offenses and transgressions are what our Lord Himself had in mind when He publicly hurled His terrible and dreadful ‘woes’ against the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees of the Jewish Synagogue, whose hypocrisy and hideous malice of soul He publicly denounced. For just as a hidden ulcer, festering with foul discharge, undermines the physical body by destroying its vitality and health, so also does a malignant and hideous passion of the soul, when concealed, consume and undermine its vitality and moral well-being, as it is ravaged and corroded by this ulcerating moral wound.

“Moreover, when the moral transgressions and grievous profanations of the clergy—and especially of the Hierarchs—do not remain unknown to the public but are the subject of conversation and criticism in households and private meetings of the faithful, the revelation and publication of these do not increase the scandal or the disheartening impression of Christians, but rather lessen it, inspiring in them the hope of deliverance from the evils and scandal-causing ministers of the Church.

“Furthermore, the public denunciation and censure of immoral clergy—who fortunately are few [ed. note: ‘they were few then—now, just look, Your Eminence…’]—will relieve the majority of moral and conscientious clergy from the general condemnation and reproach. For it is neither just nor fitting, for the sake of covering up the guilty, to have the good and conscientious clergy—who by their honorable and virtuous conduct are worthy of every glory and honor—be accused together with them.

“The public denunciation of those who err and sin among the clergy has, moreover, this additional benefit: it may not only bring the stumbling clergyman to awareness and repentance, but may also serve as a deterrent—and especially an instructive example—for those clergymen who are inclined toward the uncontrollable urges of base and lowly passions, from which they may be restrained by the exemplary punishment and shameful exposure of the wicked and immoral clergy who have fallen into such things.

“And finally, the exposure and denunciation of such wicked and conscienceless ministers will also have a beneficial effect upon those in authority over the Church, who will be practically and instructively persuaded by the pressure of public opinion that, in such serious accusations against clergy, ‘fraternal love’ must be weighed against the divine authority of the Church and the dignity of the governing Ecclesiastical Hierarchy—since both of these are jeopardized in the conscience of the faithful by the concealment of clergy who have been denounced as unworthy of their high and sacred mission.”

Thus, after the conclusion of the pleadings of the defense attorneys, and the proceedings having been declared completed, the Tribunal of conscience withdrew in order to deliberate and deliver its verdict either in favor of or against me, who sat upon the bench of the accused.

Fortunately, the verdict of the Tribunal of conscience was acquittal for me, the accused; and thus I proceeded, with a calm and peaceful conscience, to the publication of the present treatise, with the firm and unwavering conviction and the sweet hope that it will contribute—even if only to the slightest degree—to the purification of the grievously ailing Body of the Hierarchy, by the excision of its ulcerating and putrefied Members and their replacement with new, theologically trained Clergy, inflamed with holy and divine zeal, and worthy of their divine and sacred mission.

 

Online: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2024/06/blog-post_8.html

 

Letter to a Priest on the Teaching of Prayer

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

 

 

Friend and father! Long ago I should have replied to you about the impoverishment of faith and prayer and about the means of combating them. But that same bustle which, by your own admission, disperses the feeling of reverence, deprived me as well of the opportunity to write to you for a month and a half. Now it is Clean Monday; I have just returned from the cathedral, where I read the Great Canon and, together with all who were praying, showered myself with the reproaches of Saint Andrew for negligence toward the eternal and for preference of the temporal.

True, our episcopal bustle is more involuntary than voluntary; it consists of constant receptions of petitioners and clergy asking for transfers, engaged in lawsuits, requesting to be sent to the front, or wishing to take examinations; then papers and papers without end. Yet, in spite of all this, I managed to write down from memory a huge public lecture on a philosophical topic, to write two large articles on ecclesiastical-publicist topics, and for that which is “one thing needful,” I did not find time until this day. Our wrongly directed education is the cause of this. I am not an enemy of what is called science, but it is vexing with regard to myself when I catch myself preferring subjects, even of theological science, to the subjects of the study of the spiritual life, upon which contemporary theologians look with a certain disdain, partly because they understand little in them, and partly because theologians who are self-taught, or even academic theologians who have withdrawn by their life and by their consciousness from the theological school, reason about them more deeply and better. There ought not to be such divisions and preferences; good Christians live according to the Apostle, “in honor preferring one another,” and rivalry and envy are especially inappropriate where the acquired possession of experience and study does not remain the property of the author alone, but of all readers, that is, a possession belonging to all.

You write: “I experience involuntary hardness; there is no former prayerful compunction; even more—against my will there are moments of complete absence of faith at the most important moments of the liturgy. Heal me! I write to you, my spiritual father. I desire prayer; but there is no prayer. Does the Lord truly deprive me of His grace?” No, my friend: if, God forbid, the latter had happened, then this would be expressed first and foremost in the fact that a person would not grieve over such a state of his; and if he fears falling into such estrangement, then the Divine grace is dear to him, and if it is dear, then it is not far from him. No one on earth responds to one who calls with such readiness as our Heavenly Father, but one must know how to hear His response. At times it is beneficial for us to come to know His chastisement, so as not to think highly of ourselves and thereby to come to know our sins and to learn humble-mindedness; in this learning, which is of greatest value, come to know His fatherly response to the cry of summons, as it were, of one’s soul drying up in insensibility. You have surely read in the works of the Right Reverend [St.] Theophan the Recluse a fatherly parable. If you heat strongly a bucket with water and pieces of ice, the water will not begin to warm until all the pieces of ice, to the last one, have melted; but then the warming will proceed very quickly. Therefore, above all, never think that the Lord has left you if for a long time you do not feel compunction and living joyful faith, although you would wish to experience both; the action of grace is manifested in you, but for the time being in contrition of soul, and not in compunction.

Now let us examine those circumstances under which the Lord permits a person to fall into a depressed state and to suspect himself of having lost faith.

The first and least dangerous condition of struggle and doubts arises directly from spiritual inexperience and the absence of guidance from elders. It happens precisely that a young priest or a young ascetic becomes accustomed in his mind, as it were, to feel about, or, speaking in bookish terms, to attentively analyze his spiritual state.

Previously he always wept when he read the Trinitarian prayers in church; even when, in a moment of solitude, he recalled the words of the mystical prayers, tears would come to his eyes. But then he sets himself to test with his attention how this feeling differs from that which he had when he partook of the Holy Mysteries. What, properly speaking, moves him to compunction in the words of these prayers? Does this compunctious feeling repeat itself if he reproduces these words in his memory a third time, a fourth time, and so on?—Naturally, the tears will soon cease to appear in your eyes, and in these moments, you are no longer a man of prayer, but an investigator. Does this mean that your heart has truly been torn away from God and that the soul has become alien to those penitential and all-embracingly compassionate dispositions which were so characteristic of you in the past?

Of course not; but every feeling, even a bodily sensation, weakens and, as it were, completely evaporates when we begin to make it the object of our persistent attention. Pinch yourself on the arm and, while enduring the pain, begin to ponder how this pain differs from toothache, from chest pain—and you will soon lose the very sensation of pain. A German scholar some seventy years ago overcame the most severe toothache, which tormented him almost to fainting, by such a method.

It is understandable that more spiritual feelings, which waft over our soul as it were with a “still small voice,” become completely imperceptible if they themselves are subjected to idle probing or so-called reflection.

Such is also the feeling of faith, that is, the living sensation of the divine presence and of God’s participation in your personal life. If even in secular life absent-minded young people are constantly told by teachers and parents, “Do not dig into yourselves; you will be capable of nothing,” then all the more is such a requirement appropriate in the spiritual life. When bright compunction has visited you, when a ray of God’s grace has as it were opened before you the face of God and sacred awe together with blessed joy has illumined the heart, then do not brood over your sensations, but surrender yourself to the stream of thoughts that flow into your soul, and put your deeds and life to the test, like Zacchaeus when the Savior came to him, in order to impel yourself to the correction of life and to the service of virtue: “Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wronged anyone of anything, I restore fourfold” (Lk. 19:8). A good feeling and spiritual rapture must be secured in one’s soul by an exploit either of struggle with one’s sins or of works of love. If those two blessed travelers on the evening of the Resurrection had limited themselves to the “burning of hearts” at the explanation of the prophecies, they would not have recognized their Interlocutor. But they fulfilled the commandment of hospitality: they constrained Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is far spent” (Lk. 24:29). Then their eyes were opened, and they knew Him (Lk. 24:31).

Such an indication of the Gospel as to how one ought to strengthen in one’s soul holy prayerful and other grace-filled dispositions has significance also in other difficult circumstances of our spiritual life. Here you may perhaps say: “I did not at all have the habit of probing my dispositions and asking myself what and how I feel. This digging into myself was always alien to me, and yet the compunctious feelings that visited me before have left me; saddened by this, I perhaps even asked myself without need: do I believe in God at all? And I did not find in my soul a confident answer. I realize that I should not have done the latter, for I could not have lost faith in God without wavering in my convictions and without succumbing to some false teaching; I know that faith remains with me, but where has the bright feeling gone that embraces the believer when he thinks of God? I would not have dug into it, but I am aware that it has not been in me of late. What is the reason for that?”

About the reasons we shall say something presently, but first I will remind you of the counsel of the holy fathers on how to act in such impoverishment. The fathers speak thus: “Compunctious feeling is not yours, but God’s gift; yours, however, must be the labor to receive it.” What labor? First of all, the labor of a virtuous life in general, and in particular with regard to the very prayerful exploit. The fathers strictly forbid squeezing a feeling out of oneself, straining one’s breathing and forcing out tears; but what must the laborer of prayer strain? His attention! He must ponder the words of the prayer, not merely run through the prayerful words with eyes or voice, but also with his mind imagine what he is saying before God. Very often this alone is quite sufficient for prayerful compunction soon to penetrate the soul and for the fullness of communion with the Divinity accessible to you to open again before you. However, if this too does not happen, do not despond: you strove to fulfill before the Lord what was within your power, and now reflect on why the Lord, who undoubtedly looks with love upon your prayerful labor, did not grant you to hear His response.

I said that the reasons for this are various; you mentioned distraction by earthly bustle. Simple distraction is removed by the fulfillment of the stated rule of prayer; but if insensibility continues, then it means that the hook was not in simple distraction, but in the oppression of the soul by one or many cares. It is precisely of this that it is spoken in the Sermon on the Mount, at the end of the sixth chapter. What is condemned by the Lord is not the foresight of our needs, family and personal, but the oppression of one’s soul by them, when care so takes possession of the latter that it becomes almost indifferent “to the Kingdom of Heaven and its righteousness.” One must calmly set before oneself the always-near possibility of ruin, and of severe family need, and of illness, and of injury, and of the death of one’s loved ones, but at the same time remember that if you have fulfilled everything that depends on you to provide for relatives and loved ones, and yet it should please God to subject you or your family to severe misfortune, then it means that this is necessary for their salvation, for everything that happens to us not by our evil will happens by God’s permission, and therefore for our benefit, since the Lord does nothing and permits nothing except what is good for us.

If you thus calm your heart and, following the Church, will conclude your petitions before the Lord by entrusting yourself and your own to His holy will (“Let us commit ourselves to Christ God”), then that sinful distraction, that is, the oppression of the soul by cares and fears, will leave you, and you will again glorify God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Condescending to our weakness, the Lord does not forbid us to desire external well-being for ourselves, and especially for others; He also permits us to pray for this, but commands us to entrust the fulfillment of such a prayer to the will of God and not to murmur, and not even to grieve excessively, if things turn out not according to our desire, for we ourselves do not know what is more beneficial both for our own soul and for the souls of those close to us. But, of course, far from Christian righteousness are those who desire for their children only happiness and happiness. In our mad time, even among believing society, such people are the majority, and they do not understand that, while believing in the Christian God, they look upon Him and upon their life in a purely pagan way, because all these things the pagans seek (Mt. 6:32).

One of the best means of combating the impoverishment of prayer arising from the oppression of the soul—and, moreover, from other causes as well—must be acknowledged to be a temporary withdrawal from the world and from one’s own, that is, a journey on pilgrimage or a direct withdrawal to a monastery for a period of retreat; finally, confession, even in the usual setting of one’s life, if there is no possibility of leaving it even for a time.

As for what irreplaceably precious significance a heartfelt conversation with an experienced monastic elder has, everyone knows this already, if not from practice, then even from secular accounts. But the monastery itself also instructs. Both monks or nuns and laypeople who have gathered on pilgrimage, by their appearance and by their standing in church, by reading, chanting, and prostrations, bear living witness to us that there is one thing needful. The vanity of the earthly, its transitory significance, and the value of the eternal, the value of the soul and of conscience—this is the lesson from which no one can evade who has spent even three days in a monastery as a pilgrim. To see people fervently praying, having forgotten the earthly, is impossible without a lofty elevation of one’s own soul. At times, standing in the altar of the Kiev Caves Lavra, I would cast a glance through the Royal Doors at the simple pilgrims standing in front. On their faces shone that spiritual rapture which is expressed in the brief church prayer: “Standing in the temple of Thy glory, we think ourselves to be standing in heaven, O Theotokos, Gate of Heaven.” Strive to be among such people—and you will be filled with their spirit, like Saul who met on his way the sons of the prophets (see 1 Sam. 10:10–13).

Sinful distraction, or the “cares of life,” by which people stifle the Word within themselves (see Lk. 8:14), is not the only cause of the temporary loss of the gift of prayer. Such a loss also occurs as the sole recompense: 1) for a sin not covered by repentance, and 2) for an evil intention that has crept into the soul, and all the more—for a sinful passion.

One monk often fell into a grievous sin and, trembling at the coming wrath of God, cried out: “Lord, punish me however You will, only do not deprive me of faith and repentance!” A sin that is covered by repentance will not expel prayerful warmth from the heart until a person befriends that sin to the degree of complete impenitence. The parables of the publican and of the prodigal son, and the pardoned prudent thief, assure us of this. From this we learn that it is not sin that is so terrible as impenitence. But a sin lightly consigned to oblivion, offenses against one’s neighbor not covered by reconciliation, mad blasphemy (but, of course, not merely “blasphemous thoughts” that assail a person without his guilt), a malicious threat—for example, a threat of suicide or of renouncing the priestly rank or of apostasy from the Orthodox faith—these are what become the cause of “my prayer returning to my bosom” (Luke 34:13). Such transgressions against God’s commandments, even if they were isolated and, through human light-mindedness, consigned to oblivion, leave a dark, sinful whirlpool on the heart and hinder the grace of the Holy Spirit from gaining access to it. But most of all our heart is barred from receiving this grace through the conscious concealment of sin at confession. Alas, those who permit the latter often end their lives by suicide—monks and priests. May the Lord preserve all from such a Judas-like lot!

Therefore, until you understand why the spirit of prayer has departed from you, strive to recall whether you have forgotten some grievous sin committed by you, like those that have just been indicated; and if you recall such a one, hasten to weep over it, bringing repentance before God and before your neighbor, if you have offended him.

However, sin often lies not in deeds committed by you, but in intentions and in the dispositions of your heart. At times this is a formed, already assimilated malicious disposition, as with Amnon and Absalom; at times it is merely a nascent lust or passion. Here one must especially beware of the passions of lust, envy, ambition, or love of money. To such a state of soul pertain the Lord’s words about the impossibility of serving two masters—God and mammon (see Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13). The subjugation of the heart to one of the mentioned passions, even before its domination expresses itself in any deeds or undertakings, will immediately manifest itself in an impoverishment of the gift of prayer. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Mt. 6:21; Lk. 12:34). If your treasure, toward which you strive, is high rank, or money, or sinful love, then your heart will no longer take delight in communion with God, and when you stand to pray you will think only of how it might end as quickly as possible. And conversely—if such an impatient thought visits you during prayer, then, the fathers say, know that your heart has been seized, or is being seized, by some subtle passion that is driving out of it the joy of glorifying God and the thirst for knowing Him through spiritual reading, which begins to seem boring to you. But you will say: “I have tested my heart and in none of the things indicated am I guilty—not, of course, in the sense of considering myself passionless or sinless, but I hate my sinful habits or the embryos of passions, I bring sincere repentance for my sins, and yet I have not found healing for my ‘hardened insensibility.’”

“It is good for you if it is so,” I shall answer, “for righteous anger is that which the ascetic directs not against people, but against his passions; and if he acts thus, then, although the passion has not yet been completely expelled from his heart, being scourged by sacred anger it can no longer expel the spirit of prayer from your soul. — And yet this spirit of prayer has left me: I do not pray to God for health, for family happiness, for wealth and long life; I ask of Him only those gifts which are enumerated in the prayer of Ephrem the Syrian, which today, on the first day of the fast, I read sixteen times with prostrations; but the Lord refuses me these gifts, for I feel this by my despondent disposition, and this despondency insistently presses into my soul. Friend! If this is so, then know that not you alone, but Paul—immeasurably superior to us sinners—prayed three times that the angel of Satan might depart from him, yet he was not heard by God in this petition. Lest I should be exalted (2 Cor. 12:7)—thus the apostle himself explains this. The impetuosity of a young soul, making progress in the knowledge of God, is sometimes subjected to a trial in patience and humility, as with the Old Testament Job and the New Testament Paul, and the most ancient of both—Abraham. Therefore, do not give way to the spirit of despondency: strike it with itself. What does this mean? Here is what the holy fathers say: “Such a seemingly causeless attack of despondency is the direct action of the devil.” Having recognized whence it comes, you have almost already conquered it, conquered the spirit of despondency, for you yourself will not wish to accept a demonic suggestion. “The demon falls upon us with despondency then,” say the fathers, “when he sees the invincibility of our soul to other passions.” Therefore answer the spirit of despondency thus: “You wish to trouble me with the thought that God is far from me, but I know that, without revealing Himself to me, He is testing my patience and teaching me humility; and the very fact that you, and not another spirit, are attacking me ought to gladden and console me by the thought that your approach signifies (in the absence of other causes) that the other passions have not gained power over me, and that you take up the passion of despondency as the last instrument accessible to you. Therefore, I patiently accept God’s trial and repeat the words of the apostle read on Forgiveness Sunday: now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand (Rom. 13:11).”

Of course, all this concerns those who, after testing their conscience with prayer, have not discerned in themselves other reasons for the impoverishment of the gift of prayer: they may with hope and in the near future await that joyful clarification of their trials with which God consoled the Apostle Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9).

We mean, of course, not any miraculous revelation, for to seek such a thing is a matter of ruinous delusion, but we foretell to the ascetic the unveiling of inner perplexities through a subsequent compunctious disposition of the soul, through the unexpected finding of a direct answer to its inquiries in the sacred books, in edifying conversations, or in the events of one’s life. And there is no need to consider oneself to have attained (see Phil. 3:13) a high degree of spirituality in order to understand, in the events of one’s life or in the replacement of oppressive perplexity by joyful doxology, the response of Divine Providence to your seeking.

Thus, I have written to you about various obstacles on the path of drawing near to God; I have set forth various circumstances in which the rays of Divine illumination do not immediately penetrate our soul. This happens to the servants of God, but these trials befall them when they are already able, with diligence, to understand and to bear them. The Lord tempts no one, that is, He does not test beyond one’s strength, as the Apostle Paul assures (see 1 Cor. 10:13). “Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been tested, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (Jas. 1:12).

I repeat: only those are rejected by God who themselves have rejected Him; but he who struggles, even with heartfelt anguish, is thereby being taught by God, so that, “having been tempted,” he might also “be able to help those who are tempted.” Therefore. give thanks to God, my friend, that you are working through a question not about worldly needs, but about the gift of prayer, for the very desire to know all this has entered your soul not without His gracious help.

My son! do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor grow despondent when He reproves you. For whom the Lord loves He chastens; and He scourges every son whom He receives. If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons (Heb. 12:5–7).

 

Source: Собрание сочинений [Collected Works], Vol. 1, Moscow: Даръ, 2007, pp. 652-659.

Homily on Theophany by Metropolitan Gerontios II of Piraeus and Salamis

Your Beatitude Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Mr. Kallinikos.

Your Eminences, Holy Hierarchs, Most Reverend and Most Venerable Fathers, God-beloved Deacons. Most Venerable Monks and Nuns.

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, Representatives of the State, of the Municipal, Regional, Military, Police, and Port Authorities.

Chosen people of the Lord, the guardian of Orthodoxy.

“Today the waters of the Jordan are transformed into healings, and all creation is mystically sprinkled.” (Sticheron of Vespers of Theophany)

The holy and great feast of Theophany, the feast of the manifestation of the Triune God, reveals today before us the great mystery of the Divine Economy. The Son and Word of God condescends to descend into the waters of the Jordan, not in order to be cleansed – He, the Immaculate One – but in order to cleanse, to sanctify, and to illumine the whole creation.

Today the Father bears witness from the heavens, the Son is baptized in the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. The Holy Trinity is manifested, and the truth shines forth without reserve, overthrowing falsehood and delusion.

The ceremony of the immersion of the Precious and Life-giving Cross, which we perform today, does not constitute a custom or a quaint tradition; it is a confession of faith. The Cross of Christ is immersed into the waters, just as Christ descended into the Jordan, in order to sanctify the whole world and to crush the power of the enemy.

However, my brethren, the feast of Theophany also sets before us a great criterion: the criterion of truth. For if today God is manifested, the devil attempts to conceal the truth with pseudo‑illuminations, with interreligious amalgamations, and with anti‑canonical innovations, which wound the Body of the Church.

We cannot remain silent when we become witnesses of actions that offend Orthodox ecclesiology. The recent visit of the Pope to Nicaea and the Phanar, and the anti‑canonical commemoration of him there as an Orthodox Hierarch, does not constitute a testimony of truth, but confusion.

The Church of Christ has no need of diplomatic equalizations, nor of unity without repentance and a return to the patristic faith.

The unity of the Church is a fruit of truth and not a compromise at the expense of it. Just as the waters of the Jordan were sanctified only because they received the True God, so also the Church remains holy only when it preserves whole the dogma and the tradition of the Holy Fathers.

We, as Genuine Orthodox Christians, have nothing to boast of in terms of numbers, nor in terms of worldly power. We boast only in the faith once delivered “unto the Saints.” We boast because we stand in the truth, even if we are few, even if we are despised, yet unshaken.

And today, while the Precious Cross is immersed into the waters, Christ calls us also to immerse our own will into His will. To reject the ease of compromises and to hold fast to the narrow and afflicted path of tradition.

Let us keep, my brethren, the faith pure, like the sanctified waters of Theophany. Let us preserve the ancestral traditions, not as a museum relic, but as a living testimony of salvation. Let us remain faithful to the Church of the Fathers, so that we too may be deemed worthy to be illumined by the True Light, the Light which enlightens and sanctifies every man.

Many years, good illumination, and steadfastness in the patristic traditions.

 

Greek source: https://www.facebook.com/impcgr