Monday, August 3, 2026

"I have grown disgusted with such freedom..."


 

I have grown disgusted with such freedom. If anyone had told us that this was the freedom we were going to taste, we would have begged God to leave us under the Turks for that many more years, until men had learned what fatherland means, what religion means, what honor, virtue, and integrity mean. These things are lacking in all of us. May God have mercy and save us from the great precipice toward which we are rushing to be dashed to pieces.

Fatherland, fatherland, how unfortunate you have been in the men chosen to govern you! God alone—He alone, the true and just ruler—governs you and preserves you still!

- General Yannis Makriyannis (+1864), Απομνημονεύματα [Memoirs], Book B', Chapter 12.

Four Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian (Part 3)

Epistle 3. By the same author, to one of his disciples, on how one may recognize a holy man, how to find him, what to do to this end, and how, having found him, one ought to relate to him

 

 

We conceived you through teaching, labored to bring you forth through repentance, and gave birth to you through much patience, sufferings, great labors, and daily tears — though you knew nothing of what we endured, and no wonder: for children in the womb feel nothing at all of their mother’s pangs and pains in childbirth, and after birth so naturally and eagerly seize the mother’s breast, are nourished by the milk that flows from her, and, being fed, grow little by little and come to recognize the mother who bore them, honor her and love her deeply; and even if she strikes and disciplines them, they run to her all the more eagerly, never supposing that she hates them from the soul or is turned away from them, but understanding that whatever she does, she does for their upbringing. In just the same way, being taught by others, children come to recognize their own father, to honor him and obey him — not only by natural instinct, but by the laws laid down by the man-loving God. Thus parents show what is proper to them toward their children, and children, showing obedience and submission to their parents, grow up, being brought up “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). But if parents through negligence hold back from diligent instruction and upbringing of their children, then “their blood will be required at their hand” (cf. Ezek. 3:18,20; 33:6,8). And if children, in shamelessness and disobedience, despise their parents and exalt themselves over them, and will not bear obedience to, and the carrying out of, what their parents say and command — though they will not be put to a temporal death according to the old Law (cf. Exod. 21:15), yet they will be handed over to eternal fire and darkness. This “all God-breathed Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) plainly proclaims, unless we choose to become willfully deaf, and, hearing it, act as though we did not hear.

For this reason I did not wish to say anything at all, nor did I desire to write to those in such a state — especially hearing the words of our Lord and God to His disciples: “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also” (John 15:20), and again: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” (Matt. 10:25). But also when He sent them to us, saying, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20), He adds the words: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). For this reason I have desired to write to your love what the grace of the Holy Spirit puts into my mind, and to remind you of what is profitable to you — or rather, as a father full of love, seized with love for you, and unable to bear seeing how you conduct yourself, my son in the Lord. Overcome by love for you, I was compelled to come to this, wishing to write nothing new or foreign, but only what you read every day, and what the divine Scriptures charge us to keep.

Yet perhaps you will say: “If you must say what we already know, and what the divine Scriptures teach us, then these are quite sufficient for us — why do you wish to write and teach the same things all over again?” But hear the reason — or rather, the reasons and the circumstance — on account of which I have been moved to this, driven not by myself, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Know, then, that I do this, first, so that I not be condemned as the wicked servant who hid his master’s talent, and so that I not hear, when on the day of judgment the Master demands an account of me: “Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou oughtest to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury” (cf. Matt. 25:26-27). Second, wishing, as a father to his lawful and beloved son, to leave you this as a gift and an inheritance, so that you would consider it received not from other ancestors, grandfathers, or great-grandfathers, but as having passed from them first to us by succession — so that you would count their inheritance as ours, and receive and take it up as a father’s legacy, and hold toward us, as a well-disposed son, a greater and firmer love. Third, to show you, my true son, the riches given to me by the great father who begot me in the Holy Spirit through repentance, so that you not, out of ignorance, despise me, your father, as some wretched and rejected beggar, nor exalt yourself over me, thinking that you will inherit and receive nothing great from me. Fourth (and this is the most important), so that, through rejecting me, you not be reckoned as one who has rejected and despised Christ (cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Thess. 4:8), and be found guilty at that dread Judgment. Fifth, so that others also, hearing this now or hereafter, and receiving — if they wish — the word like a seed into their hearts, might “bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, some a hundred” (cf. Mark 4:20); for if not, we shall be innocent of the blood of their souls — they themselves will see to it (cf. Matt. 27:4,24). For just as it is with material things, so also with spiritual: each of us, having an inheritance from our forebears, leaves to some an inheritance, and to others gifts and bequests — to servants, children, and friends — and we also distribute goods to the needy, fulfilling, so far as we are able, the commandment of God; and each one who has received will give an account of how he made use of it. So too all who have received a spiritual gift from God must “impart” it “freely” (cf. Wisd. 7:13), first of all to their spiritual sons, and then to friends and fellow-servants, both rich and poor. And if they have received “the word of wisdom” or “the word of knowledge,” or have been entrusted with “gifts of healing,” the power of “helps,” or the understanding of “governments” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:8-9,28) — every one who speaks or listens knows that he will receive no praise or reward for what he does, but will be tried, condemned, and punished for what he neglects or in what he disobeys.

Therefore do not accept the devil, approaching and telling you that I write this out of a desire to please men outwardly. You know well that one who acts thus not only “hath his reward” already (cf. Matt. 6:2,5,16), but as a seller and trader of Christ will bear punishment there “where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12, etc.). And at the same time, those who condemn such men will themselves be condemned together with them, for you hear the Lord saying: “Judge not, that ye be not judged: for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (cf. Matt. 7:1-2 / Luke 6:37).

Keeping this in mind, brother, and remembering the apostles, who speak thus: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (cf. Heb. 13:17), and remembering our Lord and God, who cries out daily: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me” (Matt. 10:40 / Luke 10:16) — “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12) by obeying me, and do not think to say within yourself that this was said only to the apostles, and that we ought to listen only to them. Hear what the Savior again says to them: “What I say unto you I say unto all” (cf. Mark 13:37). To whom, “all”? “To those who, through your word, shall believe on me” (cf. John 17:20), “and keep my commandments, as you also have kept them” (cf. John 15:10; 17:6). Attend, I beg you. Our Master and God chose His apostles and disciples, entrusted to them and revealed to them all the mysteries of His dispensation, hidden from ages and from generations, and, having given them the Holy Spirit, sent them, saying: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). So the apostles went out and began to teach, proclaiming the word of God, and great multitudes believed in Christ, and churches of the faithful arose in cities and villages. So then, when each of the apostles intended to leave them and go on from there to other places, villages, and cities, they ordained bishops and presbyters in their own stead, and left them teachers, spiritual fathers, and abbots; and these, in turn, before their death chose others, ordaining men worthy of such a ministry and leaving them in their place. Thus, having come down to us by succession, this order and this ordinance are kept and preserved by the working of the Holy Spirit. In the same way, through them the traditions and teachings of the apostles have come down to us — teachings which they themselves received in turn from our Master and God of all things. And when the flocks of Christ multiplied and His people became innumerable, the grace of the Holy Spirit so arranged matters that, alongside the bishops and priests, monks were also added — men showing forth in deeds a firm faith in Christ, our true God, and who had acquired within themselves the grace of the Holy Spirit, co-shepherding and cooperating toward the salvation of those to be saved.

Now tell me: if someone should dare to disregard or despise even one of all those whom the Holy Spirit has set over us (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:28) — I mean the abbots, pastors, bishops, and teachers who bring and deliver to us, as a paternal inheritance, the teachings and traditions of the holy apostles — or should refuse to receive him into his house (cf. 2 John 1:10), or should scorn and reject his words and not receive him with all reverence — would he not thereby have driven out Paul himself, Peter, and indeed the whole choir of the apostles? And he who has driven them out — has he not rejected our very Lord and God, and His Father? For we honor the apostles not merely as men, but because they went forth preaching the Son of God, who came down to earth for the salvation of our race, and because they were sent by Him to make us sons of God, “heirs” of “eternal life” (cf. Titus 3:7), and, through the Gospels and holy Baptism, partakers of unspeakable blessings. For if the Master had not given them this to pass on to all, they themselves could in no way have given it to others, and would have been just like all other men.

For this reason we have great need of much diligence, much watchfulness, much prayer, that we not fall upon some deceiver, imposter, false brother, and false christ, but meet a true teacher, one who loves God and bears Christ within himself, who knows with precision the preaching of the apostles, their rules and ordinances, the dogmas of the fathers, or rather, the will and mysteries of the very Master and Teacher of the apostles. One must seek out and find such a teacher — one who has first heard this teaching and been instructed in word, and then, in deed and in experience, has been truly and mystically guided by the Comforter Himself, the Spirit, so that he himself has been counted worthy to hear from the very Guide of the apostles: “My mystery is for me and for mine”, and: “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11). For, seeking, we shall surely find (cf. Matt. 7:8), since “God is not unrighteous” (Heb. 6:10) and “hath no pleasure in the destruction of the living” (Wisd. 1:13); but, as it is written, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (cf. John 3:16). If He gave up His own Son to death, that we might be saved through Him, will He then, when we ask that a true and holy servant of His be sent to us — or rather, be recognized and acknowledged by us — one who will guide us on the way of salvation and teach us His will, hide such a man from us and deprive us of a guide? Certainly not. And we ought to believe this because of the case of the centurion Cornelius.

This man was “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house,” and, since he “gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway,” there appeared to him, “about the ninth hour of the day,” an angel of God, “evidently in a vision,” who came in to him and said: “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side” (cf. Acts 10:2-6). Do you see how rightly I said that we need much watchfulness and much diligence to find a true disciple of Christ? Look at what Scripture says: “Cornelius, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house” (cf. Acts 10:1-2). For he made not only himself but all his household fear God — and “this is good and acceptable” before God (cf. 1 Tim. 2:3), when someone seeks not his own profit only, but that of all who are with him. He fulfilled the apostolic precepts even before he was taught by the apostles, for Paul says: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth” (1 Cor. 10:24). He gave much alms, praying to God day and night, plainly fulfilling, even before he believed in God, this commandment of our Master and God, which says: “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation” (Matt. 26:41), and: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matt. 7:7). Do you see how an unbeliever, a pagan, who had never heard the word of God, diligently fulfilled the precepts of the Gospel even before he was instructed by any man? He asked through piety, and received; he sought through almsgiving, and found; he knocked through fasting and prayer, and it was opened to him. “Send,” says the angel, “to Joppa, and send for Simon, whose surname is Peter” — O wondrous gift, O extraordinary kindness! — “he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side” (cf. Acts 10:5-6). Do you see that the angel told him not only Peter’s name, but also the name of the man who was hosting him, and the very place he had gone to? The angel did this so that Cornelius would not be deceived, and would not call for someone else instead of Peter, and would not fall in with a wolf instead of a shepherd.

So then, if you too wish to show yourself a true, faithful, and chosen disciple of Christ, live such a life, do such deeds, approach in such a manner, ask and entreat God through almsgiving, fasting, and prayer, and open the “eyes of your heart” (Eph. 1:18) — and you too will see such a guide, as Cornelius saw the angel. You, who call yourself faithful, imitate the unbeliever. You, called a Christian from childhood, brought up in the teachings of the apostles and exalting yourself above ignorant chatter, imitate the unbaptized pagan. You, who stand at the head only of your own household, imitate the centurion, and with all diligence correct, in every way, at least yourself and those under you. But if you despise not only what is in your own power and will, but even the commandments you yourself know, and do not fulfill them, but neglect them, and correct neither yourself nor those in your charge — tell me, how will God point out to you a teacher who is to tell you something more perfect still? And if He does not point out such a guide to you, how will you be able to find or recognize him, how will you receive him without doubting as a holy man? How then will you receive from above the reward of a holy and righteous man?

In no way. Therefore, to those who took pains, watched over themselves, judged their own actions, sought God, and did good, God revealed, then and now, apostles, prophets, righteous men, and saints; and these recognized them, received them, and honored them as lords, as teachers of piety, as ambassadors of God, and therefore kept their words as though they were divine laws, and themselves received the reward given to them — and even now, if such men are found anywhere, they will receive the same reward as those of old. But the scorners, who consider themselves wise, who abide in carelessness and negligence, and who — unlike Cornelius and men like him — do not seek God with all diligence through almsgiving, fasting, and prayer, especially now, when almost all of us are taught from childhood by the prophets and apostles the will of God and what is profitable for us — such men He leaves in the delusion to which they have given themselves over, covered in the darkness of their own passions, lusts, and desires, and walking in it as in the depth of night, so that they find, naturally, teachers to match. For the prince of darkness undoubtedly has his own servants and disciples, walking in darkness, whom such men gladly receive, finding them to be of like mind with themselves, and learn from them the very things they had already chosen and preferred to do, to their own destruction. Who does not know that from the beginning the devil raised up false prophets against the prophets, false apostles against the apostles, and false saints and false teachers against the holy teachers, trying by his wiles and beguiling words to deceive the most careless, and cast them into the pit of destruction? Alluding to these very men, the apostle also says: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (cf. Rom. 16:17-18). Therefore those who wish to turn away from such men, in obedience to the apostle’s exhortation, must depart from “the works of darkness” (Rom. 13:12), because so long as they wish to remain in their power and walk in their darkness, they cannot turn away from such teachers, nor be able to find themselves in the light of true teachers. So then, you, our spiritual child in the Lord, hearing how the divine Scripture says, “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight” (Isa. 5:21), attend to these words “with fear and trembling” (cf. 2 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12), for it concerns the salvation of your soul; and if you wish to meet a spiritual and holy man, a true teacher, do not suppose that you will recognize him by yourself, by your own understanding, since this is impossible — but first of all strive, as has already been said, through good deeds, almsgiving, fasting, prayer, and diligent supplication, that God may become for you, in this, a fellow-worker and helper. And if, by God’s favor and grace, you are counted worthy to find such a spiritual father, then show all the greater diligence, all the greater zeal, much humility, much reverence, the utmost honor toward him, and a pure and unwavering faith. Why? So that, instead of a reward, you not bring punishment and chastisement upon yourself — for it was to such men that our Savior and God addressed the words: “He that receiveth you receiveth me… and he that despiseth you despiseth me” (Matt. 10:40 / Luke 10:16). We must therefore, brothers, receive such men as Christ Himself, since what is done for them is reckoned to Christ our Master and God, and He takes it to Himself and considers it as though He Himself were undergoing it — just as what is done for false teachers is reckoned to antichrist, and those who receive them receive the devil himself.

And let no one excuse himself by ignorance, saying: “But how shall I be able to recognize such men? I am but a man, and ‘what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?’ ” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:11). Let no one put this forward as a plausible pretext, because if it were impossible, the Lord would not have said: “Beware of false prophets” — that is, false teachers — “which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15). And He adds: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). And since our Master is not a liar — and indeed He is not a liar — it is possible for us to know them by what they do and what they say. Let us, then, speak first of the fruits of the true Holy Spirit, and then describe the fruits of the opposite, evil spirit, so that you may know with precision from this how manifest and clear the true righteous and holy men are, and likewise those who are not such, but only pretend to be. We will say nothing of our own, but only from the words of the Savior and His holy apostles, by means of which I will try to assure your love.

Hear, then, what our Lord and God Jesus Christ says: “Blessed are the poor in spirit… blessed are they that mourn… blessed are the meek” (cf. Matt. 5:3-5). And again: “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you” (Luke 6:26-27 / Matt. 5:44). “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (cf. Matt. 12:36). And again: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). And elsewhere: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). And again: “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?” (John 5:44). “For whosoever exalteth himself,” He says, “shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:14; cf. Luke 14:11; Matt. 23:12) — not, He means, to worldly glory, but promising a mysterious elevation to spiritual transformation. With such words our Lord and Master cries out daily to all. But hear also the apostle Paul, who says: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, mercy, meekness, faith, temperance” (cf. Gal. 5:22-23), and also: “Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own” (1 Cor. 13:4-5), but “beareth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth” (cf. 1 Cor. 13:7-8). Hear too John the Theologian, who says: “Little children, love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15); “for the love of the world is enmity with God, so that, my brethren, whosoever will be a friend of the world becomes the enemy of God” (cf. Jas. 4:4); and: “whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath” any “part in the kingdom of” our “Lord” and God (1 John 3:15; cf. Eph. 5:5); and: “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil” (cf. 1 John 3:10) — by hatred and by love, because he who loves God loves also those born of Him, that is, his brothers, whereas he who hates any one of his brothers is born of the devil, and the love of God is not in him.

Thus the sons of God and the sons of the devil are recognizable and evident (cf. 1 John 3:10) to those who have discernment — both they themselves and the fruits of the all-holy and good Spirit. And so we must also speak of the fruits of the opposite, that is, of the evil spirit, so that you may be able, as has been said, to distinguish light from darkness, the sweet from the bitter, and good from evil.

Hear again the words of our Master and God: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18 / Luke 6:43; cf. Matt. 12:33); and again: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil” (cf. Luke 6:45 / Matt. 12:35); and again: “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (cf. Matt. 5:19). And what does He say of the scribes and Pharisees? “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi” (cf. Matt. 23:4-7). So then, when you see someone doing any of these things, seeking human glory and breaking the commandments of God in order to please men, know that he is a deceiver, and not a true teacher. And the apostle says: “For whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal?” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:3). For the carnal, the “natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14), and he who cannot receive the things of the Spirit plainly does not have the Spirit within him; and he who does not have the Holy Spirit is not a servant of Christ, as Paul testifies, saying: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9).

Have you heard, then, who belongs to Christ, and who to antichrist? Now you know for certain that for the attentive, the good and the evil are easily recognized, while the inattentive know not only other men but not even themselves. Tell me: if someone, as though immortal, cares for and thinks of nothing, and occupies himself day and night with worldly affairs alone, devises ways to grow rich, builds himself lavish houses, amasses horses, mules, and slave-women in abundance, acquiring silver vessels, costly garments, couches, and everything else for the care of the body and for fleshly pleasure — does such a man know himself? No, spiritual child — in truth he does not know himself or what is happening to him, and he both knows and does not know: he knows about himself that he exists, but by his deeds shows that he does not know himself, because he behaves as though he will never die. He says, “Today we are, and tomorrow we are not,” yet he lays up enough to last him many years to come. He testifies that the present is nothing, yet he fights with his neighbor over some small and trivial thing. He philosophizes that he is ash and dust, yet always adorns himself in luxurious garments, and so supposes himself superior to other men. He hears, “Woe to them that… stretch themselves upon their couches” (cf. Amos 6:4), yet strives with all his might to make the couches in his house more lavish, and the beds softer, and the tables more costly and extravagant — and this in full view not only of laymen like himself, but of the monks who visit him, who not only do not admire this, but pity such acquisitive men and lament their folly; for that which they ought to be most ashamed of and conceal — at a time when others, or rather, Christ Himself, go hungry — they boast of and take pride in, not perceiving that by this they bear witness against themselves as lovers of gain and merciless despoilers of the poor.

Tell me, then, in what way does such a man know himself, what he is, and in what state he stands? Indeed, even if he thinks he knows, he does not know himself. And how shall one who does not know himself, or what is happening to him, be able to perceive another man, or that man’s state? How shall a blind man distinguish a blind man from one who sees? In no way. So then, child and brother, as we have said, if a man does not first strive to know himself, and also his own weaknesses, by means of almsgiving, as has been said, fasting, vigil, prayer, and constant supplication, he cannot come to know that, without a father and spiritual teacher, it is impossible for a man to keep the commandments of God, to live well and blamelessly, and to rise above the devil’s snares. And he who does not know this behaves as though he had no need of correction, instruction, counsel, or the help of others, and boasts of the very thing he does not know — for he knows nothing, not even knowing that he knows nothing, and, abiding in the depth of ignorance, or rather of perdition, cannot even see that he is “among them that are lost” (2 Cor. 4:3). For this ignorance generally arises like a kind of film over the mind’s eyes of the soul, from our love of the world and of the things that are in the world: the more our reason withdraws from the remembrance of God, of death, of the coming judgment, of the blessings prepared for the righteous, and of the punishments awaiting sinners — the eternal fire and darkness, the “gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42,50) — and spends its time instead in “the cares of this life” (Luke 21:34), preoccupied with the phantom goods of the world, that is, wealth, glory, and luxury, and grows familiar with all the other such things of this world that are accounted splendid, the more it acquires a coarsened habit, gradually darkens the whole eye of the soul, and produces a total ignorance of the true goods and a forgetting of the commandments of God. David, having sinned and experienced this, said to God: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps. 118:18). Do you see how his eyes had been closed? Do you see how he cried out to God that they be opened? Strive, then, child, to do the same, and the Lord will not despise the supplication of your soul, but will hear you and open the “eyes of your heart” (Eph. 1:18); and then, having received your sight, you will first come to know yourself and your own state, and then all that I have told you above. Then you will account, not only devout and virtuous monks, but every man — small and great, righteous and sinful — and even manifest sinners themselves, holy and superior to you, from your whole heart. This will be for you, and for anyone else, a clear sign that you have received the forgiveness of your sins: when you come into this land, for it is in this land that holy humility dwells, and to those who arrive there this gift is given first of all — to consider that of all men there is none more sinful or more worthless than oneself, and to feel with one’s whole soul that one is oneself the only sinner, and that one alone must perish and be given over to punishment.

Strive, then, beloved child and brother, to acquire this humility, and do not say, “This is impossible for me,” or, “This is fitting for monks, not for those who live in the world.” For Christ established His commandments in common for all, and did not separate the laity from monks; rather, they were kept both by men before the Law and after it. Hear how Job says, “I am earth and ashes” (Gen. 18:27, words of Abraham; cf. Job 42:6), and David: “I am a worm, and no man” (Ps. 21:7). Do you see words of humility? Do you see a soul that accounts itself more contemptible than any man, small or great alike? Imitate, therefore, the repentance of David, and then you will attain his humility, because through repentance the darkness of ignorance that covers the mind is destroyed, and “the veil is taken away” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:16). When this happens, then we too begin to know ourselves, we see what has befallen us, we perceive the wounds and defilements of our soul, and so not only do we think and speak humbly, but we become ashamed before the sun, the stars, and all of God’s creation, because they were made for our sake, and we have angered the God who made them, as has been said, for us, and have sinned, transgressing not one but all His commandments; and we do not dare so much as to look upon or behold His creatures, and consider ourselves altogether unworthy to taste of the fruits of the earth, but pronounce upon ourselves the sentence that it is just for us to die of hunger and thirst. Being defiled sinners, we are not able to look upon or behold the icons of Christ and His saints: it seems to us that the icons abhor us and our deeds, so that we do not dare to approach and kiss them, ashamed to touch, with defiled and unclean lips, those pure and holy images. And when we are about to enter the house of God, we hold back, as men unworthily entering, with fear and trembling, lest the floor open and cast us down “alive into hell” (cf. Num. 16:30,33).

Holy humility, ever and constantly teaching us this and greater things still, transforms, changes, and, so to speak, fashions, forms in flesh, and perfects the humble, so that from that time on we cannot, even should we wish it, think or utter anything great about ourselves, but remain, like statues, struck dumb and silent — literally, “like inscribed grave-pillars”. This holy humility teaches us that without a teacher we can learn nothing, and to answer those who ask us, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts 8:30), “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (cf. Acts 8:31). It teaches us not to set foot, without a guide, upon a path we have never walked, and it urges us not to approach God without a mediator and intercessor (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). If it makes us ashamed before heaven, earth, and God’s creatures upon them, and makes us feel reverent fear before the icon of the Savior and of His holy servants, and not dare to look upon or approach and kiss them — how much more, then, should we hesitate to approach that very God Himself, the Creator and Master of all? For though He is exceedingly man-loving, He rejoices all the more in our humility and shame, and receives us with greater favor when we consider ourselves unworthy to approach Him on our own.

Yet our Master and God, wishing to teach us that we ought to approach God through some mediator and surety, Himself became for us the pattern and example in this, as in everything else, being called the first mediator and surety of our nature, having brought it to His own Father and God; and He then proclaimed His holy apostles to be ministers of this mediation and suretyship, and they turned to the Master Christ all who believed, and these in turn brought others, and those again still others, and so it is preserved to this day. And God wills that we not transgress His ordinance and tradition, but remain within the bounds He has established, since He says, “No man can come to me, except the Father… draw him” (cf. John 6:44), and again, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6) — so that no one comes to faith in the Holy and consubstantial Trinity unless he is instructed in the faith by some teacher. And no one is baptized without a priest, or without receiving from him the Divine Mysteries. And he who has not partaken of the Mysteries can never obtain eternal life, as the Lord Himself said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16), and again: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John 6:53).

So then, since without Baptism and the partaking of the Divine Mysteries none of the faithful can attain to eternal life, and since these are administered not by the holy apostles, nor by our holy forefathers who came after them, but by the living men now present among us, with whom we converse — it is entirely evident that those who lived then in the world handed on to believers the very same thing that these men now provide to us, and these are equal to those. In what way? Just as those baptized with water and the divine Spirit, so also these do now. Those administered the Body and Blood of Christ, and these administer to us the very same thing; and those former ones had nothing greater, and those who administer to us now lack nothing. Those taught faith in Christ, and in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the undivided and equally-honored Trinity, and our fathers teach us the very same thing.

By this, said briefly (we could not write everything, so as not to lengthen the discourse excessively), it has been shown that the very same things which the apostles then did for the faithful, and taught, our fathers now do wholly and unchangingly, and teach and instruct us in the very same way as those apostles did. Since they are in no way inferior to the apostles, being themselves fully sons of the apostles, and indeed apostles — those who do not receive them, and do not listen to their words (cf. Matt. 10:14), will hear from the Savior, who says: “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha… than for” you (cf. Matt. 10:15). And when He said to those apostles, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Matt. 10:40 / Luke 10:16), it is entirely evident that He says the very same thing to their present and future successors (ὁμοτρόπους — “those of like manner”), so that those who do not receive and do not listen to them, but reject them, do not receive and do not listen to Christ, but reject Him, and, through Him, the Father who sent Him.

You know well, my beloved child, that no one — neither among laymen, nor monks, nor priests or bishops — honors, fears, or receives anyone as an apostle of God and a disciple of Christ purely for Christ’s sake, for His commandment, or for the sake of the eternal blessings He gives us; rather, we all despise one another, slander one another, revile one another — monks revile monks, priests revile bishops, laymen revile everyone and one another — and nowhere does anyone consider that, just as the apostle says, “God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28), and the others he lists in order — so it is now, likewise, in the Church of God, that those set over it should be received, some as apostles, others as prophets, others as teachers. But we all exalt ourselves over one another, having entirely forgotten all of this. The man who today baptized me, freed me from death and corruption, filled me with the Holy Spirit, delivered me from sins, made me a partaker of the most pure Body and the saving Blood, a communicant of the sacred Eucharist and a son of God (and what greater thing did the apostles and the eyewitnesses of the Word do for their disciples?) — this same man, tomorrow, I receive without so much as saying “welcome,” since I consider it beneath me, and have no wish to meet, honor, or receive him when he comes to me, but say with indignation, “What does he want?” and, “Apologize to him — the master is busy, he has no time.” (I do not wish, at this moment, to bring up far more disrespectful words than these.) And this is done not only toward monks, but also toward priests and bishops, by those who confess to them and entrust their souls to them; and the very man whom someone chose today, through confession, rightly to have as his father and teacher, almost at the same moment that he acknowledges himself as his son, begins to exalt himself over his own father, and, showing himself not as a son and disciple but rather as that man’s father and teacher, begins to introduce contrary rules, to contradict him, and to belittle him, if he should say anything against his own wishes. As time goes on, he supposes he has no father or teacher at all, unless that father comes to him and does his bidding. And if the father does not agree with him — or rather, does not fall and perish together with him — he abandons him and finds another, one who indulges his “fleshly lusts” (Eph. 2:3). So it is that everything among us, as you yourself see and know, has become confused; all order and the divine apostolic tradition has been destroyed, and a rejection of all the commandments of Christ has arisen.

All this horror and ruin come to pass in this generation because everyone supposes himself initiated into divine things, supposes he knows the commandments of God, and can judge and discern for himself what is profitable to him. And also because, while people suppose and consider, as has been said, all men to be sinners, they are nevertheless convinced that the grace of God works even through the unworthy, and think that they themselves receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit working in us, and the pledges of eternal blessings entrusted to us — yet they turn away from the priest through whom these gifts are conveyed to them, as from a sinful and unworthy priesthood. They reason likewise about monastics: they themselves receive the forgiveness of sins through confession, and the pardon given them by such men — yet, considering that these monks possess no virtue or boldness before God, they treat them just the same as they treat everyone else.

Remaining in this state, they suppose that they receive (or rather, that they seize) all those spiritual gifts which Christ granted to the apostles, and which the apostles in turn handed on to those who believed in Christ through them — but without the honor and trust (which the apostles formerly showed to the Master Christ, and their own disciples showed to the apostles, and those under the disciples showed to them in turn) toward those who now convey these gifts to them. They think that God does not require this honor to be paid, even now, to bishops, priests, monks, and our fathers. They think that, since they were baptized in infancy, they are innocent — and that it therefore follows that they need not honor the one who regenerated them, nor feel reverence toward him as their father. They imagine that, for the sake of piety, it is enough for them to have known the Holy Scriptures from childhood (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), and that therefore nothing will be required of them for having despised the teachers of piety and refused to learn from them. They hope to be justified simply by appearing pious, and by living more piously than others. It seems enough to them for salvation merely to name and confess their sins and receive forgiveness from their fathers, without even having acquired faith, and without showing honor and reverence toward their mediators and intercessors, as toward the apostles of God.

Thus the whole universe has been filled with such error and such evil, and the transgression and rejection of a single commandment has overturned and cast down the whole Church of God, face-first. She has fallen into such disorder and confusion that her structure is almost nowhere to be seen, and in us one cannot recognize the constitution of the Master’s body. As though we did not have Christ for our head, as though we were not joined to one another and fitted together by the life-giving Spirit, and as though we did not grasp that each of us is being built up in his own rank by the builders of the Church — like some soulless, scattered matter — thus we, carried away, led astray, and deceived by our own desires and fleshly lusts, have been dispersed, and, through hatred and prideful thinking, have separated from one another, split apart, and lost the mark of our faith, that is, love, of which the Lord said: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). Having lost this, we are called Christians in vain.

Tell me: if we do not love, do not honor, and do not render due glory to our fathers, who have become for us the cause of so many blessings, through whom God adopts us and shows us to be heirs of His glory and of eternal blessings — and if we do not honor as we ought the man of God sent to us by God — then who will believe us, concerning our neighbors and the rest of our brothers, that we have ever truly acquired love for even one of them? And especially if we receive our mediators and intercessors before God — those who have received from God the authority to grant us the forgiveness of sins and to reconcile us with God — with full confidence as though they were sinners rather than saints, while we ourselves expect for ourselves complete forgiveness of sins: then, since the Lord said, “According to thy faith be it unto thee” (cf. Matt. 9:29), the forgiveness of your sins will be granted you exactly according to the measure of your faith. And if He says, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me” (Matt. 10:40 / Luke 10:16) — I marvel, as I said before, how, in any way whatsoever, those men will be able to see, or acquire within themselves, Christ, who have never even conceived the thought that we ought to love, not only all men, and especially the brethren, but also receive at least one of the present-day saints as an apostle of Christ — so that through him we might receive Christ, and keep all his words as though they proceeded from the mouth of God Himself. Most of us have never even seen the man who baptized and regenerated us; and those who have seen him, as has already been said, condemn and despise him. We do not even know whether we have been baptized. But if we do not know this, how, or on what basis, shall we have faith, or be numbered among the baptized? I am at a loss: we have not acknowledged our father; and even if we have acknowledged him as father, we have not honored him at all. We have no teacher; and even if we wished to have one, we have not done as he taught us, but have gone wherever we ourselves wished.

Therefore I do not even know what to say, since I cannot find any grounds on which to call and name you Christians. Wretched man, why do you not honor your spiritual father as an apostle of Christ? “I do not see,” he says, “that he keeps the commandments of God, and therefore I do not glorify him.” This is an empty excuse. What then — do you keep them better than he does, that you should judge him? Yet even if you kept and observed all the commandments, even then you ought not to judge him, or, on account of his negligence, reject, slander, and blame him — but rather to love him for the blessings God has granted you through him, to be grateful and devoted to him, to make him a partner in bodily goods, and, further, to reward him as much as possible, so that you might not only preserve what has been given to you, but increase it through such actions. But now, as you see, through mistrust, ingratitude, and the rejection of your father and teacher, you have not only destroyed what you received, but, having rejected the very thing on account of which you were a Christian, you have been deprived of Christ.

Imagine that an earthly king sent to you one of his lowliest servants, dressed in plain clothing, riding neither horse nor mule, but carrying with him only a written document bearing the royal seal, signed by the king’s own hand. In the text of this document, the king proclaims you his own brother and friend, and promises to appoint you a little later as his co-ruler; he desires to place a crown upon your head, and will clothe you in royal purple. How ought you to have treated this servant? Should you not have received and honored him as the king’s servant, for the sake of the great promises and the splendor of the future glory awaiting you, rejoiced together with him, and shown him whatever kindness you were able, promising the rest for later? Or, because he was plainly dressed and came on foot, should you have belittled him and sent him back empty-handed and without honor? If you had done this to him, and the king had heard of it, would he have approved your choice, or reproached you — praised you, or accused you? And if you yourself were that king, would you not have counted the insult done to that servant as an insult to yourself? Certainly you would. You would have been indignant with the man, as one who was censuring and reviling you for having such servants, and you would have said, “Who made him a judge” (cf. Luke 12:14; Rom. 14:4) over my servants? He surely was not thinking about my servant’s plain clothing due to his own negligence — no, he was accusing me of being merciless, and of paying no heed to my servants’ shabby garments.” And so, repenting of what you had promised to do for him, you would not have received him at all when he came to you, since he had presumed to pass judgment in your place, condemning your servants, whom it was not his place to judge.

So then, having considered all this, our beloved spiritual child, and having understood the clear and true order of things, hasten, with all the strength you have, not merely in word but in deed itself, to become a Christian. Acquire a father, acquire a teacher, acquire a mediator, an intercessor, and a surety before God. Cling to him as to Christ Himself, with love and faith, with fear and longing, so that through him you may be united also to Christ Himself, and become a fellow-partaker and joint-heir of His eternal glory and Kingdom, singing and glorifying Him together with the Father and His Most Holy Spirit, unto the endless ages of ages. Amen.

(To be continued...)

Sunday, August 2, 2026

Four Epistles of St Symeon the New Theologian (Part 2)

Epistle 2. On repentance, and what the newly confessed should do

 

 

We are taught by the divine Scriptures, spiritual brother, that one must never either despair on account of the multitude of one’s sins, or grow bold on account of the fulfillment of penances — so that neither should the one who stands firm be bold, nor the one who has fallen despair (cf. 1 Cor. 10:12). But even the man who has sinned much ought to hope boldly in repentance, and the man who has sinned only slightly ought not to think to receive the forgiveness of his faults from works alone, but should show forth repentance and contrition — not made manifest by words, by abstinence from food, by drinking only water, by sleeping on the ground, and the like, but arising from the disposition of the soul. This blessed David showed even in the midst of the world and its cares, for he always remembered and pondered within himself how good and tender-hearted a Master he had angered by transgressing His commandments, and by proving ungrateful and forgetful of His many and countless gifts and mercies — as he himself wrote, “I went about mourning… I was troubled” (a conflation of Ps. 34:14 and Ps. 37:7), and he himself — not someone else — afflicted himself and “was humbled exceedingly; I roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart” (Ps. 37:9), and did all the other things the psalms, sung daily, teach us. And this he did while he was a king entrusted with the care of a people, with a wife, children, and a household to look after.

And what of Manasseh? What of those who came after him, who I think are not unknown to you? And Peter himself, I say — the chief of the apostles — the publican, the thief, the harlot — and why should I multiply examples — the prodigal son, who dissipated his father’s substance recklessly with harlots and publicans: look, from what deeds did they receive forgiveness of their offenses? From fasting, vigil, sleeping on the ground, or spending their possessions on the needy, or some other arduous bodily labor? No — but from repentance alone, tears from the whole soul, and the condemnation of conscience. Each of them, having felt his sins, condemned himself, and wept from the soul, received forgiveness for his stumblings. So it happens now with all of us, who come to Christ the Master with genuine and fervent repentance and tears; and the good and man-loving Lord does not shut, nor would He ever shut, the most pure depths of His goodness to us, since it is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:9; cf. Rom. 3:20, Gal. 2:16), but by God’s love for mankind and by mercy that the forgiveness of sins is given.

However, one ought not to aim merely at this, but at no longer falling into the same evil, and “not returning, like a dog, to his own vomit” (2 Pet. 2:22). It is impossible to be preserved from this unless we provide ourselves, in every way and with all diligence, with guards and helpers, and clothe ourselves with the spiritual armor (cf. Eph. 6:13ff.) by which we shall be able to withstand our enemies and adversaries. For once the enemy has taken hold of us, once we have been enslaved to pleasures and, by the terms of a truce, become tributaries to the foe, it is entirely inevitable that we shall be carried away by such passions, pleasures, and desires, follow after them, and be led off wretchedly and by force, like cattle, into servitude and slavery to the adversary; we fall away from labor for Christ the Master, and are found to have transgressed His commandments and our covenants with Him. That this may not happen to us, let us take to ourselves a helper and ally against each of the enemies advancing upon us, taught by the God-breathed Scripture: “Therefore I esteemed all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hated every false way” (Ps. 118:128), and let us set the remembrance of God, the dread Judgment, and its unendurable torments against the remembrance of shameful thoughts; diligence and zeal against laziness, fasting against gluttony, self-restraint against love of pleasure, moderate drinking against much drinking, and against the burning of the flesh, the remembrance of the eternal fire and earnest supplication to God with vigil and thirst. If we act thus with respect to every passion — not to lengthen my discourse by listing them all — and set the opposite virtue against each passion, then, guarded by them as by soldiers, we shall be kept safe and unharmed; since, for the salvation of the penitent, it is enough merely to cut off one’s evil habit and unseemly actions and deeds, if only this can be done without sweat and labor.

In addition to this, I have written to you, as a small reminder, concerning what you must also do and keep — namely, the following.

At the celebration of the Divine Mysteries, when the priest or deacon says, “As many as are catechumens, depart,” you must be outside the church — not going off anywhere at that time, nor speaking with anyone — but, standing in the narthex before the doors, be contrite, calling your offenses to mind; then, after the elevation of the Divine Gifts, go in again. In the evening, after Compline, being alone, perform the Trisagion, the 50th Psalm, “Lord, have mercy” fifty times, “Lord, forgive me a sinner” fifty times, then the 6th Psalm, “O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath,” “Lord, forgive me whatever I have sinned in deed, word, or thought” fifty times, and twenty-five prostrations.

On Wednesday and Friday, abstain from meat, cheese, eggs, wine, and fish; but if this is too hard for you, take fish and wine in moderation. During the fasts of the Holy Apostles and of the Nativity of Christ, abstain from meat, cheese, and eggs, and take everything else in moderation; and perform your prayer rule — that is, the psalms and prostrations noted above — doubled. During Great Lent, on Wednesday and Friday eat neither wine, nor oil, nor fish; on the other days, with moderation and self-restraint, “keep under thy body, and bring it into subjection” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:27), so far as nature permits, as befits Christians who wish to be saved; and here too perform your prayer rule doubled, just as has been said.

You must abstain from the Divine and Awesome Gifts — that is, the most pure Body and Blood of our Master and Lord God Jesus Christ. I advise you to abstain also from the blessed bread itself, the so-called “broken bread” — the antidoron — until you have formed a firm resolve regarding your sinful deeds, and have acquired an unwavering will toward the good and a final hatred of sin. When you see that you have attained this, then approach, brother, with unwavering faith — not as to mere bread and wine, but communing of the Body and Blood of God, God Himself — and so you will become “a partaker of” His “glory” (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1), and through them will receive the cleansing and complete forgiveness of your own sins, and will possess eternal life within yourself, and will become “a son of light” and “of the day” (cf. 1 Thess. 5:5). But if you receive Christ without having first become such a one, then the demons, growing all the more jealous of you, seeing one who has despised God and approached unworthily, will rush upon you furiously, and, casting you down mercilessly into the mire of disorder, will fling you back again — and you will become, instead of a Christian, a Christ-slayer, and will be condemned together with those who crucified Him, as Paul says: “He that eateth and drinketh the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27,29).

Beyond this I command you nothing further, for fear of becoming burdensome to you. But if you should do something more of your own accord, you will do yourself good and gain for yourself future blessings. For I have written to you to do what has been said not as something that itself procures the cleansing of the soul and the forgiveness of sins, but as something that leads you simply to the remembrance of your sins. If we had known that you would in fact be grieved by this, we would not have written even this much to your love — but would have required only the cutting off of your evil habit and the most unseemly deeds and actions, which I ask you to carry out; and if it is possible for you to keep this without labor and sweat, then this alone is enough for us.

Write to us often about your health, so that we too, seeing your faith and affection toward us, may remember you with warmer and more earnest care when we, unworthy as we are, lift up our hands to God. The grace of God be with your spirit.

(To be continued...)

A Clarification of his Pastoral Encyclical by St Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch

[Concerning the breakaway bishops, Matthew of Vresthene, and Germanos of the Cyclades]

Dated January 18, 1945

 

 

[A]

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” [1]

In our considerable solicitude for the Church, we recently pub­lished a pastoral encyclical, in which we advised the Christian flock of our Churches, who follow the traditional Orthodox Calendar, that, on account of the gravity of the times and the difficulty of the war sit­uation, they should remain loyal guardians of our ancestral Faith and live a Christian life that is irreproachable in every way, walking, “not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil,” [2] as the Divine Apostle of the Nations declares to the Ephesians.

Through this printed pastoral encyclical, as is our duty, we drew to the attention of Christians belonging to our Orthodox faction the fact that they should not give any credence or listen to all of the false and un-Orthodox teachings that are being disseminated by the apostate Bishops of the Cyclades and of Vresthene, under the guise of a suppos­edly pure Orthodoxy. These Bishops are causing divisions and offenses among the Faithful, because such people, according to the Apostle of the Nations, serve not Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple Faithful.

In the same encyclical, we called the aforementioned Bishops both conventiclers and Protestantizers, judging them as such from their beliefs and their official actions.

For after these men had been Consecrated Bishops by us, in order that our sacred struggle might be better served, instead of contribut­ing to its service and success, coöperating with us in complete harmo­ny and concord, in accordance with the sacred Canons, and, in partic­ular, the Thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon,3 they, on the contrary, used the Episcopal office in order to split and divide the Orthodox Chris­tian flock. To this end, without ecclesiastical or canonical reasons, and without first coming to some common understanding and clarify­ing matters, they disavowed us on the grounds that we had, allegedly, apostatized from our erstwhile Orthodox confession, and they set up their own altars for reasons of ambition and self-interest.

We called them Protestantizers, because the conventicler Bishops in question were not content merely to disavow us, from whom, by the judgments which the Lord alone knows, they received the Episcopal rank, but they also, like Eastern Popes, appropriating the rights of an OEcumenical Synod, declared the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the entire Greek Hierarchy to be actually schismatic, without any trial or defense, for dishonoring the Divine and Sacred Canons and ecclesiastical Canon Law, according to which no clergyman, and cer­tainly no Hierarch, is to be deposed for wrong belief and excised from the universal body of the Eastern Orthodox Church without a prior trial and defense.

Consequently, the aforementioned conventicler Bishops, through their renunciation of us as putative heretics and their breaking of ecclesiastical communion with us, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, through their declaration that, on account of the calendar inno­vation, the Autocephalous Church of Greece is schismatic, not only potentially, but also in actuality, have divested themselves of Orthodoxy and the Apostolic Tradition, which they derived through us from the Autocephalous Church of Greece, and they have taken on a Protestant complexion, representing only their own individual persons and not the notion of the one Orthodox Church, from which the authority for the Divine Mysteries and their ecclesiastical actions is to be drawn.

And this is so, because only according to the Protestant under­standing and interpretation is a faction of clergy and laity justified in high-handedly establishing a Church distinct from that from which they have broken away out of self-will, even for reasons of religious dis­agreement with the presiding ecclesiastical authority; whereas, accord­ing to the Orthodox understanding and belief, the regulations of the Apostles and the Synods reserved the right to establish a Church, and to endow her with Grace and the Divine Mysteries, for the entire Church, when she comes together in a Synod and states her opinions, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and not for a faction of clergy and laity who have broken away, even for religious reasons.

In view of this, the aforementioned Bishops of the Cyclades and of Vresthene, having lost all dogmatic contact and having broken off all ecclesiastical communion with us and the recognized Orthodox Church of Greece, and not being recognized as Orthodox Bishops by any other local Orthodox Church, have ceased to represent any sense of Orthodoxy, in the name of which they are entitled to celebrate the sacred Mysteries in an Orthodox manner and validly. And having thus cast off the royal robe of Orthodoxy, the wretches have donned the rough sackcloth of Protestantism.

[B]

First to reply to this pastoral encyclical were the followers of the conventicler Bishops, Archimandrites Akakios (Pappas), Artemios of Xenophontos, and Kosmas (Karambelas), to whom we did not deign to respond, since what they wrote, aside from the fact that it consti­tutes a conglomeration of shameless lies and untenable arguments, is composed in language that is irreverent and wholly improper.

There is only one truth that these men utter, and this is their admis­sion that they derive the authority for their actions from the Orthodox character of the Greek Church, which shows that they refute them­selves; for, on the one hand, they assert and proclaim that the Greek Church is actually schismatic, yet, on the other hand, they admit that she is Orthodox in essence. Behold how they have freed us from any need to respond with a refutation.

Second to reply was the Bishop of Vresthene; but we did not respond to him, because he renders it impossible in what he writes, aside from the fact that it constitutes a farrago of incoherent and dis­jointed words and phrases, to answer his perverse arguments, weaving together, as he does, what is incompatible and combining what can­not be combined.

Third to reply were two laymen, A. Demetriades and A. Panagiot­opoulos, to whom, since they expressed themselves piously and sought, in the form of a memorandum, a solution to certain difficulties, not only to allay their scandalized consciences, as they said, but also to clarify and demonstrate the Orthodox spirit of our sacred struggle, we respond as follows.

We received your lengthy memorandum and read it attentively. From the whole style of what you have written and the arguments set forth therein, we ascertained the person who inspired and composed this memorandum, who, for reasons that are easy to understand, did not want to make himself known by his own protest and signature.

We originally thought of not responding in writing, but of orally enlightening those who signed this memorandum, on the ground that they do not possess requisite theological and canonical education, lack the competence to criticize pastoral encyclicals, and are people who ought to have greater confidence in the leader of our Orthodox faction, and all the more because the latter has given clear proof of his Ortho­dox way of thinking and of the holy zeal by which he is motivated in conducting our sacred struggle.

Subsequently, however, suspecting that our silence might be char­acterized as an acceptance, on our part, of the erroneous judgments and opinions contained in the memorandum, or as an inability to rebut them, and taking into consideration, besides, the Apostolic saying, “I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians, both to the wise, and to the unwise,”[4] we deemed it reasonable to respond and enlight­en both the one who inspired, as well as those who signed, the memo­randum addressed to us.

There are five main points, on which the entire edifice of the mem­orandum rests, that require clarification; indeed, when we have dem­onstrated that these points are shaky and canonically groundless, the entire heap of arguments which the authors of the memorandum put forward, in support and defense of their mistaken ideas, logically col­lapses.

We ask our readers to pay close attention to these matters, which are as follows:

1) the confusion of the persons of the Hierarchs with the character of the Church to which they belong;

2) a failure to discriminate between and grasp the technical and canonical terms “potentially” and “actually”;

3) ignorance, or, rather, an erroneous understanding of the primary elements of an Orthodox Church;

4) ignorance of when a change of mind can be called a self- con­tradiction and a discrepancy, and when it is to be called an explanation and a clarification;

5) and finally, the mistaken perception of the authors of the memo­randum, who ascribe their Bishops’ ecclesiastical disagreement with, and separation from, us to personal issues.

* * *

1) With regard to the first point, that is, the confusion of the persons of the Hierarchs with the character and the dogmatic significance of the Church, we put forth the following, to the best of our ability:

According to the fundamental principle of Orthodox ecclesiasti­cal Canon Law, and according to the spirit of the dogmatic theology and the age-old practice of the Orthodox Church, the character of the Church, as a Divine and self-subsistent institution, is in principle dif­ferent from, and independent of, that of the persons of the Bishops who represent and administer her. For this reason, any ideas and opin­ions of the Bishops that may be erroneous from an Orthodox stand­point, insofar as they are not judged or condemned by a canonical and valid Synod as un-Orthodox and false, do not affect the Orthodox character of the Church to which these Bishops belong.

For example, when one or more of the Bishops who belong to a ruling Church introduce into her an innovation that is at odds with the healthy and pure spirit of the Orthodox character of the Church, the sinful and anti-Orthodox character of this innovation weighs on the innovating Bishops, as individuals, and renders them culpable before God and the entire Church; but it does not affect or diminish the Orthodox authority of the Church which they govern.

The Orthodox character of the Church is affected and her Divine authority is diminished only when the Bishops who govern her, and who have introduced the innovation, are tried by a valid Synod—either a major local Synod or an OEcumenical Synod—for wrong belief and an anti-Orthodox innovation, and, after being sufficiently enlightened, are unwilling to conform to the recommendations of the Synod or to reject their wrong belief, adhering obstinately and unyieldingly there­to, in which case they are deposed by the Synod and excised from the universal body of the Orthodox Church.

We then read in Church the decree of deposition and excision whereby, together with the heretics, both the innovating Bishops and all of the clergy in communion with them, as well as all of the laity who accept prayers and blessings from them, are anathematized and excommunicated.

All of these people, who are under the anathema of a Synod, then constitute, not an Orthodox, but a schismatic, Church.

Hence, we draw the conclusion that a recognized Orthodox Church only loses her Orthodox character and the validity of her Divine Mysteries when she is recognized as heretical or schismatic by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, which alone has the right to withhold from her the Grace and the Divine validity of her Mysteries, since it alone has the right to impart these to her.

In view of this, since the sanctifying Grace and validity of the Divine Mysteries are not bestowed by the Bishop or the Priest who cel­ebrates them—he being simply a means or an instrument for impart­ing Grace—, but by the Orthodox character of the Church, in whose name these Mysteries are celebrated, what may be an un-Orthodox understanding of certain ecclesiastical questions that are, in the expres­sion of Saint Basil the Great, capable of solution cannot diminish, much less remove, the Orthodox character of a Church or the validity of the Mysteries that are celebrated in her name, as long as this understand­ing is not judged or condemned by a valid Synod.

This is precisely what happens in the case of moral lapses on the part of the Church’s ministers. For example, it may be that certain cler­gy are truly unworthy to approach the holy Altar on account of their moral character; but nonetheless, their bad morals cannot affect the Divine Mysteries celebrated by them, which retain their validity undi­minished, provided that these unworthy clergy have not been tried or deposed by the Church, and provided they perform their sacred duties and celebrate the Divine Mysteries in the name of the Ortho­dox Church.

* * *

2) We now come to the second point of the memorandum, con­cerning the definition of the technical and canonical terms “potentially” and “actually,” which the authors of the memorandum confuse.

Regarding the distinction and the meaning of these two technical and canonical terms, so much was clearly and convincingly written in our recent pastoral encyclical, and so clearly and articulately does the wise Hagiorite Nicodemos write in a footnote in the sacred Pedalion of the Orthodox Church about the distinction and the meaning of these two terms, that we consider it superfluous to explain and elu­cidate these matters, and we refer our readers to the aforementioned encyclical (see Pedalion, pp. 4-5, n. 2).

* * *

3) In response to the third point, concerning the primary ele­ments of an Orthodox Church and who has the right to establish and excise her, we have this to say:

Every local Orthodox Church is established and endowed with sanctifying Grace and the Divine Mysteries by the universal Eastern Orthodox Church, as the Treasurer of Divine Grace.

She is comprised of the Bishops in their entirety, as those who gov­ern her, and of the plenitude of faithful and Orthodox Christians, as those who are governed, and, as such, she is simple and undivided.

If differences of opinion appear in a local Orthodox Church between the governing clergy and the laity whom they govern, and, as a result of these differences, a rupture of ecclesiastical communion between them comes about, the question naturally arises: Who among those who disagree and have broken off ecclesiastical communion with each other represents the one and undivided, recognized Church, given that both of the discordant parties that have separated from one another derive from her and draw from her the sanctifying Grace and the ecclesi­astical validity of their Mysteries?

To this question, which is as important as it is hard to resolve, we reply as follows.

According to the spirit of the Divine and Sacred Canons and the administrative polity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in the event that a segment of clergy and laity, breaking ecclesiastical communion with the presiding authority for ecclesiastical and canonical reasons and separating itself, for reasons of religious conscience, from the rul­ing Hierarchy, sets up its own altar, however much it may seem, from its separate worship, its own houses of prayer, and its own ministers, that it constitutes a Church distinct from that from which it is sepa­rated, this segment nonetheless does not cease belonging canonically to the same one and undivided Church, as an unsullied and integral part of her, drawing its spiritual life and power from the organism of the Mother Church, whose history it continues under the pure and uncorrupted mien of an unadulterated Orthodox identity, by keep­ing the Canons intact and the reliable Traditions of the Church undi­minished.

And this is so until the difference and the discord between this segment and the ecclesiastical authority and ruling Hierarchy that is deviating from the boundaries of Orthodoxy is adjudicated by a major Synod that represents all of the local Orthodox Churches.

And when this major Synod has tried and condemned the majority of the ruling Hierarchy as thinking and acting contrary to the nature of Orthodoxy, and has vindicated the minority segment that stands on the ground of Orthodoxy, it then deposes and excises the former from the universal body of Orthodoxy if, after being enlightened by the major Synod, they refuse to renounce their error, while it recognizes the latter, who preserve the institutions of Orthodoxy inviolate, as the only canonical representatives of this one and undivided local Ortho­dox Church, from which the former are estranged, being proclaimed schismatics, not only potentially, but also in actuality.

However, until such a thing comes to pass, this minority segment, insofar as a major Synod does not grant it the right to represent the Church or anoint it with sovereignty over the Church, is justified in breaking ecclesiastical communion and ceasing to commemorate the First Hierarch; but it cannot, although it is in all respects right-believ­ing, arbitrarily withdraw the right of sovereignty from the majority of the Hierarchy, even if the latter are innovators, or assert that it alone constitutes the one and undivided local Orthodox Church.

The high-handed claim by such a minority faction to the right to exercise sovereignty over the Church, and its pretension to constitute and represent the autocephalous Church on its own, without being recognized by the universal Church, reeks of Protestantism, which professes that one segment of the clergy and laity can constitute a dis­tinct and self-proclaimed Church independently of the central Church, from which, for one or another reason, it has arbitrarily split off and seceded.

For, according to the Protestant understanding and interpreta­tion, just as the Holy Spirit enlightens the ruling Hierarchy when it comes together in a Synod and states its opinions with the aid of the Holy Spirit, He also enlightens the subordinate clergy and laity in such a way that they, too, are able to establish Churches and endow them with sanctifying Grace and the Mysteries, appropriating, out of self-will, the prerogatives of the universal Church, as the Treasurer of Grace.

This, you see, is why, in our recent pastoral encyclical, we called the Bishops of the Cyclades and of Vresthene conventiclers and Protes­tantizers, because, although they were elected and Consecrated by us as titular Bishops, through the invocation of the All- holy and conse­crating Spirit, they did not hesitate, the wretches, not only to disavow us in encyclicals which they signed themselves, without any ecclesias­tical right, without first coming to some understanding with us, and incontrovertibly for reasons of ambition and self-interest, and to set up their own altars, but also to declare the New Calendar Hierar­chy and Church schismatic, without any trial or defense, as the Can­ons provide, and arbitrarily to seize from the ruling Hierarchy the rights of sovereignty that belong to the Autocephalous Greek Ortho­dox Church.

The Bishops in question, who are conventiclers and Protestantizers, according to the Canons and according to our opinion, become, through such high-handed actions as these, accountable before the universal Orthodox Church, whose Canon Law and Divine and Sacred Canons they have freely violated. For the age- old history of the Orthodox Church teaches us that no wrong-believing person who is liable to deposition and excision has ever been declared hereti­cal or schismatic by Hierarchs acting in isolation, without any trial or defense, but by a valid and canonical Synod, coming together and tak­ing counsel with the aid of the Holy Spirit and putting forth its vote of condemnation only after the defendant has stood trial and defend­ed himself, and after all means of enlightenment and admonition have been exhausted.

This canonical path was recently followed by the Synod of the OEcumenical Patriarchate in the Bulgarian Schism and by the Synod of the Autocephalous Church of Greece in the condemnation of Theophi­los Kaïris for the heresy of Pietism [5] and of Apostolos Makrakis for his heretical teaching concerning the threefold composition of the human person. [6]

* * *

4) Deeming this enough to refute the third point of the memorandum, we now come to an examination and elucidation of the fourth point, which concerns the self-contradiction and discrepancy to which the author of the recent pastoral encyclical allegedly succumbed.

Allow us, in this section, to teach a lesson to the authors of the memorandum, who weave together what is incompatible and com­bine what cannot be combined.

One contradicts and gainsays himself when he expresses one opin­ion about a question today and utterly rejects it the next day, thereby falling into blatant contradiction.

But when, after deeper study of the issue and more serious reflection and judgment, he modifies his previous opinion for the bet­ter, giving it a broader interpretation and formulating it more clear­ly and distinctly, such a modification, broader explanation, and more detailed formulation of an opinion about one and the same issue can­not be called either contradiction or discrepancy, but should rather be called an explanation and a more complete clarification of a com­pact and condensed idea, so that it may more easily be understood by another person.

This can truly be said about that man who begins by stating an opinion about an issue in a rough-and-ready way and at first sight, for­mulating it dimly and imperfectly, but later, delving more deeply into the meaning of the issue and, challenged either by those who do not understand or by those who hold the opposite opinion, proceeds to shape his opinion more completely and to formulate it more clearly and in greater detail, so that it may be more easily understood and its truth more convincingly demonstrated.

The author of the pastoral encyclical can be accused of this, for at the outset, he called the New Calendarist Hierarchs schismatics and the New Calendar Church schismatic, failing to add, owing to an oversight, that they are schismatic potentially, and not in actuality, which means that they will only suffer the consequences of their excision from the body of the universal Orthodox Church, being deprived of the right to celebrate valid Mysteries and to impart Divine Grace and sancti­fication to the Faithful, when they are tried by a valid major Synod and condemned to deposition for wrong belief, as adhering obstinate­ly thereto.

And this is because it is possible that they are erring out of igno­rance and misunderstanding, in which case, when they are tried and enlightened by a Synod, it is not inconceivable for them to change their minds and reject their error, their deposition and excision being thereby averted.

To this point of view the authors of the memorandum pose the objection that it should not be said, and much less written, that the Hierarchs who innovated regarding the calendar will only be deprived of Grace and the right to impart it to the Faithful when they are declared to be actual schismatics and deposed by a major Synod, because this not only does not benefit, but even harms, our sacred struggle through the defec­tion of followers from our Orthodox segment, since they are kept in it by the idea that the New Calendarist clergy, even before they are proclaimed schismatic by a Synod, are deprived of the capacity to perform any sacred functions validly.

But this objection, aside from the fact that it is mistaken, carries with it a certain dose of demagogy and the deception of the Faith­ful, which are antithetical to the Divine mission of the Church, which ought to teach aright the word of truth, in all places and at all times, as well as uphold the uprightness and principles7 of our sacred struggle.

The error of this objection rests on the misapprehension that the Old Calendarists adhered to the ancestral traditions because the New Calendar Church was deprived of Divine Grace from the outset, as the conventicler Bishops say.

This perhaps can happen to those who follow a conventicle. But the Old Calendarists who knowledgeably belong to our Orthodox seg­ment are well aware that following the Old Calendar is not a corollary of the validity or invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Calendarists, a question on which a valid Synod alone has the right to pronounce. It is, rather, an inevitable necessity if one is to avoid sharing in the New Calendarists’ responsibility for the innovation, and a shining example of the boundless reverence and the sacred and godly zeal by which the followers of our Orthodox segment are animated with regard to the venerable traditions of the Church.

The demagogy and the opportunism of the contrary opinion lie, on the one hand, in the hope of attracting other converts to the Old Calendar, brandishing the invalidity of the Mysteries of the New Cal­endarists as a bugbear, and, on the other hand, in keeping these fol­lowers, and especially the gullible and the lukewarm, in our sacred struggle.

But the use of such demagogic and illegitimate means in order to hunt after followers for our Orthodox faction, while it may be per­mitted by the Latin Church, which has as an ethical maxim the Jesuit dictum, “The end sanctifies the means,” is not permitted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which always teaches aright the word of truth.

With regard to the criticism of us, which the authors of the mem­orandum hurl at us so naïvely and with such an easy conscience, that in our pastoral encyclical we called the Bishops of the Cyclades and of Vresthene conventiclers, we must give them a second lesson, since they are, it seems, unfamiliar with ecclesiastical terms.

The word “conventicler” is applied literally to those clergy who, bereft of ecclesiastical or canonical justification with regard to the Faith or Canon Law, disavow the canonical presiding ecclesiastical authority and set up their own altars, acting in a partisan spirit for per­sonal reasons and serving their own lust for power and self-interest.

The Synods endorsed this term for factionalists and those who lift their heels against the Church without any canonical justification, and all of the Fathers of the Church used it for those who rebel against the presiding ecclesiastical authority in order to replace it with their own unlawful and uncanonical rule.

And just as the word “heretic” was established for those who have wrong beliefs about the dogmas of the Church, and the word “schis­matic” for those who have wrong beliefs about traditions and Divine worship, so the name “conventicler” was established for those who act in a partisan spirit and rebel against the Church for reasons of ambi­tion and personal advantage.

Consequently, we have used this ecclesiastical term for the Bish­ops of the Cyclades and of Vresthene, because these wretches, too, for reasons of ambition and self-interest, dared to split our Orthodox seg­ment and thereby to cause, aside from spiritual damage to themselves and their followers, incalculable harm to our sacred struggle, which is made to appear, in the general conscience of the New Calendarists, as opportunistic and reckless.

This being so, those who wrote and signed the memorandum ought to have addressed their criticism, not to us, who rightly and in accor­dance with the canons called those in question conventiclers and Prot­estantizers, but to the conventicler Bishops, if, as they say in their mem­orandum, they were seeking to allay their scandalized consciences and to serve the sacred goal of our struggle.

* * *

5) Finally, with regard to the fifth and last point of the memo­randum, in which the differences and dissonance that exist between us and the conventicler Bishops are mistakenly characterized as deriving from personal issues, we have this to say.

You do an injustice, gentlemen and authors of this memorandum, to your intelligence and sound judgment, if you suppose that the dis­agreement between us and the conventicler Bishops derives from personal issues. At the same time, you do us an injustice, when you por­tray us as capable of sacrificing on the altar of human passions, not only the precious and lofty interests of our sacred struggle, but also the salvation of our soul and the salvation of the souls of those belonging to our segment, which constitutes the primary spark and the effective fulcrum of our thoughts and activities.

For we, and let this not be construed as boasting, but as a reflection of the truth and as a defense of the honor and reputation that I enjoy—we say that, for the idea of Orthodoxy and its restoration, we have sac­rificed, as you also are aware, the material and social capital that we acquired through the honorable and conscientious services that we rendered on behalf of the Church and the nation during our thirty-five years as a Hierarch. Struggling faithfully and steadfastly with the aid of Divine and all-strengthening Grace on the adamantine battle­ments of Church and nation, we neither hesitated nor shrank from unmurmuringly accepting even this exile, and in old age, at that.

We are truly perplexed at how, despite knowing all of these things, you have succeeded in imagining and persuading yourselves that we, who have sacrificed everything for the ideal of our struggle, would show ourselves to be so lacking in self-respect and so malevolent as to divide our Orthodox segment for reasons of pride and ambition, and to deprive ourselves of the manifest reward which future histori­ans and Jesus Christ, the Giver of rewards, reserve for those who fight the good fight.8

Do not say that you are not attaching this unjust reproach and censure to us, but are encouraging us in our sacred struggle out of love and in order to allay your scandalized consciences, so that we may seize the initiative and take the lead, as first in rank, in the struggle for rec­onciliation and union, pursuing, as you write, a more moderate poli­cy towards these Bishops, as if they were seeking union from us with­out conditions and as if we rejected union for personal reasons that degrade our position and offend our dignity.

For you write all of these things, even though you know, on the one hand, under what conditions—conditions which infringe upon the inviolate and Divine authority of the Canons and essentially wound our sense of honor—these men have sought to have commu­nion with us and to coöperate with us, and, on the other hand, are familiar with the reply that we gave, through the mediation of Mr. Kinias the attorney, in which, to facilitate a union for the good of the struggle and for the joy of Christians, we set aside to some degree our personal honor and dignity, attending only to the honor and dignity of the Canons, as it was our sacred and inviolable duty to do.

Hence, we asked them to express their regret for all that they had said and written in the past by way of misinterpretation or misunder­standing, in such way as to bring the authority of the Canons into disrepute, and to give their promise that they would henceforth work with us in full harmony and concord and on the basis of our struggle against the New Calendar Church as it is set forth in our recent pasto­ral encyclical to the Christian flock.

In accordance with this, if those who composed and signed the memorandum were inspired by the incentive of allaying their scandal­ized consciences and were motivated by the interests of the struggle, they ought to have sent their instructive memorandum, which urges us to seek after unity, not to us, who are not responsible for the division and have no need of instruction or encouragement from individuals whose rôle it is not to enlighten us or urge us on to what is good, but to the conventicler Bishops who created the division and are in greater need of being enlightened and encouraged to look to the good of the struggle, which they have, unfortunately, made the object of ambition and exploitation.

That these Bishops aimed, from the outset, at dividing the struggle with a completely easy conscience is evident from all that the Bishop of the Cyclades, who is of the same mind as the Bishop of Vresthene, wrote to us when we were in Jerusalem during the first year of our exo­dus into the struggle; he encouraged us to depose the ever-memorable president and leader of the struggle [9] and to replace him with our hum­ble self. And because we rejected this malicious proposal and respond­ed to them they should submit to our leader, since we did not throw ourselves into the struggle in order to lay claim to leadership, but to serve Orthodoxy, these men then proceeded to disavow both of us, so that they might themselves be leaders of the struggle and be indepen­dent in their opinions and activities, dividing the benefits of leader­ship equally. But they ended up disavowing each other and excommu­nicating each other as heretics or schismatics.

[C]

This being the case, we advise the authors of this memoran­dum, in a fatherly way, to have more confidence in the leader of our struggle, who is aware of his great responsibilities before God and the Church and who deploys his good will, with strength of soul and by Divine Grace, for the success of the struggle, in which he unswerv­ingly hopes.

We urge them, if they are truly aiming at union for the good of the struggle, to devote their efforts and activities in this regard to the apostate Bishops, pointing out to them the great responsibility which they bear before God and the Church for having, with a complete ease of conscience, split the Orthodox flock into two opposing factions, which inflicted mortal damage on the struggle and made them, as the saying goes, “a spectacle to Angels and to men.” [10]

In order to bring to an end our verbal rowing and weigh anchor in the harbor of our rejoinder, we deem it advisable and exceedingly beneficial, for the dignity and the ideals of our sacred struggle, to draw to the attention of all those who are seeking after union between us and the conventicler Bishops at any cost to the extremely tenuous and precarious future position to which the moral and theoretical aspect of our struggle will be reduced, in the general Christian conscience, by way of union and coöperation with the apostates, who are neither repentant nor wish to come to any understanding, but obstinately cling to their erroneous beliefs.

Indeed, we should not overlook this extremely delicate and sen­sitive point, that if we were to unite and coöperate with the apostate Bishops, who have no intention of putting off the old man of erro­neous beliefs and antiquated ideas—as a consequence of which, they committed uncanonical and altogether outrageous acts, which pro­voked disgust and revulsion in the general conscience of Christians—or of putting on the new man, who is renewed in the spirit of tradi­tional faith and piety, [11] our sacred struggle would, in all probability, be very seriously damaged in thereby adopting the mistaken ideas and arbitrary actions which have beset these apostate Bishops in the recent past, such that the final error would be worse than the first. [12]

Let the authors of the memorandum and all who aspire to such a union at all costs be aware that they become answerable and jointly re­sponsible for the canonical and moral harm that our sacred struggle will suffer in the general conscience of Christians, if our principled and Or­thodox segment, which up to now has commanded the respect of those who adhere steadfastly to Orthodox institutions and ethnic traditions, is joined by corrupt elements and administrative figures whose coöpera­tion will not only not lend glory and honor to the struggle, but will even impute ludicrousness and defectiveness to what has hitherto been its pure and far-gleaming countenance, which radiates in our conservative Orthodox faction. Let this be the last word on this subject, and may the God of peace grant the desired union of all Christian Churches within the bounds of Orthodoxy, that with one mouth and one heart we may all glorify Him at one and the same time.

Athens, 18th January 1945

† Metropolitan Chrysostomos

(formerly) of Florina

 

Notes

1. Romans 16:17-18.

2. Ephesians 5:15-16.

3. This Canon which His Eminence cites reads as follows: “The Bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit” (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], 2nd ser., Vol. XIV p. 596).

4. Romans 1:14.

5. Theophilos Kaïris (1784-1853), an apostate Greek intellectual who founded a new re­ligion called Θεοσεβισμός (“Reverence for God”). Born on Andros, he was Tonsured a monk in 1801 with the name “Theophilos.” He studied philosophy in Paris, where he met Adamantios Koraïs and came under the influence of European rationalism. Later in life, he was accused of advocating novel ideas that conflicted with Orthodoxy, and, when ordered to submit a confession of faith, refused; for this, he was deposed, exiled to a monastery, and finally imprisoned in 1852. The philosophico-religious system that he promoted was Deistic in nature and was an amalgam of rationalism and mysticism. Kaïris “gave up the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation on the ground that they were incomprehensible” and “denied the reality of supernatural revelation” (Constantine Cavarnos, Modern Greek Thought [Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1986], p. 24); he even went so far as to replace Orthodox worship with new rites and prayers of his own. (For additional information, see Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ ᾿Ηθικὴ ᾿Εγκυκλοπαιδεία [Athens: 1965], Vol. VII, s.v. “Καΐρης,” by Basil Sphyroeras, cols. 177-179.)

6. Apostolos Makrakis (1831-1905), a prominent philosopher and theologian. Although, like Kaïris, he had studied Western philosophy in Paris, “he was in general faithful to the Orthodox tradition in his theology.” However, he “placed philosophy—in particular his own philosophy—above religion,” maintaining that religion “by nature precedes philoso­phy; because infancy precedes manhood, and faith precedes true knowledge” (Cavarnos, Modern Greek Thought, p. 24). Makrakis earned the displeasure of the Church of Greece for teaching that man is tricomposite, that is, that he consists of body, soul, and spirit, rather than simply of body and soul. (For additional information, see Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ ᾿Ηθικὴ ᾿Εγκυκλοπαιδεία [Athens: 1966], Vol. VIII, s.v. “Μακράκης,” by John Karmiris, cols. 514-517.)

7. Metropolitan Chrysostomos uses the word ἰδεολογία and the adjective formed from it, ἰδεολογικός, several times in this text. We have chosen not to render it liter­ally as “ideology” and “ideological,” on account of the political overtones the word has acquired in this century, and particularly in Marxist and other left-wing circles. Metropolitan Chrysostomos certainly did not intend to present himself as an ideo­logue or a theoretician in the party-political sense, but as a man of principle and the leader of a movement governed by solid theological and intellectual criteria, rather than by merely pragmatic considerations.

8. Cf. i St. Timothy 6:12.

9. This is a reference to Metropolitan Germanos of Demetrias.

10. I Corinthians 4:9.

11. Cf. Colossians 3:9-10.

12. Cf. St. Matthew 27:64.

 

Source: Resistance or Exclusion?: The Alternative Ecclesiological Approaches of Metro­politan Chrysostomos of Florina and Bishop Matthew of Vresthene (Etna, CA: C.T.O.S., 2000), pp. 117-135.

 

 

 

"I have grown disgusted with such freedom..."

  I have grown disgusted with such freedom. If anyone had told us that this was the freedom we were going to taste, we would have begg...