Wednesday, June 17, 2026

The Practice of Noetic Prayer and Its Spiritual Fruits

From the notes of Archimandrite Akakios Barolas (+2026)

 

 

Monastery of Mega Spilaion, 1960

The Practice of Noetic Prayer and Its Spiritual Fruits.

By Hierodeacon Agathonikos at that time, now Akakios, abbot

 

I had great zeal and divine longing for the noetic prayer of the name of the Sweetest Jesus Christ.

After a general and clear confession, and with the counsel of my spiritual father and my Elder, I decided to occupy myself with Noetic Prayer. I had studied the book The Way of a Pilgrim and a little from the Philokalia.

First of all, I prayed fervently to my Christ that, during the period of the twenty-one days of practice, no one would visit me in my cell, whether a monk of my monastery or a layman. And my Christ heard my humble supplication, and during the twenty-one days of the practice of the prayer, no one, neither monk nor laymen, visited me. Whereas I had always [previously] received two or three visits a day. This was although I always had two or three visits daily. I would tell the whole progress of the prayer each day to a certain devout and God-fearing fellow monk of mine, who had considerable knowledge concerning prayer of the heart. (This was Father Vlasios, formerly of the Holy Mountain.)

The Beginning of the Method

I confined myself to my cell, for my monastery was idiorrhythmic, and after praying fervently with tears and beseeching Jesus to help me and to grant me this desired prayer of the heart, remembering my many sins and His immeasurable compassion, I was taken up into many burning tears, while at the same time meditating on His most immaculate and all-venerable Passion, which He endured for me, His thrice-wretched sinful creature.

The First Signs from the Practice of the Prayer

1. During the first three days, while I was saying the Prayer slowly with the inhalation, I felt much distress, discomfort, darkening of the understanding, distraction of the mind, impatience, weariness, and exhaustion of strength. Continuous and various thoughts told me that I ought to abandon the Prayer, lest something happen to me. The condition was terrible and unbearable.

But falling down on the floor prostrate, with many tears and unutterable groanings, and with contrition of heart and mourning, I continually sought help from above and the mercy of my Christ. I renewed my spiritual and bodily strength, continuing the Prayer with greater warmth and flame.

2. On the evening of the third day, all the above signs disappeared, and divine help and consolation came from above.

3. Unceasing divine longing came. Spiritual intoxication.

4. Unfeigned love toward all came, seeing them as saints, whereas before this condition did not occur.

5. An abundance of tears came, and continual joyful sorrow.

6. A deep awareness of my sins came, and of the fact that I had greatly embittered my God and deeply grieved the Holy Spirit by my negligent life.

7. Humility came, regarding myself as the least of all God’s creatures, and as a vapor of hell.

8. Love came even toward irrational animals, reptiles, and ants, taking care not to step on and kill any of them.

9. During the continuation of the practice, in the second week, while I was seated on a stool saying the Prayer with my head turned toward the left side of my chest, I felt warmth of the heart and a slight pain in it, rather sweet, and a sudden stirring of the heart, very peaceful, which automatically spread throughout the entire circulatory system of the blood, from the heart to the extremities, the head, and even to the marrow of my bones.

It was so sweet and cheerful that the members of my body were relaxed. And with this stirring, my heart began by itself, as though it had a tongue, to say the Prayer clearly with its beats: Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me. This was without my saying anything with my mouth or with my throat. From then on, I only heard clearly, effortlessly, and unceasingly, day and night, the Prayer of the all-holy name of my Sweetest Jesus being said by itself.

Signs after the self-activity of the Prayer

10. The cessation of every shameful, evil, and wicked thought. Peace of thoughts, something which did not occur in the past.

11. The holding fast of the mind, undistracted, whereas before the Prayer it was constantly scattered.

12. Complete deadening of the carnal passions. Dispassion. Every natural movement, swelling, and stirring of the flesh ceased completely.

13. Undisturbed peace of soul. Even if I heard accusations against me, I was not troubled.

And stretching and yawning ceased.

14. Meekness and simplicity. The one who was formerly irritable and prone to anger was changed into a harmless little lamb.

15. Unceasing serenity of soul.

16. Calmness, stillness, lightening. I spoke sweetly and humbly, with a modest manner. I marveled at the so sudden change of my character.

17. Rest of soul, the cessation of the reproach of conscience. I felt that all my sins had been forgiven me, those in word, thought, and deed.

18. Departure and disappearance of the heaviness of my body and of weariness. A new body. Tireless in the services, standing, and vigil. Whereas before I was negligent, subject to acedia, feeling great weariness in everything.

19. Fasting, self-control, and abstinence from food became easy. Before, I could not fast continuously even for one day.

20. Illumination of the mind. The darkness and dullness departed.

21. Understanding of Holy Scripture and its interpretation.

22. Discernment of good and evil, and how to speak and converse with each person, and with brevity.

23. Great patience and perseverance in every work.

24. Longing for solitude and stillness.

25. Avoidance of conversations. Immediately after the service in the church of the monastery, I would leave quickly for my cell. Walks outside the monastery ceased.

26. Hatred and abhorrence of condemnation, idle talk, etc. I did not want any creature of God to be condemned. Whereas before this condition did not occur.

27. Forbearance and freedom from remembrance of wrongs toward all.

28. My poor cell seemed to me like a delightful palace. I did not want to leave it. Whereas before the Prayer, the place could not contain me. I constantly wanted to go out, because I felt boredom.

29. A tendency toward seclusion and renunciation of all the cares and anxieties of life, rejoicing only to hear the self-acting Prayer of the sweetest name of my Jesus and Christ.

30. Whatever I studied, or heard another read inside the church, I understood it all and my memory retained it. Whereas before, I kept forgetting what I myself read or heard in the service from the fathers.

31. I avoided verbal disputes, contradictions, and persistent discussions among the fathers. They would say to me, “Come, sit a little so we can see you.” I would answer them with humility: “Forgive me, holy fathers, but I have a little task.” Before the Prayer, I wanted gladly to become involved in all discussions and idle talk.

32. When the brethren, or I myself, were chanting in church, I was able, without any effort, to follow my heart saying the Prayer clearly with its beats, and at the same time to follow the chanting and the meaning of the troparia or readings. There was not the slightest confusion.

Likewise, when I was conversing even with two or three persons, I easily followed the heart saying the Prayer, answered the persons, and at the same time my hands would again be working at handiwork or something else.

33. After much time, on certain occasions, together with the Prayer, I felt a most subtle breeze, exceedingly fragrant, coming forth from my heart, with gladness and ineffable joy. This would occur at night.

34. Twice, while standing and listening to the prayer of the heart, and while I was bathed in abundant tears, I felt my body become as light as a feather, or rather as though the weight of my body was not my own, so weightless was it. I could easily have walked in the air without falling, but I refrained, on account of delusion.

35. Finally, I felt that I no longer wanted to chant loudly inside the church. But, practicing obedience, I chanted together with the fathers.

36. I felt that within me was all of Paradise, the Kingdom of Heaven, and that I no longer lived on earth, but in Heaven. I felt noetically that the entire Holy Trinity dwelt within my heart.

37. It should be noted that during the period of noetic prayer, the practical duties, that is, the services, Matins, Vespers, Compline, etc., and the rule, were performed at their proper time, sometimes read and sometimes chanted in the church with the brotherhood. The Prayer was said daily on a stool and with an inclination, as I mentioned above, of the head toward the left side of my chest. But when the self-acting Prayer came, whatever posture my body had, the Prayer was not hindered. During this period, I had no obedience. All the above, as I said before, I reported daily to my fellow monk, my friend and brother in Christ, because of the reverence and fear of God which he had. He marveled and glorified God and the Sweetest Jesus for His mercy toward His creature. He wished me to continue, and that I would see greater things than these. When later, after much supplication and entreaty to my Christ, through a divine voice, to leave for the desert, He nodded to the hearts of my Elder and of the Abbot’s Council to give me permission and blessing to depart and fulfill my sacred longing. The things that happened in the desert I intend to describe in detail, for the works of God and His great compassion and love for mankind are wondrous.

Hard to believe for those of little faith, and completely unbelievable for those who are indifferent to spiritual things.

My Christ and God knows that all the things which happened, or rather which He granted me, are true. Glory to God for all things.

The bottom of hell, and a monk who is no monk.

P.S. Whoever has zeal, longing, divine love, and patience, with courage, and wishes to occupy himself with Noetic Prayer, must:

a) consult his confessor;

b) consult a discerning and venerable Elder advanced in ascetic labors and acquainted with the neptic Fathers; otherwise, there is danger.

 

Greek source: https://metemorfothis.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_17.html

 

 

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

Response to the 1950 Announcement of the Official Church Synodal Committee on the Calendar Question, by St. Chrysostomos the New Confessor

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], Special Edition, No. 92, December 4, 1950 (O.S.), pp. 5-7. Originally published in Η Βραδυνή [The Evening] newspaper, December 11, 1950 (N.S.). Revised translation, emphasis added.

 

 

In this announcement [of the Official Church], the old Ecclesiastical Calendar is impiously called a “cancerous growth.” The old festal calendar is not a cancerous growth in the Body of the Church, but a vital artery, through which the pure Orthodox blood is channeled into the heart of the Church.

And this is because the arrangement of the festal calendar, constituting the basis of the Paschal canon established by the First Ecumenical Council, safeguarded through the ages the golden chain of all the individual Orthodox Churches and the compass of Orthodox worship. For this reason also, the arbitrary and unilateral replacement of the Julian Calendar by the Gregorian one, without the consent of all the Orthodox Churches, broke the unity of the Churches in the celebration of the feasts and brought about the disruption of the ecclesiastical services and various changes in the days of the fasts and of other purifications of the soul.

For this reason, the Gregorian Calendar was condemned by Pan-Orthodox Synods in 1583, 1587, and 1593, and by all the Orthodox Churches; whenever the question of the Ecclesiastical Calendar was raised, it was condemned as anti-Orthodox and as a means of proselytism. Hence it becomes clear that the old festal calendar is not a cancerous growth, but a sacred institution, which our Fathers established, independently of chronological accuracy, in order to secure through the ages, the unity of the Churches in the celebration of the feasts and in the observance of the fasts, and furthermore to set a perceptible barrier between the Orthodox and the heretics.

The State did not have the initiative in introducing the new calendar, as the announcement of the Synodal Committee wrongly maintains, but rather the Synod of the [Official] Hierarchy did. Proof of this is the legislative decree of the ever-memorable King George II, according to which the new calendar was established for the State, while for the Church, its own calendar for feasts and Ecclesiastical services was also ratified civilly.

And in this respect the State is worthy of praise, because it respected the old Ecclesiastical tradition.

The declaration of the Synodal Committee maintains that the new calendar does not conflict with the dogmas, the divine canons, and the Orthodox institutions of the Church. To prove that this assertion has no truth or correctness, we consider it unnecessary to present arguments of our own, since we have the condemnation of the Gregorian Calendar by Pan-Orthodox Synods, as was said above, and in addition the finding of the special Committee on the Ecclesiastical Calendar, composed of jurists and Professors of Theology, which declared that the introduction of the new calendar in the Greek Church would create cause for schism, would destroy the unity of the Church (which is included in the Symbol of Faith), and would greatly damage the national interest.

Hence it becomes clear that the defenders of the calendar tradition are not impelled by blind fanaticism and by personal motives, as the announcement maintains, but by a deep consciousness of the confession which they gave at their ordination: that they would preserve unharmed and unaltered all that they received from the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

And if we Hierarchs did not immediately come forth into the festal-calendar struggle, we did this so that, on the one hand, we might not become causes of division, and, on the other hand, because we expected that in time the remaining Churches also would accede to the new calendar. But when we saw that a division had been created by the Old Calendarists, who remained steadfast in the patristic traditions, even without us, and that this, for lack of pastoral oversight and guidance, was being diverted into extremes, to the detriment of the authority of the Church and the dignity of the Hierarchy, with the protest of the ancient Churches of the East against the calendar innovation also assisting, then, after we had exhausted all peaceful means in vain, we entered into the struggle, in order to calm our Orthodox conscience and that of the followers of the old festal calendar, and in order to forestall further excesses.  And if the [Matthewite] Monastery in Keratea, after a few years, had not renounced us (in the year 1937) and had remained under our jurisdiction and oversight, the revealed scandals would not have occurred, nor would the leadership of the Monastery have become a spectacle to angels and to men.

And whereas the [Official] Hierarchy, for the sake of the authority of the Church and her dignity, ought to have sought out one Metropolitan to play the part of an Old Calendarist and to be placed at the head of the Old Calendarists, so as to keep the struggle within canonical limits, as soon as ideologically committed Hierarchs came forth into the sacred struggle, in order to direct it and keep it within the framework of the sacred Canons, the innovating Hierarchs promptly fell upon them, proceeding immediately, without any peaceful means prescribed by the Canons, to their deposition and to a five-year confinement in remote monasteries, as though in prisons.

This ill-considered and psychologically misguided penal act of the Hierarchy, imposed upon Hierarchs, pillars and defenders of patristic traditions, contrary to every divine and human institution, is what caused the inflaming of passions and the strengthening of the old-festal-calendar struggle, and not this alleged lawlessness on the part of the State, as the memorandum of the Synodal Committee maintains, deliberately distorting persons and facts.

Unfortunately, the Official Hierarchy did not wish to be persuaded, despite all that was written by us, that in the soul of the Old Calendarists, there had been created a condition of Orthodox conscience, which not only does not admit of violence and pressure for its uprooting, but is rather strengthened and rooted all the more by anti-Christian and inhuman acts of violence.

The idea of the [Official] Hierarchy is very mistaken, namely that this issue would have been resolved if the Government had carried out the violent and anachronistic measures indicated by the Church against those who remained steadfast in the Old Festal Calendar for reasons of pure Orthodox conscience.

Moreover, the Government made use of these measures for the sake of the Official Church, and indeed to the detriment of governmental authority and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, which protects traditions and the religious freedom of conscience, although these measures, instead of calming the Old Calendarists, punished them and inflamed them.  It is indeed most grievous, the comparison and association made by the Synodal Committee between our own conscientious body and the unconscionable faction of the departed [Bishop] Matthaios [of Vresthena], portraying both factions as competing, as the announcement says, in an excess of detestable fanaticism and deceitful demagogy, so that, on the pretext of the abominable and indecent scenes at the Monastery in Keratea, even our healthy and sober-minded body of idealists might be cast into common contempt. For it has been shown, more clearly than the sun, through the deeds of each of the two groups, that the faction of the departed Matthaios and his corrupt circle regarded the sacred struggle as an enterprise and amassed great wealth, whereas our faction regarded it as an ideal, and not only reaped no benefit from it, but was in many ways materially harmed for the love of Christ.

Likewise, the Synodal Committee deliberately maintains in its announcement that we also, formerly conservative and moderate, thereafter outstripped the party of Matthew in fanaticism, declaring the Official Hierarchy schismatic, and its mysteries as deprived of grace, solely and only in order that we might substitute ourselves, as it says, for it, in the enormous property which the opposing party acquired by unlawful means, making piety a means of gain.

Nothing is more false and more inaccurate than this assertion. And it is indeed true that we, despite the lawless persecution which the innovating Hierarchy set in motion against us, at first avoided, out of respect for the realty of the Church, declaring it schismatic by an Ecclesiastical encyclical, whereas it declared us schismatics in court when trying our Bishops of Megara and Diavleia, in order to justify the decision deposing them. But when we saw that the Official Synod had taken a decision to regard, contrary to every sacred canon and to the age-old practice of the Church, our mysteries, those of the pure Orthodox, as invalid, and without fear of God to repeat them, to the utter degradation of the authority of the mysteries, then we too, finding ourselves in a position of self-defense, issued the corresponding encyclical in order to calm the agitated conscience of our flock, and not in order to acquire the property of the Monastery of Keratea. Perhaps the Synodal Committee is itself tormented by this pious desire, in recommending the dissolution of this wealthy Monastery, so that it might confiscate its property. Likewise, the Official Synod deliberately shifts the blame for the scandals revealed concerning the Monastery in Keratea not only onto us—who have no relation or ecclesiastical communion with its superiors, who are themselves accountable before the Greek justice system—but also onto the ideology of the Old Calendarists, flattering itself with the hope that, from the occasion of the Keratea affair, it might succeed in abolishing everyone and everything. Finally, as regards the assertion of the announcement that the Official Church, acting magnanimously, offered to the Old Calendarists both churches of their own and canonical priests for the performance of their religious needs according to the Old Calendar, this too is untrue.

For this measure, which was proposed by the then Government, was not only vehemently rejected by the Old Calendarists, who do not receive grace and sanctification from New Calendarists, but it was also disapproved by the Synod of the [Official] Hierarchy, on the grounds that it reduced the ministers of the Most High to mere phonographs echoing religious services, without the ministers participating spiritually in them. Equally inaccurate is the assertion that clergy punished for canonical violations by the Official Hierarchy are accepted by us without examination—except, of course, those punished solely for reasons relating to the Old Calendar. As for the claim that the Most Reverend Bishops of Christianoupolis, Christophoros, and of Diavleia, Polykarpos, accepted the decision of the court of second instance, by which they were demoted from the rank of bishop to that of presbyter—something which, according to the 29th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, is characterized as sacrilegious—we consider any refutation of this unnecessary, since a written protest on their part is preserved in the offices of the Synod, wherein they express their view of this sacrilegious demotion.

As regards the question of the procurement of Holy Chrism from the Holy Mountain, on the grounds that no such chrism exists in monasteries where baptisms are not performed, the Official Church knows better than anyone else that Holy Chrism is used by the Church not only in baptisms, but also for the consecration of churches, which of course exist on the Holy Mountain.

As a conclusion to this response may it be permitted me to address reverently to the Official Synod and the honorable Government—who constitute these two authorities and powers—our humble entreaty: that they, being illumined by God, may rise to the height of the Apostolic standard and to the critical nature of the times, which the Lord of each household alone judges, so that the Church and the Nation may be preserved. And in their assured prudence and discernment, may they see fit not to disturb the religious conscience of thousands of devout citizens and steadfast Orthodox, especially now that the rights of man concerning religious conscience have been enshrined by the United Nations organization. Therefore, may they be entreated to show the due respect toward the laborers and pillars of the ecclesiastical and national traditions—and this until a Pan-Orthodox Great Local Council may convene, the only body competent to resolve validly and definitively this serious issue, now simmering for twenty-five years. May the Lord God grant both the Church and the Nation the peace and reconciliation so ardently desired by all, so that both these sacred institutions may ever flourish in greatness and self-sacrifice for the good of the Nation and to the Glory of the Church.

† The former Metropolitan of Florina, CHRYSOSTOMOS

 

The G.O.C. Response to a Proposed Solution of the New Calendarist Church (1949)

Source: Ἡ Φωνὴ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας [The Voice of Orthodoxy], No. 72, September 26, 1949, p. 8.

 

 

Protocol No 236

Athens, 5/16 September 1949

To the Most Pious Priests, the honorable Churchwardens, and the rest of the Christ-loving pleroma of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.

We paternally recommend to all of you that you give no heed to what the newspapers have recently been publishing as a decision of the Synod of the New Calendarist Church, with reference to the settlement of the calendar question and to the followers of our traditional body [παρατάξεως, paratáxeos], and also to those of the unlawful, uncanonical faction of Bishop Matthew.

The solution which the Synod of the New Calendarist Hierarchs indicates, according to which, as they say, they will forgive us and will include us in their Church on the condition that we recognize the Governing [i.e., Official] Synod as the Ecclesiastical Authority of our body, is altogether foreign and contrary to the spirit and our Orthodox conscience, and constitutes the burning desire of the New Calendarists.

We shall accept such a thing only when the State Church returns to the traditional festal Calendar order, which alone will bring the Church of Greece into union with us and with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

In the event that the Governing Synod of the New Calendarist Church should refuse to restore the Orthodox festal tradition, we, for no reason and under no circumstances, even if it should come to pass, shall accept recognizing the New Calendarist Synod as an Ecclesiastical Authority, because this is contrary to our Orthodox conscience.

That which we can accept is to conclude temporarily a truce with the State Church, and to be free in the fulfillment of our religious duties, without having any dependence whatsoever upon the Governing Synod, until the definitive and valid resolution of the calendar question by a Pan-Orthodox Synod.

The Holy Synod

The President thereof
The Former Metropolitan of Florina, CHRYSOSTOMOS

Peculiar Practices of the Early Old Calendarists, Brought About by Persecution and Radicalism


Source: Ιστορική και Κανονική Θεώρησις του Παλαιοημερολογιτικού Ζητήματος κατά τε την Γένεσιν και την Εξέλιξιν αυτού εν Ελλάδι [Historical and Canonical Examination of the Old Calendarist Question, From its Origin to its Development in Greece], by Archbishop Christodoulos K. Paraskevaidis of Athens.

* * * 

At the same time… these same leading figures among the Old Calendarists were recommending to their followers to avoid every relationship and communion with the clergy of the Church of Greece, extending even to the prohibition of kissing their right hand, [205] and even to the rebaptism of children already canonically baptized, [206] and even, further still, to the refusal to accept Holy Communion celebrated in the canonical churches of the Church. [207]

NOTES

205. Chrysostomos (I), Archbishop of Athens..., On Calendar Matters, II, 1929, pp. 4–5. 

206. Ibid., p. 5. Cf. concerning the rebaptisms of children on Tinos, in: Anaplasis, 1932, p. 300.

207. Chrysostomos (A), Archbishop of Athens, On Calendar Matters, II, 1929, pp. 4–5. Likewise, Ath. Daniilides, The Correction of the Calendar or the Change of the Festal Cycle. Athens, 1926, pp. 11–13, 71. It was also reported that the Old Calendarists in Thessaloniki, loathing the holy churches of the Church of Greece, would go to the local Serbian church there, which served according to the old calendar, and that the Serbian priests photographed the numerous congregation in order to strengthen their aims toward creating an issue of the Serbian minority in Thessaloniki. Concerning Matthew Karpathakis, it was reported that he was seen sending from Mount Athos by post to Athens, inside an envelope, genuine Holy Eucharist for the communion of the Old Calendarists. Other Old Calendarists advised their followers to place, starting from the evening, a piece of bread on an icon and on the following day to partake of it as Holy Communion, while others advised separation from the marriage bed for married couples, when each member was following a different calendar. In the journal Ecclesia, there was likewise published the report that the Old Calendarists “celebrate the liturgy without commemorating [their local Hierarch], [and] rebaptize children baptized in the Orthodox Church because, supposedly, they were baptized under the New Calendar” (Ecclesia, 1933, p. 113).

 

Greek source online: https://www.myriobiblos.gr/books/book1/kef5_fas1_meros2.htm


Monday, June 15, 2026

'Disclosure Day': A Gnostic Re-Enchantment Tale

Spielberg's Alien Film Is Only Okay -- But It's Important. And It's Something Close To Evil

Rod Dreher | June 15, 2026



On Saturday night I saw Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day. Reviews have been generally positive, though audience reaction is more mixed. It was startling to see a big suburban theater on opening weekend, the first showing Saturday night of a much-hyped Spielberg movie, only half full. Make of that what you will.

Disclosure Day is a film about re-enchantment. More to the point, it’s a film about false enchantment, though I am certain the filmmakers don’t see it that way. It is a profoundly religious film. It is also, I believe, profoundly evil. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend seeing it, because it plays like a prophecy of the great deception that I believe will sooner or later present itself to us. You need to know this.

Let me explain.

Jacques Vallée’s Warning

First, this important background. Jacques Vallée, now 86, is probably the most important person in the UAP world, and has been for decades. He is a computer scientist by training, and for decades a venture capitalist. He got into investigating the UAP phenomenon many decades ago, in part because he saw a UAP in 1955, but then out of scientific curiosity. He is not a religious believer, but he also could not accept that so many reports of bizarre encounters and sightings of what popular culture construed as “aliens” could be made up.

Nor could he accept that whatever these things are, that they are creatures from other worlds. He theorizes — and he’s careful to say that these are only hypotheses — that whatever it is, it is both a material and non-material phenomenon, one that blurs lines between science and technology on one hand, and religion and consciousness on the other.

In his seminal 1969 book Passport To Magonia,  

(https://archive.org/details/passporttomagoni0000vall_m8g5),

Vallée argues that this phenomenon is simply a recycling of one that has been with humanity for a very, very long time, but presents itself to us as “aliens from space,” because that is how people in a scientific-technological age are predisposed to receive them. In one of his later books, Messengers Of Deception

(https://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/MessengersOfDeceptionUFOContactsAndCultsJacquesValle1979/Messengers%20of%20Deception%20UFO%20Contacts%20and%20Cults%2C%20Jacques%20Vall%C3%A9e%20%281979%29.pdf),

Vallée contends that

I have found disturbing evidence of dangerous sectarian activities linked to totalitarian philosophies. The ease with which journalists and even scientists can be seduced into indiscriminate promotion of such deceptions is staggering. In the context of an academic attitude that rejects any open investigation of paranormal phenomena, such fanatical conversions must be expected.

… Many people around us today are preparing to greet it with delight, even if that means falling under the control of forces they do not understand. These people are the UFO contactees and the believers in celestial visitation, the followers of the saucer prophets. They can pave the way for dramatic changes.

Vallée — writing in 1979 — pointed to the slow but steady collapse of the public’s faith in institutions and social structures, and the fragmentation of knowledge:

… This isolation of knowledge is matched by the failure of other social structures. Here, too, the parallel with ancient Greece is interesting. In Five Stages of Greek Religion, Gilbert Murray mentions that in Greece there was gradual awareness of two failures:

... the failure of human government, even when backed by the power of Rome or the wealth of Egypt, to achieve a good life for man; and the failure of the great propaganda of Hellenism, in which the long-drawn effort of Greece to educate a corrupt and barbaric world seemed only to lead to the corruption and barbarization of the very ideals which it sought to spread.

Under these conditions - so similar to those of the Western world today, in which human government is regarded with suspicion and in which education of the "emerging nations" by the affluent ones is nonexistent - what did the Greeks do?

This sense of failure, this progressive loss of hope in the world, in sober calculation, and in organized human effort, threw the Greek back upon his own soul, upon the pursuit of personal holiness, upon emotions, mysteries, and revelations, upon the comparative neglect of this transitory and imperfect world for the sake of some dream world far off.

A dream world far off — that is exactly what the UFO contactees are offering us when they invite us to step into a pleasant mirage, to reprogram our consciousness.

This is precisely what Disclosure Day does. Vallée — he was the model for the French scientist in Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind — has repeatedly warned over the years that Hollywood has labored for decades to condition the public to accept UAPs (or, as we used to say, UFOs) as bearers of peace and salvation. He writes in Messengers (again, this first came out in 1979):

Let me summarize my conclusions thus far. UFOs are real. They are physical devices used to affect human consciousness. They may not be from outer space. Their purpose may be to achieve social changes on this planet, through a belief system that uses systematic manipulation of witnesses and contactees; covert use of various sects and cults; control of the channels through which the alleged "space messages" can make an impact on the public.

Whether Spielberg intends it or not, Disclosure Day proclaims a new religion, one that displaces Christianity (at least). It’s hard to believe that this is an accident. To be charitable, we could assume that Spielberg, no longer able to believe in the God of the Bible, and of his Hebrew ancestors, has transferred his hopes to aliens. That is the gospel he preaches in this film.

The Film’s Twisting Of Christian Symbolism, And Occultism

I’m going to try to do this without giving away too many spoilers. I’m pretty sure I will fail, so if you want to drop off here, do, and come back later, after you’ve seen the movie. Still, I’m going ahead because it’s very important to get this stuff clear.

The film’s set up has Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor), a rogue engineer who steals extremely classified data — footage, in particular — from Wardex, a private company contracting with the US Government to maintain and secure military footage from UFO crashes, including encounters with “greys” — the bulbous-headed aliens usually observed to contactees (or, in the film’s lingo, “experiencers”). Kellner is part of a conspiracy of Wardex whistleblowers who have stolen the master cache, and are trying to get it to a Kansas City TV station, to broadcast to the world.

He crosses paths with Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt), a Kansas City TV weather broadcaster who, after having a mysterious encounter with a red cardinal (bird) who flies into her house, finds that psychic powers have been activated inside her. She can speak foreign languages fluently, and can read people’s minds. The friend who saw the movie with me, a theologian, noted that this is a kind of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on the worshipers, and they spoke in foreign tongues. The Apostles performed signs and wonders. Here is Act Chapter Two:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202&version=NIV

Read it, and know that in Disclosure Day, Fairchild gains these gifts after a visit by a bird. (Perhaps I need to point out to my non-Christian readers that the Holy Spirit is traditionally symbolized by a bird.)

The movie is above all a chase film. Fairchild and Kellner meet up and try to stay one step ahead of Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), the CEO of Wardex, and as such, the chief Keeper of the Secrets. The religious element of the film has to do with why Scanlon is persecuting Fairchild and Kellner: because he believes that if the information gets out, the world will fall apart, because the masses cannot handle the knowledge.

Early in the film, Daniel and his girlfriend Jane (Eve “Daughter of Bono” Hewson), a former nun, take refuge in a convent. Jane was a postulant there, but left because she lost the ability to believe in the truths proclaimed by the Catholic faith. Yet when Daniel reveals to her what the secrets he’s guarding are, she initially argues against disclosure, saying something to the effect that (false) belief in God is what gives people meaning and cohesion. She exclaims angrily, “People have been raised to believe in a supreme being, and now you want to show us actual supreme beings? The world can’t handle both.”

Note the theological elision here: the assumption that aliens would be received by humanity as gods. I believe this is an accurate assumption, at least in the Christian world, in an era in which there has been a catastrophic loss of faith among many, and a loss of theological and doctrinal knowledge among many of still believe. Aliens (“aliens”) descending from spaceships to proclaim new truths to us would be rather more persuasive to the masses today than the watery god of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, wouldn’t you say?

From a purely abstract point of view, I see no serious problem within Christianity to accommodate unknown entities within the order of created being. Disclosure of extraterrestrials, if they exist (which I don’t think they do), would not shake my faith in the slightest, and shouldn’t shake a well-catechized Christians.

But we do not live in a world of well-catechized Christians. We see later in the film that a pious nun, dressed conservatively (not Sister Stretchpants), asserts that nothing in the Bible says that Man is God’s highest creation in the cosmos — only on the earth, she said. Well … yes, insofar as angelic beings are also part of the created order, and the Bible says man is “a little lower than the angels.” There could be other, unseen beings. Mother Superior is not entirely wrong, but the way she presents this claim is in context of convincing Jane to integrate the aliens’ existence into her Christian worldview. The unspoken assumption is: they come in peace to enlighten us, so what’s the problem? Welcome them as messengers.

Spielberg himself has said that the movie’s message is that if we are going to avoid war (note that the alien drama happens as the globe approaches the brink of World War III) and conflict, then we need to rediscover empathy. Well, if this movie were telling us that we need to rebalance our brain hemispheres, à la the works of Iain McGilchrist, I would be on board. But that’s not what it’s saying.

The aliens of the film are trying to teach us to be more empathetic. So, I guess this is why they kidnap and traumatize children in the night, violate their bodies, and leave them with extremely painful memories? (This happens in the film.) As Vallée has extensively documented, no “aliens” who meant humanity well would treat us as these things have done. Something real is going on here, but these aren’t intergalactic ambassadors of Up With People.

Disclosure Day is a film about Gnosticism — that is, the ancient and most durable Christian heresy, one that says salvation comes from knowledge, or knowing secret teachings. There were a number of Gnostic sects during the early Christian period, but what they generally held in common was that one would find salvation not from faith, good works, participating in the sacraments and the life of the Church, but rather from gaining occult (hidden) knowledge about the way the cosmos is constructed, and what one’s individual purpose is in life. In Gnosticism, one doesn’t depend on Authority, but experiences the Truth within.

Now, in Disclosure Day — and I definitely cross the line into spoilers here, so if you’re super-strict about avoiding them, stop reading — we see Margaret and Daniel fleeing persecution so they can Know The Truth: the truth about themselves, and reality. Indeed, both (but especially Margaret) receive infused knowledge from the non-human entities — just like “Tyler D.” (Tim Taylor) and “Simone” (Planté) in Diana Pasulka’s books. These spiritual “gifts” are bestowed not by God but by these NHIs (non-human intelligences), and are meant to assist their receivers in their mission.

But Daniel has stolen the Secret Knowledge about the Aliens from its caretakers, and risks his life to reveal the truth to all humanity. Margaret is to be its prophet, proclaiming it to the world, via global electronic media.

I thought of Marshall McLuhan’s statement decades ago. I quote it in this passage from my book Living In Wonder (which, if you haven’t read now, come on, before events compel you to, to better understand what’s actually happening):

When Marshall McLuhan, a Catholic who went to daily Mass, said that the age of electronic media favored the appearance of the Antichrist, his secular admirers had no idea what to make of it. What did electronic media have to do with the book of Revelation’s prophecy that in the last days a fearsome false messiah would appear? There are two reasons for this, he said.

First: “Electric information environments being utterly ethereal fosters the illusion of the world as spiritual substance. It is now a reasonable facsimile of the mystical body [i.e., the church], a blatant manifestation of the Antichrist.” McLuhan meant that the light that passes globally through electronic networks that connect humanity is a physical counterfeit of the doctrine that all Christians are mystically linked into a single world community through faith in Jesus Christ, the true Light of the World. McLuhan indicated that electronic media (TV and radio, in his time) made people feel that all peoples were part of the same community; had he lived to see the internet, his insight would have been utterly vindicated.

Second: “When electricity allows for the simultaneity of all information for every human being, it is Lucifer’s moment… Just think: each person can instantly be tuned to a ‘new Christ’ and mistake him for the real Christ.” This claim is easier to understand. If everyone around the world is online—and, as of 2024, an estimated 66 percent of the world’s population has internet access—it becomes possible for the first time ever to send commands around the world simultaneously.

In the film’s climax, the entire world lays down its guns simultaneously, and picks up its smartphones, to experience the New Revelation Of Truth, broadcast to the entire planet at the same time. This is technologically feasible now. McLuhan warned us. And now it’s here.

The attentive viewer realizes that Margaret and Daniel are Adam and Eve for the New World Order. They play out a reversal of Genesis. Remember this?

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” [Genesis 2:16-17]

In Disclosure Day, things are reversed. If you don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (symbolically), then you shall die in a nuclear conflagration. The God figure, Wardex CEO Scanlon, is actually portrayed as the Satan, the Adversary who wants to maintain control by preventing people from knowing the Truth.

As part of the initiation process — sort of like a rite of confirmation, where the seeds planted in baptism come to fruition — Margaret and Daniel have to revisit the extremely traumatic nights in childhood when they were seized by the aliens and taken somewhere else.

This is the creepiest, most wicked part of the film. The more I think about it, the sicker it seems — though I’m sure most people will not receive it this way.

Margaret returns in a lucid dream sequence, triggered by alien technology, to her childhood bedroom, where she lies awake at night, singing a song from the Disney film Cinderella: “Someday My Prince Will Come”. Suddenly friendly animals appear at the foot of her bed, beckoning her to join them — just as Cinderella had an intimate relationship with animals. We are told in the film that the aliens — the hideous bulbous-headed greys — disguised themselves as animals so as not to frighten the children.  (By the way, here is the 1918 drawing the occultist Aleister Crowley made of the demon Lam he conjured in a ritual.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supposed_channeled_entity_by_occultist_crowley.jpg

Look familiar?)

The fake animals lead Margaret to “Hansel and Gretel’s house,” which is how the alien spaceship is disguised to trick the children. Yes, that metaphor is on the nose in the same way Ali’s fist was on Frazier’s schnozz … but worse, don’t you remember that in the Grimm’s fairy tale, this house was the witch’s lair, which she disguised as a gingerbread house to lure the innocent children to their destruction? But in Spielberg’s fairy tale, it is a place of wonder, welcome and transformation of the innocent children. Never more clearly does Disclosure Day reveal its true intent than in this sequence.

The aliens implant something in the children through their left eyes. Not both eyes: their left eye.  This is not a storytelling accident. If you want to go down a frightening rabbit hole, check out this website’s explanation of the “single eye,” its occult meaning throughout esoteric history, and its tracking of how the image keeps showing up in popular culture, especially via contemporary celebrities.

(https://vigilantcitizen.com/vc-resources/the-one-eye-sign-its-origins-and-occult-meaning/)

The lone eye is a big part of Disclosure Day’s marketing. Look at the poster at the top of this essay. Look at this one:

 

Through this knowledge implanted by violating the bodies of innocent, kidnapped children, the aliens create prophets to prepare the world for its coming transformation into creators of a world of peace, love, and universal empathy. They will deliver humanity from war and destruction in this way. This is what Bible warns about the Antichrist, who will come as a man of peace, producing signs and wonders to temporarily calm the bellicose and traumatized world, and seduce the masses into following him. In Disclosure Day, the Mother Superior indirectly grants her imprimatur to the aliens and their message, telling Jane that she, as a failed nun, had not lost her faith in God, but in people. In other words: “You didn’t think humanity could handle the ultimate Truth of the New Revelation, but you were wrong. Calm down. This is part of God’s plan.”

To step back for a moment, I actually favor disclosure, but not because I believe the “aliens” have a liberating message for humanity. I believe we need to confront the truth, come what may — even if it is part of what Christians anticipate will be the Great Deception immediately preceding the Apocalypse. Government secrecy is only leaving the masses vulnerable to the allure of forbidden knowledge, and is preventing us from developing defenses against whatever this thing is. (If you don’t believe me because I’m a Christian, then for heaven’s sake, read Jacques Vallée — who, note well, recommended to Diana Pasulka on a personal visit a few years back that she read a collection of mid-century Catholic theological essays about the nature of Lucifer, saying that this might have something to teach us about the phenomenon.)

But Disclosure Day is a lie. A big and consequential lie. Fortunately the film is not top-flight Spielberg, in terms of storytelling, so it won’t be as popular as it might have been. I think audiences might go into the film thinking that they’re going to see something flash-bang-pew-pew, like the popcorn-film alien invasion blockbuster Independence Day. It’s very much not that. It’s not a bad night at the movies, but it does play as shallow, sappy Boomer sentimentalism. There is a good film to be made about disclosure, and the philosophical, religious, and anthropological questions it would raise (Vallée’s writing is a good place to start for source material) — but Spielberg’s movie is definitely not the one. It is simply bizarre that Spielberg would reproduce the kind of intense trauma testified to by many “experiencers” as something beneficial — especially when it involves (in the film) kidnapping and violating the bodies of innocent children. Read the cultural room, Steve!

I had wondered why Kansas City plays such a big role in this film. On the way out of the theater, my theologian friend pointed out that the Midwestern city is where Walt Disney got his start. He grew up there, started his first animation studio there. Kansas City is where the man who more than any other engineered and enchanted the imaginations of generations of American children got his start. This, plus the inclusion of a Disney Studios-owned song (from “Cinderella”) in a picture made by a rival studio, shows you the symbolism at work here. Spielberg plainly intends Disclosure Day to be about the re-enchantment of humanity — the rediscovery of meaning, purpose, and magic — via adult fairy tales about aliens coming bearing gifts of universal peace.

Butterflies are key symbols in Disclosure Day. Butterflies, in general, are symbols of transformation into a higher state. Child Margaret grows up in a bedroom with wallpaper covered with butterflies. Adult Margaret wears a pendant with a single butterfly wing, a symbol of the deep and inexplicable sense of incompleteness, and purposelessness, that has been her burden prior to the drama of the film, she has been yearning for completeness. It all makes sense by the end. We even see a secret government film of a giant alien ship resembling a butterfly taking off. The message of the film is: the aliens are coming to transform us, to make us into higher beings. We should welcome them, and do as they say.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, near the end, when Margaret is about to re-live her trauma experience, a sympathetic woman approaches her and makes the sign of the cross. Margaret, who can read minds at that point, understands that the woman wants her to become a Catholic. She draws back in horror, runs, and, as she slams the door of her fake house, says out loud, “I am not anybody’s religion!”

Of course not. She’s the false prophet of the new one.

So: if Disclosure Day is so middling a movie, and its message is so anti-Christian, why do I recommend that discerning Christian readers see it? Because you will never see so blatant an instantiation of the kind of propaganda that I believe will become more and more present as the world moves forward towards whatever climax is coming.

Again, Vallée’s point is crucial. We are living through a time of a massive shift in consciousness — this time, not just a civilizational one, but perhaps even a global one. Here in the West, as I’ve written about in my last three books, and will come at again in next year’s Weimar America, we have been sloughing off our ancestral religion for the last two centuries, and with it the “myth” (in the anthropological sense) that provides the unspoken framework of who we are, what our purpose is, and how the cosmos is made. This is what I mean by disenchantment.

People cannot bear too much disenchantment. Read your Michel Houllebecq, one of the secular master diagnosticians of our era. Only a world that has been cleared of the old religion(s) will find the new one proposed to us to be plausible. You might claim that Europe is largely godless, and so is Canada, but not us in the United States. This is simply not true.

It is inarguably the case that America is more religiously observant than other Western countries — I have been living that out since I returned to the states three weeks ago, and thank God for it! — but as I have written in The Benedict Option (most of all), but also in Live Not By Lies, in Living In Wonder, and in the forthcoming Weimar America, our Christianity is heavily watered down by any historic measure, mostly cultural, and easily malleable. This is why the sociologist of religion Christian Smith says that the actually existing religion of younger Americans (and I would say many older ones too) is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

Most of us do not have the spiritual and imaginative antibodies to resist the appeal of the Gnostic re-enchantment offered by the aliens-as-redeemers narrative. In Living In Wonder, I tell the story of “Jonah,” an American academic I met through his exorcist. Jonah was deeply involved in the occult, thinking he was worshiping “ancient gods” suppressed by evil Jews and Christians, until he realized that no, these were actually demons. He fled, and converted to a strong form of Christianity. In my book, Jonah recalls being a smart, curious kid growing up in suburban Evangelicalism, and his pastor having no real answers for the deep questions he was asking. So, out of curiosity to know, he read himself into esotericism, and eventually became a full-blown occultist, worshiping as part of a large community of others — some of them intellectuals, including other academics — who really believed that their religion was destined to displace the dying Christianity.

You, reader, might be able to watch Disclosure Day and spot the obvious problems and deceptions in its narrative. But it is extremely unlikely that most Christians you know can. They will be taken in by the pious older nun who appears serene in the face of disclosure, without questions about what the aliens claim, and what challenges they pose to Biblical truths. After all, if religion is about nothing more than increasing our love and empathy, then why not? It is no accident that the movie’s villain, Scanlon, is an older white man who wishes to hoard knowledge for himself, on behalf of the government, corporations, and power structures — and the liberators are a strong woman (Margaret), and Hugo, a black man who orchestrates the disclosure plot.

Colman Domingo, the actor who plays Hugo, was recently asked by Variety if he believes in aliens:

“I absolutely do,” he answers. “And I don’t know what they look like, what they feel like, what their objectives are, but I do believe that there has to be more. It can’t just be us.”

He adds, “I mean, I stand outside, look at the stars, believing that someone’s staring back at us, and at some point we’ll come together. So I believe that with whatever the unknown brings to us, maybe it’ll be good for all of us.”

This vacant, well-meaning receptivity is where most Americans are today, I think. Look at the numbers in this recent CBS News poll. Excerpt:

The percentage who believe intelligent life exists on other planets has become more widespread in recent years. Looking back just to 2010, fewer than half of Americans believed that. Since that time, higher numbers of men, women and people across age groups and education levels now believe in the existence of intelligent life.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-believe-extraterrestrial-life-exists-opinion-poll/

That same poll found that nearly one in five Americans has seen what they believe to have been a UFO. That’s approximately 59 million people — a massive number. Sure, you could say that what they saw was something that could be explained, though how you or I would know this is a leap of faith. The point is not whether what an individual saw was real or not; the point is that they believe it was a UFO. This tells us something important about their mindset.

A Catholic professor friend of mine told Marc Andreessen once that a medieval peasant, with his religious belief and superstitions both, is better able psychologically to cope with the world of Artificial Intelligence than contemporary man is. Why? Because he assumed that the cosmos contained other, non-human intelligences, and he believed as a matter of course that there were proven ways to deal with them. We moderns have stripped ourselves of this knowledge, and as such, are vulnerable. To be clear, this professor was not saying AI is alien tech; he’s simply saying that in the modern era, we are psychologically disoriented by the very concept of non-human intelligence.

The same point can be made about how we can and will cope with disclosure. I can’t speak for believers in other religions, but well-informed and discerning Christians will approach the topic with great prudence and skepticism — not the kind of skepticism that says “this can’t be real,” but the Valléesque skepticism that says, “This is real — but what is it? What is its nature? What does it want from us? What does it want to do to us?” And so forth. In the documentary The Age Of Disclosure, Lue Elizondo and other whistleblowers talk about high-ranking Pentagon officials who discouraged investigation on grounds that this phenomenon is Satanic

(See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjmJmwsjdGI&t=256s).

I believe this is true — that there have been and are people in authority who have acted this way — but at the same time, I don’t believe that refusing to look is a wise course of protecting ourselves from a phenomenon that I too believe is ultimately Satanic.

So: parents, priests, pastors, religious leaders all need to see Disclosure Day. It is a fairy-tale of re-enchantment for a Gnostic, occultic, scientific-technological era. Whatever Spielberg’s limitations as a storyteller in this film, he has produced a near-perfect example of the kind of false and deceptive story that we will all be led to believe in the Age of Antichrist. We have to have strong, well-informed answers to counter these stories, so we and the people who depend on us for leadership will not be deceived. The hard-line skeptical materialist response grows less credible by the day.

Though I don’t agree with all the theological material in this two-part interview between the Catholic exorcist Fr Dan Reehil and Daniel O’Connor, a Catholic author of a book about UAPs and Antichrist, I can confidently recommend their discussion to you. Part One on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNTO39rftY&t=1437s

Part Two is here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtDIMqG0FQ4

Note especially Fr Reehil’s point that some people claim “aliens” can’t be demons, because the spacecraft are nuts-and-bolts machines. He points out that we know from Scripture that angels, immensely powerful spiritual beings, can manipulate the material world — and demons are fallen angels. Plus, Fr Reehil makes a point I’ve heard from other exorcists: if you have enough experience with this, you have seen it happen with your own eyes.

Coda

After the movie ended, I walked my theologian friend and his adult son to my car, and showed them the butterfly wing I found in a parking lot in front of my car on the journey to Louisiana to attend to my sick mother last week. I discovered to my dismay that it was disintegrating so I showed them the photo I posted of it last week here, after I picked it up:

 

As I said in this space last week, my mom and I have been mostly estranged these past few years, but now that she is approaching death from chronic illness, I’ve been longing for some sort of reconciliation before the end, though having no idea how to break through the walls she has put up. I prayed about this. Well, sometimes a butterfly wing is just a butterfly wing, but after the surprisingly good time she and I had together — the best in years — I interpret the discovery of the wing as both a sign that healing would come, and as a sign to lean into it — not to stunt the transformation of our difficult relationship by fear or recalcitrance. As I said here last week, to my knowledge I have never seen a lone butterfly wing — and, given the incredibly strange story from my past, in 1994, involving butterfly wings and the haunting of an unrepentant relative, believe me, I would have noticed.

So, you can imagine how shocking it was to me to encounter in Disclosure Day the butterfly — both the completed one, and the broken wing — as key symbols. I don’t think there was a personal connection, only a coincidence. Probably. But thinking today about it, I consider how much I have yearned for reconciliation, not only over the specific things that caused my mom and me to fall out a few years ago, but also more generally — the kind of longing the led me to return, with my wife and kids, to my hometown, and to the ruin of my marriage and my life.

This yearning for a sense of wholeness, of rightness, of healing and restoration is something we all carry within us, living as we do as mortal, finite creatures in time. Many of us want it so badly that we will allow ourselves to believe almost anything to relieve the pain of brokenness. We want the other wing, so we can fly. This leaves us vulnerable to messengers of deception.

I’ll leave the last word to Jesus of Nazareth, in his Olivet Discourse about how we will know that we are in the Last Days: “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.” (Luke 21:25).

 

Source: https://roddreher.substack.com/p/disclosure-day-a-gnostic-re-enchantment

 

1985 “Open Letter” of Bishop Petros (Astyfides) of Astoria: On the True Enemies of the G.O.C. in America, Grabbe and Metropoulos

Translated from the original Greek.

 

 


Anthousa, July 16, 1985

To: Most Reverend brother Hierarchs in Christ,
Akakios of Attica and Megara,
Chrysostomos of Thessalonika,
and Gabriel of the Cyclades.

Most Reverend brothers in Christ. Once again, with the help of the Holy God, I find myself in Greece, in order to receive refreshment, so that I may be able, with God working together, to continue the much-toilsome but unseen by you work of our mission in America.

But what sort of spiritual rest can I receive, when my eyes now see the sacred struggle of Orthodoxy being trampled down and destroyed? My soul, brothers, is sorely grieved by this gloomy state of affairs.

As a bishop, I feel great is my debt before God and the sacred struggle, and this because the Lord entrusted me, on the day of my ordination, to bear and to transmit to the coming generation the sacred deposit of the Faith.

With the help of the Triune God, my beloved brothers, I labor for the preservation of the sacred deposit from a young age, having labored in the vineyard of the Lord.

There is, however, no greater blow for a hierarch than when his hierarchical status and his militant Orthodox mindset are called into question, and specifically: the evil serpent has warred against my humble person with unprecedented fury from the beginning of my missionary activity, with the most important weapon his arsenal possesses: slander. Was it not with this weapon that Satan warred against the Lord of glory and His holy friends? How often do we hear the chief Apostle Paul in his epistles complain because the “Judaizing” brethren of Jerusalem doubted his apostolic status? Was not the universal teacher John Chrysostomos slandered to a frightful and unbelievable degree? Was not Athanasios the Great, who shone before him, the pillar and foundation of Orthodoxy, slandered as guilty of bloodshed? Or do we perhaps forget the case of the ‘murdered Arsenios’?” But we have nothing else to do, brothers, except to sail to Aegina and see the thrice-great Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis shining and flashing forth in his tremendous miracles. During his life, was not this contemporary Saint terribly slandered? As immoral, he who was pure and blameless; or do we perhaps not hear even down to our own days that this most Orthodox Father of the Church was Latin-minded, an ecumenist, and an iconoclast? Shudder, O sun.

But if the saints suffered unjustly from the plotting of the devil, would I, the wretched one, escape?

If, brothers, I were a simple monk, I ought to keep silent if I heard slander against me, as Saint Agathon did; and this I wished to do throughout my whole life, to keep silent when I am slandered. This I both did and do. Did not our Lord teach us thus: “Blessed are ye when they shall reproach you and persecute you and cast out your name as EVIL for the sake of the Son of Man; rejoice in that day and leap for joy”?

Is there, brothers, another way of life for an Orthodox Bishop? Must I not imitate my Lord, Who, “being reviled, reviled not again; suffering, He threatened not”? This I must do if I wish to see the face of Christ, and this I would have done.

But when, in my person, the very substance of the Church itself is being touched, then I am now obliged to defend myself, not for my own sake, but for the sake of beloved Orthodoxy.

This, essentially, is the purpose of the present letter: namely, to clarify my position regarding specific slanders which have been hurled against me and which, consequently, as I believe, touch the dignity of the mystical Body of Christ.

I believe you are aware that I was consecrated as a hierarch in America in 1962 by the ever-memorable Archbishop of Chile, Leonty, and by His Eminence Seraphim, Archbishop of Caracas in Venezuela, both belonging to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. This consecration of mine was officially recognized by the higher Holy Synod in 1968, which gave me an official Certificate of Consecration, protocol number 948.

Before the delivery to me of the Certificate of Consecration, and after it, I had full ecclesiastical communion with the hierarchy of Russian bishops. I also believe that it does not escape your memory how much I labored in the U.S.A. for the consecration of the ever-memorable Akakios Pappas, and for the raising up of hierarchs for the G.O.C. in Greece.

Regarding the matter at hand. A brother hierarch informed me that, when Bishop Gregory Grabbe was in Greece two years ago, he informed you that — shudder, O sun — “Bishop Petros was never consecrated by our Church; that, although he was consecrated by the Archbishop of Chile, he did this through simony; and that his Certificate of Consecration is spurious.”

First of all, before I proceed to refute the above slanders of Mr. Grabbe, I would like to tell you that the very great ..."Saint" of Boston, Panteleimon Metropoulos, also participates in my calumniation; he, together with Bishop Grabbe, warred against me by every means except A WRITTEN ACCUSATION. The warfare of Grabbe and Panteleimon was always oral.

For they knew and know that in America slander — DISCRIMINATION [written in English] — can put even the President of the U.S.A. himself in prison.

No, brothers, I was neither simoniacal, nor is my Certificate of Consecration forged.

And I denounce Gregory Grabbe and Panteleimon Metropoulos as grievous SLANDERERS and LIARS; and I challenge them: what they told you orally about me, let them inform you also IN WRITING — YES, IN WRITING.

Not with words of wind, which are easily overturned; and then the judicial justice of the U.S.A. will have the floor.

That the saying may be fulfilled: “Punish the disorderly, lest they become arrogant.” And while we are speaking about written statements, I would like to know why, since for so many years Panteleimon Metropoulos and Bishop Grabbe, the notorious baron, have been spreading accusations of simony, the Synod of Metropolitan Philaret did not summon me to try me and depose me, as I requested of it IN WRITING twice, and to try not only me, but also Leonty, who consecrated me, and Seraphim together with him? Why did they not try the ever-memorable Archbishop Averky, [St.] John Maximovitch, Archbishop of San Francisco, Bishop Sava of Edmonton, and other hierarchs and priests of the Russian Synod who had communion with me?

Do you perhaps think that all these men had not heard all these things about simony? Of course they heard them, but because they knew very well who Archbishop Leonty was, they had excluded every idea of such a crime.

Bishop Grabbe had serious reasons for making use of this base, deceitful, and underhanded behavior.

Bishop Grabbe concealed great hatred against the struggler and truly Orthodox Archbishop Leonty. He warred against him fiercely; he tried by every means to neutralize him. For this reason, although Leonty was a doctor of theological science, the then-Father George Grabbe arranged to exile the brilliant scholar, theologian, and hierarch Leonty Filipovich from the central administration of the Russian Synod.

But why this hatred of Grabbe? Quite simply, the ever-memorable Leonty had a very serious difference with Fr. George Grabbe. He did not recognize HIS PRIESTHOOD; and this because Grabbe had been “ordained” a “priest” BY A NON-EXISTENT UKRAINIAN ‘HIERARCH’ in Europe. [*]

For the above reason, Archbishop Leonty, being the struggler that he was, at a liturgical gathering of the Hierarchs and before the astonished eyes of the ever-memorable [Metropolitan] Anastasy, seized the impious Grabbe, made him kneel before the Holy Table, and ordained him a canonical priest. After he ordained him, he characteristically said to him: “Congratulations; now you are a canonical priest.” From then on, Grabbe uprooted the war against every act and action of Leonty.

You can now imagine what fury he concealed against my humble self. As an assistant in the war against Leonty, and consequently also against my own standing, he found Panteleimon Metropoulos, who was then, and is now, “actively” working in America. They said many things — very many things — concerning my consecration. But those old hierarchs COMPLETELY REJECTED the outcries of Metropoulos and Grabbe.

In the meantime, the years were passing; my old collaborators in the Russian Church, slowly, one after another, were departing for the Heavenly Kingdom.

Nevertheless, when the famous encyclical was being issued in 1974, I, in my humility, refused to sign the text of the encyclical, because I considered myself unqualified for so great a matter as taking an ecclesiological position regarding the Mysteries of 250,000,000 Orthodox Christians.

I turned once again to the Russian Church and asked for her theological direction. The Synod of Philaret answered me IN WRITING by its letter dated October 29, 1974, protocol number 3-50-242; I enclose the letter for you. [**]

I shall emphasize two points in the letter: the beginning and the end. And in both of these places, Metropolitan Philaret, as president of the Synod of the Hierarchy, calls me Bishop of Astoria and beloved brother in Christ.

Could it be that, in the twelve years after my consecration, Metropolitan Philaret had not heard the accusations against me? In the end, how could the president of the Russian Synod bring himself to call a SIMONIAC a brother in Christ and Right Reverend Bishop of Astoria? Something is not right, brothers. Is this Synodal document also forged? Are the numerous concelebrations with the Russian hierarchs, which have been photographed and filmed, also ... forged? That is, have we reached the tragic point where it is being heard and said that the written attestations of the Russian Synod of Philaret are of no force, while the things said orally by His Grace Grabbe are authoritative?

Must we then also believe the oral denial of Theophil Ionescu, that he did not take part in the consecration of the ever-memorable Akakios Pappas? But since, after all, the oral word of Grabbe has such force, listen to what he said years ago.

When the Russian Church proclaimed the Russian New Martyrs saints, I sent my priests and deacons to attend the ceremonies. When they were at the Synodal building in Manhattan, Bishop Grabbe and His Eminence Archbishop Laurus of Syracuse received them in audience. After they had discussed various matters that concerned us, they put the following question to Mr. Grabbe: Why, after so many years of cooperation, does Philaret not receive Bishop Petros?

The answer of Bishop Grabbe, before many witnesses, was clear: “The Synod itself has no impediment to receiving your Bishop; however, the Greeks who belong to the Synod have an objection.” This is the reality, the truth which Grabbe himself confesses, namely that Panteleimon Metropoulos DID NOT WANT AND DOES NOT WANT THE GREEK BISHOP PETROS TO OBSERVE AND CHECK THE EXTERNAL MANNER OF HIS ECCLESIASTICAL ACTIVITY. The unrepentant Panteleimon Metropoulos is the source of the whole wretched state of affairs; he is THE CHIEF CAUSE OF MY CALUMNIATION. May God have mercy on him.

Note that he has not met me even once. Certainly, I could write “whole volumes” about Panteleimon Metropoulos’ systematic warfare against me.

To confirm emphatically what has been said, brothers, I am sending you a photocopy of MY UNQUESTIONABLY AUTHENTIC CERTIFICATE OF CONSECRATION, with the signatures of the Most Reverend hierarchs Philaret, Nikon, and Laurus, and with protocol number 948. Together with this, I am sending you the first Certificate of Consecration from the ever-memorable Leonty and Seraphim, Bishop of Caracas, as well as excerpts from the correspondence which I had with the Synod of Philaret, which was published in Orthodoxos Logos.

In closing, I would like once again to repeat that I denounce as false everything said by Bishop Gregory Grabbe against the ever-memorable Archbishop Leonty, Archbishop Seraphim of Caracas, and my humble self. Before I proceed, you must ask yourselves, Most Reverend brothers, why Bishop Gregory Grabbe continued for so many years after my consecration to concelebrate with the above-mentioned two hierarchs, whom he considered and still considers simoniacs — perish the blasphemy. You see, in the crime of simony, as you know, not only the one who pays the money participates, but also those who accept the payment. You see how shamelessly and irresponsibly the wretched Gregory Grabbe, pitiable for the state to which he has fallen, calumniates.

My brothers, after all the above, I would like to believe that you have now been convinced that I was never a simoniac, nor did I pay money in order to become a Bishop.

I was consecrated by two Orthodox, holy hierarchs, who are known to all for their holy patristic life.

I was consecrated, brothers, for the struggle of Orthodoxy, in which I believed with all my heart.

I did not seek to become a hierarch — God is my witness. The priests of the G.O.C. of New York voted for me for the episcopal office. And the ever-memorable Archbishop Akakios Pappas repeatedly wrote to me to accept the office of the episcopacy. Finally, Archbishop Leonty himself persuaded me to accept the promotion, WITHOUT SIMONY AND WITHOUT INTRIGUES, as many would have liked there to have been, because this would have served their subterranean designs both in America and in Greece. I was consecrated, brothers, canonically and validly, for the service of the struggle of the G.O.C.

The time which I have been awaiting has now arrived, and my relevant correspondence with the ever-memorable Akakios Pappas and Archbishop Leonty Filipovich concerning the matters of the raising up of hierarchs of the Old Calendar in Greece, and other matters related to the sacred struggle, will see the light of publication. And this because the night is far spent.

Also, brothers, I would like to inform you that my Orthodox mindset has not changed in the slightest. I am the same as I was. I renounce and condemn the new and Papal Calendar, and together with it also the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. I say these things to you because recently a new slanderous attempt against me has also been circulated. It is rumored by various well-wishers that I supposedly submitted a request to Archbishop Iakovos of America for him to receive me as a Bishop into the New Calendar, and that he rejected my request.

This too is a lie, brothers, and indeed a most malicious one; but we know the source. It is the broken cistern, whose water “does not flow straight.” No, brothers, I never made such efforts so as to deny my sweetest Orthodoxy, for which I was exiled and imprisoned.

With the help of the Most Holy Theotokos, I always was, am, and shall remain an Orthodox hierarch; and without any concession I shall follow, until my last breath, the ancestral Orthodox Festal Calendar.

This is my defense to those who examine me. FROM HENCEFORTH LET NO ONE TROUBLE ME. These things are for the restoration of my hierarchal conscience, which has been brutally wounded.

May God forgive and have mercy on all those who IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER have slandered me, and may He count them worthy of sincere repentance; without repentance, the slanderer shall not see the face of God unto the ages.

I hope, Most Reverend brothers, that from the above there will finally be clarified and made plain, after 52 years of our acquaintance within the setting of the sacred struggle, the various questions which have recently occupied you concerning my humble person.

Finally, I have this to say, and I pray that the sincere and guileless nature of my character may not once again provoke your displeasure against me.

Humanly speaking, I ask each one of you, the Most Reverend hierarchs, the evangelical words: “Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me?”

I embrace you in the love of Christ,

† Petros of Astoria

 

[*] Regarding the source of Bishop Gregory Grabbe’s priestly ordination:  In 1924, then-Archimandrite Seraphim [Lade] received his episcopal consecration from the Synod of Metropolitan Pimen (Pegov), who was a part of Renovationist (schismatic) movement in Ukraine. Since the future Metropolitan Seraphim spent many years collecting historical evidence about the Lord, he was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Committee for Combatting Unbelief. In 1930, along with many other Russians of German descent, he was allowed to leave the USSR for Germany. In August of 1930, the ROCOR Synod decided to receive him without his being (re)ordained (through repentance). This fact of the reception via repentance later caused Bishop Leonty of Berdichev (later of Chile and Peru) to refuse to recognize as valid ordinations performed by Metropolitan Seraphim.

Source: https://www.rocorstudies.org/2023/12/22/metropolitan-seraphim-lade/

[**]  See:

 https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/08/why-did-bishop-petros-of-astoria-refuse.html


 

The Practice of Noetic Prayer and Its Spiritual Fruits

From the notes of Archimandrite Akakios Barolas (+2026)     Monastery of Mega Spilaion, 1960 The Practice of Noetic Prayer and Its...