“Conclusions” on the Western Rite

Source: CUM ILLI GRAECI SINT, NOS LATINI: Western Rite Orthodoxy and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Jack Turner, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, 2010, Chapter 12, pp. 291-298.

 

 

 

The present study began by asking two questions: ‘what, if anything, in Western Rite Orthodoxy is in conflict with Orthodox spirituality’ and ‘at what point of modification does the Western rite cease to be Western’. In the preceding, we have attempted to come to some conclusions about the state of Western Rite Orthodoxy, most specifically the form found in the AWRV [Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate], but we can also draw more general conclusions about the concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy as a whole. Answering these questions, if only tentatively, is really the beginning of longer term possibilities for the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy; thus, in light of the tentative conclusions to the two questions above, a third question begins to emerge: ‘and where should we go from here’.

Can There Really be Truly Orthodox, Truly Western Rite?

Leo Davis makes the observation that the Christological settlement of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (that Christ is fully human and fully divine) was a Western solution to what was essentially an Eastern problem, and it took a while for the East to come to wholeheartedly accept this alien flavour in their theological diet. [1] Due to the way the liturgical and canonical tradition evolved in the East, and how it has been implemented, it certainly seems the same can be said about the Western rite in Orthodoxy. In one sense, Schmemann is correct in stating the opinion that to be Orthodox is to be Byzantine since the Orthodox East knows no other rite than those of Constantinople and thereby has little recourse to other rites as a source of theology. As such, to truly be Orthodox, the rite, whether it be Byzantine or Western, must express Orthodox theology. In the case of the Western rite, that necessarily means that elements which contradict the Eastern understanding of Christianity must be excised, even if they have been in the liturgy from the beginning, even if they are well beloved devotions of the West. We see this most clearly in the liturgies for chrismation and marriage.

By one standard, for the rite to be ‘Western’ it must be as free from alteration, based on whatever intention, as possible. This is why the decision to develop Western Orthodoxy as a ‘safe haven’ from the process of liturgical change in the Western churches, especially The Episcopal Church, is itself fundamentally flawed. Those individuals who came to Orthodoxy via the Western Rite after the 1970’s did so as a means of preserving their cherished liturgical rites from what they considered as heretical meddling, from what they viewed as overthrowing of two millennia of Christian tradition. Fundamentally, as Western Rite Orthodoxy is constituted now, there is a choice between whether the liturgy will be fully Orthodox and thus subject to liturgical amendment without hesitation or reservation, or if the liturgy will be fully Western, resisting as much change as possible, even if such a change is necessary to bring the rite more fully in line with Orthodox theology. To date, Western Rite Orthodox have done so in an uneven and arguably arbitrary manner, and so long as the Western rite construes itself as a ‘resistance movement’ against NOM [Novus Ordo Missae, the contemporary Roman Rite Missal, which is also reflected in modern Anglican liturgical changes as well], breaking out of this false dichotomy will not happen any time soon.

This is not to suggest that it is impossible for there to be an Orthodox Western Rite, only that the models that have been chosen thus far are insufficient to that task. In the first place, it must be admitted that the rite does need correction to make it Orthodox, and these corrections are more than just minor items such as removing the filioque. Indeed, as has been argued already, some of the changes that were made to the Western rite eucharistic liturgy were unnecessary (especially the epiclesis), while other changes that were important were omitted, and other liturgies were modified badly. Secondly, it should also be admitted that the path the AWRV has taken with regards to liturgy is a difficult one to maintain, primarily because Orthodoxy, again to reference Schememann, should not be a haven for individuals to preserve this or that favoured item against encroachment within their former communions. [2] For that matter, this results in a slippery slope since the natural flow of argument has been that the Tridentine forms are more Orthodox than NOM, but the logical conclusion would be than a liturgical use which survived more or less in tact from before 1054 is consequently even closer to Orthodoxy than the Tridentine rite. And there are proponents of the revised Sarum rites who have made precisely this argument. Thus, those who have supported the Tridentine rite against NOM, even if out of love for the rite, may have inadvertently sowed the seeds for its eventual elimination within the Orthodox Church.

There are a great many factors which go into answer thing original question of if the Orthodox Western rite is fully Orthodox or fully Western. Certainly, there are theological problems with the liturgies that are used by the Western Rite Orthodox, and these items should be corrected. As to the matter of if the Orthodox Western Rite remains Western, there is perhaps an opportunity to approach a firmer answer. At the very least, Western Rite Orthodoxy has lost touch with its ‘Westernness’ through directly denouncing the liturgy of the majority of Western Christians as illegitimate. At the present time, it is more akin to a museum piece from the history of Western Christianity and what things might have looked like in the Orthodox Church had reunion taken place before 1964, but it cannot approach what union would look like if it happened tomorrow. The obvious retort is that there is much to be glad about not having kept apace with in the Western Church, most notably the recent controversies over the place of openly homosexual individuals in the hierarchy of the Episcopal and Lutheran Churches, as well as the ordination of women in those same two bodies several decades ago. Yet, correlation is not causation, and there is no evidence that the two strands are essentially linked to a common impulse. For that matter, advocacy for liturgical reform stretches back past Vatican II into the middle part of the nineteenth century. [3] Thus, in a very real way, Western Rite Orthodoxy remains Western, but only an idealized form of the pre-Vatican II West, and not the West as it actually is today or was historically.

The Future of Western Rite Scholarship

Before the present work, the majority of scholarly investigation into the Western Rite had been concerned primarily with consideration of the ordinary of the AWRV liturgy in the SASB [Saint Andrew Service Book], usually in comparison to the liturgies of the ECOF [Orthodox Catholic Church of France]. Schnerlia and Abramtsov’s histories were hopelessly out of date since both were printed before the AWRV became a functional reality. Furthermore, it is at least important to mention should a recently published review of the most significant secondary literature on the Western rite. [4] In looking through the literature, we can see that most of what has been written to this point is primarily an argument between pro- and anti-Western rite factions as to the validity or desirability of Western rites in general and the orthodoxy of the SASB specifically in more recent works. But, the near exclusive emphasis on the eucharistic liturgy leaves one to the potential conclusion that there is nothing to the Western rite other than GRE [‘Rite of Saint Gregory’] and TIK [‘Rite of Saint Tikhon’], and that other Western liturgies are not worth studying or even fighting over. Even in instances where attempt have been made to broaden the discussion, and here I am thinking specifically of Smith’s article, the attempt has only been feeble, exclusively negative with regards to the AWRV, and highly transitory. On the subject of liturgical studies, while I have criticized individuals such as Andersen who place what is, in my opinion, an unnecessary emphasis on TOM [The Orthodox Missal] as the exclusive expression of Western rite liturgy within the AWRV, I can also say that critics like Woolfenden and Smith are mistaken in their exclusive reliance on the SASB; both documents must be taken inconsideration together.

The present work rectifies the previously deficient state of scholarship in a number of ways. First, the rites themselves are actually studied for what they say, rather than simply described for the unaware, as if such a methodology produced results which were self-explanatory. While the problems noted in the eucharistic liturgies were limited only to a few salient points, such as the elevation or eucharistic bread types, it has gone beyond the scope of previous efforts, aided in no small part to the amount of space which could be dedicated to the subject. Secondly, the discussion is extended beyond the eucharistic liturgy and into the other liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy. Though this development is positive, it must simultaneously be recognized that there is still significant progress that could be made, especially on what are sometimes identified as ‘para-liturgical’ devotions.

Secondly, the historical section is as comprehensive as one is able to make it in the space that is available for a dissertation which primarily focuses on theology and liturgy. In some instances, it is difficult to expand on the work of Schneirla or Abramtsov because their works are foundational to any comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, but also because they provide information which does not exist in any extant form that is easily obtainable. By way of example, Abramtsov is the only source for information on the Polish Orthodox National Church that can be found. Furthermore, because of the passage of time, closing the gaps between the death of Alexander Turner and the start of the current century will be exceptionally difficult as many of the important figures during this period have already died. While Schneirla, due to his exceptionally long tenure as the AWRV’s Vicar-General and his vast experience with Western Rite Orthodoxy, remains a valuable source for the history of the AWRV this is still not the same as having the personal account of the principal individuals involved or accurate files. Most of the documentation covering the ECOF is still in French and as a result leaves this aspect of Western rite history closed to many English speaking students of the Western rite. Even so, the ECOF has taken the lead in telling its own story, providing a number of monographs on the subject and these items will need to be included in any future comprehensive history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and it would be encouraging for the AWRV to follow that example.

Third, the present work takes account of the practical problems that Western Rite Orthodoxy presents to Orthodox ecclesiology and to Orthodoxy’s attempts at rapprochement with the Roman Catholic and other Protestant Churches as currently constituted in the AWRV. Here again, most previous studies which are critical of the Western rite are critical of the rite itself. Where I have chosen to be critical, I am critical not only of the liturgy, though the criticisms I express are very different from those of Stratman or Smith, but also of what Western Rite Orthodoxy can be said to represent: an uncritical adoption of the Western rite with and incomplete understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and what makes the Western rite specifically Western. It is my assertion that most of the apologists for the Western rite have misplaced their emphases in a desperate attempt to avoid liturgical change while still ‘remain’ within an historic Church. This different critical perspective advances the study of the Western rite forward and points out that there is more implied by Western Rite Orthodoxy than just the celebration of a different ritual form.

Nevertheless, there is still significant room for growth in the study of the Western rite even beyond the current study. Some potential avenues of research involve expanding the scope of the present work, while others would mean going in an entirely different direction. The first area for further consideration would be the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy, and not simply the history of the Orthodox Church of France or the AWRV, no matter how important each of these might individually be. Rather, the recent emergence of the Western Rite has been placed in its proper historical context, both in terms of East-West relations more generally and the interplay between eastern and western liturgical customs more specifically. While there are a number of good, independent histories of eastern and western tensions, the liturgical tensions are often mentioned only in a passing manner. However, liturgy and liturgical customs are at the heart of the Western Rite and so deserve central attention in any consideration of the history of Western Rite Orthodoxy. More importantly, the history has been considered in a dispassionate manner, with no particular agenda pushed in regards to the rightness or truthfulness of the position of one side or the other, that is, Greek or Latin or Anglican. In this regard, the history in Chapters 2 and 3 are an attempt to grasp the facts and provide meaning rather than the more philosophical ‘quest for truth’ which often results in an attempt to press a polemical agenda and which has been characteristic of most Western rite histories written by ‘armature’ historians over the past half century; in that regard, regardless of how limited, the current work is a definite step forward. Still, there is significant work that can still be done, particularly in reconstructing the history of the various parishes that utilize the Western rite, even if one limits their focus exclusively to North America. There are a number of parishes that simply disappeared, some have changed to the Byzantine rite, and some have left the Antiochians or ROCOR for other quarter. Even among those parishes that can be identified as Western rite, a significant amount of detail as to their founding and history remains un-written. Simultaneously, the individual memoirs of AWRV pioneers, at least those who remain alive, should be committed to writing while such a task can still be undertaken.

Secondly, a deeper study of the liturgies of Western Rite Orthodoxy must be undertaken; it is not sufficient to continue to debate the Orthodoxy of the eucharistic rites in general form any longer. That is not to say that salient points cannot or should not be treated in an in-depth manner, but that generalized discussions of GRE and TIK should not be favoured over the same treatment of other liturgies in the Western rite, such as the so-called ‘para-liturgical’ devotions, and the Western rite in the ROCOR. Furthermore, there is still a significant portion of work which could be done with the variable portions of the liturgy; this is particularly true for festal liturgies which not only have their own proper texts but have their own unique structures. The Triduum and the Paschal Vigil are the best example of these types of proper liturgies, and both have been mentioned in the present study though only briefly.

Third, it would be beneficial to move the study of the Western Rite liturgy away from exclusive focus on the AWRV and to include the liturgies of the French Church, the ROCOR, Holy Synod of Milan, and many of the more important autogenic Western rite churches. Some limited attempts have been made in this direction by Smyth, but his treatment leaves much to be desired in terms of systematic exposition. The course of this sort of study could take a variety of different directions, including direct textual comparisons or individualized treatment followed by extended critique of a Western rite on its own merits. There is certainly nothing limiting scholarly creativity at this point, and it is a substantial undertaking that would require an extensive commitment of time and resources depending on how far into the variable parts of the rite the individual wished to probe.

Finally, if the study of the Western rite is to be undertaken with any sort of seriousness by academics, access to available literature needs to be increased greatly. A comprehensive collection of texts related to Western Rite Orthodoxy within a single library with generous inter-library lending policies seems to be the most desirable solution. However, for this to work out, individuals in possession of documents and literature of value to the study of the movement would need to be donated to a single library as a part of a coordinated effort. It is unfortunate, but likely true, that no single library would be interested enough at this time to acquire the necessary works of its own initiative or out of its own funding. Here again, private individuals with an interest in promoting the study of Western Rite Orthodoxy would need to provide any partner library in question with donated books or targeted contributions. The question of which library would be most conducive to the program is one that needs to be considered. The libraries of the Orthodox seminaries, specifically Holy Cross and St Vladimir’s, are obvious choices. Less obvious are those institutions which already include significant portions of The Basilian and Orthodoxy in their collections who would be willing to circulate them through inter-library lending, as these journals are central to the history of the Western Rite in North America and new copies of which are unlikely to ever be found in private hands for donation.

The reception of new work on the Western rite demonstrates that there is a potential interest for further studies of this type, both within the Orthodoxy and within the broader scholarly community. Future progress will be dictated to some degree by availability and access to materials, but to a greater degree by individuals willing to commit significant time and energy towards the study of the matter. While this author is sufficiently interested to continue the necessary work based on the plans outlined already, there is enough potential work to sustain an entire career in academia. It would certainly be better if a larger number of individuals within the academic community, especially those from a Byzantine rite background, would make study of the subject matter, no matter how limited or brief.

 

NOTES

1. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 207.

2. Schmemann, ‘Some Reflections Upon “A Case Study’”, SVTQ 24.4 (1980) 268.

3. See Chapter 4 above.

4. Cf. J. Turner, ‘The Road Thus Far’, SVTQ 53.4 (2009) 477-505.

Archbishop Evgenios Voulgaris (1716–1806): The Orthodox Confession

That is, An Exposition of Faith According to the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Eastern Church of Christ

Source: Orthodox Among the Nations: A Handbook of Religious Toleration, by Archbishop Evgenios Voulgaris of Sláviansk and Cherson, newly published in English by Newrome Press, 2026, pp. 133-162, 183-184.

 

 

1. I believe in one God, who is Spirit, mind beyond mind, transcending all that is intelligible; infinitely perfect, uncreated, all-good, supremely wise, all-powerful; the creator, sustainer, and provident ruler of all beings, both visible and invisible. These do not emanate from Him, nor are they from His nature, nor are they necessary, nor are they eternal; but He created them according to His own will, in an act of free choice, in time, according to His good pleasure. Through a simple act, He brought from nothingness into being that which formerly was not, and He moves and governs all that exists according to the purposes of His perfect providence. He could, if He willed, return all things to non-being; yet through His ineffable goodness He preserves and sustains them all.

2. I believe that this one and the same God is also three: one in His superessential essence and nature; and triune in the three superdivine persons. Considered in their hypostases—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—He is Father without beginning, unbegotten, and without cause. The Son and the Spirit are from Him, and He alone is their beginning, source, and cause. They go forth from Him essentially, prior to any act of will, in a manner utterly incomprehensible and inexplicable: the Son by generation, the Spirit by procession. This is not in time, but from eternity; not with one preceding and another following, but all at once; not in succession, but simultaneously. They are worshipped and contemplated theologically as the Son and Spirit in the Father, the Father and Spirit in the Son, and the Father and Son in the Spirit, according to the suprarational principle of mutual in-dwelling. [143]

The Son is co-beginningless with the Father, and co-eternal and timeless, yet has the Father as His beginning, cause, source, and root. He is begotten of Him impassibly and without change before all ages, being of the same essence as the One who begot Him, and equal in power and honor. He is the effulgence and express image of the Father’s hypostasis, having everything in common with the Father except unbegottenness and the property of being cause. He exists from the Father as cause through an ineffable generation worthy of divinity.

The Holy Spirit is co-beginningless with the Father and the Son, and also co-eternal and timeless. He also has the Father as cause, source, and root, from the beginning. He emanates hypostatically, from the Father alone, in a manner ineffable and beyond comprehension. He proceeds before the ages—not from the Son or after the Son, but with the Son He possesses His being from the Father, even if He is temporally sent through the Son for the sanctification and perfection of mankind in grace, and is made manifest and revealed through Him. He is of one essence with the Father and the Son, equal in power and glory, possessing all that the Father and the Son possess, except unbegottenness and generation.

3. The Triune Essence above all essences—the source of all goodness, the worker of good by nature, entirely lacking the principle of evil, and sustaining all creatures in a beneficent manner—has among its creations the intellectual and rational beings, that is, the angelic powers and human beings. These are endowed with free will and self-determination, able to incline toward what they wish, to be moved as they please, and to select freely from what is presented to them. I thus affirm and declare that evil has entered in as nothing other than the privation of good: a deviation from the rectitude of sound reason on the part of rational beings endowed with choice, by which it made its way into the world and gained the upper hand.

I speak first of the foremost of the angels, whom the sacred Scriptures call Lucifer, and who was distinguished by his radiant form, which revealed the glory and grace within him. Yet by his own willful wickedness he was transformed into an angel of darkness instead of light, and was cast down like lightning from Heaven into the abyss, where he was miserably ruined together with those who followed him.

Concerning the first man, the progenitor of the entire human race: though initially created upright by the hand of the Maker and adorned with the gift of innocence, he was later deceived by the counsel of the serpent and the persuasion of the woman, was overcome, and fell. In transgressing the command, he was found guilty and expelled from the Paradise in which he had been placed. He was deprived of life and supreme happiness; became mortal instead of immortal; and was subjected to just punishments, both temporary and eternal. Into these he drew with him the entire race descending from him according to the flesh, as though they were present in his loins and contained in him seminally as their forefather, though they did not sin by their own choice. This ancestral sin is communicated to all who descend from Adam, not by mere imitation or some other perverse or wicked choice, but because it was transposed into a kind of second nature for each individual and took deep root. Hence the inclination to sin has become inevitable and inescapable for every soul.

For how could it be otherwise? We believe that even those infants who have just been delivered in maternal labor; those who have remained pure throughout their lives by God’s grace; and even those born of sanctified mothers—not least the ever-virgin and most pure Mother of our Lord—partake in the consequences of the primordial transgression.

This is a kind of defect inherent in human nature, one that marred the first parent, the beauty of his innocence, and the obedience owed to the Creator, which was violated through him and in him. From this arose every affliction: the sweat and toil of labor; the hardships of life; and ultimately our return to the earth and exposure to decay. The greatest and most terrible of all, however, was voluntary subjection to the power of the primal evil, from which spring certain bitter fruits and shoots, as though arising from the root of the forefather’s disobedience.

4. Moreover, I believe that though the fallen angels did not escape the consequences of their transgression, the only-begotten Son of God did not refuse to rescue the human race—both those belonging to the seed of Abraham and those descended from Adam generally—who were so miserably subject to sin and corruption. But when the fullness of time came, according to His good pleasure, He underwent the inconceivable and awe-inspiring self-emptying, yet without being emptied. [144]

For He descended from the paternal embrace, without separation or change, taking our nature upon Himself for our sake, according to the Father’s good pleasure and by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. He did not adopt an angel or even a perfect human being as a helper in His mission, as with a prophet, but was Himself conceived in the all-immaculate and most holy womb of the ever-virgin Mary through the coming of the Spirit and the overshadowing of the Most High, without man or seed, and she bore Him without pain and without violation of her virginity in any way.

The Timeless One became man, was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, and showed the progress of age and growth in years. He truly came in the flesh, not merely in appearance. He lived among mankind and did not merely play the part of a man, nor inhabit a lifeless or insensible body, but assumed the full and perfect human nature with a sensible body and rational, intellectual soul. He did not mingle the natures but united them perfectly, without change or mixture, in one divine hypostasis, with each maintaining its respective properties, powers, activities, and wills intact. He remained what He was from the beginning—perfect God—and became what He was not before—perfect man. He performed His divine works as God, His human works as man, and submitted to all human sufferings without exception. He therefore truly suffered voluntarily and freely, was crucified, and died. His body was buried, and His soul descended into Hades, without His holy soul or body ever being separated from the divinity. He rose in power on the third day, ascended into Heaven on the fortieth day, and sat at the right hand of God the Father. From there, at the end of the age, He will come in glory to judge both the living and the dead.

There is not one Son of God before the ages and another in the latter days; not one who suffered and another who did not; not one seen on earth and another seated at the Father’s right hand. He is one and the same God-man, the pre-eternal and unchanging Word of God, who without change suffered in the flesh He assumed. He became the mediator between God and man, offered Himself as ransom for all, and established reconciliation through His own Blood. Through Him we have been freed from the dominion of the devil, brought to God, made heirs of adoption, and hope to partake of the glory that is to come.

5. I believe that the sacred Scriptures, both Old and New, are inspired and taught by God, for the Holy Spirit deemed it fitting to use the hands of the scribes, down to the smallest iota and stroke. The books of Scripture are numbered as the canon of the Church of Christ has clearly received and set forth, including those books that heretics, whether ancient or recent, have falsely claimed to be apocryphal or condemned. Much of their contents is lofty, obscure, and difficult to harmonize, as is appropriate for holy Scripture, whose profound mysteries are conveyed by means of allegory. For this reason, they present no small difficulty to those who seek to interpret them—not least when they have been translated from one language into another, as is often the case.

I do not consider it the task of just anyone to attempt to set them forth or interpret them as he pleases; such a bold and reckless approach is neither safe nor proper. Rather, they should be received by all with reverence, without presumption, and with faith, as the very word of God. They should be examined and studied thoughtfully and deliberately, with consideration for both the heights of contemplation and the foundation of moral practice [145] attained by those whom the Spirit raised up as teachers, prophets, and those endowed with some other measure of grace. For it was He who inspired and enlightened their minds for the edification and guidance of the body of the Church.

I also hold and maintain that the authority to set forth the unadulterated and authentic understanding of sacred Scripture belongs properly and exclusively to the Catholic Church. For just as she has always remained steadfast, watching, enlightening, and exposing error in order to elevate our understanding, so she will continue until the end of the age, according to the promise of Christ, the very Truth Himself.

6. Receiving what has been revealed to us in the God-inspired Scriptures as the written Word of God does not mean that the unwritten traditions handed down to us should be rejected. For if one were to do so, everyone would establish his own canon, opposing and contradicting one another. That certain sacred books are to be received as canonical and others not, and that their contents are to be understood in no other way, is determined by the tradition of the Church, whose authority is granted from above. This tradition was received from the apostles by the God-bearing fathers, who faithfully preserved it, unaltered and uncorrupted, in their writings as in a secure treasury, and thus handed it down to us. That these traditions must be firmly held and steadfastly observed is also set forth and recorded in the divine words. [146] I therefore embrace both the written and unwritten teaching with unshakable conviction and faith, knowing that together they contain all that is necessary for salvation, justification, and the attainment of the kingdom in the heavens; that is, what is to be believed, what is to be hoped for, and what is to be done, are all perfectly contained therein.

7. I believe that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ is that same Church first preached by the apostles and the initiates of the Word, who entrusted it to those who believed through them. After them, it was handed on to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and was nurtured and multiplied through the preaching that reached the ends of the earth. From that time even to our day, the Church has remained in unbroken succession through those who were lawfully and canonically entrusted with the care of the faithful, the ministry of the Word, and the distribution of grace through the sacraments, and it will continue steadfast and unchanged until the coming of the Lord. Its foundation is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; its pillars are the apostles and their valid successors down to the present day; and its stones that form it are those who are joined together and made firm by true faith in Christ and right confession.

The Church has one supreme and universal head. It would be unfitting that a mortal man should serve as the head of this body, for he would be unstable, inadequate, and liable to fall and be cast aside. The head of the Church is the Lord Himself, who secured it with His own Blood and continually sustains and gives it life through His Spirit, as He promised. Yet there are also secondary heads in the Church who, having been appointed and established as authorities in time by the first, universal, and eternal head, occupy His place. By virtue of their preeminent rank, they point us toward the source and perfecter of our salvation, and it is not inappropriate to acknowledge them as such, for the Spirit appoints and sets them as shepherds, overseers, ministers, and stewards of the grace dispensed to the faithful through them.

Those who, throughout the earth, hold the proper faith, believing in their hearts unto righteousness and confessing with their mouths unto salvation, are members in part of one complete, holy, and spiritual body, being joined together into the fullness of the Church. Accordingly, those already enrolled in Heaven among the firstborn in the blessed fatherland are not reckoned as members of the Church still dwelling on earth and waging its earthly struggle. Nor are those separated by heresies, false teachings, schisms, or gathered into alien congregations regarded as members; nor those who, by disobedience or perversity contrary to the divine ordinances and canons, have been judged as dead members and utterly cut off through excommunication and anathema.

Only those who, so long as they remain in this life, adhere to the true and immaculate doctrines of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, and believe in them faithfully and steadfastly—even if they are otherwise guilty of various sins—are properly reckoned as members. Indeed, the Church claims them as her own, intercedes to God on their behalf day and night, extends her hand to the fallen, cares for the weak so that they may be healed, strives to bring back the erring, and gladly receives those who return.

8. I hold that the particular local churches, and the hierarchs entrusted with their oversight through valid ordination, were established by the apostles: Clement over the Romans; Evodius over the Antiochians; Mark over the Alexandrians by Peter; Stachys over the Byzantines by Andrew; and James, before all others, over the Church of Jerusalem by the Lord. The same is true of the other churches, whose oversight has been maintained through unbroken succession down to our own time. Thus, each bishop is entrusted with the care of the affairs allotted to him, exercising proper authority, administering, and managing them, without violating the well-established limits set by the Fathers.

As for the operation and governance of the universal Church, and the delineation of boundaries within it, and the issuing of decrees: whenever a matter arises that requires inquiry and investigation concerning what is to be believed or done—matters that concern the whole body of Orthodox faithful—I maintain that this authority has not been entrusted authoritatively and monarchically to one alone, namely, the bishop of Rome, as those around him desire, but has been entrusted collectively to all the bishops gathered together as one; that is, to an Ecumenical Council.

And I believe and submit that it is the very Holy Spirit who gathers, moves, enlightens, and guides such a council, speaking truth through the assembled fathers, and who concurs with their judgments in the matters set before them. For this reason it is said, It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; and again, it is written, Every man is a liar; [147] yet an Ecumenical Council, being constituted by the Spirit of truth and rendering its decisions in Him, is believed to be above all falsehood and every kind of deceit.

I acknowledge and accept seven Ecumenical Councils:

The first is the First Council of Nicaea, which taught the theology of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is of one essence with the Father, and was convened against the godless Arius.

The second is the First Council of Constantinople, which declared the Spirit to be of the same nature as the Father and the Son, and equal in honor to them both, and was convened against Macedonius, who fought against the Spirit.

The third is the Council of Ephesus, which affirmed that the incarnate Word of God was one person in two natures, and was convened against Nestorius the Christ-denier.

The fourth is the Council of Chalcedon, which declared the two unmingled, complete, and perfect natures, energies, and wills in the one person of the God-man, and was convened against Dioscorus and Eutyches.

The fifth is the Second Council of Constantinople, which defined the resurrection of the dead and confirmed the decisions of the earlier councils, and was convened against Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius.

The sixth is the Third Council of Constantinople, which refuted the error of the Monothelites, and was convened against Honorius, Sergius, and Pyrrhus.

The seventh is the Second Council of Nicaea, which condemned the iconoclasts and clearly affirmed the prohibition on adding or removing from the sacred and apostolic Symbol, and thereby confirmed all the preceding councils.

In addition to these, I also venerate and embrace the local synods convened at various times by right-believing fathers, which harmonize suitably and in concord with the pious melody of the seven just set forth.

But as for those others, in whatever land and by whomever they were convened for the definition of alien and spurious doctrines—such as the many assembled by the Latins, including those at Florence and Trent—these fall far short of deserving the title “Ecumenical,” or even of being reckoned at all among the councils of the Church. Rather, I regard them as assemblies of heresy and unlawful gatherings of those who, with reckless daring, adulterate and counterfeit the divine doctrines. And since they corrupt the Church, I hate them with a perfect hatred and turn away from them.

9. I hold in due reverence the seven venerable and wondrous mysteries, in which all the sanctification and initiation of the Church of God is contained and summarized. These were handed down by our Lord Himself and instituted and perfected through the descent and operation of the all-holy Spirit—not as mere symbols of the promises of God, like those under the shadow, but as true gifts of sanctifying and saving grace bestowed upon the faithful. These seven are equal in number to the gifts of the Spirit:

The first is Baptism, which even our Lord accepted for our sake, though He, being sinless, had no need of cleansing. Through three immersions and emersions in sanctified water—each accompanied by the invocation of one of the transcendent persons of the Trinity, and signifying also the baptizand’s voluntary assent—the initiate is baptized, and, as the celebrant proclaims, we are buried and raised with Christ. We thus recover that first and passionless birth which we lost through sin, being mystically reborn in the Spirit and made worthy of the gift of adoption.

The second is Chrismation, which our Savior accepted at Baptism by the coming of the Spirit as a dove, though He had no need of this. For as God, He always possessed the Spirit with Himself inseparably. And as the God-man, by virtue of the hypostatic union, the whole fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily, and for this reason He is hymned as the Anointed One. [148] But He received the Spirit in order to show how necessary it is for the baptized to be anointed with the spiritual myrrh sanctified by the patriarchs and high priests. For through this most mystical oil, the grace of the Spirit rests upon those who are anointed, just as it did through the laying on of hands by Peter and John. By this grace the image of God, which had previously been effaced by sin, is refashioned; and the one initiated, being enlisted under the heavenly King, is sealed and perfected, and becomes a true Christian. This is not only because of his faith in Christ, but also because of the very chrism itself: for by anointing with chrism he is joined to the Anointed One and thus is rightly called Christian. [149]

The third is the lofty and awe-inspiring mystery of the Eucharist, which our Lord, on the night He was betrayed, consecrated when He offered Himself as both priest and sacrifice, offerer and victim. Taking leavened bread and wine of the vine, He blessed and sanctified them, and properly and indeed most truly changed and transubstantiated the bread into His almighty and theandric Body; and the wine into His precious and life-giving Blood; and He gave them to His holy apostles to eat and drink. He commanded them to do this in remembrance of Him, and through them guaranteed to those after them that they too might eat and drink, and thus truly and essentially partake of and commune in His all-holy Flesh and the Blood poured out for all. For it must not be believed that what is offered are symbols of these realities, nor merely types or images. Nor is it as if, through a threefold consubstantiation, [150] the God-man is present only in some measure of grace, or that the Lord is present only for those deemed worthy. [151] Rather, it is He Himself—that very One who suffered upon the Cross once and for all and who now sits at the right hand of the Father—who alone is mystically set forth for us upon every holy table, both before and during the act of communion. By the power of the perfecting Spirit and the invocation [152] of the priests—not, of course, merely by the recitation of the dominical words—the bread and wine are transubstantiated, and He is truly present under their visible forms. He is multiplied without division across many altars and under many loaves, broken without being divided, consumed without being spent; and He sanctifies all those who partake, provided only that they receive innocently and worthily.

The fourth is the Priesthood, which the God-man Jesus Himself, having partaken to the full of the fullness of the Spirit that rested upon Him—being indeed our priest and eternal high priest after the order of Melchizedek—granted to His apostles, giving them a share of the Spirit, commanding them to proclaim His Gospel to all nations, and granting them also the authority to bind and loose. This was especially so at Pentecost, when, having laid hands on them in a sense through the Spirit, whom He had promised to send, He clothed them with power from on high through tongues of fire. Through them, He conveyed to us, too, the gift of the Priesthood. This gift is neither simple nor uniform, nor does it impose a single and identical character upon all, but it is rather diverse and multiform, the various ranks differing greatly among themselves in rank, dignity, and power, so that this earthly hierarchy may in some way be likened and compared to the heavenly hierarchy of the angels. [153] For in addition to those ordinations that take place outside the sanctuary, which are called “impositions of hands,” [154] there are as follows: The first is that of the sacred deacons; being a ministerial order, they serve those above them. The second, which surpasses the first, is that of the presbyters, who have authority for the celebration of certain mysteries—though not all. The third is the highest and set above every order, and is that of the bishops, who are the celebrants of every mystery, and who communicate grace and illuminate every rank beneath them, since from this rank, as from a spring, all initiation, sanctification, illumination, and grace are poured forth into the Church.

The fifth is Marriage, which our Lord also established and sanctified when He did not deem the wedding at Cana unworthy of His presence. This mystery, which is great in and of itself, he used to reveal the pattern of another, even higher and greater mystery: that of the Church as the pure and spotless bride, joined to Himself as her bridegroom. Yet even if marriage is to be reckoned second to virginity in a life lived according to Christ (since virginity, by removing the one who adheres to it from attachment to the flesh, unites him more perfectly with God, and, what is more, makes him equal to the angels), nevertheless, marriage has been given to those unable to receive that word by way of condescension.

This is so they might have a helper like themselves, of which they have need, and might live chastely with one wife, and, what is of greater purpose, that lawful childbearing may preserve the human race without fail through successive generations until creation no longer groans under corruption.

The sixth is Repentance, by which those who fall after Baptism and in various ways stain and defile the robe of adoption must be purified and cleansed. They obtain remission of sins by approaching those who have received from the Lord the authority to bind and loose and making an unreserved and sincere confession of their transgressions, accompanied by sincere compunction of soul and a change of mind.

The seventh of these is Holy Oil, which the Lord delivered to the apostles, who handed it down to us. It is administered to us, who fall and rise again, as a symbol of divine mercy, granting us security and protection when we turn back from our sins, and contributing to our healing when we are sick. For those anointed it becomes the cause of abundant grace and sanctification. Of course, it is not only for those already departing from life and breathing their last, nor indeed only for those who are ill, but equally for those who are in good health, and who are pursuing repentance and conversion, according to the ancient tradition of the Church.

10. Since almost all of our piety is directed toward such things—namely, that believers should demonstrate their piety through deeds, giving through their conduct a sure witness of their internal disposition, just as a fruit proves the life contained within a tree—it is manifestly superfluous, and indeed proven to be undermining to faith itself, for anyone to teach otherwise. We have not believed that man is justified by faith alone, apart from works, but by a faith which, through works of righteousness, is active in its love. For to hold that Christ’s righteousness alone suffices for our salvation, without anything at all being contributed on our part, is a bold and arrogant teaching, casting men into the manifest danger of perdition, except in the case of infants who, after illumination, are snatched away in an untimely manner and before the use of free will.

Now we define faith as a correct and unerring conviction concerning God and divine matters, in unwavering assurance, and with the fullest assent of the soul, resting immovably upon the things revealed to us by God, even if it is altogether impossible to grasp these matters as they truly are. Works, however, are the keeping and fulfillment of all the commandments, by which we abstain from the evils forbidden us by the laws, and we firmly hold to the good things. Thus, we have within us our nature’s gift of free will, granting us the power to choose and pursue good works, and also our fruit-bearing faith in Christ and grace from Him, which leads us to perform these works in the right spirit and to direct them toward a supernatural end. It is for this reason we may hope to obtain through them the promised good things in the end.

11. I believe that whatever is destined to occur at fixed times, both the time and manner in which they will happen, is encompassed by God’s supremely infinite and perfect foreknowledge. He both wills and approves of the good, providing for and arranging so that it may come about. But He only foreknows and permits what is evil, without imposing absolute necessity or force upon the free and self-directed choices of creatures. Rather, even these He redirects and adapts toward some good and useful purpose, which demonstrates His supreme providence and goodness. Thus, in the case of free choice, the foreknowledge of God, which is unerring and infallible; and the will of man, to whom belongs free self-determination and complete liberty, come together. On the one hand, divine foreknowledge cannot be overturned by the volatility of man’s will, for divine foreknowledge is by nature fixed and unerring. But neither can free will be overthrown by foreknowledge’s absolute fixedness, since it was God Himself who created the will and endowed it with self-determination.

There are three kinds of events that will necessarily happen, not merely in the sense that God has foreseen them, but in the sense that they are bound to happen in no other way: some by nature, as necessarily determined; some by force, through imposition; and some freely, by human will and choice. According to His eternal foreknowledge, God predestines some for salvation, making use of their own good choices; and others He leaves to destruction, because of their wicked choices; but in neither case is He the source of the outcome in advance. He wills that all would be saved, and He grants an equal opportunity for salvation to all through His so-called prevenient grace. [155] But He wills that each one’s free will remain inviolate, so that each person may manage the grace given by Him on his own. Since, then, He foreknows that some will follow this grace and obey, and others will willfully choose evil and rebel, He resolved to add to the former a further special grace, active and cooperative in good, which brings about justification, perseverance to the end, and heavenly glory. But He determined to withdraw from the latter, permitting them to choose what lies before them as it seems good to them, and by their own wickedness to fall voluntarily from the kingdom prepared for all. The one course demonstrates His goodness and love for mankind; the other, His unimpeachable justice and judgment.

12. I believe that our Lord—who assumed once and for all our very substance, which He did not lay aside, nor will He ever lay it aside—Himself declared beforehand that He will come a second time upon earth. He will not be in the humble and servile form of His first coming, but in glory. And He will not come in order to save us by economy as before, but in order to judge the world according to His justice. At that time, all the dead will rise and their souls will be reunited to the bodies they inhabited in this life. In this way, each will necessarily receive the reward corresponding to the merit of his deeds in accordance with divine judgment.

The souls that have already departed, having been released from their bodies, are not in enjoyment of that glory, even if they have been purified through virtue and sanctity of life. Nor are they consigned to eternal punishment, even if they remain steadfast and unchangeable in their wickedness until the end of their lives. Nor are they cast into a purgatorial fire those who, as some claim, are cleansed through repentance alone but lack works worthy of repentance, in order to remove the filth of wickedness. For these teachings are foreign and entirely alien to the doctrines of piety that we hold, as they are neither consonant with the divine words nor with the teachings of the holy Fathers.

But the souls of those who have departed in righteousness, and in true faith, and in sincere repentance for their sins committed during the term of this earthly and transitory life, are even now waiting in hope of the enjoyment of the good things stored up in Heaven, which God has prepared for those who love Him. There they are kept by God in a place of light and ease until the moment when, at the coming Judgment, they shall receive the promised rewards after being reunited with the bodies in which they struggled. At that time they will be united to God in a most perfect and divine union and filled with His uncreated light. A sort of foretaste or first installment of this light was revealed, as much as they could bear, to the apostles on Mount Tabor. There, the God-man manifested His uncreated glory in a single ray, which we also believe to have been uncreated.

As for those who depart in repentance and confession and are genuinely penitent, they are not obliged to demonstrate the full extent of their repentance, nor to wipe away the traces of their wounds through groans, tears, and other labors of virtue. Rather, they are in a sense divided between hope and fear, and await that fearful day and the final Judgment of the impartial Judge.

Concerning them, the alms given by the living to the poor, their demonstrations of faith, and the prayers and petitions offered to the merciful God, as well as the intercessions of the saints, have power, not only for those remaining on earth, but also for those who have fallen asleep in holiness, for the prayer of the saints is powerful and effective. Therefore, our piety praises and honors them with divine honors; raises temples for them; organizes feasts and festivals for their glory; praises them with all kinds of hymns; and arranges their relics and icons according to proper order and relation. The saints are honored and revered with veneration, [156] but the Mother of our Lord, the true Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, who surpasses all the saints and even the angels, is honored and revered with the highest veneration, [157] which is not worship. [158] This is rightly and reasonably prescribed by the most ancient traditions.

Furthermore, the prayers that the Church offers at every hour, and especially the bloodless sacrifices presented at the most mystical table on their behalf, propitiate God Himself, so that whatever is lacking in those who have departed may be supplied to them; and that nothing shall be reckoned against them on the day of Judgment, but they shall find a portion at the right hand, and be counted among the sheep, worthy of the ineffable glory.

But the departed souls of the impious, and of those who have perished unrepentant in mortal sins, whose lives have come to an end in the full measure of wickedness, are weighed down in places of suffering, darkness, and gloom, where they pass their time in sorrow and unconsolable distress. They tremble and shudder at the judgment of their deeds, as if it has already been issued against them, and await the day on which they will be consigned to Gehenna and cast into the eternal fire.

 

ENDNOTES

143. Περιχώρησις.

144. “Ὑπέστη κένωσιν ἀκενώτως.”

145. “Κατὰ θεωρίας ὕψος, καὶ βάσιν πράξεως.”

146. “Θεῖοι λόγοι,” a patristic gloss for the Scriptures. Although Voulgaris does not himself provide examples of the λόγοι in question, popular references include Deuteronomy 32:7 and Proverbs 22:27 in the Old Testament; and 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in the New.

147. “Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης.” Voulgaris employs this phrase in a way that is lost in translation: though one person alone may be untrustworthy, the faithful community together is reliable.

148. That is, the Christ.

149. This passage has been more freely rendered in order to communicate the connection, apparent in the Greek, between the words χρίσμα (chrism, anointing oil), Χριστός (Christ, anointed one), and χριστιανός (Christian, one who takes after Christ, the anointed One).

150. A reference to the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation; that the Lord is “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.

151. A reference to certain Calvinist beliefs that the Lord is only spiritually, not physically, present to those believers who partake in faith.

152. Ἐπίκλησις. This sentence defends the Eastern belief that the Eucharist is consecrated through the invocation of the Spirit at the epiclesis, and not the words of the Lord, “This is My Body, etc.” alone.

153. The common representation of the earthly hierarchy reflecting the heavenly hierarchy has its roots in Scripture, but finds its definitive exposition in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite. For a comprehensive treatment of Dionysius, see Mark Edwards, Dimitrios Pallis, Georgios Steiris, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022).

154. Χειροθεσία. Voulgaris is indicating the distinction between ordination to minor orders, traditionally called cheirothesia, and ordination to major orders, traditionally called cheirotonia.

155. That is, the grace imparted to all without exception, enabling them to move toward the good. See Confession of Dositheos, Decree 3, in Trenham, Rock and Sand, 194–96.

156. Δουλεία (dulia), or “relative worship.”

157. Ὑπερδουλεία (hyperdulia), or the “utmost relative worship.”

158. Λατρεία (latria), or “absolute worship,” owed to God alone.

Christodoulos “Spawned” Bartholomew’s Deviations

The Dark Legacy of Christodoulos: Spiritual Withering and Servility Brought Forth the Schism and Three Robber Councils

Panagiotis Kosmidis | July 10, 2026

 

 

BOW DOWN, SERVANTS, BEFORE THE MASTER

“Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees” (Heb. 12:12)

An Anniversary Remembrance of Three Decades

In the issues of the Orthodox Christian newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, nos. 2593 of June 12, 2026, and 2594 of June 19, 2026, something of substance was published in the caption of the photograph on the front page. This caused consternation in the circles of the pious; it also aroused the anger, astonishment, and spiritual vigilance of many clergy and monks.

Specifically, at that time we published the following caption: “Papal prostration: Archbishop Christodoulos at the Phanar (July 13, 1998). All the clergy and laity, except for the Bishops, prostrated themselves before Patriarch Bartholomew.” This was an utter degradation. And Archbishop Christodoulos was later “excommunicated” (cessation of communion), ludicrously, by Patriarch Bartholomew (April 30, 2004). Only barbarians prostrate themselves before their king, never free Greeks.”

Those who were present at that disgraceful scene and are still alive today have never reacted. They conceal the sacrilege in the depths of their hearts, covering it with the mantle of the offices bestowed upon them today. Bishops and high priests remain here silent in their “prison” of authority. They recall that humiliation with pain and have imposed the “Omertà.”

Exactly twenty-eight dark years have since passed, and the same tyrannical, destructive, and schismatic practice of the extinguished “Phanar” is being repeated.

And before the coffin of a certain cassocked cleric, one of his spiritual brothers confided, with bitterness and shame: “Let us elect someone who smells of incense, because this man believed absolutely nothing, being a living dead man, an unholy priest and a shepherd who never shepherded.”

The Insignificant Thing of Enormous Significance

The builder of the magnificent Parthenon, the great Pericles, formulates an unshakable principle of freedom: “The insignificant thing conceals within itself the entire trial and proof of our resolve. If we yield in the insignificant matter, they will immediately afterward demand from us something greater, thinking that we yielded in the former case out of fear. If, however, we resist, we shall make them understand that they must deal with us as equals with equals.”

“There are not very many whose minds have been corrupted in our Fatherland; nevertheless, they have the means to make a commotion and to be presented by the mass media as prudent and humble, while in mind they are darkened and in outward appearance ostentatious. And, according to the common saying, ‘the lame man has taken the downhill road and has no intention whatsoever of stopping his course.’ Among the many absurdities, there is also this one. Patriarch Bartholomew, in an act of the greatest arbitrariness, forbade the late Christodoulos to have the city of Athens officially celebrate its patronal feast and the commemoration of the Apostle Paul. Empty conceit overflowed, and the cup of arrogance was filled: ‘I am the Church, and you are not.’”

Christodoulos Returned Angry from the Phanar

For who does not know the hidden snares? And how did the shepherd fall among the “wolves”? We record, by way of disclosure, that Christodoulos received strict recommendations that he should not proceed immediately to the Phanar; or, if he did, that a strict framework and inviolable conditions should be established. He, however, behaving arrogantly, disregarded the grave ecclesiological improprieties. We further reveal that, during this journey, besides the imposed act of prostration, he suffered another grievous insult, even worse and more deceitful, which, however, we pass over for the present. Thus, when he returned, he was deeply wounded and angry, attempting in many ways to justify the humiliation which he himself, and above all the delegation of the Church of Greece, had suffered.

He cried out: “We acted very badly in submitting to this humiliating public degradation. You are to blame, because you did not warn me as forcefully as you should have; therefore, the failure is a common one. I wanted to leave in the middle of the visit, which would have been tragic,” only to receive the firm reply: “Of your own free will you fell into this impropriety, and you yourselves are now suffering its tragic consequences. And now you know that further stages will follow from this abhorrent beginning.” And so it happened, to an excessive degree.

Bartholomew Never Revoked the Excommunication of Christodoulos

Furthermore, we reveal that during the funeral service of Archbishop Christodoulos (2008), the Patriarch mobilized every influential intermediary in order to attend in person. He demanded that he alone should bear the pastoral staff and the omophorion; however, he ended up embroiled in humiliation. He was merely one insignificant figure among fifty bishops, without any honorary distinction or elevated platform.

It is unnecessary to denounce the fact that the Patriarch never asked forgiveness, either for the servile prostration of the Greek clergy or for the uncanonical and ludicrous severance of communion (excommunication) imposed upon Christodoulos, which indeed took place during a live worldwide television broadcast (April 30, 2004), with candles, lamps, omophoria, and lantern-like engolpia, while forty-two Bishops assented and countersigned, devoid of episcopal conscience. It should be noted that, officially and in the same manner, the act in question was never revoked. Should we perhaps still expect this? Probably not. In any case, after that ceremony of shame, the then Minister of Education sent a certain distinguished shipowner, who confronted the Patriarch in very severe language, saying: “You are not going to destroy Hellenism through your blunders…”

Christodoulos Bears Full Responsibility

If we wish to draw a conclusion on a deeper level, and not a superficial one, then we must arrive at the transcendent conclusion that Archbishop Christodoulos bears the entire responsibility for these grievous events recorded here, because throughout worldwide Orthodoxy, even to this day, so many years later, the consequences of that servile submission continue to manifest themselves—that submission which took place at the very height of the power of the Archbishop of Greece. For he tolerated an anti-evangelical and tyrannical act against our clergy, from which, subsequently, arrogance brought about devastating storms and pan-Orthodox calamities.

We further point out that those tragic events which were shamelessly carried out—namely, the prostration of the clergy and the severance of communion with Christodoulos (2004)—constituted the preludes to extremely grave wounds and internal wars within Orthodoxy. We enumerate the pseudo-synod of Kolymbari in the year 2016, as well as the twofold pseudo-synod of Kyiv-Constantinople, through which an illegitimate, Ukrainian-Nazi ecclesiastical structure was recognized. This brought about, in essence, an active schism with the great Slavic Group of Orthodox Churches, and above all with the Church of Russia. And as the culmination of all these things, there recently occurred also the beheading of His Eminence Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos by the innovating Archbishop of the Church of Cyprus, George, under the seal and protection of the Patriarch, who bears no responsibility in this matter.

We Inform the Younger and Reprove the Older

It is our intention to republish this particular concise note from time to time, so that the younger may be informed and learn, while the older may recall with bitterness the calamities of Hellenic Orthodoxy, arising from the powerful men within who have brought about this arrogant decline.

This updating and republication contains no element whatsoever of vindictiveness, but expresses painful reflection over our ill-fated fatherland, for the awakening of those who flatter this dreadful system and for the mobilization of those who are prudent, yet remain complacent.

Perjuries have roots. The newspaper Typos tis Kyriakis (Sunday Press) of January 31, 1993, published an interview with Metropolitan Theologos of Larissa, one of the Twelve, who reveals how Archbishop Ieronymos I once rebuked his successor, Seraphim Tikas: “Do you believe in God, Seraphim?”

We cite another recent dramatic exchange, which demonstrates the spiritual apathy of certain Bishops: A certain modernist Metropolitan, seated beside an Archbishop, reproached him most severely: “How can you do such things? Do you not fear God?” The latter, with complete unbelief, apathy, and indifference, looked around to the right and left, above and below, and replied: “Where is He? Where is He? I do not see Him!”

“The fool hath said in his heart, // There is no God” (Ps. 13:1).

“He is not the God of the dead, // but the God of the living: // ye therefore do greatly err” (Mark 12:27).

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bd%81-%cf%87%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%cf%8c%ce%b4%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%bf%cf%82-%e1%bc%80%cf%80%ce%b5%ce%ba%cf%8d%ce%b7%cf%83%ce%b5-%cf%84%ce%ac%cf%82-%e1%bc%90%ce%ba%cf%84%cf%81%ce%bf%cf%80/

The Boundaries of the Church — A Necessary Comment on the Parish Bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ (2010)

Fr. Anders Åkerström | October 25, 2010 (O.S.)

 

 

In the October 2010–January 2011 issue of the parish bulletin of the Church of the Transfiguration of Christ [in Stockholm], there is an article entitled “A Clarification — On Canonicity and the Calendar Question,” to which we unfortunately feel compelled to respond, since the article, among other things, singles out our church in Sweden.

The priest Father Angel [Velichkov] writes that “today it is especially important to examine... certain schismatics on Orthodox grounds,” and continues by commenting that these are some whom we “must shun like fire.” He explains that “schismatics are Orthodox persons and communities that break Eucharistic communion with the local canonical Churches of the worldwide Orthodox Church.” He explains that “the rupture takes place immediately” and that “the communication of grace” among them has ceased.

One might perhaps illustrate his argument by means of a light switch with “on” and “off,” “light” or “darkness.” Either one is in communion with the worldwide Orthodox Church, the “on switch,” or one is not, the “off switch.” If the “off switch” is pressed, there is no grace. Father Angel explains that the schismatics’ “sacraments become ineffectual... graceless acts. The bread is not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, sins are not forgiven, the covenant of marriage is not sealed, and grace is not conveyed in ordinations.”

Father Angel then gives the following illustrative example: “if schismatics have blessed chrism, it differs hardly at all from any ordinary scented oil.”

Here, then, a simple and clear ecclesiology is presented concerning where the boundaries of the Orthodox Church lie and where the grace of God is to be found. The Church exists among those who have preserved Eucharistic communion among the local Orthodox Churches. Put simply, one usually means the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople. And the grace of God through the sacraments is efficacious only there. Father Angel notes “that outside the Church [i.e., outside the Churches that are in communion with Constantinople], neither fasts, lengthy prayers, abstinence, nor any other ascetic practice has any saving power.”

The argument may seem very simple and appealing. An “off” and “on” switch, outside and inside, all or nothing, black or white. What is remarkable is that one seldom hears this kind of reasoning from an Orthodox priest who actively participates in the so-called ecumenical movement. We clearly recognize the argument from the “fanatical” Old Calendarists, who have a fondness for simple models. For them, most things are either “black” or “white.” Either you are Orthodox within their “group,” or you are condemned. “Orthodoxy or Death” is the text that one group has on its flags. The difference here is that it is the ecclesiastical communion to which Father Angel belongs that is declared to be without grace, where the wine and bread of the Eucharist remain wine and bread, and chrism is no more than any scented oil. Anyone who wishes to delve more deeply into this “black-and-white” mentality can read the writings of Bishop Matthaios of Vresthena (1861–1959), which make for depressing reading, much like what Father Angel presents.

Imagine an Orthodox priest from the World Council of Churches using Father Angel’s rhetoric at an ecumenical meeting where ecclesiology is to be discussed with the Roman Catholic Church! What would this sound like? The Pope is an unordained office-holder who does not possess the grace of God. Catholic “churches” have no efficacious sacraments, and their chrism is merely ordinary scented oil like that from a perfumery. Does anyone believe that the Roman Catholic delegates would continue the dialogue?

In any case, Father Angel’s ecclesiastical representatives do not say this in such contexts. Instead, they eagerly speak of the Roman Catholic Church as a “sister church.” The “black-and-white” rhetoric is brought out only when it comes to intra-Orthodox “problems.” Here one can speak of a forked tongue.

The question then arises: why does he argue in such a simplistic and unnuanced manner on this issue? Well, there is probably a pastoral reason. Father Angel wants to cast suspicion and frighten people. What if one of his parishioners were to listen to what a conservative Orthodox Christian has to say? When this is one’s motive, perhaps one can also “bend” the truth a little!

Father Angel writes: “At present there is no one on Athos or in the other local canonical Churches, whether they follow the new or the old calendar, who is in communion with the Greek Old Calendarists.” Here he avoids mentioning that there are Old Calendarist groups within many of the larger Churches, such as in Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia.

But what, then, is the truth concerning Athos, the heart of Orthodoxy? Of the 20 “ruling” monasteries, one, namely Esphigmenou, has completely broken with Constantinople and commemorates an Old Calendarist bishop. Among the smaller monastic dwellings there are several that commemorate only Old Calendarist bishops. The former Archbishop of Athens, Christodoulos, estimated that approximately 35–40% of the monks on Athos refused to mention the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Liturgies and belonged to the Old Calendarist movement. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives a somewhat lower figure, approximately 500 of the roughly 2,000 monks.

Having clarified this, Father Angel goes on to comment on the mentality of schismatics. He remarks that “they are people who are constantly seeking, but never finding, [and] who are constantly studying but never becoming fully learned... they search with microscopic precision for both existing and non-existing problems.” In the same context, he comments on their “fondness for disputes over the calendar.” Naturally, he says nothing about the canonical problem posed by the fact that three Pan-Orthodox Councils condemned the new calendar. Nor, naturally, does he mention the problem concerning the First Ecumenical Council and the Paschalion. Instead, he returns to the claim that this mentality indicates a “lack of spiritual maturity” and concludes by characterizing such people as “unreasonable.”

What, then, can be said about all this?

What we chiefly wish to comment on is Father Angel’s ecclesiology, which unfortunately is an overly simplistic model. We criticize the “fanatical” Old Calendarists for the same problem. The boundaries of the Orthodox Church and the question of where grace is present are not a “black-and-white” matter; it is not like an “off” and “on” switch. One can take a clear example from the Church in which Father Angel himself is a priest, namely the Russian Exarchate in Paris under Constantinople. The Exarchate was originally formed through a schism in which its ruling bishop left his “lawful” communion in 1927, to use Father Angel’s own terms. The same bishop was then deposed by his Mother Church in 1930, and from 1965 to 1971 the Exarchate was not in communion with any Church before it was received back by Constantinople. Did schism and the absence of communion mean that grace had disappeared—the “off switch”?

Moreover, one may note that when Churches become independent, this has historically almost always begun with a schism and a lengthy period without communion with their Mother Church. Today there is an example of this in the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which, like us, lacks communion with its Mother Church. Another example may be found in the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia who were reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007 after 90 years of schism from one another.

Another clear example from the same Church is perhaps Saint John (Maximovitch) of Shanghai and San Francisco. The Church to which he belonged during his lifetime was in communion with us and lacked communion with Constantinople and its Mother Church. Was his asceticism then “without saving power”? to quote Father Angel. If so, how can he now be venerated as a saint even in the Moscow Patriarchate? What we simply wish to say is that Father Angel’s argument concerning schisms is too simplistic. If one wishes to take examples from Church history, one may mention Saint John Chrysostom, who opposed the ecclesiastical administration in Constantinople after he had been driven out. Did he lose “grace” and become “uncanonical” when he did this? No, hardly!

Much of the ecclesiological problem in Father Angel’s argument lies in the word found in the title of the article: “canonicity.” As we usually say, the word “canonical” is the most abused word in the Orthodox Church. We do not know how many times we have pointed out that the word “canonical” in Orthodox theology has nothing to do with being “recognized by Constantinople.” What is canonical is simply that which is in accordance with the canons of the Church. It is not the decision of a patriarch or synod that creates canonicity; on the contrary, it is the canonicity of the decision that gives it true authority and force. Truth, not power, is the criterion.

It is therefore possible for a few to be “right” against the “great communion,” as was the case with Saint John Chrysostom or Saint Maximos the Confessor, or during periods when the “true believers” were in the minority, such as during the Arian or Iconoclastic controversies. We all know the saying: Athanasium contra Mundum! [“Athanasios against the World!”]

Temporary and transitory schisms within the Orthodox Church do not affect the unity of the Church, and we consider ourselves to be a temporary movement of resistance within the Church. We do not consider that the responsibility lies with us to justify our preservation of the Orthodox Faith; rather, the responsibility lies with those Orthodox who have introduced “innovations” into the Church.

Father Angel’s view of the Old Calendarists has, however, been made abundantly clear through his article, but what do other Orthodox say? Here we choose to quote two Orthodox Christians in communion with Constantinople. The first example is the now-reposed Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem (†2000), who, during a visit to one of our monasteries, made the following statement concerning our Synod of Bishops:

“Most ... Reverend Hierarchs of the Church, beloved children in Christ: It is with special joy and emotion that I find myself in this holy place... My joy and emotion are especially great because I am in the midst of Bishops and Priests who, in the course of the last decade, have spread the light of Orthodoxy to nearly every continent: to Europe, Africa, America, and wherever there exists an opportunity to proclaim the Orthodox Church. Thanks to the labors of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Cyprian and his Bishops, the voice of Orthodoxy has reached the most distant corners of the world.”

Here the message is not about schism and an incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox phronema, but consists entirely of praise for our activity and witness.

The second example we take from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: “What future have the Old Calendarists? It is tempting to dismiss them as a survival from the past, doomed to gradual extinction... Such a conclusion, however, may be premature. Following the collapse of Communism... there has emerged throughout Eastern Europe a growing conservatism within the Orthodox Church... Although at present marginalized, the Greek Old Calendarists — and their allies in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia — may still have a part to play in the Orthodox world.”

We of course hope and pray that Metropolitan Kallistos’ words will prove true. We wish to ensure that the Orthodox Faith is preserved and thereby prepare the way for the divisions that exist within the Orthodox Church to receive a final resolution and end through a Pan-Orthodox Council. A first step on this arduous path must be mutual humility in the face of difficult ecclesiological questions.

If anyone truly wishes to delve more deeply into questions such as Orthodox ecclesiology and canonicity, I would like to recommend two articles. These could serve as a basis if Father Angel is interested in a serious dialogue. The first, on ecclesiology, is entitled “Who Determines Who Is Orthodox?” and is found in Orthodox Insights — Volume II, Chrysostomos, Auxentios, Akakios, Florovsky, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, California, 2009. The second, on canon law, is entitled “The True Meaning of Canonicity.”

 

Swedish source:

https://www.ortodoxakyrkan.se/_files/ugd/f29474_0d8221610c5b4f84bcc8ba80c8feedc3.pdf

Today everyone sits down and constructs a religion of his own.

Theoktistos the Cretan | August 8, 2026

 

 

Today everyone sits down and constructs a religion of his own. He takes a little from Christianity, a little from philosophy, a little from the Eastern religions, adds whatever his own reasoning dictates to him, and then says with certainty: “This is what I believe.”

But, my child, faith is not food, for everyone to put into it whatever ingredient he likes. Nor is Christ some vague idea that each person can adapt to his own desires and conceptions. “For me,” he says, “Christ was a good man, a social revolutionary, a wise teacher.”

Another says: “He was one of the many enlightened men of humanity.” These things are not faith. They are human constructions, usually born of ignorance and pride. Christ did not say that He is one of many truths. He said that He is the Truth. He did not leave each person free to interpret Him according to his passions, ideologies, and personal preferences. He founded the Church, sent forth the Apostles, and handed down the Gospel and the Mysteries. Therefore, whoever rejects the Church but retains a Christ whom he has fashioned for himself does not follow Christ. He follows himself and calls his own personal arbitrariness faith.

A person cannot fail to attend church, fail to confess, not know even the elementary things of the faith, never have read the entire Gospel, and then pronounce authoritatively on Christ, the Church, Holy Communion, Paradise, and hell. In every other field, people recognize that knowledge, study, and experience are necessary. To speak about medicine, one must have studied it. To build a house, one must know the craft. Only when it comes to God do they think they need to know nothing. Because they heard a discussion, watched a program, or read a couple of lines on the internet, they imagine that they have become theologians. And what is worse, they do not ask in order to learn, but speak in order to impose their ignorance. True catechesis, however, is not dry intellectual instruction, nor is it a series of religious lessons. It presupposes participation in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, repentance, prayer, confession, and humble discipleship. The faith is not learned only with the mind. It is lived within the body of the Church. If a person does not struggle to purify his heart, even if he reads many books, he will interpret everything according to his own reasoning. He may then use even the Gospel, not to correct himself, but to justify his delusions and passions.

Then another person comes along and says: “I believe in reincarnation, but I want to receive Communion.” What can you say to him? The Church confesses the resurrection of the dead and eternal life, while he believes that the soul passes successively from one body to another. In other words, he rejects the teaching of the Church, yet at the same time demands to approach the Holy Chalice. Another says: “I do not accept confession, I do not believe in the Saints, I do not venerate the Theotokos, I do not agree with the fasts, but I want to receive Communion because I am a good person.” But Holy Communion is not a reward for good behavior, a form of social affirmation, or a custom we observe at Pascha and Christmas. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. Whoever receives Communion confesses in practice that he accepts the faith of the Church and that he strives to live within it. He cannot deny the faith of the Church and at the same time demand her Mysteries. It is as though he were to declare that he does not acknowledge a household, does not accept its family, and despises its order, yet demands to have a place at the family table. Such things simply do not stand. The Church drives no one away. But she calls everyone to repentance. It is one thing to receive a person in order to heal him, and another to call his error truth merely so as not to upset him.

With the same superficiality, they also speak about the devil. “I do not believe,” one says, “that the devil exists. The devil is simply a symbolic image of evil.” And this is said by a person who has not even once read the entire Gospel. If he had read it with even elementary attention, he would know of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, where the devil approaches Him and tempts Him. He would know of the many cases of the demon-possessed whom the Lord heals. He would see that the demons recognize Christ, speak to Him, fear Him, and entreat Him. He would also have read the Lord’s warning to the Apostle Peter that Satan had asked to test the disciples. They set all these things aside and then pronounce that the devil does not exist. In other words, they accept neither the Gospel nor the testimony of Christ Himself, yet they insist on calling themselves Christians. They retain from Christ only what does not offend their own reasoning and reject whatever does not fit into their theories. They do not accept Christ as He is, but try to correct Him. But when a person reaches the point of believing that he knows better than the Gospel, then his pride has become darker even than his ignorance. Ignorance can be healed through learning. Proud ignorance, because it thinks that it knows, refuses even the cure.

Others again say: “If God exists, then God created evil,” or “Why did God allow evil to exist?” With such a casual statement, they place upon God all the crimes, injustices, and calamities that are produced by man’s estrangement from Him. God did not create evil, because evil has no substance or creative principle of its own. It is the deprivation of good, the distortion of freedom, and estrangement from God.

Nor was the devil created evil. He was created an angel and, through pride and his own free choice, turned away from God. And man was not fashioned as a machine, compelled to do good. God gave him freedom, because without freedom there can be no true love. But we want to be free to do whatever our passions dictate to us and, when the consequences come, we blame God. Man causes wars, commits injustice, exploits, kills, destroys his family, ravages nature, gives himself over to the passions, and then asks resentfully: “Why does God allow these things?” If God forcibly prevented every evil act, those same people would complain that He had deprived them of their freedom. They want both the freedom to transgress and exemption from every consequence of that transgression. This is not a sincere search for the truth. It is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable and to shift onto God the responsibility that they themselves refuse to assume.

Therefore, this spiritual superficiality and arbitrariness must come to an end. Not everyone can take the name of Christian, reject what Christ taught, and demand that the Church adapt herself to his personal views. The Church has no right to alter the truth in order to accommodate anyone’s error. She has a duty to love man, but precisely because she loves him, she is obliged to tell him the truth. A doctor who loves the sick person does not call cancer health. He reveals the illness to him and offers him the cure. So too the Church receives the sinner, but she does not bless sin. She forgives the one who repents, but she does not vindicate the one who persists in presenting error as faith. Whoever sincerely wishes to know Christ, let him abandon self-sufficiency, open the Gospel, receive catechesis, enter into the liturgical and sacramental life, and approach the Church with humility. Then he will no longer speak about a Christ fashioned by his own reasoning. He will begin to know the true Christ, Who did not come to confirm our theories, but to free us from error, sin, and the tyranny of our own egoism.

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/08/blog-post_533.html