“Truth Is Trampled Underfoot Today Even at the Holy Altars”

An Interview of Bishop Xenophon with the American Serb newspaper Sloboda (Part 2)

Source: Слобода, no. 2274, August 10, 2026, p. 11.

Interview conducted by Dobrana Komnenić and Jelena Tasić.

(Part 1: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-more-deeply-it-is-buried-more.html)

 

In the following lines, we present the second part of the interview given by His Grace Bishop Xenophon of Raška and Prizren in Exile to Sloboda, the newspaper of American Serbs. The interview was published on August 10, 2026.

The Editorial Board

This June marked sixteen years since the establishment of the Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile, which arose from a group of monastics who left the Diocese of Raška and Prizren following the persecution of the late Bishop Artemije (Radosavljević) and his expulsion from Kosovo and Metohija. Today, the Diocese in Exile has more than forty catacomb communities, approximately 150 monks and nuns, fifteen secular priests, and a large number of faithful. Bishop Xenofont (Tomašević) of Raška and Prizren in Exile speaks to Sloboda about the reasons for the establishment of the Diocese in Exile, life in its catacomb monasteries, and the state of affairs within the Serbian Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy, Serbia, and its southern province. We are publishing the interview in two parts.

* * *

Bishop Artemije used to say that the Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox Church did not want him in the Diocese of Raška and Prizren, but that, in return, through his persecution he gained a Diocese of Raška and Prizren throughout the whole world. How great a challenge is it to govern a diocese that has catacomb monasteries and parish churches on several continents?

It is, of course, a challenge. But we view it in this way: we bear a great cross and an immense responsibility.

A man acquires and leaves as an inheritance a plot of land, a house, and a homestead, and therefore feels a responsibility both toward his forebears and toward his descendants. How much greater, then, is the responsibility resting upon all of us: upon me as the presiding hierarch; upon my brother chorbishops, the priests, monks, and nuns; and upon every faithful person who is an organic member of that wondrous organism called the Church of God—the confessing Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile. That which the Apostles and our holy forebears left us as an inheritance must be preserved and handed down to our descendants unimpaired and in its original purity.

The responsibility is great, but we place our trust in Christ, the Author of our spiritual struggle, Who, according to His promise, will preserve until the end of the age the Church which He Himself founded, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is for us to remain and persevere in that Church until the end, through the prayers of Saint Sava and of all the Serbian saints and the saints of universal Orthodoxy.

The Diocese in Exile has only one monastery in the United States—the Monastery of the Holy Serbian Enlighteners in Michigan. Do you have the opportunity to expand your mission?

We have never imposed ourselves upon anyone or forced our way in anywhere. Wherever the people invited us to establish a community and pray to God together, there we went.

So it was also with the Serbian community around Detroit, where, in the small town of Columbus, we founded the Monastery of All the Serbian Enlighteners. For several years now, the Divine Liturgy has been celebrated there daily, and the name of Christ is confessed. Alongside Orthodox Serbs, there are also Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, and Americans of various ethnic backgrounds. Thanks be to God, that mission continues and advances—above all, as I have said, through the daily celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a distinction that no other Serbian monastery on the American continent can claim.

The superior of the monastery, Protosyncellus Job, who is Polish by birth, is a humble and obedient monk and a zealous missionary. May the Lord establish and strengthen him, the brotherhood, and the faithful on the American continent, that they may proclaim the truth of the Church of God.

Does the Diocese in Exile experience any problems with the state and “official” ecclesiastical authorities in those dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church where catacomb communities exist?

There are problems. They are neither minor nor sporadic. We cannot enumerate them all. Of course, in this age of rights and freedoms of every kind, we do not suffer open persecution and killings—at least not yet—but we witness all manner of attempts to sabotage and hinder our mission. These range from obstructing our presence at the Belgrade Book Fair and preventing us from obtaining building permits to erect places of worship where we may pray to God with the people, to the recent expulsion of Protosyncellus Prokhor from the catacomb community in Dušanovo, Republika Srpska. We learned from well-disposed sources within the police that Bishop Jefrem of Banja Luka is insisting upon Father Prokhor’s expulsion and the compulsory closure of the catacomb community in Republika Srpska.

To all those who hinder us in our evangelical work, we address the words of the Holy Martyr Vukašin of Klepci, who said to his executioner as he was torturing him: “Just you, my child, do your work!” We too shall continue doing our work. And may the merciful God weigh who has acted and judged rightly.

Do you have any contacts with the Patriarchate in Belgrade, and what conditions did the late Bishop Artemije set for overcoming the division that arose after his expulsion from the Church?

We have absolutely no contact with the Belgrade Patriarchate.

Our holy Elder often told us that the condition for overcoming the division was that the Belgrade Patriarchate condemn Ecumenism and withdraw from the World Council of Churches. In 1997, Bishop Artemije succeeded in persuading the Assembly of Bishops to vote for the Serbian Orthodox Church’s withdrawal from the World Council of Churches, but the Holy Synod suppressed the decision, and to this day it has not been implemented.

Moreover, there can be no discussion until all the uncanonical decisions concerning Bishop Artemije, his monastics, and the Diocese of Raška and Prizren are annulled. Simply put, our relationship with the Belgrade Patriarchate is nonexistent. Yet despite all the restrictions, acts of sabotage, and attacks, we live as those who know that their true homeland is in heaven. The Spirit, nevertheless, breathes where He wills!

What does this state of affairs in the Church mean for the faithful, including those who belong to one of the dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church in America?

The existence of the Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile means and demonstrates to all the faithful—both those in America and those in the homeland, who are increasingly falling into despair and believe that, both as a people and as a Local Church, we find ourselves in an apparently hopeless situation worse than ever before—that all is not lost, and that we should and must gather together, struggle, and refuse to surrender. The banner of Saint Sava has not been trampled and dishonored; the trumpet sounding the alarm has not been silenced; the Truth has not been put to shame. We preserve it, and we shall continue to preserve it. Whoever wishes and is willing is welcome to join us, so that together we may work out our salvation, struggle, and preserve that which is most sacred to us—the Orthodox Faith.

How would you explain the context in which you speak about the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Belgrade Patriarchate in your homilies?

The Serbian Orthodox Church is a holy Church—our Local Church, the Church of Saint Sava—which has been preserved by our holy forebears and entrusted to us for safekeeping. Unfortunately, the Belgrade Patriarchate has today become synonymous with every kind of betrayal and capitulation: the betrayal of the ideals of the nation and the people, as well as of the ideals and truth of the Faith. Father Justin (Popović) himself used the term “Belgrade Patriarchate” in this critical sense, drawing that clear distinction. Following Saint Justin, we do likewise, never saying or believing that the most holy Serbian Church is in heresy—the Church of which we too regard ourselves as an organic part and within which we remain.

Besides being accused in synodal communiqués of creating a schism and weakening the Church, the Diocese in Exile is also called a sect. In earlier statements, you said that the Diocese in Exile strengthens the Serbian Orthodox Church—in what way? What is better today in Serbia and in the Serbian Orthodox Church because of the Diocese in Exile?

As I have already said, paraphrasing the Apostle Paul: Whoever weakens and destroys the Church of God, may God weaken and destroy him! We hope to preserve unimpaired the testimony of the Truth and Righteousness of God and of His Orthodox Church, which does not consist in decrees, directives, and seals, but in an unimpaired and Orthodox confession of faith. The Belgrade Patriarchate confesses Ecumenism. We confess faith in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The Diocese in Exile criticizes certain bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church as proponents of Ecumenism. How would you define Ecumenism so that we may all understand it? To what extent does Ecumenism constitute a departure from the Church’s teaching?

As the Venerable Justin of Ćelije defined it best: Ecumenism is the pan-heresy. That is, it is the heresy above all heresies, containing within itself all the heresies that have existed until now. Or, as Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew once formulated it: “Ecumenism is a path from which there is no return!” The ecumenists dogmatized precisely this faith at their godless Council of Crete. Let such a faith be anathema!

Why is Ecumenism harmful, and in what way does it contradict Orthodox teaching?

Because, figuratively speaking, it claims that if we mix the fetid pools of heresy with the fragrant wine of the Orthodox Faith, we obtain an even better mixture from which we should all drink. But we know that what we obtain is a foul-smelling liquid that spreads stench and contagion and is fit for nothing but to be poured away.

How can the faithful recognize these innovations, as well as those that have already been introduced into the celebration of the Divine Liturgy?

These ecumenist innovations are numerous, and it would be difficult to enumerate them in an interview such as this. The faithful must educate themselves in the Faith and become acquainted with at least the fundamental truths of Orthodoxy and of the Divine Liturgy.

What is fundamental and exceedingly important is that we understand that, as faithful Orthodox Christians, we cannot participate in prayer with those who are not Orthodox. In particular, we cannot invite non-Orthodox clergy to participate in our Orthodox divine services, because this is contrary to the Canons of the Orthodox Church and is strictly punishable under them.

Moreover, by introducing chaos and the law of the cudgel into the centuries-old order of the Divine Liturgy, the innovators have created unprecedented disorder, often quarreling among themselves over how the Liturgy should be celebrated and according to the notions and practices of one innovator or another.

To what extent are the concepts of the tradition of Saint Sava and the conciliarity of the Orthodox Church treated today—by the media, in politics, and even at the highest levels of the Serbian Orthodox Church—with, to put it mildly, imprecision and flippancy? What is the true path in an age when even greetings for Church feasts are addressed to “the Serbian Orthodox Church and its faithful,” while the tradition of Saint Sava is spoken of as Serbian ethnophyletism?

Unfortunately, everything is misused today. The Truth has been trampled underfoot and disfigured even at the holy altars, while the masters of the new world order have succeeded in achieving what they desired: that man should regard nothing as sacred or absolute. Everything is relative; everything is subject to change.

Let us hold fast to Saint Sava, the Serbian slava, and the badnjak, and we shall not go astray. There is also Pilipenda’s “Serbian Christ,” presently mocked and humiliated even within the Belgrade Patriarchate; but let us know that the victory is His. Saint Sava bears witness to this before us as he stands before the throne of God, ashamed of what we have become, yet never ceasing to intercede for us.

Does the opinion of those who say that the “official” Serbian Orthodox Church—the Holy Synod and the Assembly of Bishops—is occupied and in the grip of foreign influences, which enforce their demands through Serbia’s state leadership and one highly influential Serbian hierarch, support your position that the Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile is the only free Serbian institution? Does this mean that, despite its Constitution, Serbia is not a secular state and that the Serbian Orthodox Church is not free? What is your opinion?

Absolutely! Your question contains my answer in full!

Why do you think the faithful today feel the need to receive political counsel and guidance from the Church, and to what extent is the Church obliged to respond to that need?

The Church—the true, unadulterated, genuine Church of God, Orthodox in both faith and deeds—does not concern herself with day-to-day politics or political maneuvering. Yet because all the wounds of her people cause her pain, she has spoken and continues to speak out; she has defended and continues to defend everything that was sacred and honorable among the Serbs and that, I hope, has remained so. The Church, as the mother of her people, ought—and indeed is bound—to care for them in every aspect of their being and existence.

As a monk of Dečani who spent a brief period of his obedience at the Monastery of the Holy Archangels in Kosovo and Metohija, you understand events there better than many. Besides issuing your festal epistles, should the Diocese in Exile also speak out concerning the political processes taking place in Kosovo and Metohija?

Let us not wage war through communiqués alone. Kosovo and Metohija should occupy the thoughts of every Serb—immediately after God, but before ourselves and our families. It should be the thought with which we rise and with which we lie down: the thought, teaching, and sacred charge that we received from our holy forebears and must hand down to our children. But there must be not only thought, but deeds as well. Let us consider those deeds, close ranks, repent, correct ourselves, and pray that God may deem us worthy to erase this shame. Let us not be the generation recorded in black letters in the history of the Serbian people as having silently surrendered and sold that which is most sacred to us on earth: Kosovo of the Covenant and all-sacred Metohija, filled with altars and graveyards.

How do you understand the persistent silence of the official Serbian Orthodox Church—the Holy Synod and the Assembly of Bishops—concerning the surrender of Serbia’s southern province?

The deafening silence of the Belgrade Patriarchate and its shameless cooperation with the regime in Serbia, which has become alienated from its own people, say everything. There is no need for me to explain that disgrace to anyone.

How do you see the future of Serbian religious and national life in Kosovo and Metohija?

I place my trust in the living God and in the prayers of Saint Sava that the day will come when, before Gračanica Monastery and at Gazimestan, as once at the time of liberation, some new Rakić—like Milan in 1912—will recite “At Gazimestan” with tears in his eyes.

What does the implementation of the disputed Kosovo laws concerning foreigners, vehicles, and citizenship mean for the survival of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija and, in practical terms, for the life of the Church, including the Diocese in Exile?

It means a further tightening of the noose around the neck of the already despairing people of Kosovo and Metohija. The situation is dreadful, and the people are moving away. The curse incurred by the persecution of Bishop Artemije rests upon those who unlawfully and shamelessly seated themselves upon his throne and lay in his bed, having seized from him—as Arsacius once did from Chrysostom—the Bride, the Church that he governed. And while everything burns and matters grow ever worse, the regime combs its hair and tells us tales about supposed victories and successes of ours.

How realistic is the prospect of the eventual creation of a “Kosovo Orthodox Church,” and does the decision of the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church to grant autocephaly to the Macedonian Orthodox Church facilitate such a process?

It is both difficult and dreadful even to comment upon the shameless decision to surrender our holy sites to the communist creation called the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

The Venerable Justin of Ćelije once wrote most aptly about the creation of the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church: “In its creation lies also its dissolution!” What can those who so shamefully granted them a Tomos of Autocephaly—and also gave them, “as a dowry,” all our holy sites in Old Serbia—say, add, or correct in those words?

Unfortunately, the dismemberment of the Serbian Orthodox Church has only just begun. Either we shall come to our senses, or we shall disappear!

For the past two years, the titles held within the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church have been tied to the bishops’ length of service; and to justify so many metropolitan and archiepiscopal titles, dioceses have also been elevated to the rank of metropolitanates. Does this return the Serbian Orthodox Church to the situation that existed before the Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by which it was restored in 1920 with jurisdiction over the entire territory of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia and, subsequently, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? To what extent does this facilitate its possible future fragmentation?

Those who are splitting and dismembering the Serbian Orthodox Church are merely continuing the work they have been carrying out for decades. This is no secret; only ostriches with their heads buried in the sand fail to see it and refuse to acknowledge it. May God help us when faced with such tyrants beneath episcopal mitres—men who once boasted that they would break Artemije’s spine and that, although born as Serbs, they would die as Greeks.

Let such men do as they please, but we shall not surrender the Church of Saint Sava quite so easily, so long as we retain this heart, this spirit, and this reason.

How realistic is the prospect of the eventual creation of a “Kosovo Orthodox Church,” and does the decision of the Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church to grant autocephaly to the Macedonian Orthodox Church facilitate such a process?

It is both difficult and dreadful even to comment upon the shameless decision to surrender our holy sites to the communist creation called the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

The Venerable Justin of Ćelije once wrote most aptly about the creation of the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church: “In its creation lies also its dissolution!” What can those who so shamefully granted them a Tomos of Autocephaly—and also gave them, “as a dowry,” all our holy sites in Old Serbia—say, add, or correct in those words?

Unfortunately, the dismemberment of the Serbian Orthodox Church has only just begun. Either we shall come to our senses, or we shall disappear!

How do you envision the Diocese of Raška and Prizren in Exile some twenty years from now?

God willing, in the communion of the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, in a repentant, united, deified, multiplied, and sanctified Serbia, from which the fragrance of incense rises toward heaven, together with a united voice raised throughout holy and sanctified Serbdom: Alleluia!

Why has the Diocese in Exile not directly supported the current student and civic protests in Serbia, although many of the faithful expected it to do so?

I do not know whether many people expected that, or what precisely they expected. We have not concerned ourselves with day-to-day politics or with issuing communiqués, as is so common in today’s climate of communication through high-flown, inflammatory phrases.

Let us remember our blessed Elder, who during the wars of the 1990s made no inflammatory statements of any kind, as his now-departed brethren did, yet defended every Serbian interest with all his soul and heart.

Those, however, who made inflammatory statements and uttered inflammatory phrases in a surge of national fervor soon changed their rhetoric under the slightest pressure from one side or another. Thus, fervent “Greater Serbs” often became members of European expert groups. I am speaking of both clergymen and secular figures who, during the 1990s, called for the severing of “Balija” and Ustaša hands, but who now force us—with boot and rifle butt—into the European Union and other forms of integration. Let us beware of failing to keep watch over ourselves and of losing our sobriety.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, our Diocese, as a true and caring mother, under the leadership of myself and my brother hierarchs, has never missed an opportunity—including at the recent Assembly in Loznica—to warn against the regime that is alienated from its own people, anti-national, anti-Serbian, and occupationist, and which is driving Serbia and our people into the abyss of destruction!

 

Serbian source online:

https://www.eparhija-prizren.org/istina-je-danas-pogazena-cak-i-u-svetim-oltarima-intervju-episkopa-ksenofonta-listu-americkih-srba-sloboda-ii-deo/

A Miracle in San Francisco

 

Prayer to Our Venerable Father John the Romanian

From the Akathist to Our Venerable Father John Jacob the Romanian of Chozeva, published the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania

 

 

Prayer to Our Venerable Father John Jacob of Neamț

O Venerable Father John, thou didst lead a heavenly life upon the earth; for at Holy Baptism, thou didst receive the name of the great Prophet Elias, and, upon receiving the angelic habit, thou wast entrusted to the protection of Saint John the Baptist. Therefore, in thy life thou didst follow their example. Because of thy holy life in the desert, when thou didst pass from this vain world, the Lord granted thy soul rest in the radiance of Paradise and bestowed incorruption upon thy much-laboring body, manifesting in thee the glory of His Name.

Mindful of these things, we, the unworthy and sinful, come with humility and reverence, beseeching thee not to disregard us when we have recourse unto thine aid.

O Holy Father John, who from infancy wast orphaned of thy parents, help by thy prayers those who are orphaned, that they may find the love of the heavenly Father; thou who wast a brother and dweller in a monastery, help us, wherever we may be, to live as brethren in Christ; thou who didst transform thy longing for the wilderness into a longing for holy Heaven, help us by thy prayers to seek the sanctification of our souls, laid waste by sins; thou who wast a great ascetic, help those who struggle in the right Faith to fulfill the commandments of Christ in their lives; thou who wast a fervent intercessor before God, strengthen our prayers and increase our zeal and devotion; thou who didst desire to dwell in the Holy Land, help us, through good deeds, to sanctify the place in which we live, ever calling upon the Holy Spirit to dwell within us; thou who through thy prayers didst bring Heaven down into the cave, beseech Christ to warm and illumine with His love the cave of our hearts; thou who even in this world didst experience the joy and peace of eternal life, beseech the heavenly Father to grant us the joy and peace of His Kingdom.

O Holy Father John, preserve the aged in the right Faith, the young in purity of life, and children in love for God and their parents. Protect by thy prayers the poor and the sick, widows and orphans, travelers and those held captive.

Preserve our country from dangers and afflictions, and pray for all the faithful people, that together with thee they may glorify, through faith and works, God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

Romanian source: https://www.manastirea-amd.ro/acatistul-sfantului-cuvios-ioan-iacob-romanul-de-la-hozeva/

The Ongoing Ecumenist Confusion Constitutes the Ultimate Delusion

† Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon | August 8/21, 2026

 

 

The Ecumenists, from long ago until today, have been trying to convince themselves and others, deceiving and being deceived, that their Ecumenistic views and practices do not constitute a deviation and do not alter the faith of the Church, but are supposedly in accord with the Orthodox faith and tradition from as early as Apostolic times! They claim that it is supposedly their duty and obligation to struggle “for the restoration of unity and peaceful coexistence among Christians,” something which supposedly has its roots in the early Christian period! (See Fr. Augustinos Bairachtaris, “The Nature of the Orthodox Church’s Participation in the WCC—An Orthodox Historical and Theological Consideration of the Ecumenical Movement,” in the periodical Theologia, 2/2015, p. 257.)

Indeed, in order to establish this manifest and unprecedented delusion of theirs, they do not hesitate to engage in an impermissible confusion of terms, so as to give the impression that they are neither innovating nor introducing anything unprecedented, but that they supposedly remain faithful and consistent in the Orthodox faith and tradition.

For example, the previous Patriarch of Constantinople, Demetrios—that is, in reality, his shadow, namely, the then Director of the Private Patriarchal Office, Bartholomew of Philadelphia, now of Constantinople—stated in writing in response to a relevant question:

“The Ecumenical Movement is nothing foreign to Orthodoxy. Ecumenicity belongs to the very nature of Orthodoxy. This means that Orthodoxy and Ecumenicity are not two merely parallel realities, but two characteristics which coincide theologically and historically. Orthodoxy, as the one and only ecumenical truth, encompasses Ecumenism. And this is precisely what imparts the Ecumenical dimension to Orthodoxy. But Ecumenism, too, acquires meaning and content only under the shelter of Orthodox teaching and tradition. For this reason, both in the old forms of historical Ecumenism and in the contemporary forms of the Ecumenical Movement, Orthodoxy has stood in the forefront through its presence, participation, and initiative-taking cooperation with all the other Churches of Christ which honestly and sincerely aim at the unity of Christianity. This is the role of the Orthodox within the Ecumenical Movement: to give the Movement its true dimension and to place it upon its proper foundation, with the common sources of revealed truth and right doctrine and tradition as its standard.” (Ekklesia, no. 13, July 1–15, 1986, p. 439.)

In the present case, an evident confusion of terms and realities may be observed. To be more precise, we say that Ecumenicity is indeed a fundamental element of the Holy Gospel and of our Orthodox Christian faith. However, care must be taken not to confuse the concepts. Just as theosis, which constitutes the fulfillment of the “according to the likeness,” is one thing, while self-deification, which constitutes the Devil’s lie to our first parents in order to cast them out of Paradise, is another, so too Ecumenicity is one thing, signifying Orthodoxy’s opening toward the world outside her as an invitation—even to heretics and schismatics—to accept her truth and to unite themselves with her in repentance, whereas modern Ecumenism is something entirely different, signifying an attempt to achieve a supposed unity of Christians—that is, of the Orthodox with heretics—but together with them and in common with them. This does not lead to their return in repentance to the fullness of the Truth of the Faith, from which they fell away, but to an impermissible mixing with them, even though they are governed by different principles in faith and ethos. Thus, permanent institutional commingling with them—as occurs, for example, in the “World Council of Churches” (WCC)—is clearly rendered illicit, impermissible, and to be rejected from an Orthodox standpoint. (See the text “Accept No Spurious Doctrine under the Pretext of Love,” in Stergios Sakkos, Love and Orthodoxy, “Christian Hope” Orthodox Brotherhood, Thessaloniki, 2018, p. 117 ff.)

Throughout her two-thousand-year history, the Orthodox Church has always called and presented to all those outside Her the truth of Her doctrine, in order to lead them onto the path of salvation. So too did our Lord Jesus Christ, Who indeed entered into dialogue with everyone, with the aim of transforming those who believed in Him and making them sheep of His flock. With those who obstinately contradicted Him and rejected or distorted His teaching, He broke off all dialogue (see John 8:25).

This is because, according to Holy Scripture, Love is inseparable from saving Truth. There can be no Love without Truth: “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), and love “rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).

By contrast, through Ecumenism, and particularly through the “WCC,” love is overemphasized at the expense of truth. The continual relations with the heterodox for nearly a century, inclusion together with them in councils and consultations, exchanges of visits and gifts, joint prayers and joint declarations, embraces and mutual kisses, constitute nothing other than an impermissible separation of Love from Truth, with a complete, or at least partial, disregard for Truth.

The Holy Fathers of the Church longed for the return of the heterodox with unfeigned love and truth, because their separation caused pain and anguish within their sensitive souls. But this in no way meant that they “allied themselves” with them through Councils of so-called Churches (!), for endless discussions on every conceivable subject and for joint declarations and activities in the world! Once it had been ascertained that those who held false doctrines persisted in their errors, every dialogical process and effort ceased, in accordance with the Apostolic exhortation: “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). This constituted no “historical Ecumenism” whatsoever, unless we wish to “play with words” in order to create impressions.

The continual and persistent rapprochement with people who not only refuse to abandon their errors but even intensify them and grow worse means nothing other, according to Saint John Chrysostom, than a continuation of Eve’s destructive dialogue with the Serpent, the tragic outcome of which we know! (See Homilies on Genesis, Homily 16, §2, EPE, vol. 2, p. 416.)

Modern fraternization with the heterodox is therefore a well-laid Ecumenist trap, into which the Ecumenists and pro-Ecumenists have fallen, together with those who tolerate and follow them and who, consequently, are swept along in their “free fall”!…

The seemingly reasonable, fundamentally worldly Ecumenist arguments for pan-Christian or even pan-religious unification, in the sense of peaceful coexistence, cooperation, and especially mutual acceptance, constitute a distortion of the Gospel of Christ and a violation of the Truth of the Faith and Tradition of the Church (see Fr. George Metallinos, “The Dialogues without a Mask,” Parakatatheke, no. 25, July–August 2002, p. 7).

Moreover, let us not forget that through Ecumenism, in practice, the Baptism of all heretics is recognized; a “common witness” to the faith is given and the “common evangelization” of mankind is pursued; a joint effort is made to “find the truth”; common action is undertaken for world peace; there is a commitment to “avoid proselytism”; conclusions are set forth concerning “common repentance for shortcomings and excesses,” etc. (see Fr. Augustinos Bairachtaris, op. cit., pp. 261, 263, 267, 268, 285–286, 297–298).

It scarcely needs to be emphasized that all these things have no connection whatsoever with the Canonical, Synodal, and Patristic Tradition of the Church of Christ. The Canon of the Third Local Council of Carthage, for example, states:

“…Among heretics, where there is no Church, it is impossible to receive forgiveness of sins.… Nor can a heretic sanctify oil, since he has neither altar nor Church. Neither can chrism exist at all among heretics.… And how can one who is not a priest, but a sacrilegious man and a sinner, pray over the person baptized?… We understand that forgiveness of sins is given through the Holy Church. But who can give what he himself does not possess?… Everything performed by them [the heretics], being false and empty, is invalid.… The enemies of the Lord, who are called antichrists, cannot give the grace of the Lord.” (See The Sacred Rudder, p. 369.)

The foregoing is in full agreement with Holy Apostolic Canons 46 and 47, according to which the baptism of heretics is regarded as “defilement.” For they are “enemies of the truth,” who bring about “abhorrent pollution and abomination,” according to Sacred Canon 1 of the Holy Quinisext Council.

But even Sacred Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Sacred Canon 95 of the Quinisext Council, concerning those “who come over from the heretics and are added to Orthodoxy and to the portion of those being saved,” which permit in certain cases the non-repetition of the correct form of baptism received by heretics, do not mean that they regard that baptism as valid in and of itself, either according to strictness or according to economy.

What relation does any of this have to what is found in the contemporary Ecumenical Movement, which is condemnable in every respect? Where is there room for “Churches of Christ,” for “Sister Churches,” for de facto recognition of baptisms and other rites, for “ministries,” joint commissions, and common activities?

Nevertheless, the Ecumenists, regarding themselves as readily adaptable to the demands of the times and to the new historical, social, and political conditions, confidently maintain that they supposedly follow—in their imagination—the Patristic and Traditional model without violating it (!), but in conformity with the new realities of the modern age.

This also calls to mind the tragedy—not to say the blasphemy!—into which the modern destroyers of the Orthodox Ethos of the Church, both clergy and laity, have fallen: since most Christians in name only no longer observe the moral requirements of the Faith concerning purity before the Mystery of Marriage in our age of pansexualism, they maintain that full sexual relations before Marriage should be regarded as natural and acceptable, provided that there is mutual love and not a sordid transaction. And those who continue, on this matter, to adhere to what has been binding and self-evident in the Faith and Tradition of the Church for two thousand years supposedly commit an “interpretive error” and bring the true meaning of the faith into disrepute!

We deliberately use this parallel because it is well known in our Holy Faith: illicit spiritual relations with those outside the Church—for isolated incidents occurred in the past as well, chiefly out of ignorance—are unequivocally called “spiritual fornication and spiritual adultery”! This is well known from the Church’s Gerontika, and there is no need to cite examples. In our days, however, these illicit relations have become entrenched through corrupting Ecumenism, and anyone who protests against this spiritual licentiousness is regarded as phobic, an unsophisticated provincial, maladjusted, fanatical, and “out of place and time”!…

We must know, however, that the Holy Gospel is immutable and our Holy Orthodox Faith never grows old, so as to require readjustment and modernization. The “eternal boundaries” of the Truth of the Faith are immovable, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church is inviolable (see Saint John of Damascus, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” I.1, EPE, vol. 1, p. 56).

Never can the “pretext of love” justify the utter degradation (“monstrous humiliation,” as Elder Justin Popović the Confessor called it) involved in Holy Orthodoxy’s participation in “Councils of Churches” and in inter-Christian and interreligious ceremonies and gatherings.

For this reason, a former Protestant and apologist for Orthodoxy in America wrote quite correctly many years ago that “the Ecumenical Movement, from an Orthodox point of view, constitutes a failure”; “it is a wretched fiasco”; “another product of the mania for utopianism that seized the twentieth century.” He also wrote that “the apostasy of liberal Protestantism and the acceptance of immorality and perversion by the Protestant denominations have manifestly increased during the ‘ecumenical age.’” (See Frank Schaeffer, Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion, Makrygiannis Publications, 2nd ed., Kozani, 2004, p. 505.)

It is significant that those heterodox who, both in the past and in our own days, embrace Orthodoxy—especially in America—do not come because of some supposed “Orthodox witness” at Ecumenist meetings, but for precisely the opposite reason! Consequently, they are not at all favorably disposed toward Ecumenism; rather, they regard it as a disorienting and even a manifestation of apostasy.

The deviations of Western Christians, especially regarding the acceptance of abortion, same-sex marriage, the ordination of women, etc., provoke outright revulsion even among the serious-minded members of their denominations, causing them to abandon this state of degradation.

Yet does so-called official Orthodoxy—which unfortunately participates, directly or indirectly, in this corrosive Ecumenist distortion—truly constitute a safe and suitable refuge for the disillusioned who are seeking a place of salvation? Does not such a choice lead, by a circuitous route—not to say directly!—to the same tragic dead end of tolerating, if not concealing, these manifestations of apostasy?

Did not the majority of the official Orthodox Churches, ten years ago at the Pseudo-Council of Kolymbari, Crete, endorse and approve the heretical Ecumenist deviation instead of condemning it?

We conclude by emphasizing that, in order to fulfill her saving mission in the world, the Orthodox Church must cast out and condemn every “spurious doctrine,” every distortion of the true Faith, and every delusion—such as the prevailing delusion of Ecumenism—as the immaculate Bride of Christ our God, the King of all.

We shall return, God willing, shortly to a specific recent event that requires examination and commentary.

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2026/08/21/%e1%bc%a1-%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%ba%e1%bd%b4%cf%82-%ce%bf%e1%bc%b0%ce%ba%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%e1%bd%b4-%cf%83%cf%8d%ce%b3%cf%87%cf%85%cf%83%ce%b7-%e1%bc%80/

Will Pagans Be Saved?

And while you’re wondering whether the pagans will repent before they die, there’s a much more pressing question that you need to answer

Fr. Joseph Gleason | Aug 21, 2026

 

 

Deep in the heart of Africa, there’s a small tribe that has never heard about Christ. Is it possible for them to go to heaven?

It sounds like a very deep theological question, but sometimes it’s just a sneaky way of avoiding the question that God is asking you.

God gives us commands and we pretend not to hear Him. He calls us, but we make excuses. He wakes up our conscience, and then we reach for the spiritual “snooze button”, so to speak.

Then once we’ve got our conscience quiet, we sit comfortably and we ask these big giant questions about everybody else’s salvation.

“But what about the pagans? Can they be saved?”

Well, suppose God answered this question with a simple “yes” or “no” like we demand.

God says, “yes”.

Well, then what? Are we going to stop evangelizing? Are we going to stop fasting and praying and repenting and struggling against sin? Why spread the gospel?

“They’ll make it to heaven anyway.”

Before long, a “yes” to that question becomes an excuse for religious indifference and laziness.

Okay, fine.

So suppose God says, “no”.

Well, now we get the opposite temptation. Suddenly, we imagine ourselves to be more compassionate than God.

“What kind of God would condemn billions of people that don’t even have a chance?”

“I refuse to worship a God like that.”

Think about the arrogance of saying something like that.

Jesus was scourged. He was nailed to a cross and He died because of his love for humanity. You didn’t do that. I didn’t do that. Yet somehow you can conclude that you love humanity more than He does?

Well, maybe the problem is the question itself.

We want eternal mysteries reduced to simple checkboxes: “yes” or “no”, “saved” or “damned”. But Christianity, real Christianity, gives us something that is much bigger than that.

Christ died for all. God desires the salvation of all. Scripture says so. And yet Scripture never promises that all will be saved.

There are mysteries that are bigger than the categories we create.

So if the fate of unbelievers really keeps you awake at night, and you’re worried about it, there’s something more useful that you can do, than speculating and imagining.

You go tell them about Christ.

You learn their language.

You preach the Gospel.

You send your money to support some missionaries.

And if you can’t go anywhere yourself, then get on your knees and pray for them.

Because God never commanded you to solve the mathematics of how everybody else gets saved.

He commanded you to love them.

And while you’re wondering whether the pagans will repent before they die, there’s a much more pressing question that you need to answer, and that is:

Will you repent?

 

Source: https://movingtorussia.substack.com/p/will-pagans-be-saved

 

How Should We Keep this Dormition fast?

By the Blessed & Ever-Memorable Archbishop Averky of Jordanville

 

 

The following homily is something of a period piece, written as it was over fifty years ago. However, although a few references may strike readers as dated, there is much of spiritual worth in the Archbishop’s words. Indeed, the state of the Orthodox diaspora and the mentality of its peoples has not greatly altered since Archbishop wrote this work. If that mentality has altered, and if the world has changed, it is sadly in both cases much to the worse. The Archbishop’s words are more pertinent now than when he penned them. Our readers will notice, and some might be offended by, his constant references to the Russian peoples, but one must bear several things in mind. First and most basically, he was a Bishop of the Russian Church addressing his flock of Russian people, mostly emigrés, which at that point probably comprised very few non-Russians. He is addressing them in terms to which they would respond. And take particular notice how carefully he phrases his expression. He never speaks of “Russian Orthodox people,” but always of “Orthodox Russian people.” There has been a tendency, one unfortunately greatly augmented in recent years with the euphoria in some quarters over the “re-united” (actually more-than-ever disunited) Russian Church, to represent Russian Orthodoxy as something essentially distinct from, and, grotesquely, even superior to, the Orthodoxy of other peoples. Few are the hierarchs and Church leaders in the Russian Church today who would have the sensitivity of Archbishop Averky to address the Orthodox Russian people, rather than the Russian Orthodox people. And, although his words are addressed to each of us as individuals, yet we can only bemoan the fact that his teaching was not heeded by the “uniting parts of the Russian Church” in 2007, which now so heartily congratulate themselves on their “well-being,” but have glossed over the need for real repentance.

 

Today, 1st August, according to our Orthodox calendar, we set out upon the Dormition Fast. For us it serves as a spiritual preparation for the Great Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, imitating her own fast, by which she prepared herself for her departure from this earthly life, and it lasts for two whole weeks.

Last year, 1959 [this sermon was first given on 1st/14th August, 1960 - ed.], the Assembly of Hierarchs declared this present year, 1960, a year of repentance. In connection with this, we have for a long time been considering reminding all the Orthodox Russian people of the Appeal of the Pastoral Conference, which was convened this year at the Holy Trinity Monastery:

“The Fast of the Dormition of the Theotokos stands before us, by which customarily we prepare for the Great Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. Do we all always observe this fast in all its strictness, do we all prepare and commune of the holy Mysteries of Christ during this fast? The Mother of God weeps for us, having a presentiment of the dread punishment of God, which we bring upon ourselves by our own lack of concern, our own lack of repentance, our own stoney lack of feeling. In this year of repentance, let us now observe this fast before the Dormition as one of general preparation of all the people, so that we might worthily approach the Communion of the holy Mysteries of Christ on the feast of the Dormition. It is to this that our Pastoral Conference now calls the Orthodox Russian people” (See Pravoslavnaya Rus’ - No 12, 15th / 28th June, 1960).

But what of us? Are we addressing everyone in this appeal or not? Are we entering upon this fast as our Holy Church teaches us, with increased prayers, with all-round abstinence from the passions both of soul and of the body, with the labours of true repentance? Will we prepare as is proper and as is appointed, and will we apply ourselves with feelings of heartfelt contrition, with a firm intention to correct our life, for the great Mysteries (sacraments) of Confession and Holy Communion?

Before all else, let us take a clear account of ourselves with that certain truthfulness, such as pertains to all healthy minded people; then following this, let us resolve to change our life from the very root for the better, upon which depends the whole course of our future, both here in this earthly life, and, what is more important, there in that life eternal which we all await.

It is true that, glory be to God, many of us, Orthodox Russian people abroad, make such preparation. They do so every year in Great Lent, and some do so in the other fasts, among which the Dormition Fast is numbered. But is this preparation, as it is sometimes done simply by received custom, by tradition, as something inherited from pious forebears, always a real preparation? - that is, is it really repentance, which is what is required of us, what God awaits from us?

Can one really call it “preparation” to receive the dread Mysteries of Christ, when one comes late at the very start of the Divine Liturgy, expecting confession during the time of the Liturgy itself, and thus requiring the priestly ministers either to break off from serving or (if it is a concelebration) not to take part? Can one really call it “preparation” when it is done in a purely mechanical way without any deep self-examination, without the self-examination which is required by the Apostle’s injunction (1 Cor. 11:28)?

How many come to confession nowadays without sufficient examination of their interior world, and even, as they themselves often openly inform the confessor, without knowing what they have to repent of. “I am sinful, like everyone else,” or “I am sinful, having the usual human sins,” they will customarily say, without the necessary understanding of the whole depth and weight of their sins, and, it follows, without the intention to leave off from, or change, their sinful life. And when they hear the prayer of absolution, they assume that all that is required has been done, and that with a conscience at peace they may approach the Holy Chalice, and then equally at peace, without any interior conflict within themselves, they continue with the sinful life to which they had formerly become habituated.

All this is not that true repentance, which the Kindhearted Lord, the God of those who repent, awaits, desiring that the sinner turn away from his path of transgression.

True repentance presupposes before all else a painstaking self-examination; an attentive scrutiny of one’s conscience, of one’s interior world, by means of setting against it the law of God; an assessment of one’s sinfulness, without those tiny quotas of some sort of self-justification; it presupposes brokenness of heart on account of one’s sins and a decisive rejection of them, united with a firm intention to make amends for one’s sins by the good deeds which are contrary to them, and not to repeat those sins any more.

“Repentance is a contract with God for the correction of life,” says that great instructor of the spiritual life, the Venerable John of the Ladder (Step 5). So, where there is no intention to correct one’s life for the better in a fundamental way, there is no true repentance. The Greek word itself, metania, which has been handed down to us without the slightest shadow of change of meaning, and which is expressed in our word ‘repentance,’ means ‘change,’ - a complete, fundamental change of a person’s thought, feeling, and desires, i.e., his inner spiritual rebirth. For this reason repentance is called a ‘second rebirth,’ or a ‘second Baptism’ (see the Order of Confession in The Book of Needs).

Behold, this is the repentance which the Lord awaits from us! He desires that we, Orthodox Russian people, change our lives in a fundamental way, to become, as it were, a new, a different people, better in all respects than we were hitherto.

With such repentance, such a fundamental change for the better, our present life, all our hopes for some better future, for our salvation, for the salvation and rebirth of our unhappy homeland, Russia, are vain. And what are we, Orthodox Russian people in foreign lands, to repent of?

Oh, there is much that we should repent of!

First of all it is necessary to repent of the general sins of mankind, checking our life against the demands of God’s Law, even if only according to the Ten Commandments. (And for this it is necessary, of course, to know these Ten Commandments, something which - alas! - our contemporary generation cannot boast about). Many Russian people have completely ceased accusing themselves of sins, even those mostly clearly and evidently breaking these Ten Commandments, instead accounting the breaking of them as normal, widespread, and therefore in some sense excusable. They have no idea of the patristic saying that “the multitude of sinners does not save us.” Even if everyone around us sins, this does not serve as any justification for our own particular sins.

Furthermore, we have our own particular specific sins, for which undoubtedly God will call us to account, if we do not really repent of them.

Know that we, sons and daughters of Holy Russia, have the great good fortune to confess the one true, the one saving, Holy Orthodox Faith. Much has been given us. And to whom much is given, from him much will be required (See Luke 12:48).

Our most important and basic sin is that we have forgotten that we are living in foreign countries, in ‘far lands,’ and here in exile and in the diaspora, we have begun to feel ‘at home.’ Many of us, - alas! - many already do not want to take into account why we are found abroad, besides which, to be at ease in their countries and attempting to come to terms with their circumstances, we are merging completely with life around us, we are assimilating, slavishly imitating all the people among whom we live, only considering how in some way we might best get established and improve our material success, our well-being, in our new circumstances, and for this end we are ready to sacrifice our spiritual values, including even our Faith itself.

Among us there are some who care about the salvation and rebirth of Russia and about returning to Russia and they even set up various types of political and patriotic organizations with this aim, periodically holding assemblies and organizing conferences. But in the majority of cases, they sin in that they do not desire to understand why such a dreadful catastrophe befell our homeland, and they continue to live aboard entertaining those very same thoughts and feelings, and with the temper which accompanies them, which once brought that catastrophe about. They do not desire to bring about within themselves that unique and saving fundamental change; they do not really want to repent. And therefore, for all their sometimes, maybe, very good and sincere intentions and efforts, they are left with still-born fruit, which leads to nothing and never brings anything positive, leaving behind for all only the bitter after-taste of disillusionment.

The whole life of contemporary Christians is in all ways completely contrary to that which true Christianity requires of us. At the present time, people, bearing the name ‘Christian,’ in the majority of cases, do not even think about what this name implies and they do not strive even a little to fulfil the Gospel precepts, but lead their lives in a completely pagan way. And for this reason it is now not possible for us to live ‘like everyone else.’ Now, more than ever before in the past, it is imperative that we bear in mind the teaching of the holy Apostle James: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? And so, he who has his own ideals so that he might persuade himself and set himself at rest is he “whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

The present-day dissipation and light-mindedness of life in the world is so mindless that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity. These two things are mutually completely at odds. There is no such thing as a minimal Christianity, which might in some way be reconciled with contemporary dissolute worldly life, which has made as its one purpose the achievement of the greatest possible comfort in life, along with every kind of pleasure and enjoyment.

He who wants really desires to repent must resolutely reject the evil worldly wisdom of the present times. Either / or! There is no midway, and there cannot be one. Either we are sons of God, or we are “sons of opposition,” “sons of perdition.” To constantly amuse oneself, going to restaurants and cinemas and other places of entertainment - all this is clean contrary to true Christianity, and these things he, who has firmly resolved to commit himself truly to repent before God, and not simply in an exterior or hypocritical way, cannot stand to do.

From this point of view, the incessant instances of the countless balls and suppers, events and entertaining gatherings, even when they go under the name of “benefits,” in which so much of our life in the diaspora is now submerged, especially here in America, goes completely against any true repentance.

The most dreadful thing is that in the life of contemporary people falsehood enters in and gets very firmly established there. Present-day Christians lie before God, they lie to each other, they even lie to themselves. The are always “playing a rôle,” attempting to present themselves as something they are not. They are concerned only with outward respectability, “neglecting the tabernacle fashioned by God.” as the Great Canon [Ode 2] expresses it.

And within this there is an even greater sorrow: that they do not even want to keep Christ’s commandments and without the least fear they flout Church rules, and in doing so, they think, in a completely un-Christian way, that they are justified in all their unbridled behaviour and by their own mind-set.

Self-love and pride literally infect everything - all of contemporary life.

But the most dreadful thing, of course, is that this is not simply sinning against morality, which to one to degree or another has always had its place in people’s lives, but this is the basic sin of the present day, which hitherto never manifested itself with such force, which never before enclosed people, even those calling themselves Christians, in such a broad sweep, which never hitherto so boldly raised its head, vigorously captivating for itself even those who, evidently, wanted to resist it, but also did not find within themselves the strength to go against the general flow.

This is the sin of Apostasy, or of capitulation.

And it is an all too frequent manifestation today. People call themselves Christian, sometimes even ministers of the Church of Christ, and in reality they are apostates. They have surrendered their souls to the coming Antichrist and they actively participate in his grandiose scheme, now underway throughout the whole world, - the preparation for the kingdom of Antichrist on earth.

And it is especially painful and bitter that many Russian people not only continue to live abroad with those dispositions which led Russia to Bolshevism, but under the influence of the foreign and heterodox environment around them they go even further, wholly engaging in the headlong course of the Apostasy. For such people repentance is particularly difficult. Without the special action of the Grace of God upon their souls it may even be unattainable.

This sin is particularly enticing, because it promises so much - money, career prospects, and all earthly good things, and at the same time it is very proficient at hiding itself under the disguise of an outwardly good appearance.

He who actually, and not in words only, desires to repent, must exhibit full obedience to the Holy Church in all things - to her teachings and to her practice, to her age-old usages which are founded the sacred Scriptures and Holy Tradition, on the teaching of the Holy Fathers, those Pillars of Orthodoxy and strugglers for Christian piety. With resolution he must reject all those pretensions, which are so full of pride and self-confidence, which seek to ‘reform’ or to ‘correct’ things in the Church, or to ‘infuse’ some ‘new, living current’ within her, and so on. No kind of innovation, no kind of modernism should be able to find any place in our Church, more especially that modernism which follows the trends of the anti-Christian ideas of this present evil age, which, while they appear one thing, conceal any sign of their ideological aspirations, such as the ecumenical union of all faith confessions, or universal government headed by a one-world administration.

“Not all that glistens is gold,” says a good Russian proverb [and an English one too! - transl.] And we, the Christians must understand that Satan himself, when it proves necessary for him, can “take on the appearance of an Angel of light,” and therefore it is no marvel “if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15).

He who desires actually to repent must, with all resolution, tear asunder the entangling nets of the contemporary world, which, with a determination which cannot be countered, drag all deeper and deeper into the abyss of Apostasy, from which there is no way out.

This we, Orthodox Russian people, must recognise within ourselves, if we are really seeking to achieve true repentance, if we sincerely desire salvation for ourselves and for our homeland, Russia, and with that of the whole of mankind, of the whole world, for as must be manifest to us all now, the fate of the whole world at the present time is closely bound up with the fate of our homeland, Russia.*

But woe to us, if within us there begins to speak a feeling of proud self-justification; if we do not begin to desire to recognise within ourselves all the various guilty things enumerated above. “Pride and self-justification,” according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, “darken the mind” (Abba Dorotheus: Questions and Answers, question 82).

“Guard against pride and self-justification,” the great elder John the Prophet teaches, “for they impede repentance” (answer 82).

Unfortunately there are among us Russians, those who not only do not recognise the whole depth of their fall, but with a kind of incomprehensible delusion, even yield to some sort of unfounded delight, with self-esteem and trust in themselves and in others, assuming that everything is alright with them.

Such a disposition is completely alien to true Christianity. We must not congratulate ourselves, lest this bring upon us the most severe judgment. Lulling the conscience, into which groundless fantasies have entered, is the very greatest evil, which cuts off at the very root every possibility of true repentance.

Before all else, true repentance depends upon humility, a complete and unreserved humility before the commandments of the Gospel, before the canons and precepts of the Church, a readiness completely and without dissimulation to submit to them. True repentance is completely alien to any sort of pretence or claims of self-determination. It is an inexorable awareness within oneself of one’s own sinfulness. Only when it is such can it be active and salvific.

What then? Shall we embark upon this road of real repentance? Shall we thus observe the Dormition Fast which is upon us? Shall we resolve in the most fundamental way to change our life for the better?

Or, as before, shall we take life easily, disregarding all that has been said above, until we are struck at the inescapable dread hour of God’s retribution which is approaching, when instantaneously all our present “well-being” will fall away, and awful destruction shall befall us, not only a temporal one, but one eternal.** May it not be!

 

Translator’s footnotes:

* This thought might strike some of our readers as odd or unrealistic. In fact, Archbishop Averky could have been thinking of two things. He was writing in 1960, when the Cold War was at its coldest. Politically the fate of the whole world then was very much bound up with that of what was commonly called Russia. However, on the deeper level, he was more probably considering Russia’s classic claim to be the Third Rome. This concept has, unfortunately, been bastardized by extreme nationalists, and is often presented as if it were a reason for pride, or some kind of national superiority. In fact, it was a calling to a ministry within the Church, that Russia should serve as a beacon of Orthodoxy to the rest of the world, and thus her fate would be very much bound up with the fate of the whole world. If she would lead in showing the way of repentance, then there would be hope that other peoples would follow.

** This, of course, might refer to the end of the world, but also applies at the time of death of every Orthodox individual, something we shall all experience.

 

Source: The Shepherd: An Orthodox Christian Pastoral Magazine, August 2011, pp. 2-11.

St. Jerome: The Patron of Irascible, Morbidly Sensitive, Old Curmudgeons

Stuart Squires, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Theology at Brescia University, Owensboro, Kentucky

[The memory of Blessed Jerome of Stridon (c. 347—420 A.D.) is honored on June 15/28 in the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ.]

(…)

We know very little about Jerome’s early life as no one penned a Vita in his honor, nor did he write a Confessions-style autobiography. He was born in Stridon, but the exact location of this town is unknown. [1] His family’s considerable wealth allowed him to receive the best education in Rome. During his studies, Jerome reports spending his Sundays visiting the martyrs in the catacombs, which profoundly shaped his Catholic imagination. [2]

He bounced around the Roman world for a number of years after his schooling. During a stay in Antioch, he had a fever-induced vision of the Judge at his judgment. Jerome told the Judge that he was a Christian. “You lie!” The Judge snapped in reply: “you are a follower of Cicero, and not of Christ. Where your treasure is, so also will your heart be.” [3] Jerome had preferred refined pagan authors to the vulgar literary prose of the Bible, describing it as “rude and repellent.” [4] Despite Jerome’s passion for literature, he did not read any of the great Roman authors for 15 years after his vision because he was so shaken by the experience.

Jerome eventually returned to the Eternal City where his reputation began to grow as a translator and exegete. He found himself in the favor of Christian elites and had impressed Pope Damasus with his experiences in the east and his knowledge of Hebrew, which few Christians knew at the time. He also became a spiritual advisor to a number of rich, aristocratic women whom he encouraged to embrace the ascetic life by arguing that the good of marriage is limited to the future consecrated virgins who might come from the marital union. [5]

For the last several decades of his life, Jerome lived in Bethlehem where he established a monastery and installed himself as its head. This was a time of prolific literary output and he engaged in many of the great controversies of his day, such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, the role of marriage in the Christian life, and the anthropological fights of the Pelagian controversy, among others. Just a few years before his death, his monastery was burned to the ground by an unknown group of individuals. [6]

Jerome is best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin from the original Hebrew and Greek. Prior to Jerome’s Vulgate, Old Testament translations into Latin came from the Greek Septuagint translation. Jerome was criticized in his day for his turn to the original Hebrew, including Augustine who wrote to him with less than enthusiasm for the project, saying “I think that they [the translators of the Septuagint] should be given a preeminent authority in this task without controversy.” [7] Despite Augustine’s protests, the Vulgate became standard in the [Papal] Church in the medieval period, and was declared “authentic,” “approved,” and that “no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it” by the Council of Trent in 1546. [8]

He is also infamous for his verbal onslaughts of other eminent Christians of his time. In his On Illustrious Men, he curtly dismissed Ambrose, saying that “I withhold judgment of him because he is still alive, fearing either to praise or blame lest, in one event, I should be blamed for adulation, and, in the other, for speaking the truth.” [9] In his correspondence with Augustine, who had written to Jerome inquiring about his interpretation of Galatians and was the only person from whom Augustine ever sought advice. [10] Jerome icily responded to him that “there remains for you only that you love one who loves you and that you, a youth in the field of scripture, do not challenge an old man.” [11] Even after the death of Rufinus, his fiercest opponent and one-time friend, Jerome could not resist taking one last shot at him by calling him a “pig.” [12]

It is these types of comments that have led scholars to declare Jerome an “irascible, morbidly sensitive old curmudgeon,” [13] that he “resented adverse criticisms,” [14] that he was “sensitive and easily offended,” [15] that he had a “prickly character,” [16] and that he was “unbalanced.” [17] Although these criticisms may not be far from the mark, it is precisely this side of Jerome—the deeply flawed side—that has drawn me to him.

Jerome was not the stoic Athanasius who courageously shouldered his burdens when he was exiled from Alexandria five times by the Arians. When Jerome experienced his own sort of exile after the death of his patron Damasus, he venomously hissed at the “Senate of Pharisees” [18] for having driven him from his beloved Rome.

He was not the continent Augustine who never hinted at struggles with concupiscence after his famous moment in the garden that brought him the chastity for which he had been praying. In his mid-seventies, Jerome tells us that it was only when his body was broken by age that he was freed from his disordered desires. [19]

He was not the disciplined Antony of Egypt who spent 20 years alone pursuing a life of renunciation and who perfected the art of self-mastery. [20] He completely failed at his own desert experiment, even though he had dragged his sizeable library across the Mediterranean to keep him company (what a spectacle that must have been!). Years later, he said of his time there that “when I was living in the desert, in the vast solitude which gives to hermits a savage dwelling-place, parched by a burning sun, how often did I fancy myself among the pleasures of Rome. I used to sit alone because I was filled with bitterness.” [21]

I feel a kinship with Jerome when I think of these passages and as I reflect on my own desert experiences: both the physical desert experience I had in the Sahara for two years during my Peace Corps service, and, more importantly, the spiritual deserts of my life where, like him, I have been haunted by my failures and vices. Because of Jerome, I have come to share Fr. James Martin’s sentiment of his patron intercessors when he says that he can recognize himself, or at least parts of himself, in their lives. “This was the aspect of their lives that I most appreciated,” Martin says, “they had struggled with the same human foibles that everyone does.” [22]

Over the years, I have come to see Jerome not as the cranky, old man often panned by his critics, nor an other-worldly superhero whose piety and moral virtue seem to be much too lofty to emulate (as most saints seem to be to me). Rather, Jerome’s brokenness acts as a mirror and invites me to see that my own brokenness may direct me outward from my parched inner landscape toward God’s ebullient fecundity. For, it was in the recognition of his inordinate desire for the beauty of literature—prompted by his fever-induced vision—that led Jerome to receive exculpation after crying out to the Judge from deep within: “Lord, have mercy on me!” [23]

St. Jerome, pray for us.

***

[1] Most of the biographical information for this piece comes from J.N.D. Kelly’s fantastic work Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies.  Without a doubt, this is my favorite biography of any of the Fathers.

[2] Jerome, Comm. on Ezekiel, 40, 5-13.  See also Kelly, p. 22.

[3] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

[4] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

[5] Jerome, Ep. 22. 19-20.

[6] Josef Lössl, “Who Attacked the Monasteries of Jerome and Paula in 416 A.D.?,” 111.

[7] Augustine, Ep. 28.2

[8] Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures.” The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 18.

[9] Jerome, De Viris Illustriubs, 124.

[10] James, O’Donnell.  Augustine: A New Biography, 299.

[11] Jerome, Ep. 68.2.  See also my essay on the letter correspondence between Augustine and Jerome: “Jerome’s Animosity Against Augustine.”

[12] Jerome named him “Grunnius.”  Prologue to Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah, I.

[13] Stephen Canon, “The Jerome-Augustine Correspondence,” 39.

[14] Virginia Hellenga, “The Exchange of Letters between Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome,” 177.

[15] Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies, 147.

[16] Robert O’Connell, “When Saintly Fathers Feuded: The Correspondence between Augustine and Jerome,” 346-7.

[17] John Antony McGuckin, Gregory of Nazianzus: an Intellectual Biography, xxvii.

[18] Jerome, Translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, pref.

[19] Jerome, Commentary on Amos II, prol.  See Kelly, 295.

[20] Athanasius. Life of Antony, 14.

[21] Jerome, Ep. 22.7.

[22] James Martin, My Life with the Saints, 7.

[23] Jerome, Ep. 22.30.

 

Source: https://dailytheology.org/2015/09/30/st-jerome-the-patron-of-irascible-morbidly-sensitive-old-curmudgeons/