Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis: When Did Ecumenism First Appear in the Theological Schools?

 

It must be said that the development of ecumenism in the theological schools is marked by two phases. The first phase was when ecumenism was projected, by many of the professors of the theological schools as well as many of the bishops, as an opportunity to bear witness concerning the truth of the Orthodox Faith. This is how it was presented.

In other words, the dialogues with the heterodox would provide us an opportunity to set forth the Orthodox position and bear witness to Orthodoxy. This is what ecumenism was in the beginning and this is how it functioned, and thus many great Orthodox theologians such as Fr. Georges Florovsky and Fr. John Romanides participated in the dialogues and conferences at that time.

However, they participated anticipating that when positions were taken or texts were produced that were not Orthodox, we would set forth the Orthodox position. We would say that we believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that if all are to be united it will only occur through the 'return' of all the heterodox to the Orthodox Church. One might call this healthy ecumenism.

So up to 1961 when I was a student at the Theological School, I was a student there from 1961 to 1965. I received my degree in 1965 and a healthy ecumenism prevailed. The Orthodox representatives at the World Council of Churches even submitted a statement in 1961: "We do not agree with what you say, we believe that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Sadly, things changed after this within the famous ecumenical movement. As things progressed the result was the establishment of Chairs of the ecumenical movement within the theological schools at the behest of the ecumenical organizations, and at the advice and order of Patriarch Athenagoras.

In other words, they instituted a class on the ecumenical movement. Classes were taught about the ecumenical movement. They taught about ecumenism. Previously, there was no such thing. The establishment of chairs marks a new phase.

In Athens, this did not exist, but here in Thessaloniki there was a 'Chair of Dogma and the Ecumenical Movement', held initially by Professor Ioannis Kalogyrou, we ought to hold him in high regard and to say that in comparison with contemporary ecumenist professors, Professor Ioannis Kalogyrou, who taught the ecumenical movement… I had him as a professor, I know about his life, and we were closely linked very up to the end of his life… he was completely different than today's ecumenist professors. He followed the ecumenical movement and taught what was going on, but at the same time expressed himself in a completely Orthodox manner.

All of Professor Ioannis Kalogyrou's publications which speak of ecumenism are entirely Orthodox and they are critical of the strange gestures… the recognition of the ecclesiality and the baptism of the heterodox.

After this phase of what we might call healthy ecumenism, more recent generations of theologians, particularly that group of professors connected with a professor of the Theological School (AUTh) named Professor Sava Agouridis… most of the professors who are very ecumenical today are connected with Professor Sava Agouridis. From that point, then, there was created a seedbed of ecumenism in the theological schools, and this seedbed of ecumenism has now taken over the Theological School (AUTh), particularly the Department of Theology, but to a lesser extent the Department of Pastoral Theology.

This seedbed of ecumenism of Professor Agouridis has grown and spread out, and it appears that one of Professor Agouridis' well-known students, Prof. Petros Vasiliades, is one of the leaders of this movement and one of the pillars of ecumenism, together with other professors in the Department of Theology whose names we will not mention.

Certainly, we were all surprised by the apex of this ecumenical activity manifested in two recent displays. These two displays are, on the one hand, the abolition of religion classes of a confessional character in schools… Imagine! Older professors would have lost their minds if they heard what was happening. We prepared Orthodox theologians to teach classes on Orthodox theology in middle and high schools.

Now the professors of the Theological School come along and say, 'No, we shouldn't teach Orthodox catechism, Orthodoxy, to the children. We should be teaching Religious Studies, we should teach them about religions, about Mohammad.' The professors of the Theological School, led by those professors cultivated within Agouridis' seedbed, have fostered ecumenism within the theological schools and ecumenism is now running rampant.

The second great display associated with this apexing of ecumenism in the theological schools is the recent decision that the Department of Theology has made, to found a Centre or Department of Islamic Studies within the Theological School.

So, the period when I was a student, 1961-1965, ecumenism was yet walking a healthy path, a path of bearing witness to the Orthodox Faith. Fr. Florovsky, Fr. John Romanides, and other Orthodox theologians… From that time onward, however, this 'bearing witness' began to be abandoned, and instead of preaching Orthodoxy, we are being influenced by the World Council of Churches.

Most of the theological views being expressed now by the ecumenist professors within the Theological School are Protestant of Protestant-leaning. Instead of bearing witness concerning the Orthodox Faith, we are now betraying the Orthodox Faith.

Sadly, if one bears in mind that the theologians who teach in our high schools, the bishops, and so on, come out of the theological schools, you will understand from this perspective, why ecumenism is gaining strength. I have written many times that we are captive… that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a captive of ecumenism.

The theological schools are in the same situation - the theological school in Athens is in no better shape. There we find a great number of professors who toe the line of ecumenism.

Are the Ecumenists Ecumenical Because They Are Serving Other Interests, or Because They Want to Be?

Here I think we must distinguish two groups of ecumenists. One group are those ecumenists who are consciously ecumenists and are members of bodies where decisions are made; they are connected with the World Council of Churches either by employment or by academic ties, and participate in all these activities.

And certainly - let us say it here… this has been proven - the World Council of Churches is a body directed by the Masons. All ecumenism is under the direction of the Masons. Many professors are Masons, are members of the World Council of Churches, of Zionist, New-World-Order-oriented bodies. Not all, but many are leading figures of these overarching bodies where decisions are made. And by their presence these lead other professors down the wrong path.

But why do these become ecumenists? Do they become ecumenists out of conviction, or for other reasons?

I think that most of them are ill-informed about what they are getting into, and they are deceived by the vision of 'the oneness of all' which is often projected. Who is not for unity? All of us are in favor of unity! And the saints were in favor of unity. Saint Mark of Ephesus was in favor of unity. Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios was in favor of unity; St. Gregory Palamas… Can anyone possibly be opposed to unity since the Lord himself said, "that all might be one”? And since we pray at service, "…for the union of all." Everyone is in favor of unity!

The projection of this quest - that there be love between all, that we should love everyone, that we should all be united so as to provide a united witness to the world since we are fractured - this deceived and influenced us as students, just as it deceives students now.

What young person would not embrace a message of love? Why should we not love the Protestants? Why shouldn't we love the Monophysites? Why shouldn't we love the Papists? Why shouldn't we be united? If we were united then the enemies of Christianity would be stripped of their power.

Here we have to make an absolutely clear distinction:

Love and unity cannot exist apart from truth, because without truth we are left with false-love and false-unity. Love is not something external. Something we show like a sort of 'savoir-vivre'. I love the papist because I treat him well; I am nice to him. This is not love. Love must aim at helping others, not only materially, we show love by means of material help, but we must also show love by offering spiritual help.

We must spiritually help the heterodox, the heretics, showing them that they are in delusion, only then we are loving our brothers. When we do not show them that they are in heresy and delusion, when we leave them in falsity, we are not loving them.

Is it possible to love someone and lie to them? To say, "You are fine there where you are, in your church. You will be saved." You don't love him; you deceive him. The Saints operated by showing the heretic and heterodox that they were in delusion.

All the saints told the heretics the truth. Sometimes they punished them and anathematized them - how many times have we heard the anathemas? They did this to shake the heretics up, so that they might return [to the Church], but also to help keep the Orthodox faithful from falling into delusion.

Many of these professors - those who are not members of the bodies we have spoken of, but who have been deceived by the spirit of unity and love, have not studied the texts of the Fathers of our Church in depth. Each focuses on his own academic specialty, but he does not deepen his knowledge or read. He is not bothered by these matters, and he is deceived.

There is another very important reason for all this, however, and that is if you are on side with the ecumenists and with ecumenism, it will help your academic career. Also you will get to participate in conferences; you will get to go on trips, they will invite you to dialogues and meetings.

During the period before I began speaking openly against ecumenism, I was first in line to participate in such trips and the like. But once I began to struggle against ecumenism, all doors were closed to me. This does not bother me, nor does it bother me when they criticize me, I will tell you my view on this, which is a great consolation to me.

The Holy Scriptures say that it is not good for you to be praised, "… For if I yet pleased men", says the Apostle Paul, "I should not be a servant of Christ". If men like me, if they praise me, I would not be a servant of Christ. All of the saints - the Apostles and others - were not popular; they were persecuted and they suffered.

The road is open before those who are on the side of ecumenism. They get academic positions; they get promotions; they participate in conferences, etc. One of the reasons it is beneficial for them, one of the things that motivated them to support ecumenism and to travel in ecumenist circles is this. And another secondary reason, which applies particularly to professors at the lower levels - lecturers, assistant professors - is that these need the tenured ecumenists. They hesitate to express their views because the big ecumenist professors will stop their advancement in its tracks. I understand their position from a human perspective, but I do not justify it.

I will use my own case as an example. When I was an assistant professor, during the period that they say I was an ecumenist - I did not hesitate to express my views and at one point I was in danger of being fired. Some of the ecumenist professors of the older generation… from that time they wanted to remove me from the Theological School because they did not like what I was saying or the stances I took.

Even at that time I was speaking my mind, whatever the cost. Because otherwise I cannot speak into the hearts of the younger professors and make them brave, or tell them that they should give this no regard. "God will help you. Don't put your trust in men when it comes to your advancement." It is for these reasons, then, that many professors serve ecumenism.

To sum up my answer to this question, then, the first reason is that a small group of professors belong to the ecumenist bodies such as the World Council of Churches, Masonry, and Zionism.

The second group, are those who want to be in the good books of the ecumenist professors so that they can advance in their careers, go to conferences, live the 'good life', and make a name for themselves, because anti-ecumenists are on the fringes. They persecute us, they slander us and they defame us...

In my case they went so far as to call me crazy. When I was - in their view - within their ecumenist environment, I was not crazy… when I was in the ecumenist environment, they sent me to conferences; they made me director and founder of the Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, I was even the Patriarch's speechwriter. When I served them, they did not slander me, but when I disassociated myself from them, they went to the Synod saying: "Don't listen to Fr. Theodoros, he is crazy!' This in addition to the accusation that I was once an ecumenist.

There is also a third group of lower-level professors who hesitate to express their opposition because they are afraid that the higher-level professors will end their careers.

 

Source (typos corrected):

https://www.orthodoxethos.com/post/when-did-ecumenism-first-appear-in-the-theological-schools

* * *

ADDENDUM

“I received my degree in 1965 and a healthy ecumenism prevailed.”

 

To those who disagree with this assessment of Fr. Theodore, it is in accord with two other traditional witnesses to the times: St. Philaret the New Confessor (+1985) and Fr. George P. Macris (ROCOR and HOCNA clergyman, +1992).

See the 1969 First “Sorrowful Epistle” of Metropolitan Philaret to Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople:

When the first steps were taken in the organization of the Ecumenical Movement, many of the Orthodox Churches, following the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, began to participate in its conferences. At the time such participation did not cause any worry even among the most zealous Orthodox. They thought that the Church would suffer no injury if her representatives appeared among various truth-seeking Protestants with the aim of presenting Orthodoxy in the face of their various errors. Such a participation in inter-faith conferences could be thought of as having a missionary character.

This position was still maintained to a certain extent, though not always consistently, at the Evanston Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1954. There the Orthodox delegates openly stated that the decisions of the Assembly diverged so sharply from our teaching on the Church that they were unable in any way to join with the others in accepting them. Instead, they expressed the doctrine of the Orthodox Church in separate statements.

Also see the work, The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement During the Period 1920-1969, by Fr. George Macris, published in 1986 by Saint Nectarios Press, page 17:

A review of the formative period of the Ecumenical Movement revealed that the Orthodox remained steadfast in their convictions, positively declaring that they alone had preserved in full and intact “the faith once delivered to the saints.” Their insistence that unity could only be accomplished by a return of the separated brethren to the Una Sancta – the Orthodox Church – proved discouraging to the Protestant membership of the World Council of Churches who looked to gain at least a degree of mutual recognition as members of the Church of Christ.

On the Significance of Councils

Blessed Averky of Holy Trinity Monastery and Syracuse

 

 

(Taken from Volume 2 of Современность в свете Слова Божия, compiled by A. D. Kaplin, published by the Institute of Russian Civilization, Moscow, 2012.)

 

On Sunday, October 8/21 of this year, 1962, if God wills and if we live to see that day, the regular Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is to open in New York.

What significance do Councils of Bishops have?

According to the canons, or ecclesiastical rules, which have universally binding significance and force for all members of the Church, the highest authority in each given region or Local Church belongs to the Council of Bishops of that region or Local Church.

And the highest authority in the entire Universal Church belongs to an Ecumenical Council, that is, a Council of the Bishops of the whole world.

In each individual Diocese, the local Diocesan Bishop possesses the fullness of canonical authority, that is, the authority provided for by the canons. But questions that exceed local significance and have significance for the Church as a whole, as well as questions not clearly provided for by the canons and giving rise to disputes and contentions, no Bishop—not even one who stands at the head of an entire region or Local Church—has the right to decide on his own, without consultation and deliberation with the other Bishops of that region or Local Church.

Councils of Bishops are convened for the resolution of such questions as have important significance for the Church as a whole.

According to the canons, such Councils of Bishops: 1) properly order the affairs of their region or Local Church; 2) deliberate concerning the dogmas of piety; 3) resolve ecclesiastical disputes and doubtful cases; 4) examine complaints against Bishops; 5) decide disputes between Bishops concerning parishes; 6) correct the decisions of lesser councils; 7) elect and consecrate new Bishops; and 8) judge Bishops.

In the first centuries of Christianity, Councils of Bishops, as required by the 37th Canon of the Holy Apostles, the 5th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, and the 19th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, were convened twice a year, in the spring and in the autumn. Subsequently, however, because of various practical difficulties, it was decreed that such Councils of Bishops should be convened once a year, as stated in the 8th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the 6th Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The decisions of such regional or Local Councils of Bishops are recognized as canonical and have binding force for all the faithful of that region or Local Church, provided that they are in complete agreement with the teaching of the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church, and do not contradict the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. A lesser Council, as is self-evident, has no authority to repeal or fundamentally alter the decisions of a greater Council.

According to Orthodox teaching, infallibility belongs only to the entire Church as a whole, and is understood in the sense that, according to Christ’s immutable promise (Matt. 16:18), the entire Church as a whole can never fall into error or depart from the Truth.

Councils of Bishops, as we have already said, are needed only for the resolution of matters concerning the Church as a whole, for in each individual Diocese the ruling Bishop possesses the fullness of hierarchical authority inherited by him, through the Mystery of the Priesthood, in succession from the Holy Apostles themselves, for which reason he is also regarded as an “apostolic successor.” All the ecclesiastical affairs of his Diocese are subject to the Bishop’s hierarchical authority—not only purely spiritual matters, but also material and administrative ones. However, according to the clear teaching of the Word of God and the interpretation of the great Fathers of the Church, the character and nature of this authority differ very substantially from ordinary worldly authority—the authority of secular superiors and rulers.

The moral foundation of the Bishop’s hierarchical authority lies not in external coercion, but in his lofty personal spiritual authority, as the Holy Apostle Peter teaches persuasively in his First Catholic Epistle: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly and according to God; neither for filthy lucre, but readily; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2–3). The canons resolutely condemn “the smoky arrogance of the world” (see the Epistle of the Council of Africa to Celestine, Pope of Rome), and the great Fathers of the Church, such as Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Gregory the Theologian, severely censure in Bishops the desire to resemble secular rulers in all things.

The episcopal ministry is the greatest ministry in the world, its purpose being the salvation of souls unto eternal life. According to the remarkable definition of the Holy Apostle Paul, it is “the work of the ministry”—“for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13).

From this, the special nature and particular character of episcopal authority become self-evident. So lofty a goal as the salvation of souls unto eternal life cannot be attained by any external coercive measures, any administrative methods, or even the most brilliant organization; while a formalistic and bureaucratic approach to this work can only harm it and even cause irreparable damage.

The salvation of souls is a realm of purely spiritual activity, and therefore it is precisely spiritual activity and a personal, inspiring example (“pattern,” in the words of our Church Slavonic text) that the Word of God places at the very foundation of the episcopal ministry (see 1 Pet. 5:3 and 1 Tim. 4:12).

But where questions arise that exceed the competence of a single Bishop, where a Bishop needs the counsel and spiritual support of his brother Bishops, there arises the need—so that the same great task, the salvation of the souls of the faithful, may be accomplished more successfully—for the convocation of an entire Council of Bishops. The canons attach extraordinarily great importance to a Council of Bishops, even subjecting to canonical penance those Bishops who, without a sufficiently valid reason, decline to participate in the Council (see the 8th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the 6th Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).

The entire Local Church as a whole is governed by the Council of Bishops; therefore, no Bishop may be arbitrarily excluded from participation in the Council, and no Bishop has the right to neglect participation in it. All matters concerning the Church as a whole must be decided with the knowledge and consent of all the Bishops; all the Bishops must be fully informed of all matters that are the subject of the Council’s deliberations; and those among them who have been unable to attend the Council for some valid reason must express their consent to the Council’s decisions by means of written letters.

Under the conditions of our life as refugees, taking into account that the faithful, parishes, and dioceses of our Russian Church Abroad are scattered throughout all five parts of the world—truly “from the end even unto the end of the world”—the literal fulfillment of the canonical requirement that a Council of all the Bishops be convened annually is entirely impracticable. But in this difficulty, the 106th Canon of the Council of Carthage comes precisely to our aid, allowing a certain measure of condescension with regard to this requirement and stating “that there need not be a general plenary Council except when necessity requires,” and that “it is not necessary henceforth to burden the brethren every year, but only when a common necessity requires it.”

It is upon this canonical foundation that the custom became established in our Russian Church Abroad—more recently, since the transfer of our spiritual center to the United States—of convening a general Council of all the Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad once every three years.

During the period between Councils, matters concerning the Church as a whole are administered by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which constitutes, as it were, a lesser Council of Bishops elected for this purpose by the regular general Council. The Synod of Bishops is merely the executive organ of the general Council of Bishops, and its task is to put into effect all conciliar decisions; to oversee their proper canonical implementation; to decide all urgent matters concerning the Church as a whole that arise and admit of no delay, only with the knowledge and consent of all the other Bishops, obtained by consulting them; and to prepare materials for the forthcoming regular Council of Bishops.

Such conciliar governance is the fundamental principle of our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which follows the example of the Holy Apostles themselves, who, in order to resolve important questions concerning the Church as a whole, assembled at a council in Jerusalem in A.D. 51.

The basis for such conciliar governance of the Church is the 34th Canon of the Holy Apostles, which reads literally as follows:

“The Bishops of every NATION must know the first among them and acknowledge him as their head, and do nothing exceeding their authority without his judgment; but each is to do only what concerns his own diocese and the places belonging to it. But neither is the first to do anything without the judgment of all. For thus there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Here, in this Apostolic Canon, which has such important and foundational significance, the expression “the Bishops of every nation” deserves particular attention—precisely “nation,” and not some definite territory strictly delineated by state borders.

This expression clearly emphasizes the ethnic, or, as it is now commonly called among us, national—and by no means territorial—principle of a Local Church, which must spiritually and canonically unite precisely a nation, and not a territory.

It is therefore on this basis—which is naturally suggested both by ordinary common sense and by the most elementary human justice—that our Russian Church Abroad spiritually and canonically unites our entire Orthodox Russian people, “being in exile and dispersion,” because of invasions and persecutions that are no longer “barbarian,” as they were in antiquity, at the time when the canons were composed, but far more terrible and grievous—“godless” and “theomachist.”

Only the malice of the enemies of our Russian Church Abroad, viewing everything through the eyes of prejudice, can pretend not to understand this and deny our Church the very right to exist.

This malice, however, is far from accidental.

The very deep causes of this malice lie in the fact that our Russian Church Abroad is at present the only Orthodox Church that still remains free from the pressure of dark anti-Christian forces and has not yet submitted to enslavement by them.

And that the other Local Orthodox Churches are no longer free was demonstrated quite clearly, before the eyes of the whole world, by the Rhodes Conference alone, from whose agenda the item concerning the struggle against atheism—the chief evil of modern life—was very tellingly deleted.

Some Local Orthodox Churches, as we know, have long been completely enslaved by the “militant atheists” and serve as instruments of their theomachist and misanthropic policy throughout the world. Others, while apparently enjoying visible freedom, maintain close friendship and cooperation with the former and, at the same time, have voluntarily joined a “movement” that quite unambiguously sets itself the task of abolishing all the world’s existing religions (including, of course, Orthodoxy!) and creating one new religion common to all—an “ecumenical” religion.

Until quite recently, this actual betrayal of Holy Orthodoxy was concealed under the plausible pretext of an alleged desire to bear witness to Holy Orthodoxy before the heterodox. Now “the mask has been cast off,” and we continually read public statements by the hierarchs of these Churches, outspoken to the point of utter cynicism, declaring that some entirely new epoch is approaching, “when the boundaries between religions and nations will be erased and peace will come upon the earth” (an interview of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras with the press in Istanbul on November 4, 1959); that “we stand upon the threshold of Christian evolution”; and that “we live in a new age, and the past must be cast aside” (his words published in The Living Church on May 15, 1960).

While we firmly believe that our Holy Orthodox Church has preserved the fullness of the Truth by virtue of Christ’s immutable words: “I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18), and that there has never been, nor can there be, any “division of the Churches,” but only apostasies from the One Church of Christ, resulting from departure from the Truth preserved by the Church, contemporary Orthodox hierarchs who have joined the “Ecumenical movement” assert that the Church of Christ “has become divided” (see the 1960 Paschal Epistle of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople), and that the sole cause of this “division” is not the steadfastness of some in the Truth and the falling away of others from that Truth, but “human vanity alone” (the words of Archbishop Iakovos, head of the Greek Church in America, spoken on television from Manchester on March 11, 1961), and that therefore the Orthodox Church, in his own words, must “cease proclaiming its ‘universal teaching.’”

This is how far contemporary Orthodox Ecumenists have gone!

Are not such words, so appalling to a sound Orthodox consciousness, already a departure from Orthodoxy?

But such, in general, is the entire ideology of this so-called “Ecumenical movement,” which, under the pretext of an imaginary “Christian love,” seeks to abolish all presently existing confessions and religions, including, it goes without saying, Holy Orthodoxy itself. As an indication of this, at the most recent Ecumenical conference, held not long ago in New Delhi, all proselytism—that is, conversion to one’s own faith, and consequently conversion to Orthodoxy as well—was branded “anti-Christian.” All the Orthodox delegates, representing almost all the Local Orthodox Churches, agreed to this, thereby renouncing their Orthodoxy.

Against the background of the gloomy picture described above, the wholly exceptional significance of our Russian Church Abroad and the immense responsibility resting upon it and its hierarchs stand out with particular clarity.

We cherish the freedom of our Church above all else, but not at all because we “have no love,” as the “Ecumenists” have so lightly grown accustomed to accusing us—those who are altogether too abounding in love toward the enemies of the pure and uncorrupted Truth of Christ, and sometimes even toward the manifest enemies of our Holy Faith (but only not toward us—their brethren by blood and faith!)—but precisely because we possess love for the Truth: because we firmly believe (without doubting it in the least, as the “Ecumenists” evidently do) that our Church, the Holy Orthodox Church, is, as the Word of God teaches, “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); and because, according to the commandment of the Holy Apostle, we desire to “walk in this Truth” (2 John 4), and do not wish, following the warning of the great Father of the Church, Saint Gregory the Theologian, “to become betrayers of the doctrine of the Faith and of the Truth,” “partaking of the evil leaven and joining ourselves to those infected”—the apostates from the Truth (see The Works of Saint Gregory, Part 1, p. 192).

In the light of all these recent events in world ecclesiastical life, which have occurred over the past three years, the forthcoming autumn Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad acquires particularly important significance. In view of all that has been said above, there now naturally rests upon it a great and highly responsible duty—to utter courageously and fearlessly its strong and weighty word in defense of the Truth that is being reviled and humiliated.

And in order that this word of ours may be truly authoritative and effective, all of us, the faithful sons and servants of the Russian Church Abroad, must first of all preserve complete unanimity and oneness of mind among ourselves, “doing nothing,” according to the commandment of the Holy Apostle, “through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:2–3), seeking not our “own things,” but being zealous solely for the triumph of the Truth.

If we are all deeply imbued with such an awareness, then in our holy struggle for the Truth, the Divine Founder of the Church Himself will be with us and will fight on our behalf.

And if God be for us, who can be against us? (Rom. 8:31).

 

Russian source online:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Averkij_Taushev/sovremennost-v-svete-slova-bozhija-slova-i-rechi/2_20

Which Sins Are Mortal and Which Are Venial (a.k.a., sins “unto death” and sins “not unto death” [1 John 5:16–17])

Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop of the Caucasus and the Black Sea

 

 

Every mortal sin committed by an Orthodox Christian, if it is not healed by proper repentance, becomes the cause of his eternal condemnation. Mortal sins for a Christian are heresy, schism, blasphemy, apostasy, despair, suicide, adultery, every carnal sin against nature, incest, drunkenness, sacrilege, murder, robbery, and every grave, cruel, and inhuman injustice. Of these, only one—suicide—cannot be healed by repentance.

All of them, however, slay the soul, rendering it incapable of inheriting eternal blessedness until it is cleansed through sincere repentance. Even if a man falls into a mortal sin only once, he dies spiritually. “For whosoever shall keep the whole divine law, and yet transgress in one point, is accounted a transgressor of the whole law. For He Who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ said also, ‘Do not kill.’ If, then, thou commit no adultery, but kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law” (Jas. 2:10–11).

Let him who has sinned mortally not despair. Let him have recourse to the healing remedy of repentance. To this the Saviour calls him until the final moment of his life, proclaiming through the Holy Gospel: “He that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (John 11:26).

It is a great calamity for a man to remain in mortal sin; it is a great calamity for mortal sin to become a habit! There are no good works that could deliver a soul from Hades if, before being separated from the body, it is not cleansed of every mortal sin.

When is a sin venial? When, for example, someone is slightly carried away by gluttony and eats more than is necessary; when he is slightly carried away by sensuality and casts a fleeting glance at someone with an impure desire or admits an indecent fantasy; when he carelessly utters some unprofitable word; when he tells a small lie, steals something of little value, boasts, or becomes angry for a moment; when he becomes embittered or harbors resentment against his neighbor for a short time.

For all these things, a man will easily be forgiven by the compassionate God, provided that his fall, which is due to human weakness, is followed by awareness and repentance. Venial sin does not deprive the Christian of Divine Grace; it does not slay his soul, as mortal sin does. Nevertheless, venial sin is also harmful to the soul when we do not repent of it but, on the contrary, repeat it, continually making its yoke heavier.

The Holy Fathers say that a man drowns whether he has a heavy stone or a sack of sand tied around his neck. This means that we may be dragged down into the abyss of Hades either by a single mortal sin or by the multitude of accumulated venial sins. What exceedingly evil thing did the rich man in the Gospel parable do by enjoying his wealth (Luke 16:19–31)? The cause of his destruction, as presented by the Gospel, was nothing other than his life filled with diversions, which led him to the complete forgetfulness of virtue and eternity. Diversion became a passion for him, preventing him from perceiving what true life is.

“We must watch over our soul,” counsels Saint Macarius the Great (Discourse on the Freedom of the Mind, 4), “and prevent it from communing with profane and evil thoughts. For just as the body, when united with another body, is defiled and becomes unclean, so also the soul is corrupted when it unites itself with evil and impure thoughts, and especially when it assents to them. And this happens not only with impure thoughts, but also with other evil thoughts, such as, for example, thoughts of unbelief, deceit, vainglory, anger, envy, and contentiousness. We are called to reject all these thoughts by the apostolic exhortation: ‘Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit’ (2 Cor. 7:1).”

 

Source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_295.html

 

 

St. Anatoly the Younger of Optina: On Heresy in the Last Times and the Courageous Confession of the Faith

 

My child, know that in the last days difficult and perilous times will come, as the Apostle says. And behold, because of the lack of piety, heresies and schisms will arise in the Churches. As the Holy Fathers foretold, at that time there will be no men tried and experienced in the spiritual life upon the episcopal thrones and in the monasteries.

For this reason, heresies will spread everywhere and will lead many astray. The enemy of the human race will act deceitfully in order to draw into heresy, if possible, even the elect. He will not immediately and openly reject the dogmas of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Theotokos, but will begin imperceptibly to distort the teaching of the Church, which the Holy Fathers handed down to us through the Holy Spirit. Very few will understand the wiles and stratagems of the enemy—only those who are the most experienced in the spiritual life.

The Ascendancy of Heretics and Their Characteristics

The heretics will seize authority in the Church, appoint their own people everywhere, and piety will be neglected. But the Lord will not leave His servants unprotected. He said: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” Therefore, you must strive to distinguish the true shepherds from the false by their works—that is, by the conduct of the heretics.

These spiritual thieves who plunder the rational flock “enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but climb up some other way,” as the Lord said. That is, they will intrude unlawfully, forcibly trampling upon the divine canons. Therefore, the Lord calls them robbers (John 10:1).

Indeed, their first concern will be to drive out the true shepherds and imprison them, for without this they cannot plunder the flock. Therefore, my son, when you see the sacred office, the Patristic Tradition, and the order established by God being treated with contempt in the Church, know that the heretics have already appeared. Perhaps for a time they will conceal their false faith or quietly distort the divine Faith, so that they may better accomplish their purpose by deceiving simple and inexperienced people.

The Persecution of the Faithful and the Attitude of Monks

They will persecute not only the shepherds, but also all the servants of God, because the devil who directs the heresy cannot endure true piety. You will recognize these wolves in sheep’s clothing by their pride, their lust for authority, and their love of pleasures. They will be slanderers and traitors, sowing hatred and malice everywhere—and for this reason the Lord said that we shall know them by their fruits. By contrast, the true servants of God are humble, love their brethren, and are obedient to the Church.

The monks will be subjected to great pressure from the heretics, and the monastic life will be brought into disrepute. The monasteries will decline, the number of monks will diminish, and those who remain will suffer violence. Those who hate the monastic life, while possessing only an outward show of piety, will try to draw the monks over to their side, promising protection and material goods, while threatening with exile those who do not submit.

These threats will cause great despondency. If you are accounted worthy to live at that time, my son, rejoice! For then the faithful, even if they possess no other virtues, will receive crowns of glory solely because they remained steadfast in the true Faith, according to the word of the Lord: “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).

The Snare of Possessions and the Loss of Grace

Fear the Lord, my son! Do not lose the crown prepared for you and be cast by Christ into the darkness of eternal hell. Stand courageously in the Faith and, if necessary, joyfully endure persecutions and afflictions, for the Lord will be with you... and the holy Martyrs and Confessors will behold your struggle with joy.

But woe in those days to the monks who are attached to possessions and wealth and who, out of love for comfort, will be willing to submit to the heretics. They will lull their consciences to sleep, saying: “We shall save the monastery, and God will forgive us.”

The wretched and blind do not even consider that, through heresy and the heretics, the demons will enter the monastery. Then it will no longer be a holy monastery, but merely bare walls, from which the Grace of God will have departed forever.

Hope and the Final Exhortation

But God is mightier than the devil and will never forsake His servants. There will be true Christians until the end of the world, but they will choose isolated and desert places. Do not fear hardships and afflictions, but fear destructive heresy, for it drives away Divine Grace and separates you from Christ. Therefore, Christ commanded us to regard the heretic as a heathen and a publican.

Therefore, my son, be strengthened by the grace of Jesus Christ. Joyfully enter into the struggle of confession and the patient endurance of afflictions, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 2:1–3), Who said: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

To Him, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, belong honor, glory, and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_656.html

 

MP Commentator on the OCA's autocephaly: “Epilogue,” or Psinka, Padlo, Svolota, and Nehuy do a number on America...

Alexey Rodionov | July 23, 2026

[The conclusion of the author’s Russian work entitled: “Unholy Autocephaly, or How the Independence of the OCA Began,” links below]

 

 

About fifteen years ago, I was greatly surprised when I read that Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) was highly skeptical of the very idea of autocephaly for the North American Metropolia (the present-day OCA). Thus, on the occasion of the repose of Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky), he wrote:

“If the Russian Orthodox Church in America, even after the repose of Metropolitan Theophilus, continues along the path of the Cleveland Council of 1946, it will inevitably face complete separation from Russian Orthodoxy, the abandonment of the sacred rules and customs of the Russian Orthodox Church, and apostasy from Holy Orthodoxy itself and from the Body of Christ, through which alone we can escape eternal condemnation and save our souls.”

(In Memory of Metropolitan Theophilus // Vitaly [Maximenko], Archbishop. The Motives of My Life. Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1955, pp. 118–123.)

At that time, I was convinced that Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) had been mistaken and that the OCA, despite all its problems, had by no means departed from the teaching of the Orthodox Church. But the more I observe what is happening, the more convinced I become that, although Archbishop Vitaly may perhaps have spoken too heatedly, his skepticism was by no means groundless... To this day, people like to blame the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, and ROCOR in general, for everything, portraying its leadership as chiefly responsible for all the misfortunes of the Russian emigration. Yet a careful study of the events of a century ago, an account of which I posted here today, makes it possible to understand that this was by no means the case.

Links in Russian:

Part 1: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/465835.html

Part 2: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466109.html

Part 3: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466274.html

Part 4: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/466483.html

Moreover, at that time, among all the parties to the conflict, it was precisely the ROCOR Synod that conducted itself most properly in this conflict. Although, of course, it too could not avoid making mistakes.

However, that is still not the main point. The question is whether the rupture with Metropolitan Evlogius could have been avoided. It could have been, but this would have required enormous effort, unquestionable diplomatic talent, perseverance, and, of course, tact. And ROCOR did have such a man—Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky), the future First Hierarch of ROCOR. He understood both theology and the human soul, and his patience was exceptional. But no one in Sremski Karlovci expected everything to unfold so rapidly and to become irreversible so quickly. He did not move to Sremski Karlovci until 1934. Nevertheless, I repeat, reconciliation was still achievable. By contrast, reaching an agreement with Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) was impossible from the outset. Indeed, how can one reach an agreement with someone whose life is devoid of any principles whatsoever? Moreover, the flock and clergy in North America differed greatly from those in Europe.

For the most part, it then consisted of Carpatho-Russians, Galicians, and Bukovinian Slavs who had come over from the Unia. Neither they nor their descendants had ever lived in the Russian Empire. They had always lived under a foreign yoke and had been treated as second- or even third-class people. Neither in Poland nor in Austria (and Austria-Hungary) did anyone take them seriously or attempt to educate or cultivate them. And as soon as the opportunity arose, they emigrated en masse to the United States, where life at that time was likewise often difficult, but where there was no such humiliation and there was an opportunity to make a career. Naturally, little held them to the Unia, into which they had been driven by force. And as soon as, in America itself, the local Roman Catholic bishop, John Ireland, began to oppress them, many immediately converted to Orthodoxy—or, more precisely, joined the North American Diocese of the Russian Church, where they were very warmly received.

But it would be a mistake to think that they immediately, or even after a couple of years, became ardent champions of the Orthodox Faith. There were some who did, but they did not constitute the majority. Moreover, in order to be a zealot of Orthodox teaching—and from 1923 to 1936 there was not a single Orthodox seminary in the United States, even one of the most mediocre kind. Alexander Dvorkin writes ironically in his book My America about what Galician-Carpathian faith often amounted to:

“In the Carpatho-Russian parishes, which had formed the backbone of the OCA since the old days, many strange customs had survived. Some of them were rooted in the Unia, which they had left at the end of the nineteenth century; others (such as having a flag in the church) had been acquired later; and still others arose from the peculiarities of the older, prewar generation of clergy, who in the 1960s and 1970s were gradually replaced by younger, better-educated priests.

Incidentally, many distinguished Carpatho-Russian archpriests bore surnames that sounded rather strange, to put it mildly: Father Michael Psinka, Father Paul Padlo, Father Tom Svolota, and even a certain Father John Nehuy. The last surname was pronounced in a very dignified manner: Nehue.

And now for the story itself. After graduating from the academy, one newly ordained young priest was assigned to an old Carpatho-Russian parish that had recently lost its extremely elderly and deeply revered rector, who had served there for no less than half a century. After some time, a delegation from this parish came to Father Paul [Lazor], asking him to take the new rector back and give them someone else in his place.

‘Why does he not suit you?’ Father Paul asked in surprise. ‘The priest is sincere, educated, and zealous.’

‘No, he is unbelievably lazy,’ the parishioners replied. ‘We do not want anyone so lazy!’

‘???’

‘On Holy Saturday, our old rector would begin driving around to the parishioners’ homes early in the morning to bless the Paschal foods. The parish is large, and so, in order to finish in time, he would arrive at the first homes at six in the morning. Their food was not yet ready, so he would sprinkle the empty oven with holy water, and he would not finish these visits until late in the evening. Now there was a hard worker! But your new priest does not go around.’

‘Then what does he do?’ Father Paul asked.

‘He spends all his time in church! He serves some kind of service,’ the parishioners replied irritably.”

(Dvorkin, A. L. My America: An Autobiographical Novel in Two Books, with a Prologue and Two Epilogues. 2nd corrected ed. Nizhny Novgorod: Christian Library Publishing House, 2013, pp. 501–502.)

I cannot refrain from recalling the words of an active, well-known, and educated cleric of the North American Metropolia, Archpriest Leonid Turkevich, a native of the city of Kremenets in Volhynia Governorate (now in Ternopil Oblast), which he published in 1926 in the pages of the American Orthodox Messenger. He asserted that Russian ideas, as it turns out, obscure ecclesiastical consciousness, and that the role of the Russian people in building the Universal Church must be brought to an end, since it supposedly impedes the Church’s “universality.” After being widowed, Archpriest Leonid Turkevich embraced monasticism and the episcopate and is now known as Leonty, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. I realize that the authorities of the Russian Empire sought to make their priests useful to society and the state rather than universally minded. But, forgive me, Galician émigrés are hardly the ones to teach us universality!

In this light, it becomes clear how important the mission of Fathers Georges Florovsky, Alexander Meyendorff, and John Meyendorff was. Without them, it would not have been possible to train an entire generation of priests who thought in a new way. And without such priests, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko’s) sorrowful prediction would almost certainly have come true. And yet one fundamental problem remained. The approach of Schmemann and Meyendorff, aimed at bringing everyday life into the Church and improving it without confronting it, “works” only on one condition: that society itself in the United States and Canada is not plunging into the abyss. But it most certainly is! And it is not merely plunging—it is accelerating its descent ever more rapidly. Thus, when one attempts to “church” something that is becoming increasingly horrible, the final result will invariably become increasingly horrible as well.

And one more point must be addressed. When the First Hierarch of a certain Local Church pursues a particular policy for many years, then even if, after his death, another Primate comes with different aims and approaches, what his predecessor accomplished does not disappear; it merely becomes less visible. And at any moment it is capable of “resurrecting.”

As I have already quoted:

“Close ties with the Episcopal Church, from which Metropolitan Platon received material assistance, pushed his structure onto the path of liberal and often ignorant reforms. <...> Within Metropolitan Platon’s jurisdiction, there were cases of ordination for money, the ordination of men who had been married twice, and also of Jews without any verification as to whether they had been baptized. <...> There were cases of unofficial concelebration and even joint Communion between representatives of the ‘Platonite’ clergy and the clergy of the Episcopal Church.”

(Kostryukov, A. A. The Russian Church Abroad in 1925–1938: Jurisdictional Conflicts and Relations with the Moscow Church Authorities. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2011, p. 273.)

Thus, a mere change of generations neither erases the sin that was committed nor safeguards against its repetition. Only a genuine recognition of the sin committed can save—and repentance for it. But, of course, repentance before God, not before any activists, whether in cassocks or out of them.

Therefore, the persistent and numerous appeals of the former ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate, calling upon it to repent, were not empty words. On the contrary, they were extremely important. The only problem was that ROCOR itself was not accustomed to repenting either. The negotiations of the 2000s, meanwhile, essentially amounted to obscuring the mutual guilt of both sides in order to avoid responsibility for it. Likewise, the OCA needed autocephaly precisely so that it would no longer have to answer to anyone for what had been done.

But if the OCA was, and remains, so intent on distancing itself from the Russian Church, then what is it striving toward?

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/467448.html

 

 

A ROCOR Discussion on Ecumenism (1971)

A translation of the Minutes of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on September 3/16, 1971.

 

 

VIII. Protopresbyter George Grabbe reads his report on Ecumenism (Appendix 27).

Archbishop Vitaly reads aloud a letter from Athanasius Zacharides concerning certain aspects of church life connected with Ecumenism.

Archbishop Nikon believes that, in view of the contents of Protopresbyter George Grabbe’s report, a special resolution should be drawn up, and asks him what he would propose.

Protopresbyter George Grabbe replies that the Metropolitan should be asked to write to all the Primates of the Churches and to all Orthodox Hierarchs a second Sorrowful Epistle, pointing out the danger of Ecumenism.

Archbishop Averky believes that the time has come to declare Ecumenism a dangerous heresy that undermines the foundations of the Church.

The Chairman [Metropolitan Philaret] remarks that the speaker says the same thing.

Bishop Savva expresses doubt as to whether it would be beneficial to press the issue too sharply. Would we not thereby give the Eastern Churches grounds to place us under suspension?

It would be better to develop this question further, in order to present it to a future Council.

Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco says that he understands the zeal for God’s truth in this matter, but heresies were ordinarily dealt with by Councils specially convened for that purpose. Our Council, however, has assembled to address many matters, while this question stands among the other items on the agenda.

Protopresbyter George Grabbe replies that, in the history of the Church, the condemnation of a heresy was not immediately carried out by a great Council, but initially proceeded from the Council of some one particular Church.

Archbishop Nikon proposes the text of a resolution.

The Chairman remarks that we have already spoken about Ecumenism before. Archbishop Vitaly delivered an excellent report on the subject at the previous Council. Our new statement must now be still more resolute and forceful.

Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago proposes referring this question to the All-Diaspora Council.

The Chairman objects that an All-Diaspora Council with the participation of laypeople cannot examine dogmatic questions.

Archbishop Averky agrees with the Chairman. We have been speaking about Ecumenism for many years, and the faithful are awaiting a firm word from us. We have spoken definitively concerning the Moscow Patriarchate, but the sin of Ecumenism is even greater.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva agrees that an epistle must be issued, but that it should speak not of entire Churches as promoting Ecumenism, but of individual persons.

Archbishop Philotheus agrees that an epistle against Ecumenism is necessary, but that it must emphasize that the Moscow Patriarchate is following this path because it is not free. Our Russian Church Abroad is free and must defend the truth.

Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles believes that, if it is clear to us that Ecumenism is a heresy, then we must declare this openly. We may, of course, thereby damage our relations with some; in certain respects, this may be painful, but it must not deter us. The truth is more important than personal relations.

Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago objects that our relations with the Jerusalem Patriarchate are now improving somewhat, yet it sends representatives to ecumenical conferences. The Serbian Church does the same. The Serbs say that they participate in them for the sake of self-defense. In Germany, we make use of Catholic churches. In Cincinnati, we rent an Episcopal church. If we declare Ecumenism a heresy, then we must break off ordinary relations with heretics.

Archbishop Averky particularly welcomes the statement of Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, for decisive declarations are expected from us precisely now, when we are commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Church Abroad.

Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco agrees that we must bear witness to the truth, but it is more important for us to point out the errors of the unfree Church in the USSR. Then our role will be more modest.

Archbishop Averky, replying to Archbishop Seraphim, observes that the use of a church building does not in itself constitute Ecumenism.

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva believes that we must judge Ecumenism, and not individual Churches.

Archbishop Vitaly agrees with Archbishop Anthony.

Archbishop Philotheus believes that it is Ecumenism itself that is a heresy, and not attendance at some gathering of ecumenists while defending the Orthodox faith there.

Bishop Savva believes that we should not hurry to dot the i’s. Epistles have been written previously. The material must be worked out. It would be better to adopt this at an All-Diaspora Council. Although the people do not decide such questions, this would be more authoritative, for it would rest upon the support of the Church’s people. We have many other difficult questions.

The Chairman observes that, in that case, if we have troubles in Argentina or Australia, we should not concern ourselves with an important dogmatic question.

Archbishop Averky is likewise surprised at such a framing of the question. What is taking place in Argentina or Australia is insignificant in comparison with Ecumenism. It undermines the very foundations of the Church.

Archbishop Vitaly agrees with Archbishop Averky. Ecumenism is indifference toward Christ’s truth and destroys the boundaries of the Church.

Archbishop Averky believes that, in the way he has framed the question, Bishop Savva probably has in mind the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, which states that among us the guardian of the truth is the entire people. But this would apply to us if we were preaching falsehood; when we are refuting heresy, however, the people have no authority.

The Council adopts the following resolution: Having heard the detailed report of Protopresbyter George Grabbe on Ecumenism, and recognizing Ecumenism as a heresy against the dogma of the Church, the Council of Bishops requests that the Chairman of the Council address the Orthodox world with a New Sorrowful Epistle, warning it against this heresy.

 

Chairman of the Council:

+Metropolitan Philaret

 

Council Members:

+ Archbishop Nikon,

+ Archbishop Seraphim,

+ Archbishop Philotheus,

+ Archbishop Vitaly,

+ Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Averky,

 + Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Anthony,

+ Archbishop Seraphim,

+ Bishop Sava,

+ Bishop Constantine,

+ Bishop Theodosius.

 

Secretaries of the Council:

+ Bishop Paul

+ Bishop Laurus

 

 

Russian Source: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201971%20Prot.htm

The Matthewite Response to the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism: An Example of Old Calendarist Sectarianism

 

On April 1, 1985 (Old Style), Thursday of the week following Thomas Sunday, the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy was convened for its second regular session under the presidency of His Beatitude Archbishop Andreas. Present were Their Eminences Metropolitans Gregory of Messenia, Matthew of Attica and Megaris, Nicholas of Piraeus and the Islands, Lazarus of Vresthena, Pachomius of Argolis, Theodosius of Phthiotis, and Titus of Servia and Kozani; the Chief Secretary, Hieromonk Kirykos; and the secretaries, Fr. Chrysostomos and Fr. Paul. Among other matters, it also took up the following subjects:

[…]

2) Russian Synod of the White Russians Outside of Russia.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following what had been presented a year earlier as a decision of this Russian Synod concerning the anathematization of Ecumenism.

A year ago, following the “anathematization of Ecumenism” by the Russian Synod, the Holy Synod sent, through the priest in America, Fr. Anthony Gavalas, the following letter, to which no reply whatsoever was given either by Fr. Anthony or by the Synod presided over by Metropolitan Philaret:

 

TO:
The Very Reverend Fr. Anthony Gavalas

Very Reverend Fr. Anthony, greetings in the Lord.

We inform you that your letter of October 25, 1983 (Old Style), together with the enclosed text of the anathema against Ecumenism, was brought before the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy (January 13-14, 1984), which, having studied it, judged that the decision in question of the Russian Synod does not constitute a Confession of Faith, since it contains no formulation whatsoever of an Orthodox Ecclesiological Confession regarding New Calendarism, precisely on account of which the spiritual communion of the Church of the G.O.C. with the Russian Synod was severed in 1976.

Likewise, the Holy Synod considers it imperative that the Russian Synod take into consideration our document No. 1158 of February 20, 1976, and especially its concluding paragraph, which reads as follows: “Any further relations with you shall depend upon your future position and upon any possible revision of your Creed regarding the Calendar question, concerning which we shall also pray to the Lord” (K.G.O., February 1976).

Beyond these matters, reasonable questions and perplexities arise concerning the decision in question.

a) What reasons moved the Russian Synod to adopt such a decision against Ecumenism, when in the past it considered itself incompetent to pronounce judgment upon New Calendarism, which is assuredly Ecumenism in theory and in practice?

b) Following the anathematization of Ecumenism, what is the position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism and, more generally, toward the new calendarist or old calendarist “Churches,” which participate in the ecumenical heresy through spiritual communion and New Calendarism?

c) Why is the decision against Ecumenism set forth apart from the relevant Encyclical and does not bear the signatures of the Synod?

d) What consistency does the Russian Synod show with regard to this decision of its own, or what consequences might this decision have for the Synod itself and the other members of the Russian Church?

e) Why did the Russian Synod send absolutely no official document to the Holy Synod of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, nor announce this decision of its own through any official publication (but completely ignored it), although the latter, from the beginning, had in practice repudiated both New Calendarism and Ecumenism and, precisely for this reason—that is, because of the incorrect ecclesiological position of the Russian Synod toward New Calendarism—severed spiritual communion with it (the Russian Synod) in 1976, and has since then, for approximately ten years, awaited its “revision of its Creed concerning the Calendar question”?

The Holy Synod particularly emphasizes that since 1976 it has awaited your Synod’s examination of the cause of the severance of ecclesiastical communion. Now again, on the occasion of the anathematization of Ecumenism, although it has received no official information whatsoever concerning this from your Synod, it desires and prays that, even today, a direct meeting through synodal representatives may take place for discussion of all the matters, both old and new.

Until that day, you too are personally requested to direct all your efforts toward this end. In this regard, Metropolitan Philaret is also requested to prohibit all interference by third parties in the ecclesiastical affairs of the [Matthewite] Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, as well as any possible establishment of parishes or dependencies in Greece.

We ask you duly to inform Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod under him.

May the Lord bless every further action, that it may be to the glory of His Holy Name and for our salvation.

By order of the Holy Synod
The Chief Secretary
† Hieromonk Kirykos Kontogiannis

Unfortunately, the Russians maintained complete silence regarding the above letter. At the same time, although a more conservative course was expected from the Synod in question, it was unfortunately observed that it continued its common course with the Ecumenists.

Thus, the following points were noted concerning the Russian Synod:

a) Members of it prayed jointly not merely with New Calendarist Ecumenists, but also with the heterodox in England, during the official ceremony for the reception of the bones of Edward, King of England, whom they had recently proclaimed a Saint.

b) It accepts, in accordance with an Encyclical of Metropolitan Philaret, that the Filioque does not constitute an impediment to accepting someone as a Saint.

c) It accepts the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches as Orthodox and canonical Churches.

d) It accepts that the “anathematization” has a local character (expediency?) and is not valid for the other New Calendarist Churches.

e) It accepts the validity of the Mysteries of the schismatic Moscow Patriarchate (which is burdened not only by its common course with the New Calendarist-Ecumenist Churches and by its imparting of the Mysteries to the Papists, but also by the schism of 1927 through the subjection of the Church to the atheistic regime, which Patriarch Tikhon had already condemned by anathema).

f) It refers the question of New Calendarism–Ecumenism yet again to a future Ecumenical Council.

g) It maintains within its fold communities that follow the New Papal Calendar; and

h) It receives into its fold, without Baptism, heterodox persons who have not even received the form of Orthodox Baptism.

i) The performance of Baptism by pouring and sprinkling by Russian clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

This matter occupied the attention of the Hierarchy following reliable information received from a priest who had recently arrived from Russia and who stated to the Holy Synod that Baptism is not performed according to the Orthodox form, that is, by immersions and emersions, but by pouring water upon the head of the person being baptized or by sprinkling.

The Holy Synod judged the matter to be extremely serious, especially in conjunction with the fact that the same practice is also observed in many New Calendarist Churches abroad, where Baptism is not performed by canonical immersions and emersions.

This matter was also examined in conjunction with an earlier decision of the Holy Synod, according to which “Baptism” performed by pouring or sprinkling ought to be repeated. Owing to the seriousness of the matter, it was decided that the subject should be taken up again at a subsequent session of the Hierarchy.

[…]

 

Greek source: Κήρυξ Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων [Herald of the Genuine Orthodox], Vol. 30, No. 88, April 1985, pp. 99-101.