How Can the Faithful Free Themselves from the Old, Fallen Man?

Archimandrite George Kapsanis (+2014),

Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Venerable Gregory, Mount Athos

 

 

We all feel that we bear the traces of the old man. His principal characteristic is self-love, that is, the unhealthy, egocentric “love” of ourselves. Self-love prevents us from truly and selflessly loving God and our fellow man. From self-love the passions are born.

Being subject to the passions, as we are, we cannot relate to other human persons and to things without passion. Our relationships become passionate and selfish, preventing us from truly enjoying our fellow human beings and the other good things of this world. This ultimately leads us to loneliness, emptiness, and a dead end.

Therefore, when we speak of the old man, we mean the unhealthy egocentrism from which all of us suffer, some to a lesser and others to a greater degree.

How can we free ourselves from this serious spiritual illness that poisons our entire existence?

Only someone free from this illness could become our physician. Only a new man could give us, too, the possibility of overcoming the illness of the old man and becoming new men ourselves.

We all know that this new man is the God-Man, our Saviour Christ, who, according to Scripture, “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”

Out of His infinite love for us, Jesus Christ offers Himself to us so that we may be united with Him and thus receive His own new life.

Through Holy Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion, we are incorporated into the Body of Christ and given life by Christ.

Every Christian who participates in the life of Christ, within His Body, which is the Church, has received, through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the seeds of new life. He must, however, also struggle to be cleansed ever more thoroughly of the passions and adorned with the virtues.

Let us put it simply: The more a person empties himself of his selfishness, the more he is filled with true love and the Grace of God. The more the old man diminishes, the more the new man grows. This passage from the old man to the new is not easy, because the passions have deep roots within us and are not easily uprooted.

Continuous struggle over many years is needed for purification from the passions. This is the struggle of repentance. Every day we must repent of our oldness, that is, our sinfulness, our subjection to the passions, our egocentrism, and our inability to love God our Father and our fellow man wholeheartedly. And every day we are called to struggle to acquire love, humility, sincere confession, self-control, righteousness, forgiveness of wrongs, and prayer.

Thus, little by little, a new spiritual birth takes place within us: the birth of the new man, who is endowed with the Grace of God.

But just as every childbirth is accompanied by birth pangs, so too spiritual birth presupposes the pangs of repentance. When we crucify the old man, we suffer pain, but it is then that the new man rises within us. We are crucified together with Christ so that we may also rise together with Him.

Thus, through our patient and daily struggle of repentance, we shall be freed from the old, fallen man and transformed into new men. This is what happened in the lives of our saints, who show us the way through their wondrous lives.

What Is the Remembrance of Death, and What Is Its Meaning?

The remembrance of death helps us overcome the old man because it brings humility to our souls. When we forget death, we have the illusion that we shall live forever on earth, and this increases our arrogance, our greed, our worship of the flesh, and our inclination to exploit other people. The remembrance of death gives us a sense of our limitations on earth and of the significance that our actions, words, and thoughts have for eternity and life after death.

Thus, it helps us to approach this present life with seriousness, in the light of eternity, and not to squander our earthly life wastefully, thoughtlessly, and frivolously, disregarding the consequences.

For this reason, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates also said that “those who philosophize rightly practice dying, and of all people they fear death the least.”

Saint John Chrysostom advises us to visit cemeteries frequently in order to reflect upon the vanity of human affairs.

We all know that after visiting a cemetery, we are humbler, more compassionate, less attached to material things, and more open to God and our fellow man.

The remembrance of death, about which Saint John of the Ladder and other Holy Fathers have written extensively, has nothing to do with any unhealthy, melancholic, or neurotic state. Such a state is not beneficial to the soul, because it brings despair and must be overcome with the help of one's spiritual father.

The remembrance of death according to God is a grace-filled and spiritual state that brings humility, peace, and joy to the soul. It is a gift of God, and we must ask Him for it.

How Is the Remembrance of God Attained?

The more a person overcomes an egocentric way of life and loves God, the more he thinks of God.

A person thinks about what occupies his mind and what he loves. The Lord Himself said: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

The study of the word of God in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, our association with spiritual people who love God, fervent prayer, regular attendance at the sacred services, and our frequent and worthy participation in Holy Communion increase our love for God and, consequently, our remembrance of God.

Saint Gregory the Theologian advises us: “We ought to remember God more often than we breathe.” That is, we should think of and remember God more frequently than we breathe.

The continual remembrance of God brings deep peace and joy to the soul, even amid the most difficult circumstances of life.

What Is Noetic Prayer and Prayer of the Heart?

The remembrance of God in a person manifests communion with God and is therefore a form of prayer. The struggle to invoke continually the holy name of Christ through the prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner,” constantly renews within a person the remembrance of God and communion with Him. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “Pray without ceasing.”

Through the remembrance of God and prayer, man reveals the true nobility of his nature, which stands at the boundary between the visible and invisible worlds and is “a living being called to become god”; he transcends natural necessity, extends his existence toward God, and feels free from everything that holds him captive on earth.

For prayer to be genuine, however, it must be the prayer of the whole person, and not merely of the lips, or merely of the mind, or merely of the heart.

Perfect prayer is both noetic prayer and prayer of the heart. The mind prays within the heart, which is the center of our existence. That is, the whole person prays from his innermost depths and center, fulfilling God's commandment: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” The whole person offers himself to God.

For this prayer, the single-phrase prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner” is used, which, through its brief invocation, helps to concentrate the mind and draw it into the heart.

The Holy Fathers known as the Neptic Fathers wrote from their own experience about the manner and method of this prayer. There is a collection of the writings of these Holy Fathers called the Philokalia. And the word Philokalia is itself significant. Through noetic prayer and prayer of the heart, the faithful Christian is united with God and beholds God, who is the most beautiful of all that exists in the world, the supreme Beauty.

Since there is a danger of confusion between prayer of the heart and the various methods of meditation and prayer practiced in Eastern religions, I think it necessary to clarify a few points:

1. Not only the single-phrase prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ...,” but also every prayer of the Church, such as the fundamental, divinely given Lord’s Prayer, the “Our Father,” must be noetic and of the heart, that is, it must proceed from the depths of our being.

2. For us Orthodox Christians, acquiring the gift of unceasing noetic prayer and prayer of the heart is not primarily a matter of method and technique, but a matter of a contrite heart, that is, a heart that repents, grieves over its sins, and humbles itself. Without such a heart, no method or technique of prayer, such as the use of inhalation and exhalation, can bring about true prayer.

3. Prayer of the heart and noetic prayer presuppose our participation in the life of the Church, in her Mysteries, the observance of God's commandments, and obedience to a spiritual father. It is not, therefore, an individualistic or private approach to God. Within the Church, the humble Christian receives the Grace of God, and this Grace, with his own cooperation and willingness, of course, brings about true prayer within him.

In concluding the subject of prayer, I would like to say that modern man has a particular need for prayer so that he may avoid being absorbed by the profoundly materialistic way of life of our times, forgetting his Godlikeness, that is, his divine origin and divine destiny.

He also needs prayer in order to preserve his inner unity, balance, and peace amid the terrible fragmentation, imbalance, and outward preoccupation of the modern world. And so that, through a constant awareness of God's presence and providence in his life, he may avoid becoming anxious, falling into despair, and experiencing the world as empty and meaningless.

Through the continual invocation of the most sweet and holy name of Christ, he will feel Christ in his heart, avoid sin, cultivate feelings of love for God and his fellow men, find peace within himself, and bring peace to those around him.

Allow me to offer some brotherly advice drawn from the spiritual tradition of Mount Athos: The more often we say the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ...” with longing throughout the day, the closer we shall be to God, and the more Grace and strength we shall receive to face the various difficulties and temptations of life.

In These Times of Apostasy, How Do You See the Future of Hellenism and Orthodoxy?

With great sorrow, we observe that there is indeed, among a segment of modern Greeks, apostasy from the God of our Fathers and an anti-Christian and anti-ecclesiastical spirit, which sometimes develops into open or insidious persecution of the Church—organized, systematic, and relentless.

Atheism and anti-Christianity are becoming the establishment in our country, seeking to turn Greeks against Christ. They make use of education, school textbooks, radio, television, and the press. They also employ ridicule and the marginalization of those who still dare to express their faith and love for the Church. Indeed, we have reached such a demonic state of affairs that even atheist teachers of theology in schools engage in atheistic propaganda.

If one adds to these the consequences that the influx of tourism and the Western materialistic way of life into our country, as well as our entry into the melting pot of the European Union, have had on the morals and faith of our people, one realizes that we are passing through the greatest spiritual danger we have ever faced as a Greek Orthodox nation.

The worst thing is that we have not become aware of the danger; there is no proper spiritual vigilance and resistance; there are no prophetic figures—with few exceptions—who, with self-sacrifice and boldness, will denounce the instruments of the Antichrist, call the devout people to spiritual mobilization, and voice Orthodox Hellenism’s new ‘NO’ to the new and even worse spiritual captivity that threatens our Nation.

I believe that the efforts of the enemies of our Nation to de-Christianize the Greeks are aimed at stripping us of our Greek identity, so that we Greeks, spiritually and nationally enslaved, may become easy prey for international interests and totalitarian ideologies.

The enemies of the Church are making a relentless effort to ridicule our traditional Christian faith in the eyes of those Greeks who are not firmly established in the faith, especially the young, and to draw them away from the Church...

If we modern Greeks lose Christ or push Him to the margins, we shall also lose our spiritual freedom and the possibility for the life-giving tradition of Orthodox humanism to continue bearing fruit in this land.

For this reason, it is time for all of us to struggle, to offer spiritual resistance, to confess and bear witness to our faith, whatever the cost to us.

I believe that today, too, our struggle is for faith and fatherland, or, as the fighters of 1821 would have put it: “For the holy faith of Christ and the freedom of our fatherland.” For spiritual freedom, which is also the necessary prerequisite for our national independence! We modern Greeks who remain faithful to the values for which they sacrificed themselves—and I believe we are the great majority—are called today to continue their bloody struggle.

More dangerous to our country even than foreign invaders who covet our ancestral land is anti-Christian atheism, because it kills our souls and corrupts our consciences and convictions.

At critical periods in our history, God raised up enlightened men such as Saint Cosmas of Aetolia and Makriyannis, who awakened the people and strengthened them in the Orthodox faith and their national consciousness.

I believe that today, too, the Grace of God and the Champion Leader of our Nation will provide some means for our salvation, in response to the struggle, suffering, repentance, and tears of those who have not bowed down before the modern Baals of apostasy.

We also have the example of Russia, where seventy years of persecution against the Church were unable to extinguish the faith among the broader sections of the devout Russian people, but rather strengthened it and made it shine more brightly.

Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the Crucified and Risen One, and not the devil, has the final word in history, and for this reason, however dark the skies may grow, we always remain hopeful.

 

Greek source: Αγιορείτικη Μαρτυρία, Issue 2, pp. 70–75.

Greek source online: https://katanixi.gr/pos-mporei-na-apallagei-o-pistos-apo-ton-palaio-ptotiko-anthropo/

 

Second Anniversary of the Blessed Repose of Archimandrite Paisios (Jung) Commemorated in Vienna

October 7, 2026

 

 

At the memorial service in Vienna, the faithful recalled the life, courage in confessing the faith, and spiritual legacy of Archimandrite Paisios (Jung).

On October 7, 2026, the second anniversary of the blessed repose of Archimandrite Paisios Jung was commemorated with a memorial service at his grave. As the UOJ correspondent reports, today's sermon focused on the life and faith of Father Paisios, particularly his fidelity to the holy Orthodox Faith and his unwavering courage to say what needed to be said, regardless of whether others liked it or not. It was further emphasized that Father Paisios serves as an example to us, since he never lost his cheerful disposition even amid life's difficulties and, like a new Chrysostom, was able to inspire people through his sermons. Father Paisios was known to many through his lectures and sermons on YouTube. He also had many spiritual children throughout the world.

We present to our readers a few brief facts from the life of the well-known missionary Father Paisios, compiled by our journalist together with the faithful who today commemorated his blessed repose – A Biographical Sketch of Archimandrite Paisios Jung.

From Birth to Life in a Catholic Monastery

He was born Michael Jung on July 8, 1962, in Saarland, to Anton and Waltraut, and was baptized Roman Catholic. He later entered Weltenburg Abbey, received the monastic name Maximilian, and began studying theology and philosophy at the university college of Heiligenkreuz Abbey and the University of Vienna. After completing his studies, he was ordained a deacon and subsequently a priest, and worked in pastoral ministry and education.

Path to Orthodoxy

After years of searching, he discovered the rich treasure of Orthodoxy and went to Greece to convert and become an Orthodox monk. This took place at the Monastery of St. Arsenios in Chalkidiki, where he was also ordained a hierodeacon and subsequently a hieromonk.

Founding of a Monastery in Burgenland

From there, he was sent with fellow monks in 2015 to establish a monastery in Austria. Father Paisios was appointed the first abbot of this monastery and was installed on October 11, 2015. In 2016, the monastery was canonically established by Metropolitan Arsenios of Austria in St. Andrä am Zicksee, Burgenland, and placed under the protection of the Most Holy Theotokos and St. Paisios of Mount Athos. The monastery attracted pilgrims from near and far. His sermons were much sought after, and many pilgrims turned to him for counsel and confession. Some of his spiritual sons became priests and passed on his teachings to their congregations.

On the Ukrainian Church Question

On the day of the recognition of the Ukrainian pseudo-church, Father Paisios preached firmly against it. Among other things, he stated: “With this Tomos, a great schism has begun.” He further explained: “This schism is worse than the schism between the Western and Eastern Churches, because it is a schism among Orthodox Christians in our own time. And unfortunately, it originates from the Phanar.” In his view, the recognition was a product of American, or more broadly Western, anti-Russian policy, through which the Patriarch and the bishops of the Phanar had been influenced by large sums of money.

In his sermon, he had explicitly called upon the assembled faithful to remain with their canonical Metropolitan Onuphrios. He maintained that the Russian Church was entirely justified in responding to the changed stance on the Ukrainian Church question by expanding its ecclesiastical activities, among other places, in Africa and Turkey. His position was widely known, and from that point onward, problems with Metropolitan Arsenios began. Nevertheless, Father Paisios maintained a good relationship with his Metropolitan at the time.

The Beginning of Tensions: The Manner of Administering Holy Communion

During the difficult period of the coronavirus pandemic, Metropolitan Arsenios was the first bishop in the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate, and possibly in the entire Orthodox world, to change the traditional manner of administering Holy Communion. At that time, he instructed his priests no longer to administer the precious Body and Blood of Christ to the mouths of the faithful in the traditional manner with the holy spoon, but instead to place Holy Communion in their hands.

Father Paisios refused to comply with this instruction after consulting his spiritual father, the well-known Greek Elder, Father Theoklitos. For, as the Holy Fathers teach, obedience is superior to fasting and prayer. There are, however, two things to which obedience must never be given: heresy and sin. This is precisely what Father Paisios explained to his bishop. For the bishop, this action crossed a red line, and he characterized Father Paisios’ refusal as disobedience.

The Confession of the Orthodox Faith

As is well known, Father Paisios was a prominent preacher and had a great influence on Orthodox Christians of various nationalities, including Greeks, Serbs, Russians, Romanians, Arabs, Bulgarians, and Antiochians.

Many people who had not previously been Orthodox were brought to Orthodoxy through his sermons. Orthodox Christians, in turn, were strengthened in their faith through his preaching. During the coronavirus pandemic, he provided spiritual encouragement to the faithful, particularly through his live videos.

One day, he was asked whether he could explain how the schism between the Western and Eastern Churches had come about. In a lecture lasting approximately 30 minutes, he explained the Orthodox teaching on this subject, insofar as this was possible within the time available.

Only about 30 minutes later, the Metropolitan called, extremely upset, and reported that three Catholic bishops had contacted him and complained about the sermon.

Father Paisios then asked him whether he had watched the video himself and pointed out that what had been said in it was in accordance with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The bishop then made it unmistakably clear to him that he did not want any ὁμολογία πίστεως – any public confession of faith – in his Metropolis.

Just as the manner of administering Holy Communion had been a red line for the Metropolitan, this statement became a red line for Father Paisios. He had always taught that we must confess our Orthodox Faith at all times and in all places.

From that point onward, he was forbidden to continue his activities on the internet. He was also no longer permitted to receive guests or novices at the monastery or to preach publicly. In addition, he was forbidden to receive Catholics into the Orthodox Church through Holy Baptism. This had originally been one of the conditions, agreed upon with his spiritual father, under which Father Paisios had come to Austria in the first place, and which had been accepted at the time.

Father Paisios himself had been received into the Orthodox Church through Holy Baptism and had passed through all the stages of monastic life (novice, rassophore, small schema, ordination to the diaconate and priesthood, great schema, elevation to the rank of archimandrite, abbot, and spiritual father), even though he had already passed through these stages in the Catholic Church. He was firmly committed to receiving Catholics into the Orthodox Church through the Holy Mystery of Baptism.

The Ukrainian Church Question and the Growing Estrangement

Over time, Metropolitan Arsenios became increasingly active in supporting the Ukrainian pseudo-church, as well as in ecclesiastical and state-sponsored anti-Russian propaganda. During this period, several uncanonical so-called “priests” from the Ukrainian pseudo-church were also received into the Metropolis in Vienna. Father Paisios strongly disapproved of this. In protest against the Ukrainian pseudo-church and the presence of these “priests,” he ceased concelebrating at the cathedral in Vienna from that point onward. This, too, caused considerable displeasure.

Father Paisios was a staunch opponent of Ecumenism, in accordance with the teaching of St. Justin Popović of Ćelije, who described Ecumenism as the “pan-heresy,” but he advocated true ecumenism. His heart and the doors of his monastery were open to everyone.

The Path to the Serbian Orthodox Church

In the final years of his life, Father Paisios was seriously ill. For seven years, he battled severe cancer with seven metastases in its terminal stage. Despite his serious illness, he always remained cheerful, grateful, and full of hope. He even called cancer his “best friend” and thanked God for his illness.

Together with him, the brotherhood decided to seek another place where they could continue to live and carry out their work as a spiritual community. One of the first bishops to come forward was Bishop Sergius of Bosnia, of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He wished to receive Father Paisios and his brotherhood into his diocese. The brotherhood obtained the necessary letters of release from the Ecumenical Patriarchate without difficulty and was subsequently received directly into the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Departure from the Monastery in St. Andrä am Zicksee

A few days before the final Divine Liturgy was to be celebrated at the monastery and the brotherhood was to bid farewell to the faithful, the Metropolitan’s secretary, Athanasios Buk, appeared in person. He informed them that they had to leave the monastery within just four hours. What made this particularly distressing was that Father Paisios was seriously ill at the time, suffering from terminal cancer with seven metastases. Despite the bad weather and rain, no one even asked whether he or the brotherhood had somewhere to go.

Father Paisios and his monks took only their most essential personal belongings and left the monastery. Within a few days, they were already in their new diocese.

From Bosnia to Serbia

The brotherhood spent ten months in Bosnia. Due to the monastery’s unfavorable location and the monthly trips to Vienna for Father Paisios’ cancer treatment and the pastoral care of his numerous spiritual children, the brotherhood moved to a monastery in central Serbia, within the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Braničevo. These visits to Vienna greatly displeased Metropolitan Arsenios, and he repeatedly attempted to persuade the Serbian bishop to forbid them from traveling to Vienna. In doing so, he made various false statements and attempted to exert pressure on their bishop. But glory be to God, the bishop was not influenced by this. When Metropolitan Arsenios realized that these efforts were not producing the desired results, he resorted to making defamatory accusations before the civil courts. Through God’s help, however, this attempt also failed, and the proceedings were discontinued, since all the accusations proved to be groundless and false. He then attempted to destroy Father Paisios’ relationships with Greece, particularly with his spiritual father. Although he succeeded in this with some bishops, his efforts had no effect on the ordinary priests, monks, and faithful.

The Repose of Father Paisios

Three months before his death, Father Paisios’ health deteriorated severely, and he became bedridden. He spent the last month of his life in a hospital in Belgrade, where his fellow monks visited him daily and brought him Holy Communion.

His final wish was that his funeral and the associated divine services be conducted by Archpriest Slađan Vasić, who at that time was serving as a priest under the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. On October 7, 2024, he reposed in the Lord in Belgrade.

The Funeral Became a Political Issue

The services surrounding the laying out of the body took place at the Church of St. Nicholas in Mödling, with the blessing of Metropolitan Mark and Metropolitan Irinej. The funeral at Vienna Central Cemetery became a testimony to a faith lived in practice, although Metropolitan Arsenios attempted to prevent this. Memory eternal, beloved Geronda!

 

German source:

https://orthodoxnews.de/de/nachrichten/89153-zweijaehriges-gedaechtnis-des-seligen-entschlafens-von-archimandrit-paisios-in-wien-begangen-

 

Western Saints Pilgrimage 2006

 

The Unfulfilled Injunction of Metropolitan Platon (On the History of Western Rite Orthodoxy)

A.A. Kostryukov

Associate Professor at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, Lecturer at Perervinsky Theological Seminary

 

 

One of the achievements of Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) of Moscow [+1812] is rightly considered to be the establishment of Edinoverie [i.e., Old Rite parishes within the canonical Russian Church]. Accommodating the Old Believers who wished to unite with the Church, Metropolitan Platon disregarded differences in rites, which are not of fundamental importance for our salvation. There can be no doubt that Metropolitan Platon would also have approved of another project that emerged more than a hundred years after his repose. This project was Western (Gallican) Rite Orthodoxy. The principle underlying this movement was Orthodox dogmatic teaching combined with the preservation of the rites and traditions accepted in the West. At present, Western Rite Orthodoxy does not play a significant role, although in the 1920s–1960s this project appeared promising. It may be said that the establishment of this movement represented the fulfillment of Metropolitan Platon’s injunction—an injunction which, unfortunately, was never fully carried out.

The beginnings of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy date back to the 1930s, when Ludovic Joseph Marie Charles Winnaert (or, in abbreviated form, Louis Charles Winnaert) [1] decided to enter the Orthodox Church. He was born in 1880, was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, and was ordained a priest in 1905. In 1918, Winnaert joined the Old Catholic movement and entered into communion with the marginal “Liberal Catholic Church,” where he was consecrated a “bishop.” In 1922, Winnaert established his own “Evangelical Catholic Church” [2] and broke off relations with the “Liberal Catholic Church,” having discovered elements of Theosophy in its teachings. [3] At the age of fifty, Winnaert married, which led to a schism within his community. [4] By the mid-1930s, Winnaert had decided to convert to Orthodoxy. He categorically rejected the Roman innovations concerning the Filioque, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, and others. However, he did not wish to change the liturgical rite to which he was accustomed. The pastor attempted to place himself under the jurisdiction of the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe, headed by Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), but soon abandoned this idea because he found the conditions imposed upon him unacceptable. [5] Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) was more favorably disposed toward Winnaert. The confession of faith submitted by the head of the “Evangelical Catholic Church” was recognized as Orthodox. The question of rites, however, was more complicated: the Moscow Patriarchate feared that permitting Winnaert to use the Western Rite might lead to conflict with the other Local Churches.

Since the Orthodox Church did not recognize Old Catholic ordinations, Winnaert could not be received as a bishop. His marriage after ordination was also a problem. [6] Although Winnaert should have been deprived of his clerical rank, the authorities in Moscow reasoned that he had “entered into marriage outside the Church while wandering in the space between Churches.” It was decided to make an exception for Winnaert in accordance with Canon 3 of the Council in Trullo, under which those who had married after ordination before January 15, 691, and had violated the law through ignorance were permitted to retain their clerical ranks, on condition that they divorce and without any prospect of advancement to a higher rank of the priesthood. [7]

On June 16, 1936, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow issued Decree No. 1249, according to which Winnaert’s group was received under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as the Western Orthodox Church.

The following conditions were imposed upon it:

Winnaert was to be received in the rank of presbyter, but on the indispensable condition that his marriage be dissolved and without any prospect of elevation to the episcopate. Upon fulfilling this condition, Winnaert could remain administrator of his parishes under the authority of the hierarch of Western Europe.

Clergy and laity who had received valid confirmation were to be received through repentance, while those who had not were to be received through chrismation. Upon entering the clergy, Winnaert’s followers were to be received in their existing clerical ranks if they had been lawfully ordained in the Roman Catholic Church.

The community being received was required to adhere to Orthodox doctrine.

The community being reunited was required to include in its liturgical calendar all the saints venerated in the East, but, among Western saints, only those who had been glorified “before the separation of Rome from the Orthodox Church.”

Only leavened bread was to be used in the Liturgy. The invocation of the Holy Spirit and the consecration of the Gifts were to be placed not before, but after the Words of Institution (“Take, eat…”). The laity were to receive Communion under both kinds by means of the communion spoon. As a sign of canonical unity, the Liturgy was to be celebrated on an antimension consecrated and issued by the hierarch administering the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe, namely, Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky) of Lithuania and Vilnius.

The Sacrament of Baptism was to be performed by immersion. Pouring or sprinkling was to be permitted only in exceptional cases. In Chrismation, holy chrism received from the diocesan bishop was to be used. In the Sacrament of Holy Unction, it was to be made clear that this was not merely “Extreme Unction,” but was also for the healing of the soul and body of the sick person.

Winnaert and his group were to submit a petition to Metropolitan Eleutherius, who would receive the group himself or, if he was unable to come, entrust their reception to clergy who knew French.

The parishes being reunited that use the Western Rite are to bear the designation “Western Orthodoxy.”

At their ordination, clergy of the Western Church are to wear Western-style vestments. When serving in Eastern Orthodox churches, they may wear either Western or Eastern vestments. Likewise, Eastern Orthodox clergy, when celebrating services in Winnaert’s churches, may wear either Western or Eastern vestments. [8]

Venerable Silouan the Athonite responded to this event with great enthusiasm, sending Winnaert icons of the Mother of God and the Great Martyr Panteleimon that had been blessed upon holy relics. In his letter to V. N. Lossky, the Venerable Father spoke favorably of Metropolitan Sergius’s broad-mindedness in overcoming ritual differences. [9]

On December 1, 1936, Priest Mikhail Belsky received Winnaert into Orthodoxy in the rank of priest. [10] At the same time, an ecclesiastical divorce was granted, and at the end of January 1937 (according to other sources, on February 5), Winnaert, by then gravely ill and bedridden, was tonsured into monasticism with the name Irenaeus by Hieromonk Stefan (Svetozarov). Shortly thereafter, Father Irenaeus was elevated to the rank of archimandrite by Metropolitan Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky). [11] In February 1937, a group of clergy and laity under Winnaert’s authority was also received into Orthodoxy. [12] One month later, on March 17, 1937, Archimandrite Irenaeus reposed. [13]

Thus, the foundations of Western Rite Orthodoxy were laid. In addition to the principal parish of the Ascension, several smaller communities were established. Work was also undertaken to reconstruct the Western Orthodox Liturgy. Hieromonk Alexis (van der Mensbrugghe), who had likewise converted from Roman Catholicism, devoted considerable effort to this undertaking. In 1948, he published a book entitled The Orthodox Liturgy of the Western Rite: An Attempt at Restoration. The liturgy he reconstructed was based on the ancient Roman liturgy, incorporating elements of the ancient Gallican and Byzantine liturgies. [14]

The principal continuators of Archimandrite Irenaeus’s work after his death were Priest Evgraf Kovalevsky (later Bishop John) and Priest Lucian Chambault (later Archimandrite Dionysius). The first movement was centered around the Parish of St. Irenaeus and was dynamic and vibrant. [15] The second movement was centered at the Parish of the Ascension. Here, missionary work developed more slowly but promised to bear fruit in the future. However, neither movement produced any tangible results.

There were several reasons for the failure, the principal one being the activities of Priest E. Kovalevsky, who sacrificed both the letter and the spirit of Orthodoxy for the sake of immediate results.

Priest Evgraf Kovalevsky (1905–1970) graduated from the Faculty of Philology of the University of Paris and the St. Sergius Theological Institute. From his youth, Kovalevsky was captivated by the idea of bringing the Orthodox faith to the French. He insisted that ancient Gaul had received Christianity not from Rome, but from the East, and that it had been Christianized even before Rome. The direct evangelizers of Gaul were Eastern saints—the Apostles Trophimus and Dionysius the Areopagite, Righteous Lazarus the Four-Days-Dead, and Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons. As for the Gallican Liturgy, it was based not on the Roman Liturgy, but on the Syrian Liturgy. In the opinion of Priest E. Kovalevsky, the acceptance of Orthodoxy by the French constituted not conversion to another confession, but a return to their origins. [16]

Unfortunately, Father Evgraf’s erudition, gift of persuasion, and sincerity were combined with disagreeable character traits, chief among which was a tendency toward adventurism. This manifested itself, for example, in exaggerating the results of his activities and in bringing into the Church people who had no understanding whatsoever of Orthodoxy. “To give Evgraf the priesthood is the same as giving a revolver to a person with a mental disorder,” V. N. Lossky remarked concerning Father Evgraf Kovalevsky.

While preparing for the reunion of Winnaert’s group with the Orthodox Church, Kovalevsky deliberately misled Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky) and Eleutherius (Bogoyavlensky). In particular, Kovalevsky claimed that thousands of Roman Catholics wished to join the Orthodox Church, whereas in reality Winnaert’s group consisted of only 55 people. Permission to establish the Parish of St. Irenaeus was likewise obtained by inflating the figures: Father Evgraf included 25 people on the list of parishioners, although only four of them were Orthodox. [17]

The situation in Father Evgraf’s parish also gave cause for concern. Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault) subsequently wrote: “They have their own way of life, centered on the person of Father Evgraf (giving the impression of a sect rather than anything else) [...] In this environment there prevails an atmosphere that is not only far from genuinely Orthodox, but also unhealthy—some even say foul (the clergy, parishioners, and students address one another familiarly, without ceremony, smoke, dance, frequent cafés, etc.).” Far worse, however, were Father Evgraf’s liturgical innovations, for he did not so much celebrate the services as improvise them. This was aggravated by the absence of a fixed liturgical text. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky also permitted non-Orthodox Christians and even unbaptized Jews to receive Communion. [18] “Archpriest E. Kovalevsky,” wrote Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich), “is guilty of treating the Sacraments of Repentance, the Eucharist, Marriage, and Holy Orders with more than excessive freedom (denying the necessity of confession before Communion, encouraging non-Orthodox Christians to receive Communion and administering Communion to them, performing church marriages without observing ecclesiastical rules, assisting in the uncanonical ordination of candidates for the priesthood, personally performing the marriage ceremony of a Catholic priest and presenting him for reordination, and the like). For each of these offenses, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky is liable to the most severe ecclesiastical punishment.” On January 9, 1953, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate ordered that Archpriest E. Kovalevsky be relieved of his duties as a member of the Council attached to the Exarchate and granted leave from his duties as rector of the Church of St. Irenaeus. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky was permitted to celebrate divine services only with the authorization of the Chairman of the Exarchate Council. [19]

But Archpriest E. Kovalevsky outwitted the ecclesiastical authorities even in this. It emerged that he had been preparing to leave for several years and had secretly registered the “French Orthodox Church” with the state authorities as early as 1948. [20] At the same time, Father Evgraf had also managed to register the parish’s real estate in his own name.

Thus began Father Evgraf’s wandering from one jurisdiction to another. In 1954, he placed himself under the jurisdiction of the Western European Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but that same year he was suspended from serving by Metropolitan Vladimir (Tikhonitsky) for “disobedience to ecclesiastical authority.” [21] Shortly thereafter, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). He won over Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of Brussels and Western Europe to his ideas. Soon the Archbishop began petitioning for Father Evgraf’s consecration to the episcopate. However, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops received the proposal with less enthusiasm. The principal reasons were the celebration of evening Liturgies, as well as the adoption by the French parishes of the Gregorian calendar and the Roman Catholic Paschalion. Nevertheless, these parishes were received, although the Council of Bishops of 1959 imposed a number of conditions upon them. The “French Orthodox Group” was instructed to adopt the Orthodox Paschalion, while evening Liturgies were permitted only by way of exception. It was further stipulated that the priest must not have celebrated the Liturgy that morning and that, together with the lay communicants, he must abstain from food throughout that day. [22]

After Archbishop John (Maximovitch) was transferred to San Francisco, the Western Rite parishes in France and the Netherlands remained under his authority. [23] For several years, these parishes were a constant headache for the Russian Church Abroad. Archpriest E. Kovalevsky continued to administer Communion to non-Orthodox Christians. The French parishes likewise continued to celebrate services according to the new calendar and to use the Catholic Paschalion. It was only in June 1964 that the Council of Bishops acknowledged that these parishes had celebrated Pascha together with the Orthodox Church. However, this was regarded as an isolated occurrence.

On June 28, 1964, Archpriest E. Kovalevsky announced that he accepted all the conditions imposed upon him. [24] The Archpriest was tonsured into monasticism with the name John-Nectarius (in ROCOR documents he was referred to as John), and on November 11, 1964, he was consecrated in San Francisco as Bishop of Saint-Denis, Vicar of the Western European Diocese, with responsibility for the Western Rite parishes in France. The consecration was performed by Archbishop John (Maximovitch) and Bishop Theophil (Ionescu), who headed the Romanian parishes of ROCOR. [25]

After the death of St. John (Maximovitch) in 1966, the Western Rite parishes were to come under the jurisdiction of the Western European Diocese of ROCOR. The ruling hierarch of this diocese, Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich), having noticed irregularities in the life and practices of the French parishes, appealed to the Synod to investigate the situation. Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) was dispatched to France. [26] The hierarch immediately noticed that Bishop John (Kovalevsky)’s flock was not nearly as large as he had reported. It emerged that fasting before Communion was not obligatory in the French parishes, and that Bishop John had permitted a subdeacon to administer Communion to the laity outside the divine services, moreover, not in his own diocese but in the neighboring German Diocese. Some cases were even more outrageous. For example, among the clergy of the “French Church” was a non-Orthodox Christian who had been ordained without first being received into Orthodoxy. This same cleric, with the permission of Bishop John (Kovalevsky), was cohabiting with a woman without being married. On November 7, 1965, Bishop John permitted a Masonic memorial service to be held in his church. Finally, the leader of “French Orthodoxy” had become so absorbed in liturgical creativity that he began devising and introducing his own liturgical rites. [27] Anticipating inevitable canonical penalties, Bishop John (Kovalevsky) sent a telegram to the ROCOR Synod on October 20, 1966, declaring that he no longer recognized ROCOR as his supreme ecclesiastical authority. That same day, he was suspended from serving, but he attached no significance to the suspension. [28] Bishop John told his followers that the penalty was unlawful because it had been imposed upon him after his departure from ROCOR. On February 9, 1967, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad deprived Bishop John of his episcopal rank and reduced him to the status of a simple monk. [29]

The “French Church” became independent. After Kovalevsky’s death in January 1970, the 22 parishes under his authority attempted to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as an autonomous structure. The negotiations were unsuccessful. Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations, wrote that autonomy was out of the question, and that the Western Rite parishes could join the Russian Church by entering the Patriarchal Exarchate of Western Europe. [30] In 1972, the “French Church” came under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Church. Here, a new bishop, Germain (Bertrand-Hardy), was appointed for the Western Rite parishes. In 1993, these parishes broke away from the Romanian Church and dispersed among various ecclesiastical bodies, most of them marginal. After Kovalevsky’s departure from the Russian Church Abroad, a small group of Western Rite parishes nevertheless remained under its jurisdiction. But this group, too, did not last long. In 1986, the group, headed by Archimandrite Ambrose (Fontrier), entered the Old Calendarist schism. [31] [Blog Admin. note: this is a reference to the breakaway old calendarist group associated with the deposed Archbishop Auxentios Pastras.]

It may be said that the branch of Western Rite Orthodoxy associated with Father Evgraf (John) Kovalevsky came to nothing, and this was largely connected with the personality of the leader of this movement. But another branch remained, centered around Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault). Unfortunately, this movement also met with little success. Archimandrite Dionysius (1899–1965) himself had sincerely embraced Orthodoxy and was one of the few representatives of the Western Rite who truly understood Orthodoxy. Unlike Kovalevsky, Father Dionysius did not pursue outward success, was never involved in scandals, and remained under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate until the end of his life.

Although the Archimandrite used the Western Rite in divine services, he saw no future for it and considered its use permissible only as a temporary measure. Archimandrite Dionysius regarded another approach, which he called “Orthodoxy in the West,” as more promising. The pastor emphasized that it was not the rites that should be French, but the language of worship and preaching. The clergy should be Orthodox from birth (or, at least, thoroughly understand the essence and traditions of Orthodoxy) and have a perfect command of the French language. It was necessary to publish journals about Orthodoxy in French. Finally, Archimandrite Dionysius considered it beneficial to establish a special French Orthodox community with a Russian rector and two or three monks. The church of this community could serve as a model of Eastern liturgical life and would attract interest in Orthodoxy. [32]

The same approach was proposed by another Orthodox pastor serving in Europe, Priest Augustine Roberts. In 1956, he wrote to Patriarch Alexy that Westerners needed, above all, to have Orthodox teaching explained to them and to be given the opportunity to pray in their native language. It was this, rather than the reconstruction of liturgies, that would bring Europeans to Orthodoxy. [33] Unfortunately, neither Archimandrite Dionysius nor Priest A. Roberts was heeded.

Another reason for the failure of the Western Rite was the lack of support from Moscow. In 1956, Archimandrite Dionysius explicitly warned the Patriarchate that the cause of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy would disappear unless assistance was provided. The absence of support would mean that the priests would continue to live in poverty, while the publication of journals would remain nothing more than a dream. [34] However, the Moscow Patriarchate, held captive by the God-fighting authorities, was unable to help the Western Rite parishes. The Soviet state, for its part, had no interest in the development of Western Rite Orthodoxy. [35]

An important obstacle to missionary work in Europe was the division of Russian Orthodoxy in Europe into three jurisdictions—the Russian Exarchate of Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church Abroad, and the Moscow Patriarchate, the last of which was extremely unpopular. [36] Non-Orthodox Christians interested in Russian Orthodoxy turned primarily to the churches of the Exarchate of Constantinople and ROCOR—these jurisdictions had churches and bishops. For the Moscow Patriarchate, appointing a bishop to France in the postwar years was almost impossible. The clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate were regarded by Western European states as Soviet agents, and obtaining visas for them was made extremely difficult. [37]

Western Rite Orthodoxy had failed at that time. The reasons were both particular (Kovalevsky’s adventurism) and general (the lack of understanding of Orthodoxy among the inhabitants of Western Europe). At present, when Roman Catholicism is experiencing a crisis, the preaching of Orthodoxy in Europe may bear fruit. The main thing is not to repeat the mistakes made in the mid-twentieth century.

 

FOOTNOTES

1. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 2, Storage Unit 19, fol. 12.

2. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault).” Church and Time, 2006, no. 3 (36), pp. 118–120.

3. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 2, Storage Unit 19, fol. 14; State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99.

4. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 193.

5. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 1, Storage Unit 21, fols. 13–13v; State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fol. 99.

6. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 122.

7. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fols. 100–101.

8. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6343, Inventory 1, File 252-b, fols. 101–102. Cf. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 124.

9. Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library (OR RGB). Fond 919, Box 1, Storage Unit 21, fol. 13v.

10. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 192. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 125.

11. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 192. See also: Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 125.

12. Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1937, nos. 3–4, p. 25.

13. Voice of the Lithuanian Orthodox Diocese, 1937, nos. 3–4, p. 27.

14. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 135.

15. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 107–109.

16. Church Life, 1962, nos. 1–6, pp. 44–52.

17. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 195, 198.

18. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 209–210.

19. Extracts from a letter of Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) to Archimandrite Nikolai (Eremin), June 5, 1953 (copy); Directives of Patriarch Alexy Concerning the Case of Archpriest E. Kovalevsky (copy). Archives of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville (HTSA). “Ambrose (Konovalov)” Collection, Box 2, Folder 1.

20. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” p. 144.

21. Nivière, A. Orthodox Clergy, Theologians, and Church Figures of the Russian Emigration in Western and Central Europe, 1920–1995. Moscow–Paris, 2007, p. 262.

22. Church Life, 1959, nos. 11–12, p. 203.

23. Church Life, 1963, nos. 1–12, p. 18.

24. Church Life, 1964, nos. 1–6, pp. 12, 87.

25. Church Life, 1964, nos. 7–12, p. 48.

26. Church Life, 1966, nos. 7–12, pp. 84, 87.

27. Church Life, 1967, nos. 7–12, p. 4.

28. Church Life, 1966, nos. 7–12, pp. 87–88.

29. Church Life, 1967, nos. 1–12, pp. 3–6.

30. Chiflyanov, B., Archpriest. Letter to Patriarch Alexy I, August 8, 1971. Archives of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR). File “Russian Church Abroad,” Folder “1971,” fols. 34–35; Nikodim, Metropolitan. Letter to Archpriest B. Chiflyanov, October 20, 1971. DECR Archives. File “Russian Church Abroad,” Folder “1971,” fol. 33.

31. Slesarev, A. The Old Calendarist Schism in the History of the Orthodox Church (1924–2008). Moscow, 2009, pp. 227–230.

32. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fols. 212–217.

33. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 2, File 190, fol. 343.

34. Burega, V. “The Life and Ecclesiastical Activities of Archimandrite Dionysius (Chambault),” pp. 147–148.

35. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 843, fol. 62.

36. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF). Fond 6991, Inventory 1, File 981, fol. 214.

37. For further details, see: Kostryukov, A. The Russian Church Abroad, 1939–1964: Administrative Structure and Relations with the Church in the Homeland. Moscow, 2015, pp. 266–273.

 

Russian source: Платоновские чтения: сб. Материалов [Platon Readings: Collection of Papers], 2015, Issue 12, Perervinsky Theological Seminary, Moscow, 2016, pp. 20–28.

“Whatever is unlike cannot be in fellowship.” (Aesop)

“For he who receives a heretic becomes subject to the same charges as he.”

 

Adamantios Tsakiroglou, historian and philologist

 

 

Amid the general confusion that heresy has deliberately imposed, there are faithful who become indignant when those Bishops and priests are criticized who, in words, expose heresy and heretics, but in deeds remain in communion with them, thereby allowing them and their false teachings to become established and the faithful to be contaminated. Indeed, they accuse those who write against such clergymen, exposing their inconsistency and expecting from them the consistency demanded by their pastoral role, of being zealots without knowledge and dangerous to the Church, as though they themselves were responsible for the spread of false teachings and an alienated mindset, and as though the Holy Fathers of our Church had not spoken about how we should associate with those who are inconsistent and hypocritical.

Therefore, in order that I too may contribute, as far as I am able, to avoiding confusion and to confronting the heresy of Ecumenism with clarity, I thought it would be very useful for all of us to recognize that not only our Church, but even the pagans and sages of this world (secular wisdom), throughout the centuries and regardless of their origin or cultural background, emphasize the danger arising from communion with harmful people and advise us to avoid association with the wicked (editor’s note: heretics) and the evil influence (editor’s note: defilement) they exert.

Indeed, to make the agreement between these sayings, both Patristic and non-Patristic, clearer, I have placed the quotations side by side, so that each reader may draw his own conclusions.

“Evil associations corrupt good morals” (Menander) / “Do not be deceived: Evil associations corrupt good morals” (Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15:33).

“Those who sleep with dogs wake up with fleas” (Chinese proverb) / “Associations with the wicked are harmful. Just as in places that breed disease... the air deposits a hidden illness in those who dwell there, so association with the wicked (ecclesiastical communion) leaves great evils in souls” (St. John of Damascus, P.G. 96, 353D).

“Whatever is unlike cannot be in fellowship.” (Aesop) / “What communion does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15–16); “Let him who communes with one who is excluded from communion be himself excluded from communion” (Canon 2 of the Council of Antioch).

“It is disgraceful for a drunken man to be among sober men, and equally disgraceful for a sober man to remain among drunken men” (Theognis, Elegies, I, 627) / “For he who receives a heretic becomes subject to the same charges as he” (Letter of the Athonite Monks to Emperor Michael Palaiologos, Historical Essay by Monk Kallistos Vlastos, 1896 edition, pp. 97–107).

“If you want to soar like an eagle, avoid running around with turkeys” (Sam Ewing) / “For those for whom commemoration and communion are causes of perdition, cessation and separation become the foundation of salvation” (Joseph Bryennios).

“Like always draws near to like” (Plato, Symposium) / “We are in communion with those whom we commemorate, and we commemorate those with whom we are in communion” (Dositheos of Jerusalem).

“Always avoid the company of a wicked man” (Menander) / “We must also avoid communion with those whose mindset we reject” (Gennadios Scholarios, in The Struggles of the Monks, p. 303).

“Every person, to some extent, eventually becomes like the people with whom he associates” (Lord Chesterfield, English poet) / “What has chaff in common with wheat? What communion can a wolf have with a lamb? So it is with a sinner and a godly man. What communion can a pot have with a cauldron? It will strike against it and be shattered” (St. John of Damascus, Sacred Parallels).

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for some good people to do nothing” (Edmund Burke) / “Those who are in communion with heretics are also enemies of God” (St. John Chrysostom, P.G. 99, 1048).

“Better to be alone than in bad company” (Thomas Fuller) / “Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 3:6).

“If you sleep beside a cross-eyed man, you will squint in the morning” (Greek proverb) / “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).

“For many speak justly but act unjustly, whereas no one who acts justly can be unjust” (Xenophon) / “Those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox faith, but are in communion with those of different beliefs, if they do not separate from them after admonition, must not only be regarded as excluded from communion, but must not even be called brothers” (St. Mark of Ephesus, Confession, CFDS, Series A, vol. X, fasc. II, p. 133 [24–28]).

“Do not fear the enemy who attacks you, but the false friend who embraces you” (Saying) / “For Chrysostom declared, in a loud and powerful voice, that not only heretics, but also those who are in communion with them, are enemies of God!” (St. Theodore the Studite, P.G. 99, 1049A).

Therefore, after reading all this, I ask whether these secular thinkers, ancient and modern, were also zealots; whether these worldly men, pagans and otherwise, were also unjust and exerted unjust pressure; whether we must finally understand that, in order to combat the worst heresy in the history of the Church and to protect Her flock—each of us according to his abilities and his role—we need consistency and agreement between words and deeds, that is, the cessation of communion with those who, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, are shown and proven to be heretics; or whether we must finally understand that, by putting on a theatrical performance at the expense of the Faith, we cease to be unlike them and end up becoming like them and, in the words of the Lord, become “workers of iniquity.”

For “whatever is unlike cannot be in fellowship.” (Aesop)

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/10/blog-post_571.html

 

On the Love of Enemies: The Teaching of St. Silouan

By Dr. Jean-Claude Larchet

 

 

Although it is natural and usual to love those who love us and to do good to those who do good to us (Mt 5:46-47; Lk 6:32-33), to love our enemies is distasteful to our nature. One can say that it isn’t in our power but is an attitude that can only be the fruit of grace, given by the Holy Spirit. This is why St. Silouan the Athonite writes, "The soul that has not known the Holy Spirit does not understand how one can love one’s enemies, and does not accept it."

The Staretz repeatedly says that love of enemies is impossible without grace: "Lord, You have given the commandment to love enemies, but this is difficult for us sinners if Your grace is not with us"; "Without God’s grace we cannot love enemies"; "He who does not love his enemies, does not have God’s grace"; "He who has not learned to love from the Holy Spirit, will certainly not pray for his enemies." On the contrary, St. Silouan always teaches that this attitude is a gift of the Holy Spirit: "The Lord has commanded us to love our enemies, and the Holy Spirit reveals this love to us"; "One can only love one’s enemies through the grace of the Holy Spirit"; "When you will love your enemies, know that a great divine grace will be living in you."

This grace does not suddenly erupt in the soul, but rather shows itself in a divine pedagogy, where taking into account the weakness and the difficulties of man, the Holy Spirit progressively teaches him to love and teaches him all the attitudes and ways which will allow him to do so. "The Holy Spirit teaches us to love even our enemies"; "The Holy Spirit teaches the soul a profound love for man and compassion for the lost. The Lord had pity for those who were lost... The Holy Spirit teaches this same compassion for those who go to hell"; "I could not speak about it if the Holy Spirit had not taught me this love"; "The Lord taught me love of enemies... The Holy Spirit taught [me] to love."

The grace of the Holy Spirit shows to him who possesses it the way to love his enemies. But it also reveals to him the foundation of this love: the love of God for all people and His will to save them: "No man can know by himself what divine love is if the Holy Spirit does not instruct him; but in our Church divine love is known through the Holy Spirit, and that is why we speak about it." Grace also "gives man the capacity and the strength to love his enemies, and the Spirit of God gives us the strength to love them."

Staretz Silouan insists that because love of enemies is a fruit of grace, it is essentially through prayer that it can be obtained. Several times he urges us to "ask the Lord with our whole being to give us the strength to love all men." He also advises to pray to the Mother of God and the Saints: "If we are incapable [of loving our enemies] and if we are without love, let us turn with ardent prayers to the Lord, to His Most Pure Mother, and to all the Saints, and the Lord will help us with everything, He whose love for us knows no bounds." The Staretz confesses that he himself constantly prays God for this: "I continuously beg the Lord to give me the love of enemies... Day and night I ask the Lord for this love. The Lord gives me tears and I weep for the whole world." Wishing in his universal love for all men to receive such a gift, he links them to himself in his prayer: "Lord, teach us through Your Holy Spirit to love our enemies and to pray for them with tears... Lord, as you prayed for your enemies, so teach us also, through the Holy Spirit, to love our enemies."

Yet obtaining the grace to love one’s enemies presupposes other conditions.

The love of enemies is completely bound to the love of God: we have seen that the principal foundation for the love of enemies is the love that God shows to all His creatures equally and His will that all people should be saved, and Christ gave us a perfect example of such love throughout his earthly life. The love of God leads man to accomplish His will and to imitate Him as much as possible, and so also to love his enemies. The Staretz also notes that he who does not love his enemies shows that he has not learned from the Holy Spirit to love God.

To love one’s enemies is also tightly bound to humility. The Staretz often associate these two virtues. Almost all the difficulties we encounter in loving our enemies are linked with pride: it is from pride that flows the affliction that follows upon insults, hated, bad temper, spite, the desire for revenge, contempt for one’s neighbor, refusing to forgive him and to be reconciled with him.

Pride excludes the love of enemies and love of enemies excludes pride: "If we love our enemies, pride will have no place in our soul." The fact that humility goes hand in hand with love of enemies proves the presence of grace and the authenticity of love: "If you have compassion for all creatures and love your enemies, and if, at the same time, you judge yourself the worst of all people, this shows that the great grace of the Lord is in you."

Indeed humility is the indispensable condition to receive and keep the grace that teaches us to love our enemies and gives us the strength to do so. The Staretz advises: "Humiliate yourself, then grace will teach you." On the other hand, "pride makes us lose grace... The soul is then tormented by bad thoughts and does not understand that one must humiliate oneself and love one’s enemies, for without that one cannot please God."

The Staretz sometimes also stresses the role played by penitence in connection with humility. "Regard yourself the worst of men," he advises. This is an attitude of great humility that of its nature implies penitence. He who counts himself the worst of men necessarily thinks others better than himself; he will judge and blame himself, and not judge and criticize his enemies, for he tends to estimate them better than himself.

The Staretz also gives us the example of another penitential attitude -- asking God’s forgiveness each time one has not loved one’s enemy: "If I judge someone or look at him angrily, my tears dry up and I fall into despondency; and again I start asking the Lord to forgive me, and the merciful Lord forgives me, a sinner. "Through such an attitude, by which the soul humbly recognizes before God its faults and shortcomings and obtains from Him forgiveness, an opening can be made that becomes bigger and bigger for grace and unceasing progress in love. As to a total absence of compassion for enemies, it shows the presence and the action of an evil spirit; sincere repentance is the only way to be freed from it."

The insistence on prayer, humility and penitence shows that, although St. Silouan recognizes a determining role to the action of grace in acquiring love of enemies, he does not neglect the role played by the efforts that man makes. The Staretz is very conscious of the importance of the initial action; this is why he says, "I beg you, try," and states, "In the beginning, force your heart to love your enemies." The efforts one makes must manifest themselves in a general way in a straight intention and constant good will, stretched toward the realization of God’s command. God will not fail to respond.

For the person who feels discouraged by such a demanding task, St. Silouan reassures him: "Seeing your good intention, the Lord will help you in everything." The Staretz who felt in himself so acutely human powerlessness and weakness seems to think constantly of these words of the Apostle: "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength" (Phil 4:13) and witnesses in his own experience the mighty help that everyone can receive from God.

For Christ there are no enemies

The Staretz would say that for Christ there are no enemies -- there are those who accept "the words of eternal life," there are those who reject and even crucify; but for the Creator of every living thing, there can be no enemy. So it should be for the Christian, too, who "in pity for all must strive for the salvation of all."

Wherein, then, lies the force of the commandment, "Love your enemies"? Why did the Lord say that those who keep His commandments would know from very experience whence the doctrine?

... God is love, in superabundance embracing all creatures. By allowing man to actually know this love the Holy Spirit reveals to him the path of fullness of being. To say "enemy" implies rejection. By such rejection a man falls from the plenitude of God... "The whole paradise of Saints lives by the Holy Spirit, and from the Holy Spirit nothing in creation is hid," writes the Staretz. "God is love and in the Saints the Holy Spirit is love. Dwelling in the Holy Spirit, the saints behold love and embrace it, too, in their love."

... [It] is possible to judge whether a given state of contemplation was a reality or an illusion only after the soul had returned to consciousness of the world; for then, as the Staretz pointed out, if there were no love for enemies and so for all creatures, it would be a true indication that the supposed contemplation had not been a real communion with God.

-- The Monk of Mount Athos (London: Mowbrays, 1973) by Archimandrite Sophrony; pp 70-71.

 

Jean-Claude Larchet is professor of philosophy and a specialist in Patristics living in France. This is a section of a longer essay published in Buisson Ardent by the Association Saint-Silouane l’Athonite in the society’s journal (Maxime Egger, secretary, Le Sel de la Terre, 79 avenue C-F Ramuz, CH-1009 Pully, Switzerland). The translation was made by Mother Lydia of the Orthodox Cloister of St. John the Forerunner in The Hague.

 

Source: In Communion, Issue 8, Pascha 1997.

Online: https://orthochristian.com/7173.html