The Necessity of Monasticism

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia | January 30, 2026

 

 

Passing through the month of January, we see it filled with feasts of great Saints who shone forth from the angel-like Monastic State. Notably mentioned are: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril, Synkletiki, Macarius, Theodosius the Cenobiarch, and, of course, among the least of the “Teachers of the Desert,” Euthymios and Anthony the Great. But even the leader of the tenth angelic rank, which will be formed by the holy Monks and Nuns—John the Forerunner—is also splendidly honored during January.

On the occasion of all these holy figures whom our Church, boasting, sets before us as examples to be emulated, I wish to express certain thoughts regarding Monasticism.

To begin with, the world, which is in complete ignorance or even under prejudice, considers Monasticism to be a useless waste of a life, that one must be disappointed with life in order to become a Monk, or that the Monastery is slavery. To all those who express opinions without having knowledge (a fact which renders them unwise), the wise Solomon responds:

“They (the Righteous) seemed, in the eyes of the senseless, to have died, and their departure was considered a misfortune, and their going from us a destruction; but they are in peace.”

So also in the case that concerns us: someone dedicates himself to God, and many hasten to say, “what a pity” or “poor child,” while in reality the Monk is peaceful and joyful, because, first, he is fulfilling the desire of his heart, and second, he knows that dedication to God is the highest thing a person can choose.

In contrast to characterizations such as “servitude” or “slavery,” Monasticism constitutes the perfect path toward the freedom of the soul, given that the Monk is called, through obedience to his spiritual superior, to cast off his own will and to expel his egoism. This is true freedom! It is not freedom for a person to be able to do whatever he wants, for if circumstances at some point prevent him from fulfilling his desire, then he will reveal his worst self: either he will become aggressive, or he will fall into depression.

Monasticism is a spiritual wrestling-ground, where at first it receives man spiritually weak and trains him, so that he may be able to wrestle with the powers of evil and his passions and emerge victorious, receiving the unfading crown from God Himself.

Monasticism is an exceptional university. A university, indeed, even for material arts at times, but primarily a university of holiness. Just as a young student enters a secular university and, through proper guidance and personal toil, manages to obtain a degree and become a scholar, so also when someone enters the Monastery, through the guidance of the Abbot (or the Abbess, in the case of women) and through his personal struggle and the mercy of God, he succeeds in becoming flooded with the Light of holiness.

Of course, for all these things to be accomplished, labor, self-denial, and above all, obedience are required from the Monk. Without struggle, the crowns are not attained. If a Monk—or even a layperson—receives a command from his spiritual father (who himself, of course, is also obedient to his own spiritual superior), but this command does not please him, resulting in his not carrying it out and instead pursuing his own will, then clearly the Grace of God does not cooperate, and the Monk never succeeds in reaching freedom, spiritual strength, and holiness.

All the above are, of course, not the product of imagination, but a simple testimony of the experience of the God-bearing Saints, as we are taught through their Synaxaria.

Characteristic is the example of the Great and God-bearing Father Anthony. Without having attended universities, without having left behind writings, without preaching eloquent sermons, through the sole experience of the Angelic Life he had reached such a level of holiness that he radiated a superluminous spiritual light and magnetized multitudes of souls. Merely by seeing him walk—without even his face being visible due to the cowl he wore—those in the world were captivated by his sanctity and hastened to follow him, leaving behind the vain and perishable things of the world. Thus, the Saint emptied the cities and filled the desert with souls dedicated to God, meriting entirely the worthy title: “founder of the desert.” And indeed, when hundreds of souls were placed under his spiritual supervision, the Saint cared for one thing alone—with every sacrifice and at any cost (even if some perhaps regarded him as “strict,” as is often the case with those who seek order and progress): to cleanse souls from sin, to help them attain holiness, and to lead them safely into the hands of the Living God, into the Church Triumphant.

Moreover, the Monasteries are the lungs of society, in the sense that they offer spiritual oxygen to the faithful who, out in the world, often feel as though they are “suffocating” under burdens, anxieties, and sin. In the Monasteries, they have the opportunity to receive inner reserves to continue the struggle of life: they venerate wonderworking icons, holy relics, and sacred heirlooms; they feel closer to God; they receive counsel, consolation, and support from the Monks and Nuns; and in many cases, they are even supported materially. For all these reasons, the world must awaken and revive the habit that Christians once had: to visit the Monasteries in order to regain their footing and to receive Light—for, as Saint John of the Ladder says: God is the Light of the Angels, the Angels are the Light of the Monks, and the Monks are the Light of the laypeople.

If now our society is in a tragic condition, let us imagine in what state it will find itself if Monasticism were ever to vanish.

Let us stand aright!

 

Greek source:

https://www.imab.gr/index.php/latest-news/3454-e-anankaioteta-tou-monachismou-tou-seb-a-b-k-chrysostomou

Our Honorable and Sacred Struggle

Monk Mark Chaniotis (+1977) | July 6, 1932 | Athens

 

 

“For the common possession of the paternal treasure of the sound faith, we have stood, fighting.” (St. Basil the Great, Epistle 234)

“Better a praiseworthy war than a peace that separates from God.” (Defense of St. Gregory of Nazianzus)

 

A clear and universally acknowledged schism was caused in the unified body of the One, Holy Orthodox Church of Christ by the introducers of the innovation of the Gregorian Calendar, as we wrote in the immediately preceding issue [of “The Herald of the Orthodox”]. The greater responsibility for this great evil against the Church is borne by the Archbishop of Athens, who, with unjustifiable haste, cooperated in the imposition of this innovation, which a distinguished hierarch, Metropolitan Irinaios of Kassandreia, in a memorandum submitted to the Synod of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (1929), characterized as uncanonical, that is, contrary to the very divine and sacred canons of Orthodoxy. But it is indisputable that this innovation of the calendar, as shown previously, overturned the ancient ecclesiastical order and tradition and violated the Church’s most ancient custom, a venerable institution shaped by God-bearing Fathers

In such a case, the innovators not only fought against the external unity of the Church, as it progressed under the holy Ecumenical Councils, but they also clashed with explicit provisions of both the Holy Scriptures and the sacred Synods and holy Fathers—that is, they resisted the very teaching of the Holy Spirit! The matter is admittedly paradoxical! And yet it is true and becomes clear when one considers by what spirit the preachers of the ecclesiastical reform among us were animated, concerning which we wrote in our first article.

This Paul, the Apostle of the nations, ascending to heaven, moved by the Divine Spirit, established as an unalterable commandment for all Christians the unwavering observance of the traditions, enjoining: “Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). This commandment Orthodoxy safeguarded as the apple of its eye, from which all the innovators deviated—and thus trampled upon the commandment—whether they introduced innovation through heresy or through schism.

Before this commandment were crushed and shattered the gates of Hades, as well as the mouths of the heretical misbelievers and schismatics! For this reason, the Orthodox Church is held in great reverence even by clergy foreign to her, as preserving unblemished the tradition of the holy Apostles, unwaveringly adhering to what she received from them through the God-bearing Fathers, in accordance with a similar commandment of the Divine Paul: “Continue in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14). “If ever I am to leave my Church,” once said an English senior cleric in London, “I will come to the ancient and deeply revered Eastern Orthodox Church, not to innovative Rome.” And this opinion, added the periodical “Ecclesia,” is that of the majority of English clergy (see no. 42/1924).

But the present leaders of ecclesiastical innovation have declared that tradition pertains only to matters of faith. These new preachers, that is, have limited tradition solely to the objects of belief, forgetting that it simultaneously refers both to the moral teaching of the Christian faith—that is, to the things to be practiced, concerning which the Holy Paul says: “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:8–9)—as well as to the very worship of God, this external expression of faith.

This sacred tradition of the Church concerning divine worship is called unwritten custom by the profoundly discerning ecclesiastical Father, Basil the Great, who assigns such significance to this custom that he writes to the blessed Amphilochios: “…For if we should attempt to dismiss the unwritten customs, as if they do not possess great power, we would err in harming the very essentials, damaging the Gospel itself—indeed, we would risk branding ourselves with shame, we who have placed our hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who taught us in writing to turn to the East during prayer? What Scripture instructed us in this?” (Rallis and Potlis, Collection of the Sacred Canons, vol. 4, p. 283).

Perhaps someone may have any kind of doubt as to whether ecclesiastical tradition also pertains to fasting and feast days, or to the order of the Church. This possible doubt is entirely dispelled by the great among Patriarchs and Confessors, Saint Nikephoros, who clearly defines ecclesiastical tradition and writes the following significant words: “It is possible to observe, even in the sacred assemblies, during the Divine Liturgy or at other times, not a few things performed by us that have been handed down unwritten and are upheld—some depending on the places where they have been instituted or otherwise formed—which we have received from the unwritten and divinely-originated tradition that has come down to us, and all these we honor, preserve, embrace, and uphold no less than those things legislated for us in writing, both of which we claim as securely established from apostolic teaching. For every custom is that which confirms, since practice prevails over speech. For what is law but an unwritten custom, just as again, custom is an unwritten law.” (St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, from the Third Antirrhetic)

Thus, according to the divine Nikephoros, ecclesiastical tradition—which exists and continues among us by custom from the ancient times of the Church—is equivalent and equal in honor for every Christian to those things “legislated for us in the Scriptures,” because both ecclesiastical tradition and the teaching of Holy Scripture are the work of one and the same Holy Spirit.

For this reason, the holy and wise Meletios Pegas, at the Great Synod of 1593 in Constantinople, proposing among other things the condemnation of the Gregorian Calendar, speaks those most profound words: “…Since indeed the Orthodox Church has attained perfection in the doctrines of the knowledge of God and piety, it is just that we too should set limits to every innovation concerning the institutions of the Church, knowing that the authors of innovations have always been the cause of confusion and division among the Churches…” (Tome of Love, Dositheos, p. 542).

Therefore, the complete and perfect opposition of the innovators in the matter of the ecclesiastical calendar to the teaching of the Holy Spirit concerning ecclesiastical traditions is evident, and we shall continue on this in the next issue.

 

Source: Τα Πάτρια, published by Metropolitan Kalliopios (Giannakoulopoulos) of Pentapolis, Vol. 3, No. 9, January-March 1978, pp. 63-66.

Online: https://353agios.blogspot.com/2017/01/blog-post_87.html

Abba Isaac the Syrian, the "Unjustly Accused" Saint

By Protopresbyter John Photopoulos

 

 

This paper has been prompted by the book The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian by the bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, as well as by the three-volume edition of the writings of Pseudo-Isaac published by the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera titled The Ascetic Discourses of Saint Isaac the Syrian: A Translation from the Syriac. After this article there follows a letter by the author to the Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera on the issue of the cacodox writings of Pseudo-Isaac.

 

1. Introduction - Abba Isaac the Syrian

The complete and utter lack of uncreated Grace in the West and the consequent rationalization of theologians has created for it a mess, a confusion for all "Christians" in the West. Very many people who were seriously concerned for the faith and the Christian life were inoculated with persistent doubts in relation to the Gospel, its truth and authenticity, to the correct faith, to the authenticity of patristic texts and even concerning the existence of certain saints.

Unfortunately, this terrible confusion that was brought to Orthodox lands through books, periodicals, programs, conferences and committees have poisoned with small, careful doses the Orthodox consciousness. They sow hesitation in regards to the full and absolute truth of Orthodoxy and they use a supposed dialogue that aims at reconciling Orthodoxy with error, Orthodoxy with religions, always according to the dictates of the New Age.

The book by the Russian bishop of Vienna Hilarion Alfeyev, The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian, serves this purpose.

Before we talk about the book by Alfeyev we should say who Abba Isaac the Syrian is. He was born in Nineveh, or according to others near Edessa of Mesopotamia. Because there is a letter of his that is addressed to then young in age Saint Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain (521-596), it is assumed that Saint Isaac was "in full bloom" at around 530 A.D. and probably reposed at the end of the sixth century. At a young age he became a monk with his brother at the Monastery of Saint Matthew and later he fell in love with quietude and withdrew into the desert. When his brother became Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Matthew, he invited him to return to the Monastery, but having now experienced quietude he refused this request. Later, however, he obeyed a divine revelation and agreed to become the bishop of Nineveh, though for a short time. The day he was ordained bishop two people came to his diocese to solve a dispute between them. When the Saint set the Gospel as the basis for the solution to their problem, one of them refused. The Saint then thought: "If they are not obedient to the gospel commands of the Lord, then why did I come here?" He thus abandoned the episcopal throne and returned to his beloved skete, where he lived and struggled until his death.

But if the detailed life of Abba Isaac is not known, the Saint is well known through his Ascetic Discourses. In the eighth of later ninth century two monks from the Monastery of Saint Savvas in Palestine, Abramios and Patrikios, discovered the heavenly treasure of the Discourses of the Saint and translated them from Syriac to ancient Greek. This treasure spread everywhere through translations into the Arabic, Slavonic and Latin languages, and then into every European language.

Thus, the works of Venerable Isaac became the delight, spiritual food and consolation of hesychasts, monks and all the faithful. He emerged as an ecumenical teacher of the life in Christ. Even the heterodox with the translations in their own languages were captivated by his teachings and studied them with thirst.

Despite this, only in recent years has the feast for his commemoration been established. In the olden days on Mount Athos, he was honored on January 28th together with Saint Ephraim, while lately it is done on September 28th. But does this delay of the celebration of his commemoration plague his sanctity or glory? Perhaps Abba Isaac is not a Saint? From the outset we must say that there are many Saints who are not referred to as Saints in Patristic books and do not have an established commemoration or, as was done with Saint Isaac the Syrian, their commemoration was not established until recently. You will search in vain for the commemoration day of Venerable Theognostos whose writings are in the Philokalia, while the commemorations of Saint Diadochos of Photike, Hesychios the Presbyter, Saint John of Karpathos who wrote "For the Encouragement of the Monks in India", Saint Nicholas Kabasilas and Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki were established in recent years.

2. What the Holy Fathers Say About Abba Isaac

Despite the lack of a day for commemorating this Saint and many others, the Church accepts them as authentic in Christ, their Life as in the Holy Spirit, their teachings as a distillation of their experience of theosis, of their "sensation in God" as Abba Isaac writes.

All these things are eminently applicable to the highest degree in the person of Saint Isaac. All of the ascetic fathers after him refer to him as Saint Isaac, as a true teacher of the ascetic life, as an experienced fighter and trainer in the war against the devil and the passions, as a spiritual litmus test by which is tested the experiences of those who fight as to whether something is of God or of the devil. Saint Peter of Damascus (12th cent.) refers to him 29 times! in his works that are contained in the Philokalia. He is also referred to by Saint Nikephoros the Monk, the teacher of Saint Gregory Palamas, in his "Discourse on the Watchfulness of the Heart"; by Saint Gregory of Sinai, who recommends to hesychasts the study of the Ascetic Discourses of Saint Isaac and places him together with Saint John of the Ladder and Saint Maximus the Confessor; and by Saints Kallistos and Ignatios Xanthopoulos (26 references). He is called by Saint Kallistos of Kataphygi "the uttermost educator of quietude".

Saint Gregory Palamas writes: "Saint Isaac calls illumination the fruit of prayer...", and he calls him an "inspector and author of secret inspections".

In the Life of Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi written by his biographer Saint Philotheos, Saint Isaac is referred to as "the experienced and learned Syrian that was notorious in hesychasm and theoria".

The great Russian hesychast, Saint Nilus Sorsky (1433-1508), refers to our Saint 37 times in his ascetic works.

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite calls him "our God-bearing philosopher Saint Isaac".

Saint Justin Popovich writes: "Among these holy philosophers, one of those who holds the first place is the great ascetic and saint Isaac the Syrian. In his writings Saint Isaac, with rare empirical knowledge, observes and describes the procedure for the healing and purification of the human faculty of knowledge."

Elder Joseph the Hesychast would say: "If all the writings of the desert fathers which teach us concerning watchfulness and prayer were lost and the writings of Abba Isaac the Syrian alone survived, they would suffice to teach one from the beginning to end concerning the life of stillness and prayer. They are the Alpha and Omega of the life of watchfulness and interior prayer, and alone suffice to guide one from his first steps to perfection."

Elder Ieronymos of Aegina would say: "Isaac the Syrian hides a great treasure. Open him, read him, be enriched spiritually... If you do not have Isaac the Syrian, and you don't have the money to buy him, grab a bag and go out to beg for the money to buy him... When you read him you rejoice and you are rebuked... Forsake not Isaac. Every day one page of Abba Isaac. Not more. Isaac is the mirror. There you will behold yourself. The mirror is so that we may see if we have any shortcomings, any smudge on our face, in order to remove it, to cleanse ourselves. If there is a smudge on your face or on your eyes, in the mirror you will detect it and will remove it. In Abba Isaac you will behold your thoughts, what they are thinking. Your feet, where they are going. Your eyes, if they have light and see. There you will find many sure and unerring ways, in order to be helped. One page of Isaac a day. In the morning or at night, whatever. Suffice it that you read a page."

Elder Paisios would say: "If anyone went to a psychiatric hospital and read to the patients Abba Isaac, all those who believed in God would get well, because they would recognize the deeper meaning of life." In his Epistles the Elder wrote: "The study of the Ascetic Discourses of Abba Isaac helps very much, because it helps someone understand more deeply the meaning of life and every small or large complex, and everyone who believes in God that has these it will help them to remove them." At the end of the Life of the Elder we read: "He would say that the book of Abba Isaac is worth a whole patristic library. In the book [Ascetic Discourses] he read, while beneath an icon of the Saint, in which he holds a feather pen while writing, he inserted the note: 'My Abba, give me your pen to underline your entire book.'"

Elder Porphyrios would say: "Indeed, in regards the mysteries God reveals within us, silence is the best. Yet, what happened with the Apostle Paul could happen to us, where he says: 'I lost control; you forced me to say things out of love.' Abba Isaac was saddened over the same thing, where he was forced to speak of the mysteries and the profound experiences of his heart, but fueled by love alone, see what he says: 'I became foolish; I have not suffered to preserve the mystery in silence, but I became a fool for the benefit of the brethren.'"

From all these testimonies of the Holy Fathers and modern Elders the universal acceptance of the holiness of Abba Isaac becomes apparent, as well as the holiness of his writings, his Orthodoxy, and the authenticity of his experiences in the Holy Spirit.

3. Irreverent Chatter Regarding the Person of Saint Isaac

Let us now turn to the book by Alfeyev. "From Wensinck's preface and other works I learnt who Isaac was" writes Bishop Kallistos Ware in the Foreword. "I discovered that he belonged to the Church of the East, commonly called 'Nestorian'. But so I gradually came to realize, this did not mean that either Isaac himself, or the ecclesiastical community to which he belonged, could justly be condemned as heretical." From the writings of Bishop Kallistos, as well as the entire book by Bishop Hilarion, it is immediately understood that they have eliminated from their consciousness the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the Life of Saint Isaac the Syrian, which they "learnt" from Wensinck and other works, saying that Abba Isaac was a Nestorian!

Western researchers studied the Nestorian "Book of Chastity" which refers to someone named Isaac who was born in Beit Qatraye on the western shore of the Persian Gulf and was ordained by the Nestorian Givargis as Bishop of Nineveh in around 660. After five months he resigned for unknown reasons and became an ascetic on Mount Matout. After he went to Shabur Monastery, where he died blind from much reading. He had written some books on the anchoretic life. After this awesome "discovery", the researchers concluded this was the Abba Isaac we are familiar with. With great ease Alfeyev despises all the existing elements of the Orthodox Life of Saint Isaac: a) his place of origin is Nineveh of Edessa in Mesopotamia and not Qatar, b) the time of his birth is estimated to be 100 years earlier, c) the narrative about what caused him to resign and his immediate departure he calls a "legend" rather than the narrative about the five months, d) the place of his asceticism was in a Skete and not Shabur Monastery. He creates myths about the reasons for his ordination and resignation from the episcopal office. For the most part Alfeyev considers the Nestorian historiography to be fully reliable, while the Orthodox information is fabulous and incomplete.

However, when comparing the two Lives it is evident that the Nestorian historical source that refers to an Isaac is a different person from our Saint. The fact that in the Syrian-Persian-Mesopotamian region Nestorianism was widespread does not mean that Orthodox did not exist there and Abba Isaac the Bishop of Nineveh should be identified as a Nestorian and not Orthodox.

Certainly, for a long time, problems have been created by identifying Orthodox Fathers with heretics. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes about Saint Barsanuphios: "There were two named Barasanuphios, one our present Saint and most Orthodox Father, and another a heretic of the Monophysite heresy...who...is referred to by the divine Sophronios, the patriarch of Jerusalem... That this divine Barsanuphios...was most Orthodox and accepted by the Church of Christ as a Saint, is confirmed by the Holy Patriarch Tarasios who was asked about this by Saint Theodore the Studite. This is confirmed by this Theodore the Studite in his Testament: 'Furthermore...I accept...all the divine Fathers, Teachers and Ascetics, their lives and writings. I say these things in regards to the deranged Pamphilus, who studied in the East and slandered the Venerable Ones, such as Mark, Isaiah, Barsanuphios, Dorotheos and Hesychios.'" Thus, the criterion of the Orthodoxy of the Saints is the testimony paid to them from the Holy Fathers. Today many researchers and patrologists while researching will identify the two Barsanuphios' following the ways of the "deranged" Pamphilus.

We also have a fairly recent example. The well-known Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff insisted on characterizing Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi an anti-hesychast and anti-Palamite, although his Life is full of experiences in the Holy Spirit. He falsely identifies him with a certain anti-hesychast named Savvas Logaras, even though in a manuscript of the Sacred Monastery of Great Lavra it was revealed that the last name of the Saint was Tziskos! Did we really need this testimony to be convinced about the holiness of Saint Savvas of Vatopaidi, when we have his wondrous Life as a testimony written by Saint Philotheos?

4. The Blasphemy of Pseudo-Isaac

After the pseudo-revelation that Saint Isaac was Nestorian, another "revelation" followed. A certain Dr. Sebastian Brock discovered in an Oxford library in 1983 a manuscript in the Syriac language of the tenth or eleventh century that contained a collection of ascetic discourses (41 Chapters) that bore the name of Isaac the Syrian. Most of the Discourses were published by Brock in an English translation in 1995.

Unfortunately, the publisher "Thesvitis" of the Sacred Monastery of the Prophet Elias in Thera translated these Discourses in three volumes [in Greek]. It was assumed these were genuine documents of Abba Isaac. As Alfeyev writes concerning this collection: "It was not translated into Greek and the distribution was not accepted at first." Why? Was there a reason? Indeed. There are three very significant reasons.

A) Because according to Orthodox tradition, these texts do not belong to Saint Isaac.

Nowhere among Orthodox writings are these texts referenced. One is left to wonder at the certainty of Alfeyev and his teachers in Europe who give such regard to their authenticity, which he calls "Part II" of the works of Abba Isaac, while according to many researchers in the West, whom Alfeyev follows closely behind, say that during this period in the region of Syria and Mesopotamia there were many writers with the name Isaac. This fact raises doubts regarding the authorship of the texts that bear the name Isaac of Nineveh. Among these are Isaac of Antioch with texts against the Nestorians and Monophysites, Isaac of Amida and Isaac of Edessa who were both Monophysites, and a certain Orthodox named Isaac who was from Edessa. But Alfeyev proceeds to confuse by trying to purify the texts without, in my opinion, a good result. See what he writes: "Bedjan gives some extracts from Part III ["experts" even speak of a Part III!] as well, but these texts belong in fact to Dadisho' from Qatar (seventh century). Bedjan also mentions The Book of Grace, which is attributed to Isaac, but modern scholars question its authenticity. D. Miller claims that it is not by Isaac but belongs to the pen of Symeon d-Taibutheh." Even the authentic texts of the Saint does Alfeyev ascribe to heretics. Complete and universal confusion!

For us Orthodox, of course, who trust Tradition, things are simple. We do not accept, nor receive from other "sources", that is, from the thieves and robbers of our salvation, what is not given by our Holy Orthodox Church through the Holy Fathers. However, let us look at the second essential reason for rejecting these texts.

B) Because in many parts of these texts they are full of Nestorian cacodoxies and reference heretics.

The heretic Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, believed that in Christ there are not only two natures but also two persons. Unable to accept the union of the Divine Nature in the person of Christ, and the recruitment of the human nature in the hypostasis of God the Word, he invented various kinds of unions, such as "according to value..., according to will, according to honor, according to good-pleasure, according to relations", while denying the union according to hypostasis which is the condition for the salvation of man. This delusion was anathematized by the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus.

From the extracted writings of Pseudo-Isaac mentioned by Alfeyev, it becomes obvious that the author was a Nestorian.

Here are excerpts:

a) "I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary of your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity, namely, for him who holds the scepter of your kingdom, who governs all you have brought into being, the glorious Tabernacle of your eternal Being...Jesus Christ."

Here we see the separation of the Divine Nature from the human. Jesus Christ is a man who is simply "the glorious Tabernacle of your eternal Being". This is a Nestorian delusion.

b) "We do not hesitate to call the humanity of our Lord - he being truly man - 'God' and 'Creator' and 'Lord'; or to apply to him in divine fashion the statement that 'by his hand the worlds were established and everything was created'... He even bade the angels worship him... He granted to him to be worshipped with himself indistinguishably, with a single act of worship for the Man who became Lord and for the Divinity equally, while the two natures are preserved with their properties, without there being any difference in honor."

We see here as well two separate persons "He" and "Him", the "Man" with a capital M and the "Divinity", and are given the same honor! It is for this reason that the holy Damascene calls Nestorius "a most deadly man worshipper", since he considers Christ a Man with a capital M and worships Him as God.

This delusion originated from the teacher of Nestorius, Theodore the bishop of Mopsuestia (392-428), and by Diodorus of Tarsus who taught Theodore. Theodore speaks of a "conjunction" or "union of two completely separate beings according to contact". He also believed that "before the Resurrection of Christ it was possible for him to sin; he could be captured by filthy thoughts". For his delusions he was posthumously condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod (553). As we read in the Proceedings: 

"First, we considered Theodore of Mopsuestia. When all the blasphemies in his works were exposed, we were astonished at God's patience, that the tongue and mind which had formed such blasphemies were not straightaway burned up by divine fire. We would not even have allowed the official reader of these blasphemies to continue, such was our fear of the anger of God at even a rehearsal of them (since each blasphemy was worse than the one before in the extent of its heresy and shook to their foundation the minds of their listeners), if it had not been the case that those who reveled in these blasphemies seemed to us to require the humiliation which their exposure would bring upon them. All of us, angered by the blasphemies against God, burst into attacks and anathemas against Theodore, during and after the reading, as if he had been living and present there. We said: Lord, be favorable to us; not even the demons themselves have dared to speak such things against you."

Saint Cyril of Alexandria writes concerning Theodore and Diodorus in an epistle to Emperor Theodosius: "There was a certain Theodore and before him a Diodorus...they were fathers of the impiety of Nestorius. And in their books, they composed exorbitant blasphemies against Christ the Savior of us all."

Yet these heresiarchs, in the texts of Pseudo-Isaac, are referred to as great teachers. "Anyone who likes can turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter", Pseudo-Isaac says of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, "a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures... For we are not rejecting his words - far from it! Rather, we accept him like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, such a person we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth." He calls Diodorus of Tarsus "the great teacher of the Church" and "sacred Diodorus", and he calls both Theodore and Diodorus "pillars of the Church".

C) Because the writings of Pseudo-Isaac affirm the Origenist cacodoxy about the apokatastasis of all things.

Pseudo-Isaac accepts the Origenist delusion of the apokatastasis (restoration) of all things. Origen believed, in opposition to the fearsome words of the Lord regarding eternal life and eternal hell, that at one point there will be an end to hell and everyone will enter Paradise! Pseudo-Isaac refers to the heretics Theodore and Diodorus who accepted these ideas to justify their cacodoxy regarding the end of Gehenna. He refers to Theodore who writes:

"Christ would never have said...'with much' and 'with few', if the penalties analogous to our sins would not receive an end at some point."

And referring to Diodorus he says:

"The torments awaiting the evil are not eternal...they may be tormented as they deserve but only for a short time...but then happiness and immortality await them that will be eternal."

Based on these heretical teachings Pseudo-Isaac leaps deeper into delusion when he says:

"It is clear that God does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, he is going to bring them to a single equal state of perfection in relationship to his own Being - to a state in which holy angels now are, in perfection of love and passionless mind... Maybe they will be raised to a perfection even greater than that in which the angels now exist."

These are terrible blasphemies of the Pseudo-Saint! The demons become greater than the angels?! Pseudo-Isaac has set out to bring about the designs of Lucifer by placing him above all others.

5. The Appalling Intervention of Bishop Kallistos Ware

In 1998 Bishop Kallistos Ware of Diokleia wrote an article for the journal Theology Digest (1998) titled: "Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?" He concludes by writing: "Our faith in God’s love makes us dare to hope that all will be saved."

With this article the foundation of Orthodox Eschatology is debated, in fact the very words of Christ. Bishop Kallistos asks if an eternal hell will exist. He places the reader before the philosophical dilemma: ultimate dualism or ultimate restoration and reconciliation. Here's his reasoning:

"If we start by affirming that God created a world which was wholly good, and if we then maintain that a significant part of His rational creation will end up in intolerable anguish, separated from Him for all eternity, surely this implies that God has failed in His creative work and has been defeated by the forces of evil. Are we tο rest satisfied with such a conclusion? Or dare we look, however tentatively, beyond this duality to an ultimate restoration of unity when 'all shall be well'?" Bishop Kallistos therefore seeks a happy end for the world's future. But this is contrary with the freedom of the love of the philanthropic Lord towards His creatures.

The Bishop uses known passages which speak of an "eternal hell", an "eternal fire", an "unsleeping worm", a "great divide" which, as he writes, "can be directly attributed to Jesus"! He implies that these are all metaphors and symbols while the adjective "eternal" can be related only with this age and not the future age. He thus implants the poison of doubt concerning the meaning of these fearsome words of the Lord and then compares these passages with another series of passages from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, which he interprets like Origen. In regards to Origen, he writes: "Doubtless, Origen’s mistake was that he tried to say too much. It is a fault that I admire rather than execrate, but it was a mistake nonetheless." In the context of his admiration for Origen and to defend him, Kallistos Ware reaches the point where he questions the universal validity of the condemnation of Origen by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

To support his falsehoods regarding the apokatastasis (restoration) of all, Bishop Kallistos presents Abba Isaac as belonging to the "Church of the East", that is, as a Nestorian and he accepts as true the cacodoxies of the works of Pseudo-Isaac. He writes that Abba Isaac did not owe his allegiance to the Byzantine Emperor and therefore he did not recognize the Fifth Ecumenical Synod nor did he take into account the anathemas adopted against Origen. Behold, therefore, how Abba Isaac is a Nestorian and an Origenist and still a Saint! An oddity if nothing else.

Bishop Kallistos even writes in regards to Abba Isaac that "even more passionately than Origen, he rejects any suggestion that God is vengeful and vindictive... When God punishes us, or appears to do so, the purpose of this punishment is never retributive and retaliatory, but exclusively reformative and therapeutic." He finally argues that for Saint Isaac - or essentially for Pseudo-Isaac - "Gehenna is nothing else than a place of purging and purification which helps to bring about God’s master plan 'that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4). In this way our Abba unjustly shoulders the falsehoods of Pseudo-Isaac, and is among the supporters of the doctrine of purgatory. And of course, obliquely but clearly, this theory is embraced by Bishop Kallistos himself who observes "that Catholic and Orthodox views on the 'middle state' after death are less sharply opposed than appears at first." It therefore seems this Bishop has understood Purgatory better than the Holy Fathers and how insignificant this delusion of the Papacy really is! Behold another ecumenical bridge towards the Papists, and Saint Isaac the Syrian was chosen to play a significant role. Unfortunately for the ardent, late followers of Origenism, he refuses to play the role and his authentic teachings deny their false hope.

6. Abba Isaac on Eternal Life and Eternal Hell

All of the above cacodoxies of the Pseudo-Isaac writings have nothing to do with Abba Isaac and his all-around Orthodox teachings.

A) Regarding the Nestorian cacodoxies, despite the best efforts of Alfeyev and those with him, they cannot prove that such delusions exist in the authentic works of the Saint.

B) Regarding the apokatastasis of all, the following must be said:

Abba Isaac expresses God-like love towards all creation and even the demons:

"And what is a merciful heart? It is the heart’s burning for the sake of the entire creation, for men, for birds, for animals, for demons and for every created thing; and by the recollection and sight of them the eyes of a merciful man pour forth abundant tears. From the strong and vehement mercy which grips his heart and from his great compassion, his heart is humbled and he cannot bear to hear or see any injury or slight sorrow in creation. For this reason, he continually offers up tearful prayer, even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner he even prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns in his heart without measure in the likeness of God."

But this love does not invalidate the teachings of the Gospel, which reaffirms our Abba:

"Scripture has not taught us the existence of three realms, but, 'When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.' He did not speak of three orders, but two: one on the right and one on the left. And he definitely separated the distinctions of their dwelling places, saying, 'The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, but sinners shall depart into everlasting fire.' And again, 'Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth,' a thing more dreadful than any fire."

Pseudo-Isaac, who was an unillumined Nestorian, justifies the delusion regarding the apokatastasis of all by speaking of the love of God and asking:

"Who can say or imagine that the love of the Creator is not greater than Gehenna?"

Our most sweet Abba responds:

"It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God."

The love of God is not absent even in hell because uncreated energy is available to all. Hell is nothing but the steadfast refusal of the love offered. For believers this love becomes light, but it becomes fire for the damned. Here is how the blessed Venerable Isaac puts it:

"I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus, I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability."

So, one understands that hell is not a punishment from God, but a consequence of human choices. And God respects this and does not try to violently overthrow it, as Origenists maintain, together with Pseudo-Isaac, who eliminate the freedom of man.

7. The Purpose of the Book of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

However, Bishop Hilarion, the author of the book The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian, does not feel the need to justify the pseudo-saint for his delusions. He identifies him with Saint Isaac and believes that the Saint holds such cacodoxical views because he supposedly belonged to the Nestorian "Church of the East". This "Church", according to Alfeyev, in essence is not Nestorian although it "continues to commemorate Theodore and Diodorus even after the anathemas by Byzantium"; it "includes the name of Nestorius in its diptychs"; it "follows the theological and christological thought that is closer to that of Nestorius". We are talking about theological hilarities in no need of comments!

But the author neither has a problem with the Jacobite Church, which "is called 'Monophysite' by its theological opponents, and the Church of the East is Nestorian according to its enemies"! All these are Churches! The difference is that on one end we have the "Greek-speaking Byzantine tradition", and on the other the "East-Syriac tradition" and "West-Syriac tradition".

Thus Bishop Hilarion:

• creates confusion and sows doubts about the uniqueness and the truth of the Orthodox Church.

• raises doubts about the truths expressed by the Ecumenical Synods.

• puts, unjustifiably, in the mouth of the Saint blasphemous cacodoxies and undermines the trust of the faithful in his teachings and holiness.

• and finally, he classifies Saint Isaac among the Nestorians, he does him an injustice, he extinguishes his Orthodoxy, and he alters the basic faith of the Church that a Saint is only one who is divinized and only those are divinized who are in communion with the Orthodox Church.

The ultimate purpose of the book is to promote an ecumenical perspective since, as he says, "word of Saint Isaac has crossed not only the boundaries of time, but also confessional barriers... In our day his writings continue to draw the attention of Christians who belong to various traditions but share a common faith in Jesus and are engaged in the quest of salvation."

This of course is half the truth. Indeed, the heterodox seek salvation, but they are not given a share of the salvific faith of Saint Isaac and the Orthodox Church to which he belonged.

So, I wonder:

• How do some nominal Orthodox dare disrespect the "God-bearing philosopher", according to the Holy Fathers, Abba Isaac, and denigrate his venerable person, slander his holiness and distort his divinely-inspired writings?

• Since we are unworthy to even untie his shoes, having not tasted of his heavenly experience, why do we not fasten ourselves to the edge of his garments to have him as our warmest intercessor before Christ?

• And if we don't even have the disposition to do this, why do we impart scandals on behalf of the Orthodox and impediments on the path of the heterodox who are attracted to Orthodox teachings and seek to enter the One, Holy, Catholic and Orthodox Church?

• Should not the loved by all Saint Isaac remain a pointer to Orthodoxy, a key to open the hearts of our brethren wasting away in the heresy of the delusions of the West? Should he not be a call to Orthodox baptism which is the beginning of salvation and Orthodox asceticism in Christ?

Abba Isaac writes:

"For, behold, baptism forgives freely and requires nothing save faith. By repentance after baptism, however, God does not forgive sins freely. He demands labors, afflictions, sorrows of contrition, tears and weeping over a long period of time, and only then does He bestow remission."

• Lastly, should not the Saint be a living proof that without the Orthodox faith and baptism no one can taste something of the sweet teachings of the Saint, nor can they understand it correctly?

8. Elder Paisios and the Injustice Towards the Person of the Saint

It is written in the life of Elder Paisios that once he heard these slanders against Saint Isaac that he was a Nestorian. With much sadness he prayed and received information from above that the Saint was Orthodox. After this he wrote in his Menaion under January 28th, when Saint Ephraim the Syrian is celebrated, the following: "...and Isaac the great hesychast and much unjustly accused."

However, the injustice done to Saint Isaac by the book of Alfeyev and other similar books and publications, in essence are an injustice done not only to certain Orthodox who view the Saint with suspicion and are deprived of the benefit of his authentic teachings and intercessions, but also to the heterodox who see him as a wise Christian teacher with very good advice, but not as a wondrous Orthodox and ecclesiastical teacher of the life in Christ. With respect in regards the Saint himself, he does not lack any uncreated glory which surrounds the Lord in His kingdom.

9. Confidence in Sacred Tradition

After all that has been said it is clear that we should always have confidence in the experience of the Church, which is received through the Holy Fathers and delivers to us the lives and teachings of the Saints and God-bearing Fathers. In this case, the Church has given us the divinely-illumined Abba Isaac in Greek translation, texts that are most Orthodox, exuding grace and consolation. If we do not have confidence in the Sacred Tradition of our Church we will always be confused like "infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching" (Eph. 4:14) from the atheists and the rationalist Frankish theologians, who devoid of divine grace thirst and investigate without results.

 

First published in the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, no. 1659/6 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2; no. 1660/13 Oct 2006, p. 1; no. 1661/20 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2; no. 1662/27 Oct 2006, pp. 1 and 2.

Greek original shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/Theology_el/3d5088AbbaIsaak.pdf

English translation by John Sanidopoulos.

 

Metropolitan Agafangel: What is unique about our Church?

February 2, 2026

 

 

Today, there are many religious movements, confessions, and jurisdictions in the world, often transforming into globalist, political, ethnic, and other such structures. All of them hold one position or another and occupy a certain place on the world map of religious organizations. There are organizations that are numerous, with vast property and influence, and there are very small groups about which practically nothing is known.

Our Church, obviously, belongs to the latter. It would be fitting to assess our position, following the instruction of the Apostle: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Cor. 13:5).

***

Of course, there is no point in speaking about non-Christian religions, and we shall not do so.

Among the vast number of Christians, we cannot be part of the so-called “Catholic Church,” since they cultivate a whole series of heresies, the chief of which is probably this: that they consider the “Pope of Rome” to occupy the highest place in the Christian world — the place of Jesus Christ — one of the pope’s titles directly attests to this: “Vicar of Christ” — Vicarius Christi (!). But the papists go even further in their falsehood. In a five-volume papist seminary textbook, which at one time went through five editions, it is stated that in the pope Jesus Christ Himself is truly present “in the living”: “if Jesus Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, is He fully present there?.. Obviously not… He is present in it really, but He is mute… I bless God that He has left us not a dead, so to speak, presence, but a living, active one… This part of Him, which I seek in vain in the mute tabernacle… is present elsewhere; it is in the Vatican, it is in the pope… Remove the pope, and Jesus Christ in the Eucharist will be incomplete.” * That is, according to this Latin false teaching, Christ is present on earth in two forms — in the Holy Gifts — a “dead and mute Christ,” and in the pope — a “living and speaking one” (forgive us, O Lord, for having to articulate this heresy). From this comes the invented “infallibility” of the pope, who alone is supposedly “above” the entire Church of Christ (whereas the Church, according to the Latins, is fallible), hence the papists’ striving to subjugate the whole world and their unrestrained attempt to absorb not only all Christians but, now in our days, all religions whatsoever.

But neither did Christ Himself appoint a vicar in His place, nor did the Apostles elect a “Vicar of Christ” after His Ascension into Heaven, and the Apostle Peter himself, in his two epistles, calls himself an Apostle and servant of Christ, but nowhere His substitute or vicar. Accordingly, we also cannot regard the Roman pope as such. The Latins deliberately misinterpret Christ’s threefold forgiveness of Peter who thrice denied Him (see John 21), and they present the absolution of Peter’s denial as his appointment as Vicar of the Savior Himself (!).

The papists, according to their custom, may today deny what they said yesterday, but this in no way changes the ideology of papism, since the essence of their false teaching remains unchanged — only the external details trade places. The doctrine of papism is, in essence, idolatry, and the pope among the Latins is an idol. For this reason, the Orthodox often called the Roman pope the antichrist, since he claims to be in the place of Christ. With this, I trust, all is clear.

***

Among the multitude of Protestant churches, it is impossible to identify even one that possesses all the marks of the Church of Christ, even though, as indeed everywhere, there can be found sound judgments, a correct assessment of the state of our society, and self-sacrifice for Christ. Because they do not assign primary importance to remaining within the continuous Apostolic Church founded by Christ, in many cases they reject Holy Tradition, cast doubt upon the Holy Mysteries, and other things by which the Church of Christ lives, they cannot in any way be the object of our present consideration. Not to mention other movements within Christianity that formed on their own and came into being at some historical stage (centuries after the Descent of the Holy Spirit), and usually have a specific founder and a date of origin.

***

Now concerning Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is that Church which preserves in full the same faith and the same essence that were in the Apostolic Church. Naturally, with the layering of centuries-old traditions, which made the Church more accessible for perception and practice by one or another people in one or another historical period, without thereby touching the very essence of the original Apostolic Church. It is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and of those Local Churches, united among themselves, which trace their origin back to these Councils.

The Russian Orthodox Church

We trace our succession from the Local Russian Orthodox Church and its last Local Council of 1917–18.

Unfortunately, those who call themselves Orthodox today are not merely divided, but even disunited, fragmented, and opposed to one another. From the Local Russian Orthodox Church, various communities fell away — for example, the ritualist Old Believers, and in the early 20th century, many different groups that inclined toward cooperation with the Satanist Bolsheviks in the work of destroying the Church of Christ on our land — various Renovationist groups, the Grigorievites — but they did not gain authority or trust within the Church environment and, over time, ceased to exist as organized bodies. Then the God-fighters made the existence of a free Church Center impossible, and anyone from the Church milieu who was put forward to positions of Church leadership was subjected to immense pressure and real physical isolation with threats to their life if they refused to carry out the will of the God-fighters. This continued until the appearance of Sergius Stragorodsky, who fully accepted all the conditions of the God-fighters, and from him began the formation of today’s Moscow Patriarchate — an organization absolutely subordinated to Kremlin power, being an inseparable part of it, serving it alone, and unquestioningly carrying out all its directives. All other candidates who refused cooperation with the devil accepted a martyr’s death or died in isolation (Metropolitan Agafangel of Yaroslavl).

In the USSR, the spiritually free Church of Christ, independent of external forces, was compelled to go underground, while abroad it was preserved in the form of the free and independent Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Other Russian church organizations — the OCA and the Evlogians — were under external Kremlin or Masonic influence, control, and dependence.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Thus, we trace our succession specifically from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The Catacomb Church in the USSR had no central administration, but existed — or more accurately, survived — in the form of separate, scattered communities. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in the USSR, its parishes and individual representatives who had preserved Orthodox consciousness joined the ROCOR.

The Kremlin authorities, who had dreamed since as early as 1920 of the destruction of the ROCOR (a task undertaken, according to archival data, by Tuchkov himself), and which by the end of the last century and the beginning of the current one remained (even by the mere fact of its independence) practically the only organized and authoritative opponent of the Moscow Patriarchate (and, moreover, with the opening of parishes on the territory of the former USSR, had become its internal enemy), directed considerable forces and resources toward the realization of this goal. This massive, planned operation to destroy the ROCOR, which began in the 1990s (due to the fall of the "Iron Curtain" — prior to that, a routine systemic effort had been underway), was carried out by divisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ambassadors and embassy staff were instructed to attend services and embed themselves in communities) and the FSB, in cooperation with the Moscow Patriarchate, under the oversight and control of the President of the Russian Federation, the God-fighter V. V. Putin. As part of this special operation, on Putin’s directive, the Soviet-era program “Russkiy Mir” (“Russian World”) was revived. Budgetary funds of the Russian Federation were allocated to this large-scale special operation, and a significant number of professionals — officers and agents — were mobilized, who, for salaries, bonuses, and rewards, carried out the order given to them to liquidate the Church. This was in addition, of course, to the naïve and deceived individuals within the ROCOR itself.

Having united part of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate and thus liquidated a portion of ROCOR, the FSB was concerned that the part of ROCOR which did not join the MP (and this amounted, in total, to approximately half of the former ROCOR) would not reconstitute itself and thereby revive the threat of serious opposition to the Soviet regime. To prevent this, “partisans” — KGB agents — were embedded within the non-joined factions with the aim of sowing discord and hindering their unification. So far, we reliably know of only one such agent — M. V. Nazarov-Pakhomov, with the KGB codename “Walter” (about which, thanks to him, he himself gave testimony). In New York, there was an attempt to take control of our Synod by the entrepreneur Yuri Lukin, who offered to house the Synod on his estate in Mountain View (equipped with surveillance cameras), with the condition that we would pay rent and utilities. I agreed, on one condition — that the money collected by our Church and invested into the personal estate of Yuri Lukin be accounted for separately, so that, in the event of a deterioration in our relations and the Synod’s departure from Mountain View, we could reclaim the amount we had contributed. This was stipulated so that, should we find ourselves out on the street, we would be able to either purchase or rent premises to continue the work of the Synod. Lukin initially agreed immediately. But a few days later, evidently after consulting someone, he stated that this did not suit him, and that all funds collected by the Synod must belong to him personally — that is, what he wanted was total control over us. Naturally, such conditions were unacceptable for us. To this day, Yuri Lukin continues to keep under his control the former Bishop Andronik, who resides on his Mountain View estate, along with the clergy and faithful who support him.

Today it is already perfectly clear that the main goal of the leaders of the group that found itself near Metropolitan Vitaly was to keep him in complete isolation so as to prevent the reconstitution of the former ROCOR around him. Unfortunately, they succeeded in this through “successful” fragmentations and schisms, removing from the Metropolitan all the “unnecessary” and “superfluous” people — who quite possibly were striving to act in that situation with full sincerity.

This conscious or subconscious opposition to the restoration of ROCOR may also be attributed to all the other schismatic “splinters,” whose purpose and essence of existence is to retreat into isolation and die alone. In the most innocent case, this is banal sectarian thinking; in the worst — the execution of a direct assignment from the God-fighters. In any case, as of today, what exists is a collection of sects, closed-in and dying out. The only question is to which category they belong — whether they formed independently, by virtue of their hopeless sectarian mentality, or whether they were organized by the God-fighters. Here lies an entire field for reflection and conclusions — who is who among them. But this, of course, does not change the essence of the matter.

The main sign of unorthodoxy nowadays among the “true Christians” is the heresy of opposition to the Dogma of the Church, and, as a result, the complete absence of any desire for the unity of the Church. And this, unfortunately, is now seen even at the level of ordinary parishioners.

Just as special individuals were assigned to Metropolitan Vitaly, so too were such people attached to me, as the only bishop of ROCOR who did not go into union with the MP on the day of the signing of the Act of Unification in the presence of Putin (the other former hierarch who was against it, Bishop Daniel, was, like Metropolitan Vitaly, isolated and ultimately “treated”). At that time, several individuals appeared on social media who deliberately engaged in discrediting me (which, incidentally, to some extent continues to this day). Among other things, there even appeared a LiveJournal account with a distorted version of my name (agafa-aggel) and my own photograph as the “userpic.” In the open information space, on such platforms as Wikipedia, outright lies are written about our Church and about me, and when attempts are made to correct the information, the administrators there issue threats of complete blocking. And then there is the absolute obstruction, at the suggestion of the Moscow Patriarchate, from the administrative resources everywhere. Altogether, in the matter of the Church of Christ, we see a systematic, professionally executed approach. The system of the invisible spread of globalism in our days is operative, and it is not of God, and it works against God.

At present, we see that there are virtually no Orthodox who are free and independent from external forces, and establishing communion with dependent — and therefore unorthodox — groups carries the risk of also finding oneself, even if indirectly, in dependence on external political or Masonic forces. Therefore, it is impossible to unite with religious organizations that are not free and have one form or another of external dependence. We desire to be only Orthodox.

I am, without doubt, an opponent of all artificially created organizations, especially religious ones. The Church of Christ was founded by Christ once and for all time. All the efforts of Stalin and of global Freemasonry to organize the Church under their influence and control are doomed to collapse before the Face of God, the Gospel, and the coming Kingdom. The farther the Church is from political events, the closer it is to Christ. But both in communist states and in post-communist ones, the ideology of enslavement has always been at the forefront. In the Russian Federation even today there are people who monitor the state of alternative religious organizations — on the one hand, for the sake of liquidating them through absorption into the MP, and on the other — to prevent them from uniting into any real force. The God-fighting Soviet system is still working systematically to this day.

***

At present, we remain alone within the Local Russian Orthodox Church — or rather, we continue to remain so, as this isolation of ROCOR was at one time testified to by St. Metropolitan Philaret. We do not declare ourselves to be the one and only true [Russian] Church of Christ — we cannot know that — but neither do we see anyone around us who possesses the full set of necessary marks of the true Church of Christ. We are open to dialogue with all who are independent and who sincerely consider themselves believing Orthodox Christians and strive for the unity of the Orthodox Church.

We believe that we belong to the true Russian Orthodox Church, and through it — to the Church founded by Christ. We should not be excessively concerned with the question of our numbers or the overall number of those being saved — that lies within the domain of God. The main thing is that we are free from external influences, and over us is only God. We believe that our Church will be saved, as one that has not departed from the original Apostolic Church of Christ, and, if Christ has so ordained, then we too shall be saved in it: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” (Luke 12:32). So may it be!

 

* BOUGAUD (Emile, abbé). Le christianisme et les temps présents, Tome IV “L’Eglise”, Paris, Poussielgue frères. 1882, pp. 506–516. — Bougaud (Emile, abbé), Christianity and the Present Times, Vol. IV “The Church.” — Cited in: Herman Ivanov-Treenadzaty. The Russian Church Facing the West, Moscow, Grad Kitezh Publishers, 1994, p. 238.

 

Russian source:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/stati/avtorskaya-kolonka/mitropolit-agafangel-v-chjom-osobennost-nashej-tserkvi

 

 

Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions (Comments on an Ecumenist Text)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | February 2, 2026

 

 

Introduction

At the web address: https://panorthodoxsynod.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_22.html#more, a text by Ioannis Lotsios, Doctor of Theology, postdoctoral researcher, is published with the title: “Is There a Heretical Deviation by the Ecumenical Patriarch?”.

Beginning the critique of the text, we focus on the section titled “Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions,” which is presented below:

Critique of Contemporary Anti-Ecumenist Positions

Contemporary anti-ecumenism does not constitute a unified theological movement, but a collection of disparate stances. Particular influence is exercised by the text attributed to Fr. Justin Popovich, in which ecumenism is characterized as a “pan-heresy.” This generalized use of the term presents serious theological problems, as it fails to distinguish between theological dialogue, ecclesiological syncretism, and religious relativism—distinctions that are essential in patristic theology. At the same time, walling-off texts that invoke Canon 15 of the First-Second Council often erroneously equate dialogue with heresy. However, this Canon refers explicitly to publicly preached heresy, and not to theological dialogue or pastoral initiatives. The indiscriminate use of terms such as “betrayal” or “apostasy,” without conciliar judgment, stands in contrast to the patristic ethos. Saint Maximus the Confessor, despite his fierce opposition to Monothelitism, grounded his confession in theological argumentation and not in denunciatory rhetoric.

In conclusion, the critical assessment of contemporary anti-ecumenist positions shows that many of them are based on a fragmentary use of patristic and canonical passages. In the light of patristic ecclesiology, dialogue—when conducted within conciliar frameworks and with clear dogmatic self-awareness—does not threaten Orthodoxy, but reveals it as a living and confessional reality.

Comments

A. The attempt to present contemporary ecumenical dialogue as a “patristic continuity” or “living confessional reality” essentially constitutes a dogmatic concession and legitimization of heresy. The Fathers of the Church did not engage in dialogue for the sake of understanding or diplomacy; every conversation with heretics had as its sole purpose the defense of the truth of the faith and the condemnation of delusion. To regard dialogue with Churches that have already altered the faith—through Papal primacy, the Filioque, and other innovations—as “safe” or “discerning” is a violation of confessional responsibility and a theologically baseless claim.

B. The invocation of Canon 15 of the First Council as “misunderstood” is a shameful exploitation of the Conciliar Tradition. The Canon does not merely speak of “teaching” — it speaks of communion. Whoever prays together with a heretic, whoever recognizes as a “Church” the schismatic construct of Rome or the Protestant confessions, has already fallen away from Orthodoxy, even if he holds the Horologion and a Kontakion in his hands. Participation in “theological committees” where Orthodoxy “dialogues” on equal terms with delusion is an acceptance of the equivalence of truth and falsehood — that is, a denial of Jesus as the only Way and Truth.

There is no “neutral” stance. Either you are with Christ and His Saints, or you are with the Antichrist and his offshoots. Silence in the face of heresy is a crime of the gravest betrayal. Any Orthodox bishop, priest, or theologian who participates in “global prayer meetings” with Papists and Protestants is not merely “naïve” — he is a betrayer of Apostolic Succession, an adulterer of the Church, and a legitimizer of pseudo‑ecclesiology.

C. The invocation of Saint Maximus the Confessor as a “model of dialogue” is theologically misleading and dangerous. Maximus fought every heresy with an uncompromising confession of the truth and with theological argumentation—not with handshakes, symbolic associations, or equal negotiations with heretical Churches. Any dialogue that places on equal footing or creates a false sense of “understanding” with Churches that have departed from patristic truth constitutes cooperation with delusion, legitimization of heresy, and an essential apostasy from the confessional ethos of Orthodoxy. Saint Maximus did not “dialogue” with the Monothelites—he crushed them, anathematized them, and preferred the cutting out of his tongue and exile rather than communion with heresy. The comparison of today’s ecumenistic cowardice with the bravery of the Confessor is a slander against his Blood. Saint Maximus did not seek “common ground” with Pyrrhus or Macarius of Antioch; he deposed them, denounced them, and regarded them as alienated from Christ.

D. Orthodox dialogue cannot legitimize or even give the impression of equality with dogmas that violate the apostolic tradition; every such attempt turns economia into an instrument of theological betrayal and undermines the integrity of the faith which the Fathers defended with blood and word.

Contemporary ecumenist practice, when invoking Saint Maximus as a model, slanders the confessional rigor of the Church and confuses theological truth with symbolic or political handshakes, risking the surrender of the body of faith to delusion under the guise of “dialogue.”

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_2.html

The Pharisaic Structure of Psychological Conflict

Ioannis Kornarakis (+2013)

Emeritus Professor of Pastoral Psychology and Confession, University of Athens

 

 

A fundamental structure of psychological conflict is also the Pharisaic one. The central characteristics of the “Pharisaic” structure are initially twofold: external behavior and internal psychodynamic activity.

The external “Pharisaic” behavior: The Pharisaic structure of psychological conflict is expressed through the following particular elements.

1. With excessive piety or observance of religious forms. In the Pharisee's behavior, there dominates an anxious tendency to experience and fulfill every religious “form,” which is considered essential for the self-assurance of religious superiority. The Pharisee has a thirst for religious experience.

2. With proclamation of religious fulfillment. The Pharisaic structure of psychological conflict drives toward the proclamation of religious fulfillment. The Pharisee feels the need to assure other people of this fulfillment and, in fact, to convince them of it. For this purpose, he makes use of statistics. The experiential elements of his piety are objectified in such a way that they can be measured and evaluated.

3. With comparison of individual religiosity to that of other people. The Pharisee is not social in the deeper sense of the word. However, he needs other people in order to affirm his religious superiority. Even though he isolates himself to project this religious superiority, he simultaneously invokes the weaknesses and deficiencies of other people in order to experience the satisfaction of his religious self-sufficiency.

Therefore, let us summarize: the basic characteristics that compose the “mask” of Pharisaic behavior are the thirst for experience, the objectification of the experiential elements of piety, and dependence on other people (through comparison).

This mask, as behavior, gives the impression of self-sufficiency from every perspective. The Pharisee is the proud (arrogant or falsely humble) person who has a “peaceful” (religious) conscience, because he is complete and perfect. He is thus independent from both God and other people, because his existential outlook coincides with the image he has formed of himself. Therefore, his mask (his behavior) is identified with the “ideal” image of himself. This external image of the Pharisee’s behavior gives the initial impression that this person does not face existential problems, that he does not experience inner conflicts, that everything in his life is going well. He does not feel that anything is lacking, and he believes he has nothing to envy in others.

Nevertheless, all these external elements constitute symptoms that express the lived psychological conflict. The “perfect” mask underscores an experiential rigidity. This rigidity, moreover, is understood as an expression of unconscious—and indeed compulsive—processes.

But what is the problem the Pharisee experiences?

The person who behaves with moral and spiritual self-sufficiency and holds a “grand idea” of himself is, in essence, experiencing a deep disappointment over his inability to be genuinely perfect. His self-sufficiency is thus the result of the repression of this disappointment, and especially the repression of his guilt over the failure of his existential outlook. The Pharisee struggles for self-justification. He tries in every way to be justified before himself, before other people, and before God. Yet the fact—as the Lord affirmed—that he “did not go down justified” from the Temple shows that his inner state was “diametrically” opposed to the apparent psychological self-sufficiency and calm. His effort to display or proclaim his perfection reveals the active presence of guilty anxiety, which—serving as a fundamental psychodynamic motive—led “necessarily” to the composition and construction of the Pharisaic mask.

Thus, the external Pharisaic behavior, as a composition of partial symptoms, leads us to the guilty interiority of the Pharisee. The main characteristics of this interiority are the following:

1. Sense of insecurity: This feeling is betrayed throughout the Pharisee’s behavior, especially in his effort to underscore his superiority over other people. The comparison with others essentially constitutes an attempt at compulsive dependence upon certain supports. Other people are those supports, which can uphold his perfection, because one is usually perfect in something only in relation to others who are not perfect.

But of course, the more specific problem here is the reasonable question that arises:
What, after all, does the Pharisee want to secure himself against? Or, put differently, from what is the Pharisee threatened? The Pharisee is threatened by a realization of his personal guilt over his inability (and incapacity) to progress toward a genuine and authentic moral and spiritual fulfillment. If, for any reason, he were to arrive at this realization, the edifice of the illusory (idealized) image of himself would collapse. But this would mean, for him, true destruction. Thus, through comparison, he attempts to secure himself by assuring himself that, since other people are inferior to him, he possesses a kind of perfection that leaves no room for feelings of guilt.

Yet the deeper meaning of the Pharisee’s insecurity is more closely tied to the fear he has toward himself. At root, he fears his “naked” self (cf. Gen. 3:7) and wants to hide behind the backs of other people so that he will not have to see himself.

2. Sense of inferiority and inadequacy: Every excess in human behavior usually constitutes a symptom of a corresponding deficiency. The Pharisee displays an intense sense of superiority, which seeks to compensate for (or cover) a strong feeling of inferiority and inadequacy, which lies repressed in the subconscious.

Indeed, if—as we have said—guilty anxiety is the fundamental psychodynamic motive that directs the Pharisee’s external behavior toward the formation of a mask of superiority and psychological (moral and spiritual) self-sufficiency, then the inner problem of this person is the “unbearable” feelings of inferiority, due to the inauthentic realization of the goals of his existential outlook.

3. Projection of personal guilt onto other people: The Pharisee’s total contempt toward all other people—and especially the condensation of this contempt in the person of a specific individual—reveals his deeper psychological need. Here too, the excessive element (“the rest of men”) constitutes a symptom of a profound conflict.

The Pharisee is in conflict with his guilt, and because he represses it, he projects it onto the universal screen of human nature. All people are worthy of contempt because all have failed to realize their existential potential. They are all extortioners, unjust, adulterers. The absolutization of the guilty condition of all people functions, in the Pharisee’s conscience, as a psychological compensation for his need for self-justification.

The repressed moral conscience of the Pharisee produces such intense guilty anxiety that only this absolutization can psychologically “relieve” him, as he unconsciously struggles with his unfulfilled existential potential (according to the likeness). But the particular “symptom” of the psychological conflict that the Pharisee experiences in the domain of guilt is undoubtedly his aggressiveness toward other people—specifically, toward the publican. That is, the projection of his guilt onto others is carried out with a spirit of aggressiveness.

The Pharisee is indeed aggressive when he compares himself with other people. This very fact makes his self-justification and his effort to prove his moral superiority suspicious. His superiority lacks “personal” self-sufficiency. In order to stand, it requires—as we have said—the “backs of others.” He thus loads his personal guilt onto them (through the unconscious “mechanism” of projection), and at the same time, in this way, he crushes them. For, after all, the placing of guilt upon any “scapegoat” also bears the meaning of their destruction.

4. Sense of anxiety and despair: The absolutization of the guilty image of the world (“all people are sinners”), combined with the sense of absolute self-sufficiency (“the Pharisee has no need of God”), precisely underscores the pervasive anxiety in Pharisaic behavior. Since this anxiety wells up from the deep layer of guilt that undergirds the structure of psychological conflict, it simultaneously expresses the despair experienced by the bearer of the Pharisaic conflict. This despair arises from the collapse of his existential outlook within the struggle of daily life.

The distinctive trait of the structure of Pharisaic conflict is the COMPULSIVE SEARCH FOR, EXPERIENCE OF, AND PROCLAMATION OF PERFECTION—THAT IS, OF THE IDEAL IMAGE. The Pharisee lives to pursue his perfection and to boast that he has attained it independently and justly.

The “type” of the Pharisee is a neurotic person who holds an excessively high opinion of himself and, for that reason, regards his arrogant ideas as genuine ideals. Only when the Pharisee is confronted with the reality of his failed existential outlook is there a possibility that he may awaken and become aware of the need for change.

 

Greek source: https://agiazoni.gr/slug-1100/