Testimonies of Holy Figures of the Church Concerning the False Council of Crete

Those Who Knowingly Maintain Communion with Heresy Are Without Excuse

Archimandrite Pavlos Dimitrakopoulos, theologian and author

 

 

Let us see, once again, briefly and in passing, what great saintly figures of our time said about this Council, which, in their day, was yet to be convened. Their opinion naturally carries great weight, since they were holy men.

Contemporary saintly figures of our time, closely following the entire course of the successive so-called Pan-Orthodox conferences and consultations, as well as the preparation of the “Council of Crete,” discerned, through the divine illumination within them, the ruinous ecumenist course along which the entire preparation was proceeding. They also discerned the rotten ecumenist foundations upon which the entire undertaking rested and foresaw that the “Holy and Great Council” that was to be convened would be nothing other than an ecumenist, heretical false council.

* * *

Let us see what Saint Justin Popović said—a great saint and confessor of our time. In 1971, he submitted a memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church entitled: “Concerning the Proposed Great Council of the Orthodox Church: A Memorandum to the Synod of the Hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.”

This is a text of historic significance and a splendid Orthodox Confession, in which the God-bearing Father points out, among other things, the following:

“Personally, I do not see that, under present circumstances, there is truly an unavoidable need to convene an Ecumenical Council. But if such a need does exist, the present moment is the most unsuitable in the history of our Church. Any new Ecumenical Council will be neither Holy, nor Ecumenical, nor the Eighth, unless it first accepts the ecumenical and unshakable decisions of the preceding Councils.”

The Saint perceived that the proper conditions for convening an Ecumenical Council did not exist, because even at that time Ecumenism already prevailed in almost all the Local Churches. Consequently, if such a Council were convened, it would not be a Council of Holy Fathers, but a false council of ecumenist hierarchs. But if the circumstances at that time were, in the Saint’s judgment, unsuitable, consider how much more unsuitable they are now, five and a half decades later. How much more unfavorable conditions have become today, when the tempest of the heresy of Ecumenism has swept away everything and assumed far greater proportions.

And the Saint concludes this historic memorandum of his with the following prophetic words:

“But finally, it is known both to the Angels and to men, and especially to Orthodox Christians, that in this apocalyptic age it is difficult—or rather, impossible—for many hierarchs of the Local Orthodox Churches, because of human weaknesses, to confess the Orthodox dogmas and canonical truths in an Orthodox and patristic manner at this ‘Ecumenical Council’ that may possibly be convened. For this reason, the more Orthodox course would be for an Ecumenical Council not to be convened, or at least for no one to participate in it.”

Five years later, in 1976, Saint Justin, foreseeing the bitter fruits of the future convocation of the “Council of Crete,” would once again make a new appeal to the hierarchy of the Serbian Church in another memorandum. He writes:

“Once again, at the prompting of my conscience, I address this plea and my filial, prayerful cry to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Serbia: that the Serbian Church abstain from participating in the preparation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in name only, and most especially from participating in it if it is ultimately convened.”

* * *

Venerable Philotheos Zervakos, an elder known to all of you, reposed in 1980. He too followed with deep concern the developments concerning the “Holy and Great Council” that was being prepared.

In complete agreement with Saint Justin Popović, he writes the following in a relevant article entitled “Concerning an Ecumenical Council”:

“Thus, we consider the convening of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ entirely superfluous with regard to matters upon which the divine Apostles and the God-wise Fathers and Teachers of the Church have already pronounced through the Holy Canons.”

* * *

The ever-memorable Archimandrite Charalambos Vasilopoulos likewise makes the same observations concerning the proposed Council and warns of the same dangers arising from its possible convocation. He was the founder of the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos and the Panhellenic Orthodox Union (P.O.E.). He writes:

“Unfortunately, the ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council’ now being prepared will also be a robber council. If we judge from what we have seen thus far, the ecumenists intend, through the proposed ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council,’ to ratify the innovations that they themselves are presently promoting within the Church. They want it to be a Council that will overturn the previous decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.”

* * *

Another great saintly and patristic figure, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Augustinos of blessed memory, writes in an important article in Spitha:

“If the principal reason for which Ecumenical Councils are convened is heresy, then there is indeed a serious reason for convening an ‘Ecumenical Council.’ And this reason—apart from the other errors and heresies that must be condemned—is the heresy that a distinguished hierarch of blessed memory of the Church of Greece called the heresy of heresies. The name of this heresy? Ecumenism.”

* * *

The ever-memorable Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios, a man of pan-Orthodox stature and spirituality, said in 1991, referring to the “Holy and Great Council” that was to be convened, in his book entitled Two Homilies Concerning the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem:

“Such a Council is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but is driven by the dark powers, with Freemasonry at their head. Let this be understood. Yes. For this reason, if this Council does take place, it will be characterized as a False Council—as though he too were speaking prophetically. It will not be accepted. What spiritual state are those bishops in who will sit down to discuss the matters of this Council? Do they uphold the Orthodox Faith or do they not? From what we are able to know today—I, you, and all of us—those who will participate have been taken captive by Ecumenism. To speak unequivocally, with perhaps a few exceptions, these men do not uphold the Orthodox Faith, even though they are called Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops. They do not uphold the Orthodox Faith. We know the manner in which they act and express themselves. We know this. I shall say it once again: they have been taken captive by Freemasonry and Ecumenism.”

Father Seraphim Zisis is currently giving a series of talks entitled “The Gradual Masonization of the Church,” in complete harmony with what Father Athanasios of blessed memory says here.

* * *

I shall conclude with what was said by another great ecclesiastical figure of our time, the grace-filled and discerning American Orthodox monk Father Seraphim Rose. He is known to all of you through his books, which have also been translated into Greek. This holy hieromonk, Father Seraphim, lived in California. What, then, does he say? He wrote in 1976:

“Judged according to the sober standard of immutable Patristic Orthodoxy, the preparations for an ‘Eighth Ecumenical Council,’ now called a ‘Pan-Orthodox Council,’ reveal themselves to be unorthodox, lacking in seriousness, and pastorally altogether irresponsible. Such a Council is an undertaking rooted not in the Orthodox mind and in heartfelt concern for the salvation of souls, but rather in the spirit of the age. It seeks to please not God, but the world—and specifically the heterodox world. Judging from the experience of the Vatican Council, which had taken place several years earlier, and its consequences for Papism, such a Council, if convened, will produce profound disorder and anarchy in the Orthodox world. The proposed ‘Ecumenical Council,’ judged on the basis of the preparations already made, can be nothing other than a robber council—a betrayal of Christ and His Church.”

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/06/blog-post_115.html

Shared by the Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2026/08/21/20260821aMart-PsevdoSyn-Kr.pdf

Eulogy for Protopresbyter Panagiotes Carras (1937-2026)

Archimandrite Savvas Anastasiou | August 5/18, 2026 | Toronto

 

 

Your Eminence,

Holy Fathers, Beloved Brethren in Christ,

In a eulogy lasting about ten minutes, how can we summarize an entire life—and indeed the life of a great figure such as the late Fr. Panagiotes—a priest whose work left a lasting legacy, and whose name will be written in golden letters in the history of our Church?

With the grace of God and through your prayers, we will try.

Confession of Faith and Sacrifice

Of all the good and beneficial things in the life of Fr. Panagiotes, we would like to highlight three points, the first of which is his confession of faith, as well as the sacrifice and self-denial he demonstrated on its account.

As is widely known, Fr. Panagiotes Carras was born and raised in Boston. He lost his father at a young age, and the priest of his parish—who later became Archbishop Iakovos of America—took young Panagiotes under his protection. Archbishop Iakovos sent him for theological studies to Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston, and subsequently for postgraduate studies to the School of Theology at the University of Thessalonica, from which he ultimately received his Doctorate in Theology. Both in Boston and in Thessalonica, his fellow students called him "Iakovos' favorite." In 1966, he was ordained a priest by him. During his priesthood in Boston, he was assigned to serve as an interpreter for Queen Anne-Marie during the Royal Couple's visit to America. In this capacity, Fr. Panagiotes and his Presbytera accompanied them to splendid receptions and galas, surrounded by royalty, dignitaries, and politicians.

A year later, he was sent here to Toronto to open the newly established Church of St. Demetrios in Thorncliffe Park, to serve as its first presiding priest. Such was the trust they placed in Fr. Panagiotes.

Yet the great figures of this world, the positions, and the applause did not bring him spiritual rest. For even as all these things were taking place, he discerned within himself the non-Orthodox mindset prevailing in the so-called "official Church," and sought a way out. In those days, he had heard about a new Saint in Aegina, Saint. Nektarios. He and a group of parishioners from St. Demetrios prayed fervently to the Saint to help them.

During those days, Fr. Panagiotes, together with his spiritual children, visited the Russian Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, bringing with them a large icon of Saint Nektarios. There, the ever-memorable Archbishop Averky received them with great brotherly love. In fact, he even participated in the procession during the vigil with this icon.

From that moment, he understood what he needed to do. He departed from innovation and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad under the Holy Metropolitan Philaret the New Confessor.

This "favorite of Iakovos," who only shortly before had rubbed elbows with kings and dignitaries, left behind his comfort and security—without knowing what tomorrow held. Armed with unwavering faith in God and the support of his spiritual children, he stepped forward into the next chapter of his life.

And God blessed him immediately. As they had no church building in which to celebrate the Divine Services, through God's providence, the Russian Church had a vacant holy temple—Holy Trinity on Richmond Street—because its parishioners had moved to another building on Henry Street. The Russians granted this church to Fr. Panagiotes and his parishioners. And they dedicated this temple in honor of their great protector, Saint Nektarios.

His Great Love for Study, Teaching, and Learning

The second hallmark of his life was his great love for study, teaching, and learning. Here, for nearly six decades, he instructed the faithful through Catechetical Schools, Sunday sermons, and evening lectures throughout the year. Even a few days before his repose, he asked me if we had prepared the evening lecture schedule for the coming autumn. That was who he was; he loved the teachings of the Holy Fathers so deeply that the ministry of the Word was a source of life for him. His lifelong desire was to convey this knowledge to others, so that we too might benefit from such God-inspired teachings.

His Fatherly Love

And the final point of Fr. Panagiotes' life that we wish to dwell upon is his tender and fatherly love for us. We saved this dimension of his character for last, because we believe it to be the most important. This is what left the deepest and most unshakable impressions on the lives of all of us who had the blessing to live alongside him.

He lived the commandments of Christ, above all the commandment of love for one's neighbor. He did not judge us for our faults, but loved us just as we were. By his example, he gave us strength to overcome our weaknesses so that we might become better Christians. Indeed, we became better human beings because we shared in his life—and for that, we owe him an eternal debt of gratitude.

We firmly believe that, on account of his fatherly love, the All-Good God will crown him, as he now enjoys the fruits of his labors.

Father Panagiotes,

From the depths of our hearts, we wish to offer you a sincere and heartfelt "Thank you." And if you find boldness before the throne of God, please offer up prayers and supplications on behalf of us, your beloved children.

May your memory be eternal!

 

Source:

https://goctoronto.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/EULOGY-FOR-FR.-PANAGIOTES-CARRAS_English-and-Greek.pdf

On the early influence of Christianity on Islam

Source: The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died, Philip Jenkins, HarperOne, 2008, pp. 194-197. Minus endnotes.

 

 

Within those mosques, too, Muslim worship and practice often recall older styles. A modern Christian transported back in time to the Near East of the sixth or seventh century would be struck at the many resemblances between the Christianity of that time and the modern world of Islam. It is not always easy to tell whether Muslims were influenced by practices they witnessed in Ethiopia or the eastern Syriac world, because the two were so closely related, but somewhere they observed the Christian practice of fasting, which shaped the Islamic custom of Ramadan. Modern Christians are struck by the severity of Ramadan, which forbids believers to eat or drink during daylight hours for the space of a month, a severe discipline in hot climates. Yet this was in fact close to the oldest Christian practice of Lent. Here, for instance, is the Ethiopian practice as followed during the sixteenth century: “This fast follows the old law, for they do not eat at midday, and when the sun is setting they go to church and confess and communicate and then go to supper.” Even when allowed to eat, “they eat nothing that has suffered death, nor milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor butter, nor honey, nor drink wine. Thus during the fast days they eat only bread of millet, wheat and pulse, all mixed together, spinach and herbs cooked with oil.” A Jesuit observer noted, “The severity of their fasts is equal to that of the primitive church. In Lent they never eat till after sunset.”

Another surprising continuity involves the prostrations, rak'a, that are so common a feature of Muslim prayers, and which to Western eyes surely denote characteristically “Oriental” behavior. Yet these, too, have undeniable Christian precedents. The earliest Christians prayed standing, but kneeling or prostration became increasingly common in the early centuries, especially for penitential prayer. Sinners approached God in the manner of a poor mortal abased before a king or emperor. As Saint Augustine recorded, “They who pray do with the members of their body that which befits suppliants; they fix their knees, stretch forth their hands, or even prostrate themselves on the ground.” Early saints’ lives boast how many prostrations their heroes would perform to show their love of God. Nestorian Christians genuflected often, especially during the penitential season of Lent. Far from prostration being a traditional Arabic practice, many Arabs saw the new practice both as humiliating and as a foreign import associated with protocol-fixated Christian courts and churches.

Originally, Muslims saw prostration as eccentric Christian behavior, exactly as many modern Christians are puzzled by Muslim styles of prayer. In the eighth and ninth centuries, what divided Muslims and Christians was not whether they prostrated themselves, but whether this was appropriate behavior before an icon or holy image, as Christians believed, or solely before God, as Muslims advocated. As William Dalrymple observes, witnessing Christians prostrating themselves in the monastery of Mar Gabriel, “Islam and the Eastern Christians have retained the original early Christian convention: it is the Western Christians who have broken with sacred tradition.”

Nor would early Eastern Christians have been amazed by Muslim attitudes toward women. Now, scholars disagree on just how secluded early Muslim women were expected to be, and some quite conservative Muslim authorities challenge the idea that Muhammad demanded the extreme policies that are today found in a society like Saudi Arabia. But Muslims were not alone in expecting some form of veiling, or in keeping women secluded from the world, as had been expected in both classical Greece and ancient Persia. Early Christian women covered their heads in church, where men and women were segregated by sex and probably entered by separate doors. Eastern Christian societies also used forms of head covering and veiling, although it is not always easy to distinguish references to head covering—something like a modern Muslim headscarf—from descriptions of a facial veil. Byzantine women were supposed to remain in the gynaeceum, the women’s quarters, until married, and even after marriage they wore a veil in public. One story from Mesopotamia tells how, around the year 770, authorities made extortionate tax demands, humiliating those who refused to pay. For the Christian chronicler recording the event, one of the worst official atrocities involved the violation of women’s seclusion. Agents dragged respectable Christian women from their houses, so that “women who were never seen in the street…became ignominious in the midst of men.” As in other matters, later Muslim practice largely preserves the normal expectations of early Eastern Christianity.

In their religious rhetoric, also, Muslims strove to present their faith as the true successor to older Christianity. This approach was critical when debating Near Eastern Christians, whose scriptures were familiar and venerated, yet somehow Muslims had both to assert the claims of Muhammad and to establish the Muslim view of Jesus. They accomplished this by reading prophecies retroactively into Christian texts, or by cultivating alternative scriptures. Often, they argued that the Christian Gospels would speak more directly to Muslim needs if they were the “real” Gospels, and had not been adulterated by devious churchmen. One weapon in such debates was the Gospel of Barnabas, a pseudo-Gospel originally constructed in the fourteenth century but probably using some ancient early sources, perhaps even the Diatessaron. The Gospel of Barnabas as we have it is the life of Jesus retold from a Muslim perspective, culminating with Jesus prophesying the coming of Muhammad, while other texts told of the evil deceptions wrought by Saint Paul. (“Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul deceived.”) These ideas had a powerful impact in religious controversy and are regularly cited in accounts of conversion to Islam, especially in the Balkans. Even in the 1990s, Dalrymple still found Turkish Muslim leaders appalled that Christians clung on stubbornly to their false gospels rather than acknowledging the plain truth of Barnabas. If not in the Catholic sense, Muslims still care about claiming an authentic apostolic succession: Jesus matters.

 

The Synod of Crete Under Sincere Examination? A Challenge for the “Way to Salvation” Channel

Hieromonk Lavrentie | August 20, 2026

 

 

Two videos produced on the [Romanian] Way to Salvation channel give the impression of scrupulousness and rigor in refuting the practice of ceasing the commemoration of one’s hierarch, especially the one that responds to another video by Silviu Chirilă. The citation of canons and patristic writings, together with their careful presentation and commentary, led even me to believe that they were largely correct in what they maintained. However, on watching them a second time more critically, I noticed that what predominates are distortions, falsehoods, superficial gloss—in a word: emotional manipulation through conveniently arranged arguments.

I mention from the outset that there are also some pertinent points made, but this should not lead to a validation of the whole. One truth is that we cannot regard Canon 4 of the Third Ecumenical Council as the most relevant canon for ceasing communion with condemned heretics. However, the further conclusion that such cessation is not obligatory is false, because there are other canons to this effect, such as Apostolic Canon 10, which explicitly forbids communion with those who have been excommunicated.

Although the first video struck me as propaganda and as a deliberate provocation, the statements in the second nevertheless prompted me to respond to the following commitments: that manifest errors would be retracted and that there is openness to serious criticism. Proceeding from the premise that these materials were produced not in pursuit of views, but out of certain firm and honest convictions, I decided that it was worthwhile to compose this response.

I will focus on two distinct levels: first, an elaboration of two central ideas, and then a brief inventory of the minor errors that make up the underlying supporting framework. The two main points are these: there is a dogma that was suppressed at the Synod of Crete, and it is consistently upheld. With these in mind, the other detailed criticisms that follow are easier to understand.

Which dogma was suppressed?

Although posed as a rhetorical question, the answer concerning the heresy signed at Crete is readily available and clear: the exclusive identification of the Orthodox Church with the one Church of Christ. This idea can be expressed in several ways, including the statement that outside Orthodoxy there is no salvation. Thus, the emphasis falls on the fact that Orthodoxy alone constitutes the Church, with the consequence that heresies are outside it and that there are no other “Churches.” Moreover, from this follows the impossibility of common prayer and of proclaiming unity as the goal of ecumenical dialogue.

As with all heresies, the distinction between Ecumenism and the right faith lies in the details. Falsehood has always stood close to the truth, but it is exposed by certain particular points. This is why precision of expression is necessary in order to exclude deception. It is much the same as in the past, when it was necessary to say that Christ is in two natures, not merely from two natures; that these are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably; or that grace is apprehended as uncreated, and so forth.

Thus, nowhere in the texts adopted at the “Great” Synod does there appear the qualification that only the Orthodox Church is the one Church, while the heresies are outside the latter.

Indeed, the first paragraph affirms that the Orthodox Church is the one Church, but it does not exclude the possibility that the heterodox may also be part of it. Moreover, the ecumenist perspective maintains that some “Churches” regard themselves as faithful continuations of the apostolic Church, while others consider themselves incomplete, yet still part of it. The branch theory, which holds that the Church is internally divided into several traditions and structures, is more complex and accepts not only fragmentation, but also differing degrees of ecclesial authenticity.

From this perspective, the statement in the first paragraph is a more elaborate paraphrase of the Catholic formula from the Second Vatican Council. There, the papists wrote that “the Church of the Creed … subsists in the Catholic Church …, although many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible structure” (Lumen gentium, I, 8). Set side by side, the first idea—that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church—is expressed among the Orthodox by the formulation that the Orthodox Church is (being) the one Church. In addition, the fact that the heterodox are also part of the Church is expressed in one way by the Catholics, while at Crete it was presented through the concept of participating from a principal position in the promotion of Christian unity on the basis of dogmatic consciousness: “firmly believes, in her profound ecclesial self-consciousness, that she occupies a principal place in the matter of promoting Christian unity.” Thus, the emphasis falls, not only grammatically but also logically, on unity with heretics, not on the exclusivity of Orthodoxy. Reformulated, the idea would sound as follows: We are the Church of Christ, but this means nothing more than that we hold a principal place in cooperating with heretics for the achievement of the unity of the Church that has been damaged by the dissensions among us.

Moreover, the idea that the one Church is not limited solely to the Orthodox Church, but comprises several so-called Churches, is also found in the quotation from the Toronto Statement: the WCC brings together “the Churches into a living relationship with one another and to promote the study and discussion of questions concerning the unity of the Church.” Thus, Orthodoxy is one of the many “Churches” that cooperate and deliberate for the realization of the unity of the Church of Christ. It is understood that all of them are part of that Church, but that they are not in communion and lack unity with one another. Consequently, this idea directly contradicts the fact that Orthodoxy alone is the Church of Christ and that the heterodox are outside it.

There are also other formulations and conceptions, which I have set forth briefly in an article on the subject entitled The Flagrant Errors of the Synod of Crete.

In conclusion, Ecumenism in the form signed at Crete suppresses the very dogma in the Orthodox Creed concerning the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. According to patristic interpretations, this expression affirms both the four attributes of the Church and the fact that heretics are outside her. Ecumenism, however, denies both of these things.

There Has Been No Departure Thus Far from the Line Adopted at Crete

Besides the formulations signed at Crete, there has been no other position taken by the Romanian hierarchy that would correct this ecumenist stance. On the contrary, all the official communiqués and decisions of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church have favored the unreserved acceptance of the documents, which they characterize as beyond reproach and as containing no innovations; indeed, they maintain that a lucid Ecumenism would be beneficial and compatible with Orthodoxy.

Indeed, His Eminence Teofan responded publicly to the demands of those who subsequently ceased commemoration in August 2016 and rejected the branch theory, but he did not repudiate his signature at Crete, and in October his position was recorded in the decision of the autumn Synod in Bucharest.

From what he told me personally, he considers that the branch theory is not found in the Cretan documents, although he was unable to point to clear passages that would invalidate it. The same can be said of the Romanian hierarchy, if we take into account the booklet published in August 2017. It states that the heterodox separated themselves from the one Church of Christ (§34). On the other hand, it falsely deduces the exclusion of the existence of other “Churches” as parts of the one, holy Church merely from the formulation that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy Church. As I wrote above, without specifying that she alone is the Church, the ecumenist branch theory is not denied. This is because the ecumenist perspective says that various “Churches” are and constitute the Church of Christ, identifying themselves wholly or partially with her.

Thus, these contradictory statements do not resolve the controversy. As long as there are common prayers, participation in the WCC and in other bodies of ecumenical dialogue, and, above all, as long as the signature at Crete remains without reservation, any other declarations lack the force to overturn the corrupted dogma endorsed synodally. In other words, the various declarations merely show either that they do not know what they signed, or that they are simply deceiving the faithful in order to quiet the criticisms directed against them while preserving intact their adherence to the Cretan line. By this they condemn themselves, like the Monothelites in the time of St. Maximus the Confessor, who by the decree known as the Typos forbade any discussion of one or two operations or wills. Just as at that time the trivialization of the right faith brought about condemnation at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, so also today it may be said that affirming both the Orthodox ecclesiological dogma through correct formulations and the ecumenist one through the promotion of the Synod of Crete constitutes an unacceptable repudiation and confusion of the right faith.

In summary, to this day, the position of our hierarchy, without any praiseworthy dissent, has been to uphold an Orthodox vision without setting it against or using it to refute the decrees of Crete, but rather paradoxically or schizophrenically validating them, while compounding all this with participation and common prayers at services, events, and ecumenical dialogues. Yet faith does not mean duality and duplicity, but a firm and unashamed confession of Christ. Otherwise, one ends up with a mélange and syncretism of doctrines that confuses more than it enlightens.

This ambiguity can also be seen in the decision of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the autumn of 2016, when it stated that no new dogmas had been formulated. This wording must be viewed in context. Set against what follows—“but confessed the fact that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ”—it is clear that what is meant is a validation of the contested Orthodoxy of the Synod. Yet a mere affirmation means nothing without corresponding reality in practice. That is to say, the distortion of the dogma concerning the Church cannot be counterbalanced by that simple sentence; on the contrary, anyone who maintains that the dogma that was signed is neither something new nor an innovation thereby becomes himself a liar and deceiver.

And the acknowledgment that the texts may be clarified, nuanced, developed, or perfected does not include the idea of correction, which is something different from the four actions mentioned.

Worse still, not only were new dogmas formulated, but also new canons and liturgical practices pertaining to fasting and marriage.

Brief Inventory of the Remaining Erroneous Assertions

1. If these had merely been unclear formulations, the problem would not have been serious, but could have been resolved. However, since they are not merely expressions but erroneous ideas, the cessation of commemoration is justified. Unfortunately, I too acknowledge that too much emphasis has been placed on the inappropriate use of the term “Church” for the heterodox, while the fundamentally heretical character was not sufficiently brought to the fore—the branch theory, the theory of the invisible Church, and the notion of incomplete or gradual ecclesiality.

2. The disagreement of synodal participants permitted by the Cretan regulations is a contrivance and a deception. This does not signify openness and sincerity, but rather deception and the nullification of each hierarch’s vote according to his dogmatic conscience, his absorption into the synodal mass, and the destruction of the Orthodox synodal principle. At the Ecumenical Councils of the past, whoever did not sign was excluded from communion and anathematized, whereas at Crete the dissenters are swallowed up by being reduced to silence and allowed to hold a separate opinion that carries no weight. Moreover, the refusal of some hierarchs to sign the documents was not provided for in the regulations; their disagreement was simply to be recorded in the minutes, and that was all.

3. Article 22 of the ecumenist document mocks the confession of faith through the wording: “any rupture of the unity of the Church by individuals or groups under the pretext of preserving or supposedly defending authentic Orthodoxy is to be condemned.” As though there were no such thing as a defense of the faith, but only a pretext for it and the arrogation of an authority that does not belong to them. For the synodal system is regarded as the “only” one that “guarantees” the preservation of the faith, not as the final arbiter (as is claimed in the video, which misreads the correct text shown on the screen). In this way, acts of confession are treated mockingly, as though they were forbidden and impossible. This declaration contradicts Orthodox tradition and the Encyclical of 1848, which held that it is the people who, through reception or rejection, validate the correctness of a Synod.

4. Canon 15 does not understand by “condemned heresy (κατεγνωσμένη)” one that has been solemnly and definitively declared as such, but rather one that has already been opposed indirectly. In the case of heresies that have been clarified by the Church, there is no longer any question of a future synodal examination, because this has already taken place, whereas the canon permits the cessation of commemoration before a synodal investigation. Moreover, the Romanian translation “osândită” (“condemned”) deliberately avoids the stronger nuance of a formal condemnation, reducing it to the level of something opposed, rejected, or disapproved by Councils or Fathers.

5. The condition imposed by Canon 15—that a heresy must have been condemned synodally or patristically in order for commemoration to be ceased—does not refer to a formal ruling on the statements of the bishop in question, because that would amount precisely to a synodal investigation of the hierarch, or to his having been refuted specifically by the Fathers, which is impossible. The Fathers are precisely those attested by the Church who lived in the past; how could there be a requirement that they denounce texts from the present? It is sufficient for the incriminated statements of the bishop to be in evident contradiction with the mind of the Church as expressed in Councils and in the Fathers, and for the one who ceases commemoration to demonstrate this convincingly—or, conversely, for the hierarch to refute the accusations brought against him.

6. The decision of the Synod of the Georgian Church states concerning the Synod of Crete, in point 4, that the documents do not reflect Orthodox teaching. Even though they decided not to break communion with the participants, since this is not obligatory [sic], their characterization of it as a doctrinal deviation justifies those who have ceased commemoration in their action. The delay of a final decision can be explained by the fact that such a decision does not fall within their competence, and the convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council on this subject requires time and preparation.

7. The 1983 decision of ROCOR (not 1986, as the year was incorrectly taken over from Silviu Chirilă) remains valid through its integration into the Russian Patriarchate. Even at that time, it was applied by those who issued it as a choice to avoid communion with manifest ecumenists.

8. To whatever extent the decrees Typos and Ekthesis were heretical in the time of St. Maximus, the documents of Crete are at least equally so. If we bear in mind that the latter merely prohibited dogmatic discussions, it would appear far more moderate than the documents of Crete.

9. The bishop of those who have ceased commemoration is not Christ as a substitute for the diocesan hierarch, but rather Christ as the supreme authority of whom they are not ashamed before the world. The hierarch in office remains the one being challenged through the cessation of commemoration until the issue is settled in the future. Moreover, it is not clear who stated, or from where it is inferred, that this would be a central idea of those who have walled themselves off.

10. The Moscow Conference of 1948 decided on non-participation in the WCC. Did the decision to join in 1961 arise from a change in circumstances? In the meantime, nothing had appeared except the Toronto Statement of 1950. Does it answer the Orthodox objections? The same Churches can take radically different measures over time depending on whether heretics or Orthodox confessors are making the decisions. Thus, the two perspectives—non-participation in or participation in the ecumenical movement—are not similar merely because they come from the same institution, which can be affected by changes over time.

11. Communion among the Local Orthodox Churches is not an argument that they see no dogmatic problem. There have been other situations in which certain heresies were condemned (such as the Filioque), but not their proponents, for reasons of ecclesiastical economy. On the other hand, Ecumenism is still developing, and a possible condemnation may in the future also extend to those who in the meantime will have died in this heresy. Their explicit written declaration that what is involved is a dogmatic deviation cannot be contradicted by other circumstantial considerations.

Because the material produced by Way to Salvation sets forth the arguments and general position of those who support the hierarchy regarding the issue of the Synod of Crete, refuting it amounts to a rejection of the sophisms employed by those who criticize the non-commemorators. On the other hand, at least here there is an engagement in a dialogue that appears honest, whereas the synodal hierarchs avoid even giving an account of their actions and retreat into a refusal of dialogue and a self-satisfied sense of superiority. In this context, I anticipate that a sincere examination of what has been set forth represents a challenge for ordinary laypeople and theologians as to whether they allow themselves to stand in opposition to the higher hierarchy.

I should add that I intend to produce a video presentation that will place greater emphasis on the entire issue and bring to light other important points that I have, for the time being, left aside.

 

Romanian source:

https://theodosie.ro/2026/08/20/sinodul-din-creta-sub-cercetare-sincera-provocare-pentru-canalul-calea-spre-mantuire/

The Bitter (and Revisionist) Opinion of the Matthewites on ROCOR…

From a letter of Professor Antonios Markou to a brotherhood of Zealot Fathers of the Holy Mountain, dated July 15/28, 2009.

 

 

(…)

The available evidence proves that the ROCOR was a creation of political expediency. It arose because its founder, the monarchist Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky, † 1936) of Kiev, failed to be elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1917 (although he had secured the votes of the majority of the members of the All-Russian Council, because the election was ultimately decided by lot) and was compelled to flee to the West, where he organized the ROCOR and worked for the restoration of the Romanov Dynasty in Russia.

The schism in the Russian Church was already brewing in 1917, the year in which the Local All-Russian Council was convened. The Council assembled on August 15, 1917, in Moscow, in the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the Kremlin, under the presidency of the senior hierarch, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev (Hieromartyr, † 1918). Among other matters, it dealt with the question of whether or not the Patriarchate should be restored, having been abolished by Peter the Great in 1721.

The lengthy discussions were hastened by the rapid political developments, namely the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks and Lenin’s rise to power. At the critical vote of October 30, 1917, out of 317 members present, 265 voted, of whom 141 were in favor of and 112 against the restoration of the Patriarchate. The Council then proceeded to the election of a Patriarch, upon the proposal of Professor Sokolov. In the voting, Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov received 101 votes, Archbishop Arseny of Novgorod 27, and Metropolitan Tikhon [sic: Peter] of Krutitsy 25.

The final election was conducted by lot before the Icon of the Theotokos of Vladimir. The one chosen by the will of God was not Archbishop Anthony, the choice of the body of the Council, but Metropolitan Tikhon. As it was characteristically written, “it was not the ‘cleverest,’ Archbishop Anthony, who was elected, nor the ‘strictest,’ Archbishop Arseny, but the ‘moderate’ and ‘kindly’ Metropolitan Tikhon” (from the Life of the Hieromartyr Victor, Bishop of Vyatka, † 1934). He was raised to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia by means of the lot drawn by the elderly Hieromonk Alexy and handed to the presiding Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev.

Tikhon was enthroned at the center of Russian Orthodoxy, the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos in the Kremlin, on November 29, 1917.

The election of Tikhon displeased Archbishop Anthony (whom Patriarch Tikhon nevertheless elevated to Metropolitan of Kiev).

Tikhon wanted the Russian Church to be completely independent of the Soviet State, and for this reason he did not identify himself, either personally or as the head of the Church, with Tsarism, but kept his distance from the monarchist faction led by Metropolitan Anthony.

Metropolitan Anthony subsequently fled to the West. In 1921, with the permission of the Yugoslav Government and the support of the Patriarchate of Serbia, he convened at Karlovci in Serbia a Council of the Russian Bishops who had fled abroad (approximately 20). This Council was the founding Council of the Russian Church Abroad; there is, however, also a decision of this Council which demonstrates the real reason for the creation of the ROCOR. The Council of Karlovci resolved upon the restoration of the Romanov Dynasty. This was not an ecclesiastical decision, but a political one. Through the ROCOR’s identification with Tsarism, it gradually provoked two schisms within its body. Initially, Metropolitan Eulogius of Paris became independent and was ultimately placed under the Patriarchate of Constantinople (today the Russian Archdiocese of Western Europe, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate through the Metropolis of France). Subsequently, Metropolitan Platon of America united with the by-then Sovietized Patriarchate of Moscow (under Metropolitan, and later Patriarch, Sergius), and thus the “Orthodox Church in America” was created (today under Metropolitan Jonah), whose autocephaly is not recognized by the Patriarchates and the Local Churches, with the exception of the Patriarchate of Moscow, although ecclesiastical communion exists between them.

Until his death (1936), Metropolitan Anthony was in communion with all the Patriarchates and Local Churches, with the exception of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Indeed, some of his actions could characterize him as an ecumenist (e.g., in 1925 he participated in events of the Anglican Church commemorating the 1600th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, following an invitation from the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson). As regards his position on the calendar question, it is characteristic that in October 1925 he participated in the enthronement of the first Patriarch of Romania, Miron Cristea, a former Uniate, who introduced the Papal New Calendar into the Church of Romania and mercilessly and with great cruelty persecuted the Romanian Genuine Orthodox Christians.

Even at his death, Metropolitan Anthony remained united with so-called official Orthodoxy, with the exception of the Patriarchate of Moscow. He died on August 10, 1936, in Sremski Karlovci, Serbia, and was buried in Belgrade, in the Chapel of the Iveron Icon of the Theotokos in the Russian Cemetery, by clergy of his own jurisdiction as well as of the Serbian Patriarchate, with Patriarch Varnava of Serbia presiding.

It is also significant that the second-ranking hierarch of the ROCOR, Archbishop Anastasy of Kishinev, later Metropolitan, participated in the Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 under the Ecumenist Meletios Metaxakis, and in 1934 consecrated Timothy as Patriarch of Jerusalem.

After the death of Metropolitan Anthony (1936), his successor, Metropolitan Anastasy, continued the same ecclesiastical communion until his death (1965). The situation changed in 1965, under Metropolitan Philaret, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople, under pressure from the Sovietized Patriarchate of Moscow, broke communion with the ROCOR, compelling the other Patriarchates and Local Churches to do the same. The Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Serbia did not conform to this decision and continued to maintain communion with the ROCOR even into the time of Metropolitan Laurus. (In 1981, for example, during the translation of the relics of the New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth in Jerusalem, hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem jointly officiated with hierarchs of the ROCOR.)

From the foregoing it follows that the Russian Church of the Diaspora was created out of political expediency and not because of confessional, ecclesiological, or even canonical ecclesiastical issues. For this reason, after the fall of the communist regime (1989), under Metropolitan Laurus, it united with the Patriarchate of Moscow under Patriarch Alexy II.

(…)

 

Greek source: https://sangiulio.org/articles/%CE%B7-%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%83/

The Value of Obedience

Bishop Chrysostomos of Christianoupolis

An address delivered on the occasion of the annual reception honoring the Name Day of His Eminence, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili at the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, Greece, October 3/16,1991.

 

 

Your Eminence, our Spiritual Father:

Entreating your heartfelt blessing that the Grace of the Lord might strengthen me in the task which I am at this moment undertaking, I would like, as an introductory note, to say the following. Many times in the past, words about obedience have been spoken from this podium, these words based on Patristic texts, the lives of the Saints, and our own humble experience as monastics.

This evening, however, may we be allowed to consider the value of obedience neither from the perspective of Patristic texts nor with our own words. Let it suffice that we learn about this subject from a very virtuous and elderly monk who has lived the greatest part of his life as one under obedience. He is well known for his true obedience, an obedience filled with self-denial, sacrifice, and reverence for his Elder. Lor reasons of discretion, we shall not here divulge his name or the place where he lives as a monk.

From a recorded talk by the Elder, however, we will take several selected quotations which will help us to understand in a more profound way four basic and essential characteristics of blessed obedience. To these passages we might assign the following titles:

a) One thought, a single thought alone, can separate us from our Elder.

b) Do nothing which is hidden from or in opposition to the spirit of your Elder.

c) Take care not to bring distress to your Elder. And

d) It is necessary to have faith in your Elder.

The advice which we shall hear from this virtuous monk is genuine, based on experience, filled with spiritual power and simplicity, and flavored with the salt of Grace. It is advice which a disciple needs in order to be made firm in the holy contest of obedience—obedience principally to one's spiritual Father, but extending also to all of one's Brothers. For true submission in Christ so adorns a disciple with the blessed character of obedience that he is always obliging, humble, obedient to all, and filled with joy; indeed, the little child of the Gospels. With regard to such humility, I would like to offer a characteristic example from our own times:

A monk once visited the Elder Silouan of Mt. Athos. The holy Elder asked the monk how he was. The monk, his face filled with joy, responded:

"I feel great joy."

"And why are you so joyful?"

"All of the brothers love me."

"And why do they love you?"

"Because I am obedient to all of them. When they send me off to do something, I say, 'May it be blessed.'"

But let us now hear the vivifying words of the virtuous Elder:

One thought, a single thought alone, can separate us front our Elder. A single thought can separate us from our Elder. I remember one Saturday when I went to my Elder...to liturgize. The previous Tuesday I had entertained a thought in my mind which was contrary to the Elder's thinking. Moreover, I was correct, and not my Elder, as the eventual outcome of the matter revealed. But when I went to him, he said:

"Father, you had a thought which separated you from me. Correct this." Between Tuesday and Saturday, I had forgotten about it, so I asked my Elder what the thought was. He answered me: "I do not know. Search your thoughts today, yesterday, and the day before yesterday and you will find it." But I still could not remember it. Having finished the Divine Liturgy, I finally remembered the thought which had been contrary to the Elder's opinion and about which I had been right. Nonetheless, God confirmed the Elder and not the disciple.

If some disciple comes to you and tells you about something he is thinking, never consider him right in this. He has strayed from his Elder. He has become a deserter. Tell him to do obedience to his Elder. The place where God has put him is where he will be saved. The Patron Saint of his monastery...will save him, it being sufficient that he show patience and do obedience.

Do nothing which is hidden front or in opposition to the spirit of your Elder. And do not wander far from the protection of your Elder. Anything that you wish to do, let it be known to your Elder. Do nothing in secret.

Last evening we were given apricots. This brought to mind one of my errors. Since we have a garden, I had asked someone to bring me a tree from the city.

I had no sooner set out to plant it than my Elder said to me: "Come up here. What are you doing there? Nothing will grow there where you are planting." So it was. The Elder was not in agreement with what I was doing. In seven years, I produced only one blossom, since I did not have the agreement of my Elder.

Take to yourself your Elder's spirit: "Elder, shall I do this?" Keep your eyes fixed on the Elder's spirit. "Do it, my child, you have a blessing." Have no fear, it will work out. If the Elder has any objection to something, abandon it, or you will come to naught, as did I not only with my apricots, but with apples, too. I planted three apple trees. My Elder's spirit was the same: "You are always messing with trees. You never learn." The trees did not grow at all and I was obliged to pull them out. The same thing happened to my grapevines. When your Elder is not in agreement with what you are doing, know that you will fail. Do you want to have success? Test to see that the will of your Elder and your intention are in agreement. If they are, then have no fear. You will succeed. If the Elder has reservations, then do not force him. Fathers, I tell you this from experience. I once pushed my Elder with regard to a certain thing. For two years or more I was punished for this. I have reached the point of saying that anyone who pushes his Elder to do something which his disciple wants, but which the Elder does not want, becomes a second Judas. I tell you this from bitter experience.

Take care not to bring distress to your elder. Believe me, I am speaking to you from experience. I am speaking with you sincerely. A disciple who has reached the perfection of obedience has no fear of God. Nor does he fear the Judgment or the Second Coming. He fears only bringing distress to the soul of his Elder. An Elder is God made visible. Should you bring distress to your Elder, you cause distress to God. If you give rest to your Elder, you comfort God. So it is that the Holy Fathers knew and taught that obedience is life, whereas disobedience is death. Neither Holy Communion, struggles, acts of hospitality, nor noetic prayer suffice here. In the sight of obedience, all of these are rendered null. Even if you should commune ten times a day and lack obedience, you are headed for Hell.

It is a great thing to bring comfort to the soul of your Elder. Thus you also comfort the soul of Christ. Once I did something against my Elder's wishes and the result was that God fled from within me. Of such subtle import is an Elder.

When I was a layman, a student in high school, we had a contest in mathematics one day. (I was a good student in mathematics). That morning I had a disagreement with my father. In the contest, I solved the problem we were given, finding the result to be a fraction. However, I was told that I must find a whole number (4). I tried two or three times to do so, but I always came up with the fraction "12/3." Since I had caused grief to my father that morning, something prevented me from seeing that I had to reduce the fraction. And imagine, I was just a layman.

If you have some thought, tell it to your Elder and listen to what he tells you. It will be from God. His advice may seem to you amiss. But it is not. The devil twists things, so that we will not deny our own wills and have absolute trust in our Elder. Otherwise, if we persist in our thought, all that we have expended to come to the monastery is but a waste.

It is necessary to have faith in your Elder.

Question: The tempter many times puts various ideas into our heads about different issues, presenting them in such a way that we think that we are right and others are wrong. He also at times causes us to get into our minds that our Elder and the other Fathers are doing us some injustice. How can we get such things out of our minds?

Answer: You have lessened your faith, efforts at self-denial, and your love for your Elder. That is why we are hurled into such conflict. When, however, we believe that our Elder is the mouth of Christ, then we will not be beset by doubts. Sometimes the thought comes to us that our Elder is not endowed with discretion, etc. But if you see an error in your Elder, know that you are the guilty one; for your faith in him has been diminished. If the All-Holy Mother of God were to appear to you and say something, would you say: "No, Mother of God, it is not so"? Of course not. Thus it is with your Elder.

You will say to me: "How can I attain to self-denial and faith in my Elder?" We need to force ourselves. We must cultivate these kinds of thoughts about our Elder: "I have come here to be saved by the prayers of my Holy Elder. When the Elder stops praying for me, I am bound for Hell. The Elder's prayer will save me." With these kinds of thoughts you establish yourself on firm foundations. You are established on rock. If you should lose courage in your Elder (because the Elder is this or that), then you are not in a good state. And if this should go on for one, two, four, or five years, then all is lost, finished. You will forget your monastery and see it only in a distant way. For this reason, always listen to every word of your Elder—on every subject, whether spiritual, administrative, or whatever. And always, in whatever you do, find a Saint who can help you in this.

But beware. The Saint does not come first, and afterwards your Elder. If you do not do obedience to your Elder, not even the Saint can help you. Always say, first of all, "Through the prayers of my Holy Father...." Are you going into the city or somewhere else? Have no fear. Are you cooking? "Through the prayers of my Holy Father...." And wherever you go, do this. Do you know what power this prayer has? In time you will understand what power the invocation of your Elder's prayer has. An Elder has power even in the other life. He can from this life save the soul of one who did not live correctly and whom the Elder fears might have lost his soul.

I tell you this with certainty: A monk who does perfect obedience achieves the state of passionlessness not only spiritually, but bodily. However, take care. I am not speaking of obedience with rewards—like the Elder who once told his disciple to make some sweet, but whose disciple answered: "I will not make something sweet unless you get me some shoes." Thus he dashed everything monastic.

Briefly, then, these are the things that a virtuous disciple from our time counsels. A monk must be found in such continual vigilance that he will accept not even a single thought which can separate him from his Elder. As well, he must take care not to do anything which is hidden from or in opposition to the spirit of his Elder. He must struggle never to bring even the slightest distress to his Elder and to have steadfast faith in him

When a disciple, by means of prayer and daily practical exercise, cultivates these four things, it is certain that he will be endowed with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and, indeed, sweetness in his thoughts.

"Believe me," the elderly, virtuous disciple whom we have quoted says, "believe me: when a man is obedient, he has such sweetness in his thoughts that he says: Ί want nothing else. May this be my lot in Paradise.'"

Your Eminence, our spiritual Father:

We ask for your heartfelt prayers, that we might be made strong in this contest of obedience within the bounds which we have just described. The soulful blessings of your love are much needed by us, for we have deep knowledge of the power of an Elder's blessing and what great security a disciple senses thereby in every circumstance of this life and even at the hour of his death.

We are told in the writings of the Fathers that a certain monk, who was not mindful of his spiritual duties, reached the hour of his death. But his soul would not depart. He was uneasy, perturbed, irritated, and making an uproar. The spiritual Fathers of the Skete read the prayers for the departure of the soul from the body. Nothing. The turmoil and the struggle of the moribund monk grew worse. So, the Fathers asked the monk's Elder to do the following:

"Put your hand on the head of your disciple and tell him: 'My child, John, yield to death, and I will take upon myself your burden.' Then distribute alms by offering all-night vigils and giving prayer-ropes to poor ascetics. As well, you will do prostrations on his part to anyone he might have offended."

As soon as the Elder placed his hand on the monk's head and said these words, the monk became completely quiet and gave up his soul peacefully.

Now, to show even more clearly the power of the blessing of one's spiritual Father, allow me to cite yet another characteristic incident.

In the Skete of Kavosokalyvia [on Mt. Athos], at the kalyve [a small monastic house] dedicated to the Entrance of the Theotokos, an Elder, Gregory by name, had a disciple who, just before he died, said to his revered Elder:

"Elder, the demons came and asked why I did not do my canon on such-and-such days."

"Just tell them," the Elder said, "that I will take your omissions upon myself."

The disciple smiled with satisfaction and died in peace.

Your Eminence, our Spiritual Father:

Beseeching yet once again your invaluable and saving prayers and blessings for our perfection in Christ, we feel at this moment a need to thank you for all of the sacrifices and labors to which you have continually subjected yourself for our own salvation. Forgive us, for many times we are lured away by our weaknesses and bring you distress. We beg you to have patience and not to cease in your God-pleasing efforts for our salvation.

Allow us, finally, with all of our hearts to wish that the Grace of God might keep you always "in safety, honor, and length of days, rightly dividing the Word of Truth," through the intercessions of our Ever-Blessed Lady, the Theotokos, the holy and glorious Martyrs and Protectors of our monastery, Saints Cyprian and Justina, and of all the Saints, that we might enjoy together in the other world the protection and guidance of your fatherly love and blessings.

I have erred, forgive me.

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX (1992), No. 2-3, pp. 36-38.

On the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: Homily on the Day of the Lord’s Transfiguration

By Saint Ephraim the Syrian

 

 

Our Saviour led the Apostles up into the mountain to show them the glory of His Divinity and to grant them to know that He is the Redeemer of Israel, as He had declared through the Prophets, and so that they would not be tempted concerning Him, when they would see His voluntary Passion, which He was to suffer for our sakes in His human nature. For they knew Him as a man, but they did not comprehend that He was God. They knew that He was the Son of Mary, a man, living with them in the world.

And on the mountain He gave them to comprehend that He is the Son of God, and God. They saw that He ate and He drank, that He was wearied and that He rested, that He became tired and that He slept, that He experienced fear and that He poured forth sweat, but all of this did not correspond to His Divine nature, but pertained only to the human.

Therefore He led them up into the mountain, so that the Father might proclaim His Son, and so that He might show them that He was in actuality the Son of God, and God.

He took them up into the mountain and He showed them the glory of His Divinity before the Resurrection so that when He rose from the dead in the glory of His Divine nature, they would understand that He had not received that glory as a reward for this feat, or as one who had been in need of such glory, but that before the ages the glory had been His together with the Father and of the Father, as He Himself said when going to the voluntary passion: ‘O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was’ (John 17:5).

Thus this glory of His Divinity, invisible and hidden in the human nature, was manifested to the Apostles on the mountain. They saw His face shining like lightning, and His clothes white as light. The disciples beheld two suns: the one was visible to them and was shining upon the world from the firmament, and the Other manifested His face to them alone. His clothing appeared white as light, because from His whole Body the glory of His Divinity poured forth, and in all the members of His flesh the light shone forth.

It was not as with Moses; it was not something exterior to Him that lightened His flesh with splendour, but rather the glory of His Divinity pouring forth from Him; His light rose up from within Him and in Him was it concentrated; it did not transfer from Him to something else, thus leaving Him; it did not strike Him from the side so as to adorn Him, and it was not something borrowed for Him. Nor did it show them the whole abyss of His glory, but only as much as the pupils of their eyes could apprehend.

‘There appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him’ (Matt. 17:3). Thus the ascent of the mountain was a joy to the prophets and the Apostles. The prophets rejoiced seeing His humanity, which they had not known; the Apostles rejoiced seeing His Divinity which they had not apprehended. And when they heard the voice of the Father, bearing witness to the Son, they understood thereby what had not formerly been clear to them: that He had become man.

Together with the voice of the Father, the glory of His body, with which unalterably and unconfusedly the Divinity was united in Him, and which glory had become manifest, bore testimony to them. And the testimony was sealed by three voices, that of the Father, as well as those of Moses and Elias, who stood before Him as servants.

They looked one upon another, the prophets upon the Apostles and the Apostles upon the prophets. The leaders of the Old Testament and the leaders of the New Testament beheld each other there. Moses the holy beheld the sanctified Simon. The steward of the Father’s house saw him who had given lodging to the Son. The one had divided the sea, so that the people might cross between the billows; the other had proposed a tabernacle so that he might build the Church. Elias looked upon John; he who had ascended in a fiery chariot upon him who had leaned upon the burning breast. Thus this mountain became an image of the Church, and Jesus unites therein the two Testaments which the Church accepts, and He gave us to comprehend that He Himself is the Giver of both Testaments: the one received His mysteries and the other manifested the glory of His works.

And Peter said: ‘Let us make here three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias’ (Matt. 17:4). Simon was sent to build the Church in the world, and behold he makes three tabernacles on the mountain, because he still regarded Jesus as a man and places Him on a level with Moses and Elias.

But the Lord immediately shows him that He does not require his tabernacles, because He is the One Who for the course of forty years provided a tabernacle of cloud for his forefathers in the wilderness. ‘For as he yet spoke, such a bright cloud overshadowed them’ (Matt. 17:5). Behold, Simon, a tabernacle made without travail, a tabernacle which protects from the heat and in which there is no shadow, a tabernacle which is like lightning and radiant.

While the disciples yet wondered, the voice of the Father was heard from the cloud: ‘This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him’ (Matt. 17:5). The Father speaks of the Son, not separating Him from the glory of the Divinity. For the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit are of one Nature, one Power, one Essence and one Kingdom.

He addresses the One with a name which is not exalted, but is awesome in its glory. Mary also calls Him Son, Who in His human body is not separated from the glory of His Divinity. For One is God, Who was manifest in the world in the body. His glory proclaims His Divinity which is from the Father, and His body proclaims His human nature which is from Mary, for both natures have been united in the one hypostasis.

The Only-Begotten of the Father is the only One born of Mary. And whosoever would separate the natures in Him will themselves be separated from His Kingdom, and whosoever should confuse them will have no part in His life. Whosoever denies that Mary gave birth to God will not see the glory of His Divinity; and whosoever denies that He bore flesh free from sin, such a one will not be granted salvation and life, which are granted through His body. His deeds themselves and His Divine powers instruct those of sound judgment that He is true God. And His sufferings show that He is true man. And if this does not convince those who are weak of understanding, then they shall be given over to punishment on His dread day.

If He were not flesh, then for what reason did Mary bring Him forth? And if He were not God, Whom did Gabriel name as Lord?

If He were not flesh, then who lay in the manger? And if He were not God, Whom then did the Angels who had come down glorify?

If He were not flesh, who was bound in swaddling clothes? And if He were not God, Whom did the shepherds adore?

If He were not flesh, whose hands and feet were pierced with nails?

If He were not God, why was the veil of the Temple rent in twain, and the rocks split asunder, and the graves opened?

If He were not flesh, who cried out ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me’ (Matt. 27:46)? And if He were not God, Who said, ‘Father, forgive them’ (Luke 23:34)?

If He were not flesh, who was crucified on the Cross with the thieves? And if He were not God, Who said to the thief, ‘Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:43)?

If He were not flesh, to whom did they offer the gall and vinegar? And if He were not God, at Whose voice did Hades tremble?

If He were not flesh, whose side was pierced with a spear, and blood and water flowed forth? And if He were not God, Who broke the gates of Hades and burst the bonds, and by Whose command did the dead held captive there come forth?

If He were not flesh, whom did the Apostles see in the Upper Room? If He were not God, Who entered there, the doors being closed?

If He were not flesh, in whose hand did Thomas feel the wound of the nails and in whose side that of the spear? And if He were not God, to Whom did Thomas cry out, ‘My Lord and My God’ (John 20:28)?

If He were not flesh, who ate by the Sea of Tiberias? And if He were not God, by Whose decree were the nets filled?

If He were not flesh, who did the Angels and Apostles see received into Heaven? And if He were not God, to Whom were the Heavens opened, Whom did the Powers worship with trembling, and to Whom did the Father say, ‘Sit Thou on My right hand’ (Heb. 1:13), as even David says, The Lord said unto my Lord: ‘Sit Thou at My right hand’ (Ps.109:1) and so on? And if He were not God and man, then, as a consequence, our salvation would be false, and the proclamations of the Prophets false too.

Yet the Prophets abode in the truth and their testimonies are not lies. For what they were commanded, that they spoke through the Holy Spirit. For this reason also the chaste John, who leaned upon that flaming breast, confirming the prophetic saying, theologising in the Gospel, instructs us, and says: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us’ (John 1:1, 3, 14).

The One Who is of God, God the Word, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, of one essence with the Father, the One Who is from the One Who is, the pre-eternal Word, inexpressibly begotten of the Father without mother before all ages, the Same in the last days was born of a daughter of mankind, from Mary the Virgin without father; He was born God incarnate, bearing in Himself flesh taken from her, made man, which formerly He was not, and remaining God, which He was, so that He might save the world.

 

Translated from a Russian version published in 1984 in the Troitskii Calendar of the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville.

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, Vol. XLVI, No. 12, August 2026, pp. 3-7.

The Power and Efficacy of Prayer: A Sermon on the Transfiguration

St. Philaret of Moscow (+1867)

 

 

“And He went up into a mountain to pray. And as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistening. And, behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elijah” (Luke 9:28-30).

How sublime a spectacle on Mount Tabor! A spectacle indeed worthy of being contemplated with rapture as the apostles contemplated it, and of being solemnly celebrated as we now celebrate it. It is not without meaning that they who wit­nessed the great revelations on Sinai and Horeb, not without purpose, that Moses and Elijah ap­pear on Mount Tabor also. They shall see more here than they saw there. On Sinai and Horeb, the might and glory of God were revealed unto men, through the powers of visible nature; on Tabor, not only does divinity reveal itself to man, but human­ity itself appears arrayed in divine glory. Moses “quaked” on Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:21); Elijah complained on Horeb (I Kings 19:14); whereas on Tabor, through the fear of the apostles there shines forth joy: “It is good for us to be here.”

Christians! your heart is no doubt ready to say of the witnesses of the glory of Mount Tabor: in­deed it was good for them to be there. Happy were they that they could be there! What then, if we tell you that the way to the contemplation of the glory of Mount Tabor is not swallowed up in an abyss, is not walled up from us, nor overgrown with thorns, not forgotten, nor lost, but may still be indicated by those who know it, to those who seek for it. (It is not difficult to understand that we speak here of the spiritual way; for a carnal way cannot pos­sibly lead us to spiritual visions and divine revela­tions.) Why does the Evangelist, when about to describe unto us the glorious Transfiguration of the Lord, first of all direct his own and our attention to prayer? “He went up into a mountain to pray.” Why again does he, as if distrusting the insight of certain readers and hearers of the Gospel, or as if fearing that they might not sufficiently understand the importance of the fact to be observed, repeat that the Transfiguration of the Lord took place during prayer: “As He prayed.” Why, if not to point out to us in prayer — the way to the light of Tabor, the key to spiritual mysteries, the might of divine revelation? If the divinely inspired Evan­gelist found it so necessary to associate the idea of prayer with the description of the glory of Tabor, then it certainly will not be amiss on our part also, Christians, to associate however short a meditation on the power and efficacy of prayer with remem­brance of the glorious Transfiguration of our Lord.

Though it is to be hoped that there are none in this house of prayer who do not more or less comprehend the power of prayer and efficacy of prayer, yet in order to obtain a correct idea thereof, let us be allowed to meditate upon the subject, as if it were quite unknown to us. Well then: has any prayer any effect at all? This question cannot long remain unanswered. It is solved by the common sense of mankind — for all, from the Christian enlightened by the pure light of faith, down to the pagan darkened by gross superstition — all acknowledge the obligation of prayer; while the greater and better part of mankind do really ful­fill the obligation, though not exactly in the same way, nor with the same success. But why ordain, or have recourse to prayer — unless some power is recognized in it, or some effect expected to attend it? Should anyone ask, How is it the heathen can be witness of the power of prayer when they, being ignorant of the true worship of the Lord, cannot consequently be in possession of the true form of prayer? Then such a one we will in turn ask, how it is that they have anything like prayer at all? In whatever way we may seek to explain a manifesta­tion of prayer howsoever imperfect, the source of its origin will ever be found in the power of prayer.

The heathen also pray, either because God, although forsaken by His creatures, forsakes not them, but leaves even in their darkened hearts some rays of His light, “which lighteneth every man who cometh into the world, and which the darkness comprehendeth not” (John 1:5) — a light which awakens even in the flesh, a certain feeling of a spiritual want, affords a certain pre­sentiment of the possibility of its satisfaction, and thus incites a desire to call on an unknown God for unknown help; or they pray because even out of the slough of sensuality, in which paganism was sunk, there sometimes emerged a few winged souls who, conscious of the vileness and uncleanness of their condition did through a sincere desire and exertion to know the powers of the spiritual world, attain to some communion with them, and did subsequently teach others to attain to the same, by means of a sincere and strong desire, that is to say, by means of prayer. Again, they pray because ever since those times, when the true worship of God still prevailed throughout mankind, and the pow­er and efficacy of true prayer were therefore well known to it, there still remained, notwithstanding the subsequent corruption of divine worship, an indelible general conviction, both of the necessity of worship, and of the advantages of prayer — that is to say, of its power and efficacy.

Unfortunately there is a philosophy (of that kind which the Apostle Paul designates as “philosophy after the rudiments of the world and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8) which, disdaining the universal testimo­ny of humanity, deems itself able to find out the best witness of the truth. It teaches that the whole world is bound by the bonds of causes and effects, in which even free beings are more or less entangled and when, for instance, man prays for abundance of the fruits of the earth, the said abundance de­pending on the temperature of the atmosphere — this temperature on the action and reaction of the sun, earth, and water, and their action again on the laws of the universe, once for all ordained by the Creator, and operating immediately and in obedi­ence to fixed laws; he then is praying either to no purpose or at most only for the purpose of evinc­ing his humility and submission to the might and majesty of the Creator. Let us note that even such a philosophy cannot deprive prayer of that effect at least, which begets a man in spirit of lowliness towards God; and this alone is of no small value, and is a redeeming influence. But this is not all. Ask any disciple of this philosophy whom you may meet with, which is better, a skillfully constructed machine or a living being, intelligent and free, and a well-ordered community of such beings? Who is greater? the artisan who constructs the machine and regulates its movements, or a father who be­gets children, and by education forms them after his own likeness; or a king who has founded a king­dom of freemen, and governs them as they them­selves wish to be governed, provided his wise and gracious designs are not controverted.

The choice here is not a difficult one, and there is no need to wait for the answer. Ask him again why he prefers to see in the work of the All-perfect Creator, rather a perfect specimen of art than the well-ordered kingdom of a wise monarch, or the great mansion of an All-bountiful Father? Why would such people more readily picture to them­selves God as the Architect of the universe, than as the King of heaven and earth and the Father of spirits? We leave them to seek an answer to this in their own conscience; while for our present pur­pose, it is quite sufficient to admit that if God is not only our Creator, but also our King and Fa­ther, then undoubtedly the children will not call in vain on their Father, nor will the King shut His ears against the sons of His Kingdom. And it is then to be wondered at that a loving Father should, to satisfy the righteous, or at all events the inno­cent desire of a son, stop or alter the movements of the machine which He has formed? We must not wonder then, if our Most Gracious heavenly Father, in answer to the prayers of His earth-born children, gives some new and unusual direction to nature governed by the law of necessity. It is by means of such a comparison that the Truth itself, the Word itself, explains the efficacy of prayer: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Fa­ther Who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him” (Matt. 7:11).

There are some Christians, understanding and performing the act of prayer rather in an outward ritual sense, than in an inward spiritual one, who whilst in no way doubting in the general belief that prayer is powerful and efficacious, are mistaken, or do entirely err in the application of this truth to themselves and to their prayer.

Praying repeatedly and seeing nothing result from their prayers, either in themselves or around them, they, instead of doubting the sincerity and merit of their own prayers, are prone to imbibe the idea inspired by a spirit of sloth and self-deceit, that powerful and availing prayer must needs be some peculiar gift of grace, reserved for some of God’s elect, and for certain extraordinary cases only .... To such we say without hesitation that there is no man whose prayer may not become powerful, if he only desire it steadfastly and with a pure heart, with faith and hope in God, and that there is no case in which his prayer will not be granted, if only its object be not contrary to the wisdom and mer­cy of God, or to the true welfare of the suppliant. This is saying much; we trust, nevertheless, that we are not deceiving the true lovers of prayer.

Figure to yourselves a man who by the power of prayer shuts or opens the heavens, stops or brings down rain; commands that a handful of flour and a little oil should suffice to feed several persons for several months, or perhaps even for more than a year and it is fulfilled; breathes on a dead man, and restores him to life; brings down fire from heaven to consume a sacrifice and an altar immersed in wa­ter. What can appear more extraordinary than this power of prayer? But it appears so only to a man who knows not what spiritual power is, whilst to one who does, it appears only as the act of a man like unto ourselves. This is not my own opinion merely, but the teaching of an apostle, St. James, ex­horting us to pray one for another and wishing to incite us thereto; he says “that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16), and confirms this general precept and con­vincing motive by the example of that extraordinary man, whom we have just pictured, and whom he represents as a man like unto ourselves: “Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit” (James 5:17-18). Why is it said here that this wonderworking Elijah “was a man subject to like passions as we are”? It is just that we, deeming him an extraordinary man, should not be discouraged from imitating him, and from attaining power in prayer.

If, notwithstanding, it appears to you that to imitate the prayers of the prophet be a lot far above your mediocrity, and a height unattainable by you, then imagine yourselves as much below the proph­et as you please, imagine yourselves to be even less than Christians, say heathen, and even then, I af­firm that your prayer may be powerful and effec­tual. It may, and what more? it may convert you from heathenism to Christianity; it may lead you to the true knowledge and worship of God, even though they be till then unknown to you, and if there be no man near who can direct you to it, then will it open the heavens, and bring down thence an angel unto you, who will teach you. But am I not dreaming and carried away by my desire to invite you to fervent and effectual prayer? No, my breth­ren and fellow worshippers, I am speaking but of what has actually happened before, and therefore may happen again, and which has the testimony of our holy books. The Roman centurion, Corne­lius, whom we know from the Acts of the Apostles, was a gentile; it is not known whether he knew the One God, but certain it is that he did not know “Jesus Christ Whom God hath sent”; but he did as much good as he was able: he feared and prayed always to God, though to him unknown: “a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always” (Acts 10:2). And what did the un­ceasing prayer of the gentile achieve? It did indeed call down heaven upon him, and brought to his aid high and even divine powers. In the midst of his prayers an angel appears to him, saying, “Cor­nelius, thy prayer is heard” (Acts 10:31); and then instructs him to send for the apostle Peter. And when the apostle was preaching unto him Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, even before baptism, was poured from on high upon Cornelius.

Search in your mind, invent if you will, some object which may seem inaccessible to the power of prayer, and we do not despair of being able to prove to you, by the light of the Word of God, that it is accessible and attainable, though the same may appear impossible. Imagine to yourselves, for instance, a whole nation that has offended God by some heavy crime; suppose also that God has already declared His righteousness will to destroy that nation, and that at this awful moment there remains but one man upon earth who can pray for this people, already about to be engulfed by hell. Does it not seem to you that it is no longer possible to save this people? The experience of Moses has proved that even this is possible. The children of Israel, immediately after the glorious covenant on Mount Sinai, suddenly relapse into idolatry. Moses stands before the Lord on the mountain. Hear and understand what marvelous words the Lord then spake unto Moses: “Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them.” O Lord God of spirits and of all flesh! Can this Thy servant, strong only in Thy strength, oppose himself to the fulfillment of Thy will? Let Me alone, says He, I wish to declare My righteous wrath, I wish to destroy this nation: but thou restrainest Me. “Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, that I may con­sume them.” What then? The supplicant does not even then leave God, but redoubles his prayers; and the wrath of the invincible Almighty yields to the power of the prayer of a mortal man! “And the Lord repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people.” (Exod. 23:14). Measure here, if you can, the miraculous power of prayer, and find something, after this, which it cannot achieve for our salvation!

That we may again perceive with what ease the key of prayer opens spiritual and divine treasures, let us once more glance towards Mount Tabor, to which we have endeavored to approach in these our present meditations. Let us once more ear­nestly contemplate the Transfiguration of the Lord as described to us by the Evangelist: “And He went up into a mountain to pray: and as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered,” etc. If we may dare by these few traits to divine the heart-thoughts of the divine Jesus: then does it seems that on the way to Mount Tabor, His direct and immediate object was not the Transfiguration, but simply prayer: “He went up into a mountain to pray.” It seems as if on the very mountain itself, even at the very moment of transfiguration, His sole object was prayer: And as He prayed, etc. Nor will one who meditates on this deem the supposi­tion improbable that the object of this, our Savior’s prayer, must have been the preparation of Himself and His disciples for His approaching passion and death on the Cross, which He had but recently revealed unto them (Luke 9:22), and of which, during the Transfiguration itself, Moses and Elijah spake unto Him (St. Luke 9:31). How was it then, that amidst this prayer of suffering, glory was re­vealed? Spontaneously, we may say, as the flower and fruit of prayer full of living power. The spirit of prayer, uniting itself with the Spirit of God, filled the soul of Jesus with light; the super-abun­dance of that light, which could no longer be con­tained within His soul, diffused itself throughout His body, shone forth in His countenance and, not finding space sufficient to contain it there, illumi­nated and transfigured even His very raiment; ex­tending itself still farther, it overspread the souls of the apostles, being reflected in the exclamation of Peter: “Master, it is good for us to be here!” It pen­etrated into the domain of the invisible world, and drew thence Moses and Elijah, reached unto the very bosom of the heavenly Father, and moved His love to a solemn testimony of His beloved: “This is My beloved Son!” O miracle of prayer, embracing in one act heaven, earth, and divinity itself! Let no one say that this example of prayer does not concern us, as being an act of the God-Man. It concerns us Christians also; for in us, though not in a like degree, must be accomplished the same as was in Christ: “Let this mind be in you,” says the Apostle, “which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:5)

But it is time at last to inquire why it is that so many prayers remain without effect, if every prayer may always be so powerful and effectual? For it is for the sake of this question principally that we have said all that which we have as yet spoken. Let us particularly note one instance in which a prayer appears not to be answered, whereas it is really an­swered in an unexpected and sublime way. Thus, Paul “besought the Lord thrice, to be delivered from a thorn in the flesh;” but God answered him: “My grace is sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (II Cor. 12:8-9). The temptation is not removed: but a victory still more wonderful is granted over the continuing temp­tation. If we except such cases, all unsuccessful prayers are accounted for by this short saying of the apostle: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts (James 4:3). Our prayers are fruitless, either be­cause they are not fervent and persevering suppli­cations which proceed from the depth of our souls, and into which our whole soul is poured forth, but are only weak desires which we utter without fer­vor, thinking they must needs be fulfilled of their own accord; or because our supplications are un­clean and evil, inasmuch as we ask that which is hurtful and of no benefit to our souls; or ask things not for the glory of God, but for the gratification of our carnal and selfish desires.

Pray, Christian, fervently and with the whole might of thy soul, pray diligently and persever­ingly, pray rightly and purely; and if thou art not thyself equal to it, then pray for prayer itself, and by prayer thou wilt first obtain true and effectu­al prayer, and then this prayer shall overcome all things with thee and obtain all things for thee: it will guide thee unto Mount Tabor or create a Ta­bor within thee: it will call down heaven into thy soul, and raise thy soul into heaven. Amen.

 

Source: Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XXXIII, No. 4; July-August 2013; #196, pp. 3-7.