O our holy father, blessed Seraphim, thou didst order thy life according to the commandment of Christ, denying thyself, taking up thy cross, and following him; and thus didst thou bring forth much fruit unto the harvest of God. Do thou pray unto the Lord for us, thy spiritual children, who dwell in an age of unbelief and enmity against absolute truth. Pray that Christ our God may strengthen us and grant us the wisdom and faith to endure the trials that lie before us. Pray for our families and friends, both the living and the departed. Pray that the inward eyes of our souls may be opened, that we may behold the divine and true Gospel of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and may acquire within ourselves the Holy Spirit. Pray that we also may one day dwell in blessedness with thee and all the saints in the Kingdom of Heaven. Beseech also the Mother of God, that she may entreat her Son to have mercy on our souls. For glorious and unending is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
Wednesday, September 2, 2026
Declaration – Confession of Faith
Against Ecumenism and the So-Called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete
A. Nikolaou, Doctor
of Theology | September 2, 2026
Prompted by the recent
ecclesiastical ordeal of Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos and the demand that
the so-called Council of Crete be accepted, even though four Autocephalous
Orthodox Churches did not participate in it and many hierarchs, clergymen, monastics,
and laypeople in Cyprus, Greece, and throughout the Orthodox world continue to
voice serious objections concerning its content and authority.
“Stand fast, and
hold the traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15).
Holding fast to the faith of the
Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy and Ecumenical Councils, we raise
our voice in confession.
We lay claim to no new faith.
We seek no new ecclesiology.
We do not accept that the
Tradition of the Saints should be portrayed as outdated, harsh, or unsuited to
modern man.
With sorrow, yet also with
boldness, we declare that we do not accept the so-called “Holy and Great
Council” of Crete as a Council binding upon the fullness of Orthodoxy, nor do
we accept those ecclesiological formulations which, according to our confessional
conscience, engender confusion concerning the One Church of Christ.
IT WAS NOT TRULY
PAN-ORTHODOX
An assembly presented as an
expression of the catholic consciousness of Orthodoxy cannot disregard the
absence of four Autocephalous Churches.
The absence of the Churches of
Antioch, Russia, Georgia, and Bulgaria is not a mere detail, but a grave
ecclesiological fact.
The Church is not a parliamentary
mechanism in which truth is determined by numerical majorities or procedural
decisions.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Vincent of Lérins:
“What has been believed
everywhere, always, and by all.”
The catholicity of the Church is
not a title conferred administratively, but agreement with the Apostolic and
Patristic Tradition.
NOT EVERY COUNCIL
THAT CALLS ITSELF “HOLY” IS HOLY
The history of the Church knows
of Councils that were convened with great pretensions, but were later rejected
by the consciousness of the Church.
A title does not sanctify the
content.
A designation does not
automatically render a formulation Orthodox.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Maximus the Confessor:
“The Orthodox Faith is the true
confession of the Church.”
The history of Saint Maximus
likewise teaches us that truth is not always identical with outward power,
majorities, or the pressures of the age.
IT IS NOT “GREAT”
BECAUSE OF ITS TITLE, BUT IS JUDGED BY ITS TRUTH
A Council is not great merely
because it proclaims itself to be so.
That Council becomes great which
defends the truth, clearly articulates the Orthodox Faith, and rejects error.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Gregory the Theologian:
“It is not the multitude that
determines the truth.”
The truth of the Church is not
weighed by numbers, nor is it validated by publicity.
One confession of truth is worth
more than a thousand silences born of compromise.
WE REJECT THE
DESIGNATION OF THE HETERODOX AS “CHURCHES” IN AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL SENSE
The disputed text of Crete refers
to the acceptance of the “historical name” of other heterodox Christian
“Churches and Confessions.”
Even if this is explained as
merely an “historical designation,” such usage has created, and continues to
create, extremely serious ecclesiological confusion.
We confess:
The Orthodox Church is the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Cyprian of Carthage:
“He cannot have God as his Father
who does not have the Church as his Mother.”
The Church is not an invisible
confederation of conflicting confessions.
She is the one Body of Christ.
WE REJECT THE
THEORY OF A DIVIDED CHURCH AND OF “BRANCHES”
The Church of Christ has not
dissolved.
She has not been fragmented.
She has not lost her unity.
She does not consist of equal
branches now seeking to establish a new unity among themselves.
Patristic Testimony
Saint John Chrysostom:
“The name of the Church is not a
name of division, but of unity and concord.”
The unity of the Church is not
some future human project.
It is a gift of Christ and a
reality within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
WE REJECT
ECUMENISM WHEN IT IS TRANSFORMED INTO A SYNCRETISTIC ECCLESIOLOGY
Love for every human being is a
Christian commandment.
Prayer for the salvation of all
is our duty.
Dialogue as a witness to the
truth is not the same as betraying the Faith.
We do not, however, accept
dialogue that leads:
to the relativization of dogmas,
to placing truth and error on an
equal footing,
to the theory of “Sister
Churches” possessing ecclesiological equality,
to the creation of a new,
supra-confessional Christianity.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Justin Popović:
“Ecumenism is the common name for
the pseudo-Christianities of Western Europe.”
Love does not require us to deny
the truth.
True love calls others to the
truth; it does not conceal it.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT
AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THE “RESTORATION OF CHRISTIAN UNITY”
Language concerning the
“restoration of Christian unity” must be interpreted with absolute precision.
The Church has not lost her
unity.
She has not ceased to exist.
She is not awaiting
reconstitution through an agreement among confessions.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Mark of Ephesus:
“We have never separated
ourselves from you, but we have separated ourselves from the heresy.”
True unity is not built through
concessions in matters of dogma.
First comes the truth of the
Faith—and within it, true unity.
NO PARTICIPATION
IN THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT MAY BE ALLOWED TO OBSCURE THE CONFESSION OF FAITH
Orthodoxy can bear witness before
the world.
She can engage in dialogue.
She can explain her Faith.
But she cannot participate in any
ecumenical process at the cost of remaining silent about the truth.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Theodore the Studite:
“When the Faith is in danger,
silence is not permitted.”
Silence on matters of faith is
not always peace.
Sometimes it becomes complicity.
Orthodoxy does not come before
the world to negotiate the truth, but to bear witness to Christ.
NO COUNCIL IS
ABOVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH
History has shown that there have
been councils that were rejected.
There have been patriarchs who
fell into error.
There have been bishops who
signed erroneous confessions.
Yet there have also been Saints
who stood alone against emperors, patriarchs, and majorities.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Maximus the Confessor:
“Even if the whole world is in
communion, I will not commune with error.”
Truth does not become error
because many abandon it.
Nor does error become truth
because many accept it.
WE CONFESS THE
FAITH OF THE HOLY FATHERS WITHOUT CONCESSIONS OR COMPROMISES
We do not seek a “modern”
Orthodoxy.
We do not seek an Orthodoxy
adapted to the demands of globalization.
We do not seek a Church pleasing
to everyone, if, in order to please them, she must remain silent about the
truth.
Patristic Testimony
Saint Paisios the Athonite:
“Orthodoxy does not need
modernization; it needs an Orthodox mindset.”
The words of the Saints call us
not to alter the Faith in order to conform to the spirit of the age.
We do not change the Faith to
make it conform to the world.
We call the world to be
transformed in Christ.
FINAL CONFESSION
Therefore, with the fear of God,
but also with boldness of conscience, we declare:
We do not accept the imposition
of the so-called “Holy and Great Council” of Crete as an indisputable and
universally binding expression of the Orthodox Church.
We do not accept that a title
should supplant judgment according to the truth.
We do not accept any
ecclesiological ambiguity that obscures the confession of the One Church.
We do not accept the theory of a
divided Church and of equal branches.
We do not accept the placing of
Orthodoxy on an equal footing with heretical confessions.
We do not accept an ecumenism
that sacrifices the truth in the name of an outward unity.
For this reason, in accordance
with our confessional conscience, we declare that we do not recognize the
gathering in Crete as a “Holy,” “Great,” and universally binding Council of
Orthodoxy, since its texts and the manner in which it was convened continue to
be the subject of serious theological objection and ecclesiological dispute.
WE DO NOT HATE
PERSONS—WE STRUGGLE FOR THE TRUTH
We do not set ourselves against
individuals.
We do not desire divisions.
We do not rejoice in anyone’s
trials.
We pray for all.
But love for others cannot mean
silence when we believe that the purity of the confession of faith is in
danger.
One Church.
One Faith.
One Baptism.
One Body of Christ.
One Truth.
We seek no new faith.
We invent no new ecclesiology.
We do not negotiate the
Tradition.
We do not subject the truth to
the spirit of the age.
And with the help of God, we
remain steadfast in the faith:
of the Holy Apostles,
of the Holy Fathers,
of the Holy Confessors,
of the Holy Martyrs,
and of the Holy and Ecumenical
Councils.
“Stand fast, and hold the
traditions.”
Orthodoxy is not an ideology.
It is the life of the Church in
Christ.
The Truth is not put to a vote.
It is not modernized.
It is not negotiated.
Christ is “the same yesterday,
and today, and forever.” Amen.
Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_78.html
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
St. Jerome of Stridon: “It is not the sheep (the pious) only who abide in the Church…”
It is not the sheep only who
abide in the Church, nor do clean birds only fly to and fro there; but amid the
grain other seed is sown, "amidst the neat corn-fields burrs and caltrops
and barren oats lord it in the land." What is the husbandman to do? Root up
the darnel? In that case the whole harvest is destroyed along with it. Every
day the farmer diligently drives the birds away with strange noises, or
frightens them with scarecrows: here he cracks a whip, there he spreads out
some other object to terrify them. Nevertheless he suffers from the raids of
nimble roes or the wantonness of the wild asses; here the mice convey the corn
to their garners underground, there the ants crowd thickly in and ravage the
corn-field. Thus the case stands. No one who has land is free from care. While
the householder slept the enemy sowed tares among the wheat, and when the
servants proposed to go and root them up the master forbade them, reserving for
himself the separation of the chaff and the grain. There are vessels of wrath
and of mercy which the Apostle speaks of in the house of God. The day then will
come when the storehouses of the Church shall be opened and the Lord will bring
forth the vessels of wrath; and, as they depart, the saints will say,
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of
us, they would no doubt have continued with us." No one can take to
himself the prerogative of Christ, no one before the day of judgment can pass
judgment upon men. If the Church is already cleansed, what shall we reserve for
the Lord? "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death." When our judgment is so prone to error,
upon whose opinion can we rely?
Source: “The Dialogue Against the
Luciferians” (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm)
What is the Difference Between Orthodoxy and the Western Confessions?
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev
Source: Православная Русь, Nos.
17–18, 1942.
What is the difference between
Orthodoxy and other Confessions? Answering this question, many educated
Russians would mention the rites but we hardly need wasting time on this sort
of nonsense. Not much closer to the truth, however, is another opinion, fairly
common among those who are better versed in theology. They
would tell us about the filioque, about Papal supremacy and other
teachings rejected by Orthodoxy, and also about the teachings of both Latin and
Orthodox faiths which are rejected by the Protestants. It would appear then
that Orthodoxy has no specific substance of her own, equally unfamiliar to both
Protestant and Latin. To the Orthodox however, both can’t see the truth in the
Orthodox Church. A heresy born of another heresy must keep some part of the
parent if it is not returning to the True Church.
I. An Incomplete Answer
The Slavophile theologians, Alexei
Stepanovich Khomiakov in particular, were the first to draw the line
between the true Church and the Western denominations based not on any
particular dogmatic element, but rather on the general preference of the inner
ideal of Orthodoxy. This is Khomiakov’s outstanding contribution to theology,
to the Church, as well as to the enlightened West, which appreciated it as
highly as the Russian religious writers. It is most clearly seen in the fact
that all European theologians friendly to Orthodoxy speak of her in Khomiakov’s
terms, using precisely his formulations of the confessional differences.
Specifically, the Old Catholics, who have been attracted to Orthodoxy and got
involved in lengthy official correspondence concerning a rapprochement with us,
followed his views in their presentation of the main questions which, in their
opinion, divide us and Old Catholicism, that is, the filioque as
an innovation contrary to Church discipline which calls us to “guard the unity
of the spirit in the bond of peace”, and transubstantiation in the Eucharist as
a borrowing from Western theologians that was foreign to the Church tradition.
Khomiakov’s short book (The
Church Is One and a few other essays) is the most popular of all Russian
theological works, both among our own learned men and abroad. We shall not
therefore, elaborate on it. Just let us recall that he makes the distinction
between the denominations based on their understanding of the ninth clause of
the Creed, that is, on their teaching about the Church. Presenting the Orthodox
teaching on the Truth, severely distorted and almost lost everywhere in the
non-Orthodox West, Khomiakov aptly demonstrates the moral significance of our
spiritual ideal, the overall preference of our faith in contrast to the Western
confessions which have lost one of the most holy, uplifting truths of
Christianity.
Khomiakov sees the Church not so
much as an authority, but rather as a union of souls, complementing
one another by their mystical communion with Christ Who reveals Himself to the
faithful only in their mutual love, in their unity (epitomized by the Ecumenical
Councils). In all issues of Church discipline, and in the very process of
exploring the divine truth — just as this has been established by Church
tradition — he brings a spirit of joy, a spirit alien to subjugation, a spirit
carrying us into the boundless space of communion with the whole world of the
faithful, with all eternity.
Thus, we admit
without reservations that Khomiakov has correctly presented the Orthodox
teaching about the Church, and that he has clearly shown the value of Orthodoxy
compared to the Western denominations, which have lost the understanding of the
moral union of the faithful both in life and teaching, and which have reduced
the Kingdom of God to the level of either a personal achievement or an external
government-like organization. While recognizing this, and paying homage to
Khomiakov for his great theological and missionary works, we have to note that
his definition of Orthodoxy or, in other words, of true, divinely-revealed
Christianity, as opposed to the Western denominations, is incomplete.
It has long been our wish to complete it.
II. Western Theology and
Christian Life
Actually, the difference between
them is much deeper.
The teaching about the Church is,
of course, extremely important, as our communion has to be renewed continually
in our minds. But even apart from the Church question, in the way one
approaches God and one’s own life, a great difference is felt between a
non-Orthodox Westerner and an Orthodox.
Things small and great are
permeated by this difference. Take for example the sources of instruction in
our personal spiritual life. One part of them, which we study in schools as
dogmatic and moral theology, is a borrowing from the Catholics and Protestants:
only the plainest errors of non-Orthodoxy, known to all and condemned by the
church authorities, are deleted. Another part, well known both to educated and
common men, in our time and in the past, back to the ninth century and earlier,
is in our prayers, hymns of the divine services, and the moral teachings of the
Holy Fathers.
But what a remarkable thing!
There is almost nothing in common between the two sources. Certified
theologians do not know our Prologues, our dogmatic hymns (stichera and
canons), our Lives of the Saints except perhaps as simple church-goers, as
lovers of church music, but not as religious scholars. Meanwhile, these
Slavonic writings in thick, clumsy books are the main, if not the only, origin
and nourishment of the living Russian faith, for both the common men and the
more educated. But official theology cannot tap this source, even out of mere
curiosity.
Now look at the best Christians
among us, our teachers of Christian life: Priest-Monk Ambrose of Optina
(+1891), Father John of Kronstadt (+1909), Bishop Theophan the Recluse (+1894,
all three have since been glorified as saints). By no means can they be called
narrow-minded or ignorant; they are grateful graduates of our seminaries and
academies but try to find borrowings from and references to academic theology
in their writings. Except for a few scattered instances, there are none.
Offer them mountains of scholarly
volumes to help in their teaching; they will treat them with respect but will
find nothing to borrow. The same will be true for the ordinary Christian who
seeks understanding of any event or religious experience. It is quite obvious
that our scholarly theology, having been built upon Western principles even
though free of the Western errors, is so far removed from the Orthodox
spiritual reality, so little related to it, that not only is it useless as a
source of instruction, but it cannot even come close to the real spiritual
life.
This could not have happened had
the Western theology been different from the Orthodox only in the
Church-related teachings. As we see, the Western religions have altered the
very notion of Christian life, of its aims and conditions.
III. A Case of the Two
Teachers
Once, as the Rector of the
Theological Academy, I gave an assignment to a gifted student: Compare and
contrast the moral teachings of Bishop Theophan with those of Martensen.
Martensen is a venerable Protestant preacher, recognized as an outstanding moral
theologian, influenced less than others by confessional errors. Bishop Theophan
is an educated Russian theologian, former rector of St. Petersburg Theological
Academy. And you know what? It turns out that the two authors present Christian
morality in a totally different, often opposite way.
Here is the summary of the
results: Bishop Theophan teaches how to make one’s life meet the standards of
Christian perfection, while the Western Bishop (sit venia verbo) takes
from Christianity only as much as is consistent with the standards of modern
secular life. That is, the former accepts Christianity as the eternal foundation
of normal life, and demands that we forcibly change ourselves to bring our
lives into compliance with that norm; the latter accepts the realities of
modern secular life as unchangeable, and only where they allow some variations
does he indicate which options are preferred from the
Christian viewpoint.
Thus, the former calls for moral
heroism, for a life-long struggle; the latter selects whatever elements of
Christianity are suited to us in our current way of life. For the former, the
true life to which man is called is the life eternal, while our current life on
earth with all its historically shaped devices is all but an illusion for
the latter the notion of the future life is merely an uplifting, noble idea, an
idea which contributes to continual improvement of our real life here
on earth.
In the difference between these
two teachers of morality is manifest the difference between the Orthodox faith
and Western religions. One is based upon the concept of Christian
perfection, or sanctity, and from this standpoint evaluates the present
reality; the other is firmly established on the status quo of
the earthly life and strives to determine the minimum of religious practice which
still allows for salvation — if eternity truly exists.
IV. A Sublime and Basic
Principle
“You are pointing not at the
false belief, but at the poor religious attitudes in the West!” our critics
will say.
“That’s correct,” we will reply.
Thus far we have been concerned with the attitudes, with the degeneration of
Western religious life and thought. Now let us look into a sublime principle
which they have lost.
Christianity is a life-long
pursuit of virtue. Christianity is a pearl for which the wise merchant of the
Gospel parable has had to sell all his possessions. It would seem that in the
course of history this self-denying step, this taking up of the cross, meant
different things: at the time of the earthly life of the Savior it was joining
His disciples and following Him; later it became confession of faith and
martyrdom; then, from the fourth to the twentieth cent: gradual attainment of
spiritual perfection on earth, of the freedom from passions, (the attainment)
of all virtues, — just as we ask in the prayer of St. Ephraim, repeating it
over and over during Great Lent with many bows and prostrations:
O Lord and Master of my life, the
spirit of idleness, despondency, ambition, and idle talk give me not. Prostration.
But rather a spirit of chastity,
humble-mindedness, patience, and love bestow upon me Thy servant. Prostration.
Yea, O Lord King, grant me to see
my own failings and not to condemn my brother; for blessed art Thou unto the
ages of ages. Amen. Prostration.
“This is the will of God, your
sanctification,” says the Apostle Paul. We can attain to it only by setting
this as the main and the only goal of our life, by living for the sake
of holiness. This is what the true Christianity is all about and this is
the essence of Orthodoxy versus the heterodoxy of the West. In this respect
(and, consequently, by their nature) the Oriental heresies such as Monophysites
and Armenians are much closer to Orthodoxy than are the Western ones. Like us,
they have set spiritual perfection as the goal of a Christian life, but they
differ from us in the teachings about the conditions for the attainment of that
goal.
V. Ascetic Faith or Worldly
Faith?
Do the Western Christians really
say that there is no need for moral perfection? Would they deny that
Christianity commands us to be perfect?
They would not say that, but they
don’t see it as the essence of Christianity, either. Moreover, in their
view of perfection and the means to attain it they would disagree with
us on every word; they would not even understand, let alone agree, that it is
precisely moral perfection that is the goal of a Christian
life, and not merely the knowledge of God (as Protestants would say) or service
to the Church (Roman Catholics), for which, in their opinion, God Himself gives
us moral perfection as a reward.
Orthodoxy teaches that moral
perfection is gained by intensive, strenuous effort, by inner
struggle, by deprivations, and most of all by self-humiliation. An Orthodox
Christian, by virtue of sincerely and diligently following the spiritual
discipline, participates to a large extent in that struggle: the discipline
itself is designed to facilitate our gradual mortification of passions and
acquisition of blessed perfection. In this we are assisted by our divine
services, by the efforts in preparation for the Holy Communion, by fasting, and
by that almost monastic order of Orthodox life, codified in our Typicon and
followed by our ancestors before Peter the Great, and by all those who live by
the tradition up until this very day.
In short, the Orthodox
faith is an ascetic faith. Orthodox theological thought does not lie in
dead scholastic baggage but influences our life and spreads among the people,
as a study of the ways of spiritual perfection. As such it is manifest in our
church services through theological statements, references to Biblical events,
commandments and reminders of the Last Judgment.
This, of course, is not foreign
to the Western denominations either but they understand salvation as an
external reward given either for a certain amount of good deeds (also
external), or for an unflinching faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ. They
have no knowledge and often lack interest in how a soul should gradually free
itself from the bondage of passions, of how we should go from strength to
strength on our way to freedom from sin and fullness of virtues. There are
ascetics in the West, to be sure, but their life is dominated by dejected,
senseless obedience to the age-old rules and requirements, for which they are
promised forgiveness of sins and future eternal life. Eternal life has
already appeared, as the Apostle John says, and blessed communion with God
is obtained by unflinching asceticism right now, in the words of St. Macarius
the Great. All this is unknown to West.
This ignorance is growing worse
and more crude. Thus, contemporary Western theologians have lost understanding
of the aim of Christianity, of the reason for Christ’s incarnation being just
that — the moral perfection of man. They have, as it were, lost
their minds over the fable of Christ’s coming to earth to give some sort of
happiness to a mankind of some future ages even though He said with all clarity
that His followers must bear a cross of suffering, that they would be
continually persecuted by the world, by their own brethren, children, and even
parents, especially towards the end.
The good things, which the
believers in the “Superstition of Progress” (a witty phrase by S.A. Rachinsky)
are looking forward to, are in fact promised by the Savior in the future life,
but neither the Latins nor the Protestants are willing to accept this for the
simple reason that, frankly speaking, they believe quite feebly in the
Resurrection, and quite strongly in the happy life here and now, which the
Apostles, on the contrary, call a vanishing vapor (James 4:14). That is why the
Christian West will not and cannot understand the renunciation of this life by
Christianity, which commands us to struggle “having put off the old man
with his deeds and having put on the new, which is renewed after the image of
Him that created him” (Col 3:9-101).
VI. Love and How to Keep It
The modern man would object
saying that Christianity is love of one’s neighbor, and love is
compassion in sorrows, and asceticism is a fabrication of monks.
I will not argue the first point
as K. Leontiev (+1891, Russian author close to the Optina Elders)
once did. Moreover, I will admit that if love were at all possible without
spiritual effort, without inner warfare, and without external labors, then
neither of these would be necessary. But love dried up among men just when
Luther began speaking on their behalf. The prediction came true that “for the
multiplication of lawlessness the love of many will dry up.” In the absence of
external labors and inner struggle, passions and lawlessness reign, and where sin
is in control, love dries up and men begin to hate one another (Matt. 24: 10).
Now let us turn to the second
point. It is quite true that love is expressed most of all in compassion, but
not so much for the material troubles of our fellow men as for their
sinfulness, and this compassion is possible only for someone who is weeping for
his own sins, that is, for a struggler.
Asceticism is a fabrication of
monks… A Muscovite lady once made this point even move vividly: “Your whole
religion is a fabrication of churchmen. I recognize only the Iveron Mother of
God and Martyr Triphon (l’Iverskaya et Triphon le martyr — like
most of the nineteenth-century Russian nobility the lady spoke French rather
than Russian), but the rest is nonsense.” This, of course, is a testimony to
the ignorance of the meaning of asceticism among our educated class.
Her way of thinking does not in
general predetermine the way of our life; it requires neither virginity, nor
fasting, nor seclusion. Asceticism, or spiritual struggle, is a life filled
with work on oneself, a life aimed at the destruction of one’s own passions
such as adultery, fornication, self-love, spite, envy, gluttony, laziness, and
so forth and instead filling the soul with the spirit of chastity, humility,
patience, and love. Love never survives as a stand-alone virtue, but always
follows and helps accomplish other traits of a human soul mentioned above.
Certainly, a Christian willing to
pursue his own way will discover that he has to withdraw from worldly
distractions, to humble the flesh, and pray much more to God, but these actions
have no ultimate value in the eyes of God. They have value for us only as means
to the acquisition of the gifts of the Spirit. Of much greater value is the
spiritual struggle inside the human soul — self-reproach, self-humiliation,
self-resistance, self-constraint, introspection, vision of the Last Judgment
and future life, control over feelings, struggle against evil thoughts,
repentance and confession, wrath against sin and temptation, etc, — things
totally unfamiliar to our modern learned men, yet so clear and well-known to
any faithful villager, present or past. This is precisely the spiritual
alphabet mentioned by Bishop Tikhon of Zadonsk (+1783, glorified as
saint):
“There are two kinds of learned
and wise men: some study in schools from books, and a great many of them are
less intelligent than the simple and unlettered, since they do not know the
Christian alphabet; they sharpen the mind, they correct and adorn words, but
they do not wish to reform their hearts.
“Others who study in prayer with
humility and diligence and are enlightened by the Holy Spirit are wiser than
the philosophers of this age; they are devout and holy and beloved of God;
although these do not know the alphabet, they well comprehend everything; they
speak simply, crudely, but they live beautifully and auspiciously. These, O
Christian, emulate” (III, 193).
This is the
essence of true Christianity as a life-time effort. Disregarded by the Western
denominations, it is still at the center of all Orthodox theology which
interprets the entire Divine revelation, all events and proverbs of the Bible,
in the context of these stages of spiritual perfection. Having been incarnate,
humiliated, and afflicted by our sins, the Savior has granted us, in His Person
and in communion with Him, an opportunity for this spiritual effort, which is
the way to our salvation. Some follow it (Phil 2:12) voluntarily and
consciously, living a spiritual life. Others pass through almost against their
will, reformed by sufferings sent from God and by the Church discipline. Still
others correct their straying by repentance facing their death in this world
and receive enlightenment in the future life. Yet in all cases the meaning of
the Christian endeavor is always in asceticism, in the work on one’s soul and
thus such is also the essence of Christian theology.
VII. Ignorance versus Reason
If we trace all follies of the
West, those developed in its religion as well as those rooted in its customs,
which are transmitted to us through the “window of Europe,” we will see them
all stemming from ignorance of the nature of Christian faith as a personal
struggle for gradual self-perfection. Such, for instance, is the
Latino-Protestant concept of the Redemption as the revenge of the Divine
Majesty (also called forensic soteriology, a concept which grew out of the
feudal notion of knightly honor), where God is offended by Adam’s sin and only
the shedding of the blood of the Son Jesus Christ can avenge the Father’s
anger. Such is their material teaching about the Sacraments. Such is also their
teaching about the new instrument of Divine Revelation — the Pope of Rome,
whoever he might be in actual life. Such, likewise, is the teaching of works of
obligation and of supererogation. Such is, finally, the Protestant dogma
of salvation through faith, which rejects the Church and her structure.
In all these fallacies
Christianity is seen as something foreign to us, to our minds and hearts, some
sort of negotiated agreement between us and the Godhead, stipulating, for
reasons unknown, that we accept certain obscure statements and rules to receive
in return a reward of eternal salvation.
To defend themselves against
obvious objections, Western theologians have reinforced their teachings on the
alleged incomprehensibility not only of the nature of God, but also of the
Divine Law, and sought like the Scholastics, Luther, and even Ritschel in our
times to condemn reason as the enemy of faith, while the Fathers of the Church,
like St. Basil the Great and even St. Isaac the Syrian, see the enemy of faith
not in reason, but rather in human stupidity, neglect, light-mindedness, and
stubbornness.
VIII. Moral Values Revisited
Turning from religious errors to
the moral values of the West, we see in some of them direct opposites of the
Christian commandments, and these perversions are so firmly rooted in the
foundation of Western social and personal life that even the greatest upheavals,
which have toppled Christian altars and destroyed royal thrones, have not
affected those savage and brutal prejudices. The Lord commands us to forgive
but Western morality calls for revenge and bloodshed. The Lord demands that we
humbly think of ourselves as great sinners but the West puts “self-esteem” above
all. The Lord calls us to rejoice and be glad when we are persecuted and cast
out but the West seeks the “restoration of honor.” For the Lord and His
Apostles pride is a demonic sin but for the West it is nobility.
The lowest Russian beggar, or
even a half-believing native, a recent convert who has not yet completely
parted with his pagan practices, can tell good from evil better than the moral
authorities of the thousand-year-old Western culture, a dismal mess of the
shreds of Christianity with the delusions of antiquity.
And the reason for these follies
is the failure to grasp the simple truth that Christianity is an ascetic
religion, a teaching on gradual liberation from the passions, on the means and
conditions of gradual acquisition of virtues, conditions both internal, that
is, personal struggle, and external, that is, dogmatic tenets and grace-filled
Mysteries, all having one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and lead us to
perfection.
Russian source online:
English source:
https://www.stxenia.org/difference
In Defense of Metropolitan Cyprian (+2013): Historical Documents (Part 6 / Final)
The Second Letter of the Holy Synod
to Us
Prot. No. 112
Athens, September 20, 1984 (Church Calendar)
THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE
GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens
To His Eminence
Cyprian, Metropolitan of Oropos and Phyle
Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina
Phyle, Attica
Your Eminence,
At its recent meeting of
September 19, 1984 (Church Calendar), the Holy Synod, as you know, awaited your
appearance before it to answer the charges brought against you in its document Prot.
No. 111, dated September 7, 1984. Instead, you sent your document Prot. No.
110, dated September 18, 1984 (Church Calendar), which the Holy Synod received
in a fraternal spirit, although this action of yours demonstrated contempt for
the ecclesiastical authority presiding over you. Unfortunately, this document
not only failed to provide the required explanations concerning the charges
brought against you, but deepened the existing chaos still further. From its
very outset, its author makes a desperate attempt to avoid answering the
principal charges: a) through the paltry device of “wordplay” concerning
civil-service terminology; and b) through the exceedingly ill-conceived
purported argument concerning the “breaking of communion” for reasons of Faith,
which proclaims a method of new Ecumenism—this time within the ranks of the
G.O.C.
All the Reverend Members of the
Synod rejected both the action and the contents of the document in question,
which is hereby returned to you as unacceptable.
The Holy Synod then proceeded in
your absence to examine the charges brought against you, which it unanimously
found to be substantiated. Thereafter, acting as a Synodal Court, it decided to
impose upon you a forty-day suspension from all sacred ministrations, beginning
immediately upon receipt of the present letter. It expressed the hope that,
reflecting prudently, you will rise to the demands of the circumstances and,
for the benefit of the grievously storm-tossed Orthodox Church, repent and
return to the Orthodox order.
By order of the Holy Synod,
The President,
† Anthony of Attica and Megara
* * *
Our Fourth Letter
Prot. No. 114
Phyle, September 23, 1984
Feast of the Conception of the Honorable Forerunner
To Their Eminences the Hierarchs:
1. Anthony of Attica and Megara
2. Kallinikos of Achaia
3. Matthew of Oinoe
4. Kalliopios of Pentapolis
Your Eminences,
I had hoped that your synodal
responsibility would rectify what had been set forth in your reprehensible
document, Prot. No. 111, dated September 7, 1984. Nevertheless, I find that
your new document, Prot. No. 112, dated September 20, 1984, chaotically mingles
false doctrines and canonical transgressions in a futile attempt to evade
responsibility and avoid acknowledging your errors. You have repeatedly failed
not only to understand my full and extensive reply, but have also deliberately
passed over in silence the fundamental issues raised—above all, the formal
canonical accusation brought and lodged by me.
The breaking of communion with
you for reasons of Faith and Justice is a real and accomplished fact. This is
evident from your document Prot. No. 111, dated September 20, 1984, which cries
aloud that you have both violated your synodal duty and dealt a devastating
blow against the Orthodox Church. For through your actions and deeds—such as
the imposition of anti-canonical and invalid penalties—your Synod has been
degraded into an unlawful assembly and has consequently rendered itself null
and void.
It goes without saying that,
since you have trampled underfoot the Orthodox Faith concerning the
ecclesiological issue and the Canonical Order through your violation of the
Sacred Canons—thereby striking at the Apostolicity of the Church—you stand
under judgment.
Consequently, until a definitive
decision concerning my formal canonical accusation is rendered by the future
Holy Orthodox Synod of the united Orthodox Church, I canonically and completely
sever my synodal ties with you.
The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle
* * *
Editorial Epilogue
We believe that all the foregoing
texts demonstrate with the utmost clarity the serious work and effort
undertaken by His Eminence Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle to place the sacred
struggle against the festal-calendar innovation of 1924—and, more generally,
against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—on a sound ecclesiological footing.
The patristic foundation of this
God-pleasing endeavor ought to have prompted wholesome reflection and pleased
those who remain steadfast in “the Faith handed down.” Unfortunately, it
displeased them and led them to anti-canonical decisions and actions devoid of
brotherly love.
The positions of His Eminence
Cyprian are clear and well substantiated:
a) The view that the Mysteries of
the innovating New Calendarist Church are invalid is not Orthodox, because She
has not yet been judged and condemned by a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council.
b) Since, however, She is answerable before God and an Orthodox Council, Her decisions against the Orthodox in resistance to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—the so-called Old Calendarists—are invalid and without standing.
We pray and hope that those who
oppose and combat the correct Ecclesiological Positions of His Eminence Cyprian
will realize, even if belatedly, how grievously they have sinned against their
former fellow bishop, but above all against the Orthodox Truth, and will
endeavor to embrace “the preaching of the Fathers,” to the glory of God and the
unity of the Church.
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 4: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Greek source:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cNQ_49N3gnkpfJb3BkTpUBeR9V05BPqx/view?usp=sharing
In Defense of Metropolitan Cyprian (+2013): Historical Documents (Part 5)
The First Letter of the Holy Synod to Us
Prot. No. 111
Athens, September 7, 1984
THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE
CHURCH OF THE GENUINE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS OF GREECE
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens
Your Eminence, holy Brother Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle,
The Holy Synod of the Church of
the G.O.C. of Greece, at its session of September 4, 1984, O.S., having taken
cognizance of your letter no. 103/6-8-1984, the contents of which it found to
be directly contrary to the received teaching of the Orthodox Church, as
echoing the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, in conjunction with the fact that, on
Sunday, August 27 of the current year, you not only received the New
Calendarist “Patriarch” Nicholas of Alexandria in common prayer, but also
announced with particular gladness to the congregation the fact of his presence
and participation in common prayer in our church, although he is a known
Ecumenist, and, finally, with the fact that, without the knowledge and approval
of your presiding canonical Authority, you traveled to the United States, which
lies under the jurisdiction of our Synodal Exarch, thus intruding into
another’s diocese contrary to the prohibition of the divine and sacred Canons,
decided, with anguish of soul and great sorrow, to place Your Eminence at its disposal
and to summon you to appear before it on Tuesday, September 19, 1984, O.S., at
5:00 p.m., at the Holy Monastery of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Glyka
Nera, Attica, and answer the above charges, and, in the event that you do not
appear, the Holy Synod shall proceed in your absence to examine the above
charges.
By order of the Holy Synod,
The President,
† Anthony of Attica and Megara
* * *
Blog Admin. note: For
further information on the incident involving Patriarch Nicholas of Alexandria,
see the eyewitness testimony of Metropolitan Ambrose of Methone:
https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/on-metropolitan-cyprians-supposed.html
* * *
Our Third Letter to the Holy Synod
Prot. No. 110
Phyle, Attica, September 18, 1984 (Church Calendar)
Feast of Saint Eumenios of Gortyna
To the Holy Synod of the G.O.C.
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens 104 37
Your Eminence, Most Reverend President,
Holy Brethren,
In the single, long periodic
sentence of your reprehensible document, Prot. No. 111, dated September 7,
1984, and addressed to our humble person, there are piled up inaccuracies,
ill-considered judgments, distortions of facts and statements, as well as newfangled
and alien practices belonging to a Church secularized by bureaucracy and given
to arbitrary conduct. Meanwhile, the author of the document, writing
breathlessly, reveals his hidden aims by imposing an unknown and unlawful
penalty before… trial (sic).
What happened, Holy Brethren,
that you hastened to imitate the practices favored by innovation and by the
totalitarianism of earthly authority? How could you consent to apply the
Stalinist principle: “First the execution, and then the investigation”?
The Church and Her non-innovating
pleroma suffer when the actions of hierarchs lack episcopal discernment
and appear to be products of arbitrary conduct and of the reduction of the
episcopal office to the status of a civil-service post. A bishop can under no
circumstances appear as an adversary, because he always conducts himself as—and
truly is—the father of all, and all the more of the lost sheep of the rational
flock. He never takes revenge or casts away those who approach him, but benefits
and soothes their souls through the only unquestionably appropriate means: the
Truth, the Faith, and the Mysteries of the Church.
Before proceeding to refute the
assertions improperly set forth in the aforementioned reprehensible document,
and given that my humble person is a member of your Synod:
a) I observe that, before sending
the foregoing document, you ought to have awaited my return from America; and
b) I make it known that what
follows is not a defense or an explanation, but an episcopal reproof required
by duty. Its purpose is not to create estrangement but, on the contrary, to
assist you in restoring the Canonical Order to its proper course.
Thus:
A. The contents of the document
delivered to you by my humble person under the title An Ecclesiological
Position Paper for Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism are
identical in meaning to, accord with, and supplement my three previous
documents sent to you at various times, which apparently did not surprise you.
On the other hand, the Ecclesiological
Position Paper, as formulated, possess crystalline Orthodox clarity,
leaving my humble person unable to excuse any “misunderstanding” of them
whatsoever. By way of example, we cite several positions from our treatise:
1. “Spiritual maladies within the
Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or
expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a
more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a
substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even
if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming.
2. “He who preaches heresy or he
who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or
unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from
it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church.”
3. “Yet the current innovation in
the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is,
however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change
is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation,
but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by
heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy.”
4. “Therefore, the Orthodox
Tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox
Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in
Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to
the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical
Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial.”
5. “Insofar, then, as a unifying
Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of
Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations
represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered
groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made
objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of
the Church.”
6. “Every unifying Ecumenical
Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood
opposed to heresy.”
7. “Today, also, we will attain
to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and
heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy;
a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints;
collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in
the Orthodox Faith and in the love ‘of the truth,’ as the Apostle Paul says [II
Thessalonians 2:10]; and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar
and, more generally, ecumenism.”
The question therefore arises:
Which position is contrary to the received teaching, since all of them rest
upon patristic and synodal texts? And in what way do they echo Ecumenist
notions, since they utterly demolish Ecumenism?
B. His Beatitude Patriarch
Nicholas of Alexandria came on Sunday, August 27, 1984 (Church Calendar), as a
pilgrim to the Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina during the Divine
Liturgy—specifically, around the middle of the Communion Hymn. During my sermon
to the congregation, I said, among other things, concerning him: “…I pray that
the All-Good God will restore His Beatitude’s health and grant him the inward
assurance and strength to contribute to the restoration of the Patristic
Calendar and the condemnation of Ecumenism…”
The facts speak for themselves
and admit of no distortion, for the Church and Her non-innovating pleroma
know nothing of turning a pilgrim away; such a thing is dreadful even to hear.
At this point, my humble person gave a reminder of the duty owed to the Church.
C. Our journey to the United
States—and specifically to the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory Palamas in Etna,
California—had solely the character of a canonical visitation by the Abbot of
the mother Holy Monastery of Saints Cyprian and Justina to its metochion.
My journey was also made with the knowledge of the Synodal Exarch, His Eminence
Matthew of Oinoe. I am therefore astonished that you transform this canonical
jurisdictional right into an intrusion into another’s eparchy. Do you perhaps
dispute this right, or are you “correcting” Tradition?
All the foregoing is self-evident
and admits neither misinterpretation nor, much less, paltry arrogance. Be
assured, Holy Brethren, that I would have overlooked the inaccuracies,
ill-considered judgments, and distortions, and would have prayed that the pious
People be delivered from scandal without calling anyone to account. Now,
however, your document has introduced a newfangled and alien institution,
borrowed from the totalitarian spirit of innovation—the institution of
“administrative suspension”!!!
“Administrative suspension” is
unknown even as a word throughout the Church’s two-thousand-year history, and
as a term it is found only in the disciplinary law governing civil servants (sic).
Thus, administrative suspension is provided for by Article 9 of Legislative
Decree 2500/1953, under which: “Civil servants are placed on administrative
suspension… if they do not possess the competence or suitability necessary for
the unobstructed functioning of the service or for the performance of an
increased volume of work, or if they do not display a spirit of cooperation
with their colleagues or with the Minister in charge.”
Subsequently, the ruling [i.e.,
Official] Church of Greece, which follows the innovation, alone yielded to
extra-ecclesiastical pressure and, in order to remove the Metropolitan of
Cephalonia, unconstitutionally applied the earthly institution of
“administrative suspension.” The State then, anti-canonically, added paragraph
8 to Article 34 of Law 509/1977 (the Statutory Charter) in 1984, by which the
Standing Holy Synod: “places a Metropolitan at the disposal of the Church of
Greece for a period of six months, whenever grounds exist concerning his
person, the interests of the Church, public order, or social peace.”
In this manner, a devastating
blow was dealt to the Apostolicity of the Church, since a successor of the
Apostles is transformed into a civil servant who may at any moment be driven
from his throne for any reason—or even for no reason at all (sic).
Throughout the two-thousand-year
history of the Orthodox Church, a bishop is not expelled from his diocese
before the proceedings against him have been fully concluded in accordance with
the Sacred Canons. “…For no Christian can consider it right that his episcopal
see should be taken from him before the case against him has been decided”
(Canon 87 of Carthage). Commenting on this, Zonaras and Balsamon conclude: “It
is therefore evident from this that, even if someone comes under accusation or
even under excommunication, he remains a bishop until the judicial proceedings
against him are concluded, and he is not driven from his episcopal see”
(Rallis–Potlis, vol. III, p. 517). Demetrios Chomatenos, summarizing the
Church’s practice and tradition in this matter and fully conforming to it,
writes: “For it is contrary to the merciful custom of the Church and to the
provisions of the Divine Canons that one should be expelled from the Church
before a formal and complete condemnation” (On the Excommunication and
Deposition of Bishops, in Analecta Sacra, Pitra, Paris–Rome, 1891).
In other words, administrative
suspension constitutes a penalty not provided for by the Sacred Canons, yet it
is imposed without… trial and without… a finding of guilt!!! Its consequences
for the Church are destructive:
a) The Apostolicity of the Church
is struck, since the unbreakable, lifelong bond between a bishop and his
diocese is shattered anti-canonically and in an earthbound manner.
b) Those who impose
“administrative suspension” violate the Sacred Canons and the Canonical Order,
since through their personal tyranny they abolish the synodal governance of the
Church, imposing a penalty without a finding of guilt and without a trial.
c) The bishop, the successor of
the Apostles, is reduced to the status of a civil servant, thereby striking at
his sacramental relationship with the diocese allotted to him by God. The
threefold office of the Lord is thus anti-canonically and impermissibly debased
into an employment relationship or into a dangerous and harmful occupation (sic)—on
grounds of “public order” and “social peace.”
With sorrow of soul, I observe
that the venomous serpent of innovation, after the anti-episcopal rupture
within the ruling Church, has left its hideous traces even in a document of our
Holy Synod. Thus, the non-innovating pleroma of the Holy Church is now
directly struck as well. Following the calendar innovation, the pan-heresy of
Ecumenism is now advancing toward a deadly blow against the Apostolicity of the
Church, borrowing from Protestantism’s abolition of the third degree of the
Priesthood. Reducing the head of the Local Church—that is, the bishop—to a mere
employee is tantamount to that abolition.
* * *
All the foregoing—and especially
the new blow dealt by the alien, and indeed Protestant, intrusion of
“administrative suspension”—is causing grave scandal among the People of God,
with unforeseen consequences.
Therefore, being bound by my
awesome episcopal oaths and pastoral obligations,
I DEMAND that, immediately upon
receipt of the present letter, you proceed without further ado and on your own
initiative to withdraw the aforementioned reprehensible document sent to me,
and thereby deliver our storm-tossed Holy Church from new trials and divisions;
otherwise
I DECLARE that the present letter
is to be regarded as a FORMAL CANONICAL ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU for your
established canonical offenses.
I FURTHER DECLARE that, until
your sinful conduct, as set forth in the present accusation, has been
adjudicated,
I BREAK COMMUNION WITH YOU for
reasons of Faith and Justice
(Canon 31 of the Holy Apostles;
Canon 15 of the First-Second Council).
The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle
(To be continued.)
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 4: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Part 4: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/09/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
In Defense of Metropolitan Cyprian (+2013): Historical Documents (Part 4)
Our First Letter (to Metropolitan Anthony of Attica and Megara, successor of Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth as Synodal President)
Prot. No. 103
August 6, 1984
Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Savior
Your Eminence,
May our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Founder of the Holy Orthodox Church, always unite us in His truth and love, by
the good pleasure of the Father and the grace of the Divine Comforter.
You will certainly agree that the
continually strengthening pan-heresy of Ecumenism demands a continuous,
consistent, lawful, and God-pleasing struggle against heresy.
To this end, insofar as it lay
within our ability, we studied in good faith the sources of the Sacred
Tradition of the Orthodox and set forth our conclusions under the title An
Ecclesiological Position Paper for Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of
Ecumenism.
Our sincere desire for the union
in truth of all those struggling against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism prompted
us humbly to communicate to Your Eminence the patristic positions on this
subject.
Our disposition is clearly not
contentious, and as human beings we may err. We shall therefore gladly await
your evaluations, observations, and any objections to our text—based, of
course, upon the Fathers—so that, by the grace of God, we may come to agreement
on the positions of Orthodox Ecclesiology.
We hope you will agree that
departures from Orthodox Ecclesiology have created the ever-growing tragedy
within the bosom of the Church in Greece, which has been divided since 1924.
We humbly believe that the
solution to this tragedy lies in adopting and applying wholly authentic
ecclesiological foundations in the sacred endeavor against heresy. Certainly,
every deviation in this matter introduces innovations into the good struggle against
innovation and causes schisms within the effort to avert the schisms produced
by heresy.
Awaiting your views in love and
prayer, I remain,
The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle
Position Paper:
* * *
Our Second Letter
Prot. No. 104
Phyle, Attica, August 13, 1984
Feast of Saint Maximus the Confessor
To the Holy Synod of the G.O.C.
25 Koumoundourou Street
Athens 104 37
Your Eminence, Most Reverend President,
Holy Brethren,
You are, of course, aware that on
April 17/30, 1982, I sent a Memorandum to our Holy Synod in which I also spoke
of “the erroneous ecclesiological basis of our struggle.” Unfortunately, the
Holy Synod maintained silence on this matter. Following this, on May 26, 1982
(Church Calendar), I sent a second Memorandum addressing, among other things,
the same subject. Unfortunately, the Holy Synod once again maintained silence.
Strangely, one year later, the then President of the Holy Synod circulated a
booklet and a letter, dated May 24, 1983, concerning the ecclesiological issue
and containing positions contrary to the Fathers and to Tradition. As a matter
of duty, I then sent a third Memorandum to the Holy Synod on May 31, 1983, in
which Orthodox ecclesiological positions were set forth at greater length and
substantiated on the basis of the Holy Fathers. During the well-known meeting
of the Holy Synod held at that time concerning the issue occasioned by the then
President, it was stated synodally that the ecclesiological question should be
studied with a view to adopting and announcing a synodal decision.
Nevertheless, although more than a year has now passed, nothing has been done,
and silence has unfortunately once again been maintained on the matter.
Personally, however, I studied
the ecclesiological issue further and composed a brief treatise. I delivered
this treatise to you, together with a relevant letter, on August 10, 1984,
during the meeting of the Holy Synod which, because of my illness, had been
convened at the Holy Monastery of Saint Cyprian. As you know, among the matters
discussed at that meeting was the question of our union with the hierarchs
associated with His Eminence Gerontios [of Piraeus]. The treatise makes clear
that the basis of union is our agreement on the ecclesiological issue in
accordance with the Holy Fathers—that is, unity of Faith. For this reason,
Saint Athanasius the Great says that, in Orthodox Councils, questions of Faith
are placed first and settled first, and the other matters afterward.
Consequently, patristic agreement on the ecclesiological issue is not a matter
for future discussion, but both the basis and the realization of true union. By
Divine Grace, I have personally longed for and pursued this God-pleasing union
for years. By now, this issue, as a matter of Faith, should already have been
settled by us for the sake of union according to God and the wider good of the
Church. Therefore, to make myself clearer and to avoid any possible
misunderstanding, I am obliged to inform you, in the fear of God, that I am
unable to participate in an effort toward union [with the Synod of Metropolitan
Gerontios] unless an Orthodox agreement on the ecclesiological issue is
established as a fundamental condition, since, I repeat, this is a matter of
Faith.
I pray that, even now, the
necessity of Orthodox unanimity concerning the most serious issue discussed
above may be understood, for the salvation of souls, the peace of the Church,
and the glory of the Triune God.
The least among hierarchs,
† Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle
(To be continued.)
Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/08/in-defense-of-metropolitan-cyprian-2013.html
Prayer to Saint Seraphim of Platina
O our holy father, blessed Seraphim, thou didst order thy life according to the commandment of Christ, denying thyself, taking up thy cross,...
-
Synodal Encyclical of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece To All the People of Greece Beloved children in the Lord, 1. Forty...
-
Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to the Sacred Clergy and Pious People of Greece Athens | October 14, 1937 1. The Hierarchy of ...
-
[FWIW: Response from OpenAI’s ChatGPT-5.2, generated January 7, 2025.] [Additional text generated January 9, 2025 below] Short an...
