10 years since the Havana meeting, or Does history teach us anything?

Alexey Rodionov | February 12, 2026

 

 

Exactly 10 years ago, on February 12, 2016, in the building of the José Martí International Airport in Havana, the capital of Cuba, a meeting took place between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis of Rome. I will not describe the meeting itself in detail, since this has already been done many times before me. I will note only a few points.

The first thing that catches the eye is the speed with which the decision about the meeting was made. It was announced by both sides on February 5, 2016. On that same day the final decision was made to hold it on February 12. The text of the declaration proposed for signing was agreed upon until late in the evening of February 10 and occupied 10 pages.

Second. This decision was made immediately after the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place from February 2 to 3, 2016, in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, yet at the Council it was not discussed in any way, at least publicly. One can state with complete confidence that the act of Patriarch Kirill was non-conciliar and even anti-conciliar.

Third. Such a meeting quite obviously had a political, not a religious, background. Patriarch Kirill decided, by means of this meeting, to raise the status of the Kremlin and of Russia in general, sacrificing in the process clergy and laity who were anti-Catholic in their disposition. This is entirely logical, since Patriarch Kirill has always been a statist to the marrow of his bones. But I cannot help asking myself the question: did the Russian Church gain much from this meeting in the long term? And did it gain anything at all?

Fourth. The Havana Declaration signed 10 years ago cannot be called successful. It is a hastily prepared fruit of church diplomacy, which has no theological weight and still less any moral weight. At present no one even remembers this document, not to mention any kind of detailed analysis of it.

Fifth. Both such a hasty format of the meeting and the Havana Declaration itself quite predictably provoked noticeable criticism from conservative and right-radical circles in the Church. The most irreconcilable critics altogether ceased commemorating Patriarch Kirill and later left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. I have already written about one of them, Zosima-Alexy Moroz. It is noteworthy that from the side of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia only Protopriest Vladimir Malchenko from Canada publicly contested this meeting.

[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-bitter-fruits-of-ecumenism-in-life.html]

Sixth. In that same year another event took place, which some awaited with anticipation and others with apprehension — the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete. And here Patriarch Kirill no longer dared to go against the conservative and right-radical circles in the Church. Quite noteworthy here is that friendship with the Vatican (or at least its illusion) proved for Patriarch Kirill more significant than pan-Orthodox unity. A little more than two years will pass, and Patriarch Bartholomew will finally bury this unity through the creation of the OCU.

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/384067.html

The Bitter Fruits of Ecumenism in the Life of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate

A Letter Concerning the Meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope and Concerning Ecumenism.

Mitred Protopriest Vladimir Malchenko,

Rector of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in the city of Toronto,

Dean of the Eastern District of the Canadian Diocese of the ROCOR-MP

April 7, 2016

 

 

The unexpected meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with the Roman Pope at the airport in Cuba on February 12, 2016, on the day when our Church celebrates the Synaxis of the Three Hierarchs, caused and still causes great confusion and pain in the hearts of the majority of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. This image of the meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope compelled us to recall those photographs and video broadcasts of the meetings of the Patriarchs of Constantinople with the Popes, first on January 5–6, 1964 in Jerusalem, then twice in 1967, as well as in November 1979 in Rome, where both sat in vestments before the altar of the Cathedral of the Apostle Peter; in 1987, 1995, 2002, 2004, 2005 in Rome; in 2006 in Constantinople, on October 21, 2007 in Naples, in 2008 in the Vatican, in 2011 in Italy, in 2012 and 2013 in Rome, and in May 2014 in Jerusalem. I remember how these meetings greatly disturbed us in the Church Abroad, for at these meetings various documents and statements unacceptable for our Orthodox Church were signed, leading to a rapprochement of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics. In these photographs we saw how the Roman Pope and the Orthodox Patriarch stood together in vestments, performed joint services, and all this for us was unacceptable and, frankly speaking, repugnant. Therefore, the sight of such an image in the news on February 12, 2016, this time already with our Patriarch and the new Pope, caused us great pain.

Our late Canadian hierarch, Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov), subsequently the 4th Metropolitan of the Russian Church Abroad, in the 1960s sternly warned the entire flock about the great threat of ecumenism and called it the “heresy of heresies.” The result of such meetings of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Roman Pope was a great schism in the Greek Church, when many Greek Old-Calendarists began opening their parishes under the omophorion of the Russian Church Abroad. In Toronto there were two such Greek Old Calendarist parishes, and, visiting these churches, we saw on their bulletin boards many photographs of similar meetings. Every parishioner of the Church Abroad knew the word “ecumenism” and what it means. Thus we were brought up.

The Synod of the Church Abroad already in the 1960s of the twentieth century vigilantly followed the rapidly developing ecumenism. In 1967, Vladyka Vitaly (Ustinov) wrote a report to the Council of Bishops, in which he described the entire history of ecumenism from the very beginning of its existence. The report of Archbishop Vitaly is now forgotten by many, and precisely now it must be disseminated everywhere in order to understand where ecumenism leads and how the ecumenists achieve their goal. As Vladyka Vitaly correctly taught: “When the holy Fathers impart their teaching to us, they do this from the fullness of their life, permeated with prayer. All their sayings were obtained by them, if one may so say, in prayer and in contemplation, and not from the intellectual syllogisms of the analytical mind. In the purely speculative study of dogma, practiced in all our seminaries and academies, there is concealed a subtle pride, interwoven with a subtle trickle of blasphemy.”

Metropolitan Vitaly wrote little in his life, but he was spiritually strong by his prayer, asceticism, and fidelity to the holy Russian Orthodox Church. To this day we recall his fiery sermons and what he called us to.

The third First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), understood his responsibility for preserving the Church Abroad and the whole Church as a whole from anti-Orthodox actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Metropolitan Philaret is the author of three sorrowful epistles to the Most Holy and Most Blessed Heads of the Orthodox Churches in 1969, 1972, and 1975, in which he thoroughly exposes the treacherous path of many Orthodox hierarchs and clerics.

In the first sorrowful epistle the Metropolitan taught: “If a temptation appears only in one of the Orthodox Churches, then correction may be found within the same bounds. But when a certain evil penetrates almost all our Churches, then it becomes a matter concerning every bishop. Can any one of us remain inactive if he sees how at the same time many of his brethren are going along a path leading them and their flock into a destructive abyss through an unnoticed loss of Orthodoxy?”

In the second sorrowful epistle Metropolitan Philaret wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church, with which Patriarch Athenagoras wishes to have liturgical communion and with which, through Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad and others, the Moscow Patriarchate has entered into communion — is no longer even the one with which St. Mark of Ephesus rejected union and, after him, the entire Orthodox Church. It is even further from Orthodoxy than it was in those days, since it has introduced still new dogmas and now more and more assimilates the principles of the Reformation, ecumenism, and modernism. A whole series of determinations of the Orthodox Church have recognized the Latins as heretics. If at times they were received into communion by the same rite as the Arians, then for a number of centuries and even to our days the Greek Churches received them through baptism. If in the first centuries after 1054 the Latins in both the Greek and the Russian Church were received differently, sometimes through baptism, sometimes through chrismation, then this was because all regarded them as heretics, but did not have a universally established practice for their reception into the Orthodox Church. Thus, for example, at the very beginning of the fourteenth century the Serbian prince, the father of Stefan Nemanja, was compelled to baptize his son with Latin baptism, but later rebaptized him according to the Orthodox rite when he returned to Ras. Professor E. Golubinsky, in his fundamental work “History of the Russian Church,” making a survey of the attitude of the Russians toward Latinism, cites many facts indicating that with the different methods of receiving the Latins into the bosom of the Orthodox Church at different times, that is, by performing either their baptism or their chrismation, both the Greek and the Russian Churches proceeded from recognizing them as heretics. Therefore, the assertion that during these centuries ‘unity in communion of the sacraments and in particular of the Eucharist undoubtedly remained’ between the Orthodox Church and Rome — does not at all correspond to reality. The separation between us and Rome was and exists, and moreover a real one, not an illusory one.”

In this same second sorrowful epistle Metropolitan Philaret reports something that was a revelation for me: “Even preceding Patriarch Athenagoras, the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Nikodim, on December 14, 1970, gave communion to Catholic clerics in Rome itself, in the Cathedral of the Apostle Peter. There, during the celebration by him of the liturgy, the choir of students of the Pontifical College sang, and Roman Catholic clerics received communion from the hands of Metropolitan Nikodim. But behind such a practical realization of the so-called ecumenism there are seen broader aims as well, directed toward the complete abolition of the Orthodox Church.”

In these three sorrowful epistles of Metropolitan Philaret, the third First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, one may find a detailed and complete description of the entire history of ecumenism, how it developed in the Orthodox Church and in the Russian Church in particular, and this valuable information will enable each person to understand what is now taking place in our Church.

The meeting of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill with the Roman Pope caused in me and in many of our parishioners great indignation, and the first questions addressed to me were: “How did His Holiness the Vladyka conduct such a meeting with the head of the Roman Church without the knowledge of his 300 hierarchs? How did His Holiness Patriarch Kirill sign some document, which was drafted by the Vatican and one hierarch, without the knowledge of his own hierarchs? If the document was drafted and signed in such a manner, is the signature of His Holiness the Patriarch valid on behalf of the entire fullness of the Russian Church?” To my great joy and consolation, I felt in my parish almost complete solidarity with my reflections. This means that we still think and live in an Orthodox manner. To my great joy and consolation, I read and listen on the internet to many truly Orthodox people in Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Moldova, Bulgaria, and on Athos, who asked similar questions to those I asked myself, and who act each in his own way in order to clarify and explain these questions for themselves personally and for all our believing people. I am very grateful to Father Deacon Vladimir Vasilik, a cleric from Saint Petersburg, for his detailed interpretation of the document that was signed in Cuba, calling this document purely ecumenical, in which every theological point is ambiguous. For me, an archpriest of the Church Abroad with a simple seminary education in our Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, it was important to receive a correct answer from a theologian, historian, and philologist in the person of Father Vladimir Vasilik to the question: “What is to be done?” In this situation we must fervently pray for His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, remain in the Russian Orthodox Church, but at the same time firmly and clearly inform our church authority that we do not agree with these texts.

Often His Holiness the Patriarch in his addresses says that the people of God also have a voice in the resolution of church questions, and let this small letter be my modest voice of the people of God. The excellent article of Fr. Vladimir Vasilik we immediately printed in Russian and English for all our parishioners and distributed in our parish. It also gladdens us that in both Moscow and Saint Petersburg theological conferences were held on the themes of the meeting in Cuba and of the Pan-Orthodox Council, the holding of which is planned for Pentecost, and that the people in Russia are concerned and care about the fate of the Church.

It was sad to listen to the speeches of prominent capital clerics who expressed their complete delight at the meeting in Cuba and said that in their parishes no one is troubled by this meeting. I personally heard how a well-known Moscow cleric invited his Catholic friend to speak before the parish after the service from the ambo, so that the parishioners might see a good Catholic man. If I were to do something similar in Toronto, my parishioners would expel me for such a scandal. This delight of the capital clerics is probably explained by the fact that they have a completely different perception of ecumenism than in the Church Abroad. We do not accept it at all and will not accept it, whereas in Russia, in the Russian Church, beginning in 1961, ecumenism developed and continues to develop with great speed. Unfortunately, in the Russian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate ecumenical thinking and upbringing long ago entered into the church organism. And how are we to be? We are one Church and have a completely different perception of the theme and activity of ecumenism. Lord, grant us patience, love, and faith to endure all this!

I strongly recommend finding on the internet the report of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) “Ecumenism. Report to the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR,” as well as the “Sorrowful Epistles” of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). It is necessary for everyone to read these reports, then you will understand us, your brethren and sisters abroad.

 

Russian source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210511210740/https://blagogon.ru/news/429/

Faith without cost or witness with a price?

 

The image that prevailed, in order to render more faithfully the presence of the Church in history, is the ship. For indeed the Church travels, sails like a ship in the ocean of the ages.

Wishing, according to the command of the Lord, to remain a “new creation” in its historical course, the Church from the beginning took a position opposite those forces that were determining and shaping the society of that time and at the same time distinguished its position, as a “communion of grace and salvation,” from the institutions and structures of society, which the PAX ROMANA imposed with its firm centralization. Thus the Church radically separated herself, as the Body of Christ, from Judaism (this work is owed chiefly to the Apostle Paul) and cut off from her bosom the Judaizers, that is, those who wished to subject Christianity to the letter of the law and Jewish formalism, stifling the universality of the Church within Jewish nationalism (phyletism).

She also separated herself from Hellenism, as nationalism–idolatry, and excluded from her communion the Hellenizing tendencies, which wished to mix Christianity with the pseudo-philosophy and mythology of the world (e.g. Gnosticism), limiting the role of Christianity to the cultic frameworks of a religion and thus transforming it into a substitute, or even a secondary complement of idolatry.

On the other hand, moreover, remaining faithful the Church to her universal and eternal mission and her theanthropic character, which excludes every tendency of her being confined within the worldly and transience, she distinguished herself (always in the persons of her Saints, of course) also from the Roman–state spirit, which attempted repeatedly, especially from the 4th century onward, to exploit the Church, using her as a means for the increase and consolidation of its influence. Certainly, this struggle is waged unceasingly by the Saints, the conscious and Spirit-bearing members of the Church—who always remain uncompromising and unyielding.

The Church, thus, coexists with the world, but does not identify with it. She differentiates herself—contrary to the civilization, the philosophy, the institutions of the world, for “she has not here an abiding city…” (Heb. 13:14). She is continually in via (on the way). Her stance toward the world is always critical and admonitory, but at the same time loving. Therefore, when she “withdraws” from the world, she does so without hatred toward the world. And when she remains in the world, she assumes the world, but in order to save the world and not to become secularized, to become world herself. Thus the Church avoids, on the one hand, ecclesiological monophysitism (denial of mission within the world) and ideological nestorianism (relativization of the divine Truth for the sake of the world).

The presence of Christians within the world and their coexistence with non-Christians and authority (Roman or Jewish), at times indifferent toward them and at times hostile, was bound to create serious problems. One of the most basic was the shaping of the relations of the Church, not as a Priesthood, but as the Body of Christ (that is, a society constituted in Christ), with the power structures and forces of the surrounding world. For in contrast to ancient Israel, which constituted a particular people within a clearly defined living space, the new Israel, the Church, was quickly found dispersed in the world, among various peoples, who, despite the unity of the PAX ROMANA, had their own customs, their own way of life and, above all, their own religious faith, which of course could not be harmonized with the faith of the Church. These conditions for the presence of the ecclesiastical body within the world of that time, as well as the practical difficulties that arose, are described in a masterful manner by the famous text of the 2nd century, the well-known Epistle “To Diognetus.”

The Church, as a society, faced from the beginning the need to accept the “political ministry” within her own body, for she considers it necessary and accords it value. At the same time, however, she distinguishes her own political ministry from the “political authority” of the surrounding world, from which, of course, she could not demand a Christian spirit and dispositions, because it was not hers, since it lived in “godlessness” (Eph. 2:12!) and was expressed in hostility toward Christ and His People. With the “political authority” of the world (the “outside” State) the Church maintained formal relations (they could be characterized as external), which were expressed, among other things, by the word of the Lord “render the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God” (Matt. 22:21) and by the word of the ap. Paul “render… to whom the tax, the tax; to whom the toll, the toll…” (Rom. 13:7). These passages, however, demonstrate the formation already of relations (better: stances) both by the Lord and by the Apostles toward the “worldly authority” (State), which at a certain moment are recorded in the New Testament books (classical development in Rom. 13:1 ff.).

Externally, therefore, wherever the Church may be, as a community organized in a place, she maintains these purely formal relations with the secular political authority; internally, however, she exists and functions as a whole—an independent society, with her spiritual and her socio-biological dimension, even if there were no “systems” and “established” legislation, since everything in the life of the faithful and of the ecclesiastical body takes place primarily by the Grace (Illumination) of the Holy Spirit, when of course He dwells within the faithful (cf. Rom. 8:9: if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you). Thus, the whole Church spread as a Christian commonwealth within the ancient world, with Jerusalem as center and a unified way of life and organization (principle of the canonical law of the Church). [1]

The determination of the relations of the Members of the Church with the idolatrous State was a delicate and difficult matter, on which the Holy Apostles had to formulate, in the Holy Spirit, certain general principles of consideration and conduct: “render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar and the things of God to God.” What did this word mean?

Our Lord, to those who addressed to Him the question whether they should pay tax to Caesar or not, with the aim of trapping Him, gave a silencing answer of divine wisdom and inspiration, of timeless value and significance.

He urged the rendering by subjects to the respective ruler only of that which belongs to him, that is, the payment of tax and generally the faithful observance and fulfillment of obligations toward the respective political authority, without piety being harmed; at the same time, He emphasized the obligation of offering to God the things that belong to Him, that is, absolute faith, obedience, and worship. The obligations of subjects toward the State are not necessarily in opposition to their liturgical duties toward the true God; the obligations toward the State and the duties toward God must be combined, and these two clearly distinct spheres, State and Church, are not necessarily incompatible. For the authority of Caesar, without being sanctified, is regarded not as contrary, but as in accordance with the order of human affairs granted by God.

The instruction concerning submission applies only insofar as the Authority does not intervene in the religious conscience of each of its citizens and subjects and does not proceed to acts or commands contrary to the divine Teaching. Every unlawful demand, toward the corruption of consciences and the trampling of divine Commandments, is met with heroic and decisive refusal and witness. The Apostle Peter, with his likewise glorious Martyrdom, demonstrated most clearly the truth and validity of these positions. [2]

In the first centuries of persecution of the Christians and on the occasion of certain annual related ceremonies, the representatives of the subjected cities, by their presence at them, essentially indicated and renewed their subjection and their loyalty to the emperor and to Rome. The office of priest was a public, state office; the priests were chosen from among the most eminent senators, and the office of the supreme high priest (Pontifex maximus) was consciously assumed by the emperor himself. This fact in itself connects, and indeed closely, the Roman religion with the public administration; therefore, reasonably, the refusal of participation in religious worship and the related ceremonies, apart from impiety, was also taken as refusal of obedience to the “sacralized” public order, consequently also as disturbance of public order, hence the charge of high treason against any transgressor.

Naturally, reasonable and suspicious perplexity was caused among the idolaters by the non-participation of the Christians in the public spectacles, particularly indeed in an era when “bread and spectacles” was a slogan and a way of life. Thus, along with the rest, the stance of the Christians was considered misanthropy and became the core of the accusation against them, that they were enemies of the human race. An accusation at least scandalous, as were all the others besides, given that it concerned and characterized those people who lived and put into practice love toward neighbor and unconditional philanthropy.

According to the Roman view of religious matters, Christianity did not fulfill the conditions on the basis of which the Roman authority proclaimed a religion as permitted, since it was not an ancient ancestral religion of some specific people. Even if it is supposed that it was eventually recognized as a permitted religion, it is by no means certain—on the contrary, it is rather unlikely—that the Christians would be exempted from the self-evident obligation of all subjects to recognize and participate in the worship, at least of the emperor and of Rome, if not also of the other Roman deities. Non-participation in these always meant for the Roman authorities impiety, atheism, a crime of sacrilege. It is worth noting that for these charges there were already laws providing for the relevant punishments; consequently, new ones were not needed for the “violations” that came from Christians. On the contrary, for the Christians, participation in these meant denial of faith in the One and only God, consequently a most grave sin. [3]

The old examples—events—are countless and we believe known. In the contemporary era, 80% of persecuted Christians are persecuted by Muslims. The first 10 countries on the list are inhabited, at a rate of 90% and above, by Muslims.

History teaches that Islamic religious fanaticism converted half of the Christian world into Islamic, in Egypt, Turkey, Syria, North Africa. All these once Christian regions are today called the Muslim world. The only choice of Christians, in order to survive, is to become Islamized.

There are testimonies of Muslim historians of the Middle Ages who mention the persecutions of Christians, the burning of churches, the massacres against the “infidels,” the seizure and the violent Islamization of women and children.

In Egypt and Syria, it is estimated that about 30,000 churches were destroyed in the 15th century, while Christians were forced, by violence, to become Islamized. Persecutions against Christians take place in 40 Muslim states today, in which the tradition of the old persecutions is maintained, which was born 14 centuries ago and simply seeks the extermination of the “infidels.”

At the beginning of the First World War, the Christian population of the Middle East reached approximately 20% of the total. Today it is about 4%. It is estimated that about 13 million Christians remain in the region, and this number may decrease further taking into account the ongoing destabilization of Syria and Egypt, two countries with historically large Christian populations. [4]

At the present rate of decrease, there may well be no significant Christian presence in the Middle East, in one or two generations. Indicative is the fact that the Christian population of Syria has fallen from 30% in 1920 to less than 10% today.

In summary, throughout time the Church of the Martyrs, the Confessors, and the Fathers did not yield to any institutional pressure when it came into conflict with faith and witness. On the contrary, the Church set limits to the world, not the world to the Church. Saints and New Martyrs and countless others did not compromise with the law of their time when it clashed with the law of Christ. This is the essence of witness. Orthodox Tradition does not know what is convenient for an institution, nor what is required for recognition by political bodies; but it knows the faith and the example of the Apostles and the Fathers. The Church is not placed under the state or under the perspective of a state, but above it on the basis of Jesus Christ. The Saints bore witness because the truth of the Gospel collided with every other system of authority that demanded their religious, ideological, or liturgical compromise. Fidelity to the martyrial phronema of the Church was not formed and is not formed in conditions of security, but within persecutions, exiles, martyrdoms, and confessions. The Church did not grow because she learned to adapt and to compromise correctly, but because she learned to confess truly. And this measure does not change with the ages, however much the arguments may change.

If the question is honestly posed as to whether we are confessors ready to undergo martyrdom for the faith, especially today when the discourse that increasingly prevails trains us in the logic of compromise and when compromise is baptized discernment, then the answer unfortunately is given in advance: the synaxaria of old and contemporary confessing martyrs will be read as simple fairy tales or will not be read at all, with the consequence of an insult to the martyrs themselves.

The Lord Himself warned, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). It is humanly understandable for one to fear the cost of witness, but the Orthodox faith teaches us to prepare for martyrdom. What causes intense concern today is when the fear of martyrdom is not recognized with a humble phronema as weakness, but is proclaimed as a theological argument and presented as an indication of discernment, pastoral responsibility, responsible or mature ecclesiastical stance. Thus, confession ceases to be understood as a calling and is transformed into an object of negotiation. In this case, the mission of the Church is not merely limited, but altered. From witness to the truth unto sacrifice, it risks being transformed into the maintenance of balances, into institutional survival, or into management of relations. It is not merely personal cowardice, but a change of mentality. And when the mentality changes, the way the Church exists in the world also changes, whether we prophesy, or cast out demons, or even if we perform miracles.

 

[1] Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos, “Church and State in the Orthodox Tradition.”

[2] Address at the Clergy–Laity Assembly C (“Church and Politics”) of the Holy Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle, Zephyrion of Attica, Thursday 15/28.11.2013.

[3] Petros Parthenis, “The Persecution of Nero and the Decriminalization of the Name.”

[4] Persecutions of Christians throughout the world in the 21st century. The New Era of Christian Martyrdoms. Maria Karatsalou-Georgoula, President of P.C.H.O.O.I.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_84.html

On the 1969 Decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to admit Roman Catholics to Communion

 

1969: December 16. On the initiative of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate resolved, in extreme cases, to allow Catholics and Old Believers to receive the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church (in 1985 this resolution was revoked*):

“They deliberated on various cases when Old Believers and Catholics turn to the Orthodox Church for the performance of the Mysteries over them. They resolved—in the order of clarification—to specify that in those cases when Old Believers and Catholics turn to the Orthodox Church for the performance of the holy Mysteries over them, this is not forbidden” (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1970, no. 1, p. 5).

This resolution provoked sharp criticism, especially among the Greeks on Athos. Archbishop Vasily Krivoshein recalled:

“…I managed at Pan-Orthodox meetings (such as the Pan-Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with the Anglicans) to defend the good name and Orthodoxy of the Russian Church with the following argumentation: ‘This Synodal resolution is caused by the entirely special situation of believers and, in particular, Catholics in the Soviet Union, where, as is known, for thousands of kilometers there is not a single Catholic church or priest. In such cases they are permitted to give Communion. A similar resolution was adopted by the Constantinopolitan Synod and Patriarch Joachim II in 1878 with regard to the Armenians. [It should be noted that the concordat concluded by Emperor Nicholas I in 1847 with Pope Gregory XVI provided that the Russian Orthodox Church would perform all the Mysteries and rites for Catholics who turned to it with such requests, exiled for participation in the Polish uprisings against Russia, if they lived in places where there were no Catholic churches and Catholic clergy. According to the sense of this concordat and by the emperor’s instruction, the Synod then issued the corresponding directive, obligatory for the Orthodox Russian clergy, to satisfy the requests of exiled Catholics, if such requests were made by them. —Ed.] Theologically it is difficult for me to justify such oikonomia, but I cannot judge Russian hierarchs living in contemporary Russia, in difficult conditions. They know better than we what they are doing.’

“Such argumentation satisfied everyone, even on Athos, but everything was destroyed by the Communion of Catholics in Rome by Metropolitan Nikodim. ‘And there, what “pastoral oikonomia” compelled him to commune Catholics where there are so many Catholic churches?’—they asked me. The only answer I could give was: ‘Your hierarchs act even worse when they commune everyone indiscriminately.’ ‘Our hierarchs, such as Archbishop Iakovos of America or Athenagoras of London, are traitors to Orthodoxy—we have known this for a long time (the abbot of the Gregoriou Monastery, Archimandrite George, answered me on Athos). But that the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church, which we so respect for its steadfastness in Orthodoxy, acts in this way in the person of Metropolitan Nikodim—this strikes us and deeply grieves us.’

I told this reaction to Metropolitan Nikodim. He even became angry: ‘So what if they say things on Athos. Athos is not an autocephalous Church.’” (Archbishop Vasily Krivoshein, Memoirs).

In his recollections of the Hierarchical Council of 1971, Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), describing his meeting with Metropolitan Pimen, the future patriarch, says:

“We began to speak about the Roman-Catholic priest of the American embassy, Fr. Dione. Together with another visiting American he was at the liturgy and in the altar; he did not commune, but he was given antidoron with warm water to drink. Precisely in connection with this we began to speak at table about the Synod’s decision of December 16, 1969, on admitting Catholics to Communion where they have no churches or priests.

-- ‘There was no need at all to adopt this decision,’ Metropolitan Pimen remarked. ‘Where there was necessity, Catholics were admitted to Communion anyway. That is how it should have been left, and not legalized by an official Synodal decision; for before this “order,” everything was done according to pastoral considerations. And now unpleasantnesses and disturbances are occurring.’

-- ‘Everyone interprets in his own way when and in which cases one may give Communion to Catholics,’ I replied. ‘For the main deficiency of the Synodal resolution is its lack of clarity. It was pleasing for me to note that in our church Communion was not given to the Roman-Catholic priest.’

-- ‘And how is that possible!’ exclaimed Metropolitan Pimen. ‘It is not given to him anywhere, except in special cases, when a Catholic truly cannot commune anywhere.’

-- ‘Your Eminence, but allow me,’ I objected, ‘how then should one understand it when prominent Roman-Catholic figures who visited the Moscow Patriarchate were fully admitted to Communion, sometimes even according to the priestly order, in vestments?’

Saying this, I had in mind the Communion of the rector of the Russicum, Fr. Maye, and the rector of the Gregorian University in Rome in the autumn of 1969 in Kiev by Metropolitan Filaret and in Tula by Bishop Juvenaly—not to mention the Communion of Catholics in Rome by Metropolitan Nikodim at approximately the same time.

-- ‘Such facts are unknown to me,’ Metropolitan Pimen objected. ‘That could not have been!’

I could not, of course, in the presence of numerous people at the table, name names, nor did I want to ‘inform’ on my fellow hierarchs, and therefore I fell silent. But for me it remained a mystery whether Metropolitan Pimen truly did not know about these facts of ‘intercommunio.’ And if so, then he does not know what is happening in the contemporary Russian Church and much is concealed from him, or he simply diplomatically feigned ignorance, being powerless to do anything? The positions of Metropolitan Pimen with regard to intercommunio with Roman Catholics were overall firmer and more principled than those of Metropolitan Nikodim; they made an impression on me.”

(…)

1971: May 30. In the Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra, the Hierarchical Council of the Moscow Patriarchate opened. Among the 236 members of the Council there were 75 hierarchs, including 9 metropolitans, 30 archbishops, and 36 bishops; 85 clerics and 78 laypersons. Guests of the Local Council were representatives of Orthodox autocephalous Churches, heterodox Churches, and ecumenical organizations, among them: Patriarch Nicholas VI of Alexandria, Catholicos-Patriarch Ephraim II of Georgia, Romanian Patriarch Justinian; Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus, the vicar-chairman of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church Metropolitan Maxim, Metropolitans Vasily of Warsaw and Dorotheos of Prague, representatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, of the Serbian Church, of the American Metropolia; Cardinal Willebrands, and the General Secretary of the WCC J. C. Blake.

At the Council, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) delivered the report “The Ecumenical Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church,” in which he explained the decision of the Holy Synod of 1969 on admitting Catholics and Old Believers to Communion in the following manner:

“I consider it necessary to note the decision of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and the Holy Synod of December 16, 1969, dictated by the pastoral concern of our Church for its brothers in Christ, according to which the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate received permission to impart the grace of the holy Mysteries to Catholics and Old Believers in cases of extreme spiritual necessity for the latter and in the absence locally of their priests, since we have with them a common faith with regard to the Mysteries. A similar decision took place in 1878, when the Constantinopolitan Synod imposed as an obligation on Greek Orthodox priests to perform the Mysteries for Armenians where they do not have churches and priests” (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1971, no. 7, p. 31).

This report of Metropolitan Nikodim was approved by the Council unanimously.

 * In reality, the decision was not revoked, but "postponed," "until the resolution of this question by the Orthodox plenitude," according to the September 1986 issue of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. - trans. note.

Source: Летопись церковной истории [Chronicle of Ecclesiastical History], by Monk Benjamin (Gomartely) of Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY

Online: https://hristov.narod.ru/letopis5.htm

St. Cyril Lucaris - "Tomos" Against Latin Innovations (1615)

 

The following text of St. Cyril Lucaris was written in 1615 to the inhabitants of the city of Târgoviște (in present-day Romania) where St. Cyril was then located. Because its value was general (against the conquering rage of the Papists) this work was copied in many manuscripts and spread. In one of them the scribe replaces the phrase "of Târgoviște" with the phrase "of the world", thus revealing the general value that this work had. From this manuscript (Christ Church MS 49) we translate and publish for the first time in the English language this precious text. Thanks again to my partner Christophoros Gorman.

- Nikolaos Mannis (nikolaosmannis@gmail.com)

Tomos Against Latin Innovations (1615)

 

Cyril, by the grace of God, Pope and Patriarch

of the Great City of Alexandria and "Judge of the Universe" [1]

 

To all of the Orthodox Christians of the world, Clergy and Laity, who are genuine children of the Holy Catholic and the Apostolic Church of the East, who for the truth of the Gospel rightly turned away and rejected every empty word and addition of the heretics and the Latins, who cunningly wage war against our Orthodox Faith,

Grace be upon you and peace and mercy from the Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Great turmoil had overtaken that old Ark, when it rocked violently and faced the waves in the waters where it was sailing, at a time when by divine concession the heavenly waterfalls sent torrential rains and almost threatened those inside the Ark. And there seemed no hope to those who were in it that they would find salvation, if God did not remember the helmsman Noah and did not agree to calm the waters. I believe these are symbolic of the troubles that have now befallen the new ark, that is, our Church. We do not expect these sufferings to cease, unless God wills to silence and destroy these wicked cascades, which devour even the most wholesome souls. For those who envied the deep peace of the Church in this city waged a relentless war against us and tried to disturb the tranquility here. Since, therefore, we intend to leave this present Tomos against them, so that you all may be fully armed and, with what is written in it, be able to defend your Orthodoxy more securely against such enemies, we considered it right to present the entire matter to you in simple language so that the text is not unclear to the less educated, which is as follows.

Some arrived from ancient Rome who learned there to believe as the Latins. And the unfortunate thing is that from the Romans, [2] the offspring and essence of Roumeli, whose parents perhaps never saw a Frank, by going to Rome, they not only changed their faith, but also opposed the true doctrines and Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, which was delivered to us by Christ Himself, the holy disciples of the Savior, and the councils of the Holy Fathers. Because we are going to depart from here, we implore your love to stand firm in your piety and your Orthodoxy. And do not let such Latin-minded people and corrupters of your consciences capture your attention at all, but as heretics and enemies of your salvation, keep them far from you when they meet you and speak against what we write in the following. But you should believe as such:

1. Anyone who does not confess with his heart and mouth, and whoever is called a “Roman” [Ρωμιὸς, Romiós] and a child of the Eastern Church, and is baptized as a Christian in the Roman manner like us, [3] but does not confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, in terms of essence and hypostasis, and that as to His temporal manifestation [being sent], He proceeds from the Father and the Son; whoever does not make this confession but says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son [Filioque], let that person be outside of our Church and not have communion with us, and let them be anathema.

2. Whoever does not confess that in the Mystery of Communion both the laity and the clergy should partake of the precious and immaculate Body and Blood, but insists that only the immaculate Body should be partaken by the laity, and not the Blood, let them be outside the Church and anathema. And with this, whoever says that it is sufficient to receive only the Flesh [of Christ], because it also contains the Blood, despite the fact that Christ separately delivered each one, but they do not observe it, let them be anathema.

3. Anyone who says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystical Supper had unleavened bread like the Jews, and not leavened bread, let them be far from us, and let them be anathema, because he has the opinion of the Jews and of Apollinaris, and introduces the doctrines of the Armenians into our Church. For this reason, we say a second time: anathema.

4. Anyone who says that when a Christian dies, his soul is definitively judged and does not wait for the General Judgment as our Lord tells us in the Holy Gospel, let them be anathema. And whoever says that when our Lord Jesus Christ comes to judge, He will not come for the souls, but will come to judge only the bodies, anathema.

5. Anyone who says that the souls of Christians who repented in this world, but did not complete their penance, go when they are separated from the body to a purgatorial fire, which is flames and punishment and torment, which is a pagan notion, let them be anathema. For they give Christians the freedom to sin.

6. Anyone who says that the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church and not Christ, let them be anathema.

Whoever opposes these, in order to overthrow and annul them, let them be anathema.

You, my Christians, I beg you for the sake of the Lord and for the sake of your soul, to beware of these wolves, whoever they are, and to read this Tomos often in the Church, so that you know the points in which they try to wage war against you. All their lives they have learned nothing else than how to oppose us, the Orthodox Christians, so that corruption and suffering will once again come upon our race of Romans. But let us remain steadfast, not heeding their words, and let us pray to God not to lead us into temptation regarding our faith; yet, when need arises, the shedding of a man’s blood for his piety is very sweet. However, God will not allow the matter to reach that point, so that our opponents remain powerless and, by the grace of Christ, ignorant and blind.

In any case, be watchful and cautious of such individuals. May our Lord Jesus Christ assist you, bless you, and grant you a peaceful state. Along with this, the prayers of my mediocrity be with all of you. Amen.

 

NOTES

[1] This title, like other similar titles of the patriarchs, was simply honorary without literally implying any secular authority.

[2] As we said, the Greeks until the 19th century called themselves Romans, while the followers of the Pope of Rome were called Latins and Franks. Roumeli was the name of the Greek area.

[3] It refers to Baptism by immersion, as opposed to the Latin sprinkling.

 

Source: https://o-d-o-c.blogspot.com/2023/08/st-cyril-lucaris-tomos-against-latin.html. Posted August 28, 2023.

The Royal Path to Salvation

Schema-Archimandrite Elder Kirik (Maksimov) of Mount Athos (+1938)

 

 

A Brief Rule for an Orthodox Person on How to Conduct Life in a God-pleasing and Salvific Manner

Remember God by prayerful invocation of His name, and do His commandments, which are not burdensome.

Many in the modern world desire to be saved, but not many know where to begin salvation. One must begin with the last, that is, with remembrance of death.

For the Lord said: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return!” (Gen. 3:19).

For an Orthodox person who fulfills the rules established by the Holy Church, in addition to dogmatic truths—the belief in the Triune God, prayer to Him, and the doing of good works—it is required to love and remember his Creator, to cleave to Him with his spirit, and to fulfill His commandments, which concern even the smallest matters.

It is about these small matters that our word will be. Without observing these small things, it is impossible to observe the great salvific commandments. These small things are contained in four points: how to begin a work or occupation; how to turn our deeds to the glory of God; how to offer to God repentance for inattention to the transgressions committed during the course of the day—against God, against one’s neighbor, and against one’s conscience; and the last—about remembrance of death, that is, about departure from this life into eternal life.

On Beginning Every Work

Do not begin any work, even the smallest and most insignificant, before you call upon God, that He may help you. For the Lord said: “Without Me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5), that is, neither to speak nor to think.

In other words: without Me you have no right to do any good work!

Therefore, it is necessary to call upon the gracious help of God, either in words or mentally: Lord, bless! Lord, help! Without God’s help we can do nothing useful and salvific; and if we do something without asking God for gracious help for our work, then by this we only reveal our spiritual pride and oppose God. By calling upon the name of God, we receive a blessing from the Lord, Who will say on that day: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mt. 25:34). But to those who will not have upon themselves the seal of God’s blessing, He will say: “Depart from Me, I do not know you” (Lk. 13:27).

Thus, this is how important for us is the invocation of the name of God and the receiving of blessing from Him for all our works and undertakings (and especially before reading Holy Scripture, and even more so before prayer!).

Therefore, in every smallest matter and in every beginning of a work—whether we go along a level place or along a rough road (by this are meant all kinds of our labors  and occupations in every form and type)—always cry out to the Lord for help; otherwise there will be no prosperity, not only in ordinary everyday occupations, but even in a holy work, and its end will be sorrowful and even sinful, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom.

Our forgetfulness of God does not allow us to remember God and to call upon His gracious help for our weakness, not only in important and salvific works, but even in the very smallest deed and word and thought.

What a fearful judgment awaits us who forget God!... But those who remember and invoke the name of God, the Lord consoles through the prophet Jeremiah, saying: “With remembrance I will remember those who remember My name”! Remembrance of God means prayerful invocation, and not a simple recollection of the name of Jesus.

Our negligence and forgetfulness are assisted by demons; they are everywhere: they dwell on the earth, and in the air, and in the heavens, and in hell, and they watch every person, in order to lead him astray from the true path.

Because of our forgetfulness of God, demons are close to us, like the air surrounding us; they touch our body and even our thoughts by God’s permission; but by faith in the cruciform power of Christ and by the sign of the cross we can extinguish all the arrows of the evil one.

How to Direct Our Works to the Glory of God

The Holy Apostle Paul said: “Pray without ceasing,” and “Do all things to the glory of God,” “for this is good and pleasing before our Savior God” (1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Tim. 2:3). To pray without ceasing does not mean to stand before holy icons and pray all day, although one must pray at appointed times. One can and must pray during every work, as St. John Chrysostom says: “One can pray even while sitting at the spinning wheel and raise the mind to the God of minds, Who looks upon our mind and heart.” Thus, while engaging in everyday work (without which no one can manage), one can and must pray, and from the visible, perceptible, material world transfer one’s thought to the invisible name of God.

For example: looking at fire, whether in a stove, or in a primus, or in a lamp, or anywhere, say to yourself mentally: Lord, deliver me from eternal fire! And by this you will humble your thought, and imperceptibly a sigh will appear in your breast, and by this you will draw to yourself the grace of the Holy Spirit, Who at the moment of that sigh, in an imperceptible manner, builds your salvation in your soul.

For Holy Scripture also says: “When you sigh, then you shall be saved” (Isa. 30:15). And again: “By the Holy Spirit every soul is enlivened and is raised by purity,” that is, by purity of heart, and this purity is from purity of thought.

Thus, how important it is for us to watch attentively over our thoughts and imagination, for from this come “the issues of life and death,” that is, either eternal life or eternal torment!..

One must pass from the visible object to the invisible name of God in all cases and in all our occupations without exception: whether you are washing clothes, or something else, or cleaning some object—say to yourself (mentally): Lord, cleanse the filth of my soul! Also, when you begin to drink or eat, after the usual prayer, think of how our Lord God tasted gall and vinegar for our salvation, while He offers us every good thing! In this way you will humble your proud thought, and you will sigh and give thanks to the Lord Who suffered for us!

When lying down to sleep, say to yourself mentally: Our Lord and God had nowhere to lay His head, yet He granted us every comfort.

Upon awakening, cross yourself, and when you rise from sleep, say to yourself: Glory to Thee, who hast shown us the light!

When you begin to put on your shoes, say mentally: Lord, bless! Lord, help!

When you dress, say to yourself (mentally): Lord, enlighten the garment of my soul and save me!

When you begin to wash yourself, be sure to make the sign of the cross for the driving away of hostile activity that comes through the nature of water.

When you begin to comb your hair, remember how the Roman soldiers tormented our Savior by His most pure hair when they were leading Him to crucifixion, and then say: “Glory to Thy Passion, O Lord!”

If you see a beautiful object, worthy of our Creator and Provider for His creation—glorify the Creator of all!

Before leaving your room, read mentally: “It Is Truly Meet…” to the end, and also when you return, read this same prayer.

When, upon leaving the room (or cell), you take hold of the door handle, read mentally the prayer: “Open to me the doors of mercy…” to the end.

Thus, always, with every visible object, pass (mentally) to the invisible name of God.

Here only examples are given; but whoever zealously undertakes to fulfill this, him the grace of the Holy Spirit will teach how one ought to relate to every (without exception) object and do everything to the glory of God, with corresponding thoughts and feelings, that is, movements of the soul: either glorifying, or thankful, or penitential, or self-abasing. Such movements of the soul are already prayer, as St. Basil the Great said.

Acting in this way, a person will be in a state of unceasing prayer, according to the word of the holy Apostle Paul, and consequently in union with God, Who said: “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30).

Therefore, always, in all undertakings and beginnings without exception, accustom yourself to remembrance of God; and in order to become accustomed, one must ask the Lord for gracious help and for blessing to strengthen our will, so as to pass mentally from the visible object to the invisible name of God, which brings down upon us gracious help in the work of saving the soul and in all our works and undertakings.

Acting in this way, you will do everything to the glory of God according to the teaching of the holy Apostle, and at the same time you will have God-pleasing and salvific prayer, to which, so to speak, every object before our eyes impels us.

And when despondency or hardness of heart attacks us and does not allow us to pray, then, in order to drive away such demonic temptation, one must say to oneself: “Lord, I have neither compunction, nor zeal, nor contrition, to pray to Thee as is fitting!”

After such heartfelt contrition, God will grant God-pleasing and salvific prayer, for a heart that is contrite and humble God will not despise, that is, He will not leave it without help.

With such care on our part for the glory of God and with awareness of the weakness of our nature, the gracious power of God will dwell in you, and you will be among those of whom the Apostle of Christ said: “My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you” (Gal. 4:19)!

The Kingdom of God is not opened to one in whom Christ has not yet dwelt here on earth (according to his faith); and where Christ is, there is unsetting light and no darkness; and there will be in your soul peace and joy because of the abiding in your heart of the grace of the Holy Spirit as a pledge of our salvation and eternal joy, which are in heaven.

On Repentance Before God

Without God’s help, or without the grace of the Holy Spirit, we cannot do anything good and salvific; we do not even have the right to think about good, but of necessity we must ask God for gracious help in all our works and undertakings.

However, in carrying out every work and in beginning it, because of the weakness of his nature, a person will of necessity fall, being pursued by the enemies of our salvation… Then one must rise and correct oneself. But how? Through repentance before God.

For example: as soon as you notice in yourself (in the light of conscience and the law of God) a sin of mind, word, thought, or some sinful passion or habit that struggles against you at every time and place—at that very moment repent before God (even if only mentally): Lord, forgive and help! (that is: forgive that I have offended You, and help me not to offend Your majesty). These words—Lord, forgive and help—must be pronounced slowly and several times, or rather, until you sigh; a sigh signifies the coming of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which has forgiven us the sin for which we are at that moment repenting before God. Then every demonic action in our thoughts, and especially in our imagination, falls away from us.

If demonic action comes again, then again perform a prayer of repentance; only by this means will a person attain purity of heart and peace of soul. With such repentance, no passion (that is, a disordered thought) or sinful habit can stand, but it will constantly diminish and finally completely disappear according to the measure of purity of heart. For the Lord said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8)—and first of all in their own heart, filled with peace of soul, for Holy Scripture says: “His place is in peace (in peaceful disposition of heart), and His dwelling is in Zion” (Ps. 75:3).

But in order to acquire the habit of repentance before God, one must desire firm resolve and ask God to strengthen our will for this work; and begin it at the time when the day inclines toward evening and night approaches, and then, before going to sleep, one must think: how was the day spent?

Remember—where you were, what you saw, what you said, and what evil you did: against God, against your neighbor, and against your conscience.

And if you notice anything sinful, then repent before God for the whole day; and if you notice nothing, remember nothing, this does not mean that nothing happened, but means that through distraction of thoughts everything was forgotten; then one must repent before God even for the very forgetfulness of God, saying to oneself: I forgot Thee, O Lord! Woe is me! Do not forget me, O Lord, who has forgotten Thee! And these words must be expressed (even if only mentally) several times in a prolonged tone, for with such a tone, and not with hurried speech, the heart becomes contrite and humble; then a sigh will come, as a sign of the coming to us of the grace of the Holy Spirit, without Whom man by himself is nothing! “Unless the Lord builds the house of the soul, we labor in vain” (Ps. 126:1), sings the Holy Church.

The evening habit of repentance before God will lead further to the middle of the day, and then you will catch yourself at the very place of sinful falling (in small things). Such repentance before God will lead to full perfection (or holiness)—without special feats! Thus taught the ancient holy Fathers.

God does not require extraordinary feats from us, but small ones, only constant ones, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom.

On Remembrance of Death

Death is the end of everything. Every person must remember it.

Remembrance of death is not the imagining of a coffin, a grave, a funeral, and so on, but the knowledge that today or tomorrow we will no longer be here, and we will be transferred into eternity, which, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom, is more fearsome than hell itself!

There is no stronger means of incitement to virtue than remembrance of death. From the very morning one must attune oneself to thoughts of eternity, for whatever the morning disposition is, such it will remain for the whole day.

On the importance and benefit of remembrance of death (in the morning, and also in the evening before going to sleep), St. Anthony the Great, when dying, left, as it were, a testament, saying to the monks gathered around his bed: “Children, do not forget the departure from this life into eternal life!” He knew that nothing so moves one to virtue as remembrance of death!

And St. Dmitry of Rostov said: “He who does not remember the torment, the torment will not pass him by.”

It is not without reason that Holy Scripture also says: “Remember your last things, and you will never sin” (Sirach 7:39).

And St. John Climacus said: just as it is impossible for a hungry man not to remember bread, so it is impossible to be saved for one who does not remember death and the Last Judgment and eternity!

Thus, the beginning of the salvation of the soul arises from thought about eternity, or, what is the same, from the immersion of the mind in eternity and the wounding of the heart with the fear of God.

From this is born a spirit of contrition; and by a contrite heart and a humble spirit the grace of the Holy Spirit is attracted, which builds our salvation in our soul in an imperceptible manner, to the glory of our Savior God.

The enemy of our salvation—Satan—struggles with us especially in order to take away from us remembrance of death. He is ready (according to the words of the holy Fathers) to give us the treasures of the whole world, if only to take away from us thoughts of death, for he knows, the accursed one, that such thought leads us to the salvation of the soul, an immortal thing, and to blessedness, from which he fell; on this basis of envy, he even in paradise turned Eve away from remembrance of death, saying to her: “You will not die by death, but will be like gods”… So now also the enemy of our salvation approaches our soul in every way and with every lure and plausible pretext, vain and always occupied with cares, and distracts us from the salvific remembrance of death and eternity!

And in concluding this moral instruction, we beseech the God of minds, that He, as infinitely Good, may grant us understanding in all things and send down to us the grace of the Holy Spirit, or the salvific power of God, to help the weakness of our nature, for the pleasing of our Creator and His Most Pure Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary—for the salvation of our soul, an immortal thing!

Instruction to All Who Desire the Salvation of the Soul

Holy Scripture points out to us one of the primary virtues—it is called “prudent silence.”

The holy Fathers said: every virtue must begin with the tongue; if someone does not restrain his tongue, then do not look for virtue in him, for his soul is desolated, all the spirit of piety has evaporated. It is better to fall from a height than from the tongue… Not without reason does the Holy Church make us repeat daily throughout the whole year, and in Great Lent even sing in the middle of the church: “Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth, and a door of enclosure over my lips.” Why? First, because in nothing do we sin so often and so much as with the tongue; second, because extreme moderation and caution in words is not only a high Christian virtue, but also the best means to a wise and happy peaceful life, both in society and especially in monastic life.

“If anyone does not sin in word,” says the holy Apostle James, “he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body” (Jas. 3:2).

The tongue is a fire, as the same holy Apostle calls it—it is instantly kindled, and before you have time to come to your senses, it scorches someone—either by reproach, or by slander, or by judgment and insult. The tongue is an unrestrainable evil: with it we bless God the Father, and with it we curse man. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. But the word of God thunders against such people: “For every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the Day of Judgment. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Mt. 12:36; 24:35), says the Lord.

Restrain your tongue at the time when strong distress has agitated you—and you will prevent a quarrel, perhaps cruel and dangerous—you will extinguish enmity, perhaps long-lasting and endless.

Will one accustomed to idle talk have any desire to pray? From where will a good word of prayer come to him, when his tongue is accustomed to pouring out only empty and idle words? Restrain your tongue when neither time nor place allows idle speech, for example, in the church of God, and you will not reveal, at least before others, your extreme frivolity and foolishness; you will protect yourself from a grave sin—the offense against the Sanctity and the majesty of God—and you will not give harmful temptation to the soul of a brother or sister.

Thus, “is there a man who desires… to see good days” in his life?—“Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit” (Ps. 33:13–14).

And first and above all, raise your mind to God and sigh to Him with your heart: that He may guard your hearing from empty and soul-destroying conversations; that He may protect your soul from evil imaginings and thoughts; that He may preserve your heart in the fear of God; that He may grant you to see your own sins and not judge your brother or sister; that He may restrain your tongue from every idle word, for which men will give account in the Day of Judgment.

“Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth, and a door of enclosure over my lips” (Ps. 140:3)!

Thus, along with care for this virtue, one must also have reverent fear of God, that is, to have constant concern lest one offend the majesty of God, neither in thought, nor in word, nor in deed anger His goodness, ever present with us, and lest one depart from the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. And if we remove the Holy Spirit from ourselves, then of necessity we shall fall into the hands of the enemy of our salvation, who drags us to where he himself dwells, that is, into the infernal hell.

But may the Lord God deliver all of us from such misfortune, for which we must also flee to Him for help in the work of salvation, remembering His words: “For without Me you can do nothing” good and salvific.

Amen.

 

Source: Царский путь ко спасению: Как жить по-православному в соврем [The Royal Path to Salvation: How to Live in an Orthodox Manner in the Modern World], Schema-Archimandrite Kirik (Maksimov) of Mount Athos, Moscow Metochion of the Holy Trinity Lavra, Publishing House “Novaya Kniga,” Moscow, 1996.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Kirik_Afonskij/tsarskij-put-ko-spaseniju/

A Talk on Love for One’s Neighbor and Non-Resistance to an Evil Person

Hieromartyr Neophyte Lyubimov (+1918)

Russian source: Ufa Diocesan Gazette, 1895, no. 5, pp. 156–165.

 

 

Beloved, if God has so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:11)

 

By the words of the Apostle John, we are commanded to love one another. The commandment of love for another, that is, for our neighbor, was given by God in the Old Testament Church to the people of Israel chosen by Him. The Savior repeated it in His gracious Kingdom, calling the teaching about love for one’s neighbor a new commandment, since it concerned not only the chosen people of God, as it was among the Jews, but all people without distinction of confessions and nationalities, social conditions, levels of education, of one sex or another, and of age. In Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

According to the Lord’s commandment, embracing in our soul all people living in the world as our neighbors, and sincerely wishing them every good, we can and must love the neighbors who surround us, especially those close to us and who have in view to receive from us some benefactions and services. These include first of all the members of one family and household: parents and children, brothers and sisters, and other relatives; further, those who serve and work with us in the same institution and strive toward the same goal for the good of society and the state; finally, all the sons and daughters of our beloved fatherland and those of the same faith, as branches of one vine, which is Christ, the Savior of the world.

Meanwhile, do we not constantly encounter in life, as though an inevitable phenomenon, that people are at enmity with one another, strive to do harm and evil, inflict personal insults, slander in absence, defame an honest name, humiliate and ridicule it, bring one to poverty, and so forth? Must we really endure with complete cold-bloodedness and Christian patience everything that is done by our neighbors to the detriment of our material condition and that unfavorably affects our mental and moral state—consequently every lie, falsehood, slander, every offense, illness, misfortune, and the like—without expressing by word or deed any opposition to the evil spreading among people, our neighbors, with whom we live and with whom we most often have to deal?

True, Christ the Savior commanded His followers not to resist evil; but His teaching cannot be understood unconditionally. Christ did not require of people complete non-resistance to an evil person in all cases of life, for such a teaching stands in contradiction to moral feeling, righteousness and truth, and to divine and human laws.

Indeed, if all good people, without any struggle, were to yield the field of action to evil people for the sake of their vile and base deeds, then the words of the Apostle Paul, “Put away the wicked person from among yourselves, put to death… evil desire” (1 Cor. 5:13; Col. 3:5), would lose all significance for Christian society. And meanwhile, on the basis of these sayings of the Word of God, everything that hinders us on the path of striving for truth and for doing good deeds, that opposes the fulfillment of divine commandments, we must remove both from ourselves and from others as something evil and displeasing to God, even if this evil is constituted by our neighbors.

The feeling of self-preservation of every person—as a law of nature—urgently requires of us not to subject ourselves voluntarily to reproach and humiliation by evil people who strive to do only what is harmful to our physical well-being and moral perfection. It likewise lays upon us the duty of guarding the health, honor, and dignity of our neighbor, since, according to the Lord’s commandment, we must love him as ourselves and assist him by all measures dependent on us in the fulfillment of divine and human laws, good deeds, and pure aspirations.

If all the evil inflicted upon us by our neighbors were borne by us unquestioningly, without showing any resistance to the enemy, then evil would spread on earth to such an extent that the good would be completely suppressed and destroyed; then everything base, greedy, and savage, all evildoers and moral monsters, all filthy dregs of human society would rise to the surface and lay on earth the foundation of a new life, the goal of which would be the perfection of evil in all its manifestations. There are people in whom, figuratively speaking, the appetite grows the more they eat; their malice becomes stronger the more nourishment they find in human compliance, and the less they encounter resistance to their inhuman instincts. Not to resist such people means to develop nobility in a bloodthirsty wolf by entrusting to his supervision a defenseless lamb.

Can one rely on the honesty of such people, when in them there is seen neither fear of God nor manifestation of a pure conscience? Not being able to understand your Christian meekness, they will extract from your non-resistance all possible benefit for themselves, will make you their slaves, will turn you into unanswerable animals, will force you to forget your human rights, dignity, and higher calling. Non-resistance to the enemy is possible only on the part of a person who has become so morally impoverished that for him good and evil are indifferent, and the will of a coarse and insolent oppressor has replaced the entire height of the moral law.

Only a personality with clouded consciousness and extinguished moral feelings can indifferently look upon how an evil person dishonors him and those dear to him, and remain calm at the sight of what human malice, greed, shamelessness, and bestial bloodthirstiness are capable of. The purpose of our life is by no means that we should be crushed by evil people, but that we should resist them, struggle with them, overcome them, and thereby destroy falsehood, injustice, malice, and deceit, and in their place establish truth, justice, love, and peace.

Therefore, on the basis of the Word of God, rejection of all vicious deeds of man, of his impure designs and evil intentions, is possible. One must not show kindness to an evil person, cordiality and goodwill for his rude and dishonest deeds against us, because everything bad deserves not praise, but rejection. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5), teaches the Wise One; and this means: openly and boldly proclaim holy truth before the ungodly, do not allow them arrogantly to raise their head high; rebuke, shame, and uproot the evil nesting in them; do not fear their malice and cunning. Fight for truth—God is your helper, your conscience will give you peace, and honest and truthful people will treat you with full respect and gratitude.

If we recall certain deeds from the life of Christ the Savior, in which His greatest moral image was reflected, we shall see in them confirmation of the thoughts we express. He, the Divine Teacher, zealous for the glory of God, manifested toward people such extraordinary authority in word that by its power He brought all into fear and trembling; His enemies heard from Him formidable rebukes that shook them to the depths of their souls; by them He punished the leaders and rulers of the Jewish people. When He saw them hardened in mortal sins over the course of several centuries, spreading evil over a wide space like a brood of vipers, He threatened them with severe punishment in this and the future life for violation of the law and corruption of the people.

And once, when the Savior entered the Temple of Jerusalem and found there not a house of prayer but a den of robbers, who were defiling and disgracing the most holy place of prayer by unseemly deeds, He was stirred in spirit, took a whip, and drove all the sellers and buyers out of the temple, overturned the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves, and sternly and authoritatively forbade anyone to carry anything through the Divine dwelling. Such was the zeal shown by the Lord in destroying evil in the human world and in establishing righteousness and truth on earth.

And when the Savior was before the high priest Annas at trial and a servant struck Him on the cheek, the Savior did not, in the name of meekness, turn to him the other cheek, but remarked: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:23). The Son of God here demands the manifestation of truth from His enemy and defends Himself against the one who is offending Him. If the God-Man had turned the other cheek to His enemy, He would have become an instigator of great evil, and thereby would have strengthened both his malice and his guilt.

The Apostle of Christ, Paul, when the high priest Ananias ordered him to be struck on the mouth at trial before the Sanhedrin, was so stirred in spirit at such lawless action that in righteous indignation he exclaimed: “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall” (Acts 23:3). Thus, it is impossible for us to allow evil people to mock us as much as they wish and in whatever way they can; then we would be contributing to the corruption of our enemy, and not to his upbringing in morally good deeds and intentions.

A sacred duty lies upon us to block evil deeds by all means and not to spare the criminal under the guise of a desire to show him love, relying on the fact that a Christian must be distinguished by meekness and harmlessness. We do not show love to the evildoer when we spare him; on the contrary, we ruin him by allowing him to perfect himself more and more in evil, and thus distance himself from the Kingdom of God. Nor should our behavior be called Christian meekness when we pay no attention to the wrongs inflicted upon us, but rather it is selfish evasiveness or blameworthy indifference to them.

Human patience can have limits, and it lasts only so long as we see that the attitude of our neighbor toward us is not accompanied by harm to us. Manifestations of Christian harmlessness can have application and be accompanied by moral benefit only when the offender possesses a more or less developed moral sense. And therein lies the misfortune, that this is not always so.

But on the other hand, Christ the Savior, being just toward the sinful person, rebuking and punishing in him vicious deeds, designs, and intentions, never pushed him away from Himself, never treated him with contempt, was always indulgent and compassionate toward one wandering on the path of evil and falsehood, striving by His divine meekness and all-forgiving love to draw him to Himself.

And we, following the example of the Lord, must not respond to the offense of our enemy with revenge and repayment for the evil directed or already committed against us, but, in fulfillment of the Lord’s commandments, must overcome him with meekness and harmlessness, with love, forgiveness, mercy, and readiness to serve. The absence of revenge will most likely restrain or disarm our enemy, dull the most fierce hatred—love will become for him a heavy trial, like a trial with burning coals, will awaken in his heart a consciousness of guilt before you; you will more quickly be reconciled with him and will find in him not an ill-wisher, but a faithful friend.

Even where righteous anger takes place because of human injustice, meekness must wholly prevail, not allowing anger to degenerate into sinful anger, into an impure passion that knows neither measure nor aim. The Apostle Paul says concerning this: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God, for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19).

We have other grounds as well for living in peace with people who are vicious, who hate and offend us. They are creations of God, bearing the image and likeness of the Creator and Providence, endowed with the same nature as we, which is manifested on earth in the splendor of God-likeness. A reflection of divine glory is displayed in every human being, even in the most humiliated one of the human race. Whatever the weaknesses or shortcomings of our neighbor may be, they do not conceal from us and do not destroy in him those human dignities which require from us every attention, respect, and caution.

He belongs to that race whose representative is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; he is one of those whom the Head of humanity calls His lesser brother, a child of God, for whom His blood was shed and His soul laid down, for whose sanctification the Holy Spirit was sent down, by whom he was sealed on the day of his redemption. He, our enemy, may be grafted, like a branch, onto the divine vine—our Redeemer—and may become a holy member of the body of Christ.

Rejection of the person, even though vicious, is all the more impermissible and unlawful because alongside vice there is in every person a spark of good. God therefore loves him also—as His creation—and by His mercy preserves his life for many days for repentance and preparation for the future life, and, as a good Father, gives him—His child—all that he needs. For him also the Lord commands the sun to rise and sends rain.

How then, after this, are we not to respect our neighbor, even if he is a vicious person? One must not forget the words of Paul: “God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4); “love believes all things, hopes all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). And this means that with God’s help he can become a good and holy person, while you, because of your malice, will fall deeply, will appear as a great sinner, and will receive punishment from God and from people.

Let us therefore, beloved listeners, respect those who are hostile to us, nurture toward them a brotherly disposition, have compassion for them in their ruin, pray for their conversion to God, forgive them offenses, harbor no malice against them, and willingly help them in their needs. If they are hungry—feed them; if they are thirsty—give them something to drink; by doing this, we heap burning coals upon their heads. “Do not be overcome by evil,” it is said in the Word of God, “but overcome evil with good.” Forgiveness of enemies is a sign of a lofty and truly Christian soul. Non-Christian peoples knew how to love only those who loved them and to do good only to those who did good to them. If we now act in the same way, we will be no different from pagans. Let us love our evildoers with Christian love; through this we shall draw nearer to God and make ourselves like Him, who is good and merciful not only to good people, but also to evil ones.

 

Online:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Neofit-Lyubimov/beseda-o-lyubvi-k-blizhnemu-i-nesoprotivlenii-zlomu-cheloveku/