St. Philaret the New Confessor: On the Three-Fold Composition of the Life-Giving Cross and Our Earthly Cross

 

On the day when the Church glorifies the Life-Giving Cross, it is not superfluous for us, brothers and sisters, to remember how the Church, how the holy fathers and instructors in piety teach us to see the Life-giving and the carrying of one’s cross.

The great instructor in faith and piety among our nation, the holy hierarch Theophan the Re­cluse, used to say that the Cross of Christ is three-fold in composition; the cross which a Christian must bear in his life is three-fold in composition, just as the very wood of the Cross, according to the prophet’s prediction was comprised of the wood of three types of trees. Likewise in the mat­ter of the bearing of one’s cross we see three sides, as if three crosses which merge into one, as the holy hierarch Theophan said.

The first of these crosses is the cross of fallen mankind. The holy apostle Paul spoke of it briefly, precisely and powerfully, saying concerning him­self, “I don’t know what I do; the good which I wish to do I do not; the evil which I do not want, I do,” I become a prisoner of my sin — this is the cross of fallen man which no one can escape, of which again the holy hierarch Theophan had said, “Imagine a person who has a decomposing, stinking body tied tightly behind his shoulders; no matter where he runs or tries to wriggle out, he cannot unload this terrible stench of decom­position. It will invariably follow him, constantly pursue him.”

The second cross is that which people com­monly understand to be the earthly cross of life: this is the combination of all sorrows, all troubles, all difficulties of which our life is so rich. This is what people understand as the bearing of one’s cross — and this is right, but this is not all there is to it. One must remember as the holy fathers say: a person who is surrounded by sorrows, illnesses, troubles, but yet as soon as he turns himself over to God with all his heart with all his soul, saying, the Lord does everything to good and therefore no matter what He sends me on my life’s path, I believe that this is toward good, as soon as he says this in his heart (said the holy hierarch Theophan), ev­erything will change as if by the wave of a wand. Around him everything seems the same — all the same sorrows, the same difficulties, but he has changed and receives all of this in a completely dif­ferent way. This is how a cross-bearer must be, with firm conviction that the Heavenly Father will not give a stone instead of bread and if he sends some kind of a cross, difficulties and sorrows, that means these are beneficial for us.

I have already quoted many times the remark­able words of the elder Amvrossy of Optina who said, “What will be will be, but what will be is what God grants, and God does everything to­ward good.”

The third form of the cross. The holy hier­arch Theophan spoke about it humbly, with his characteristic profound humility. He said, “That cross is known only to those who are already on a high spiritual level, who have already overcome all temptations, who easily overcomes all tribulations. But the highest temptations — the temptations of pride, the temptation to elevate oneself over others, the temptation of thinking oneself better and higher than others because of one’s labors and feats — this cross is the heaviest, said the holy hi­erarch Theophan, and it is known only by those who have been perfected in all other things.

So we must then remember that a Christian must be a cross-bearer. As we had talked of this yesterday, the human life begins under the cross: he is baptized and a cross is put around his neck at the very moment when he enters the Church through the mystery of baptism. When he is bur­ied into the earth from whence he came, over the grave a cross is placed signifying the bearing of the cross by this faithful Christian of the Church.

Let us remember this, beloved, and let us remember about the power of the cross which strengthens a man and saves him in earthly dif­ficulties. Don’t forget, Christian soul, about this power and may the Lord, through the power of His cross, preserve you from every onslaught. Amen.

 

Source: Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XXXV, No. 1; Jan-Feb 2015, #205, pp. 24-25.

The Invincible Power of the Cross: A Great and Fearful Sign

 

The power of the Cross is a Mystery; however inexplicable it may be, it is nevertheless true and indisputable.

Nevertheless, Saint John Chrysostom refers to a custom of his time, according to which the sign of the Cross was affixed “to the emperor’s diadem, to the equipment of soldiers, and likewise to parts of the body—to the head, the breast, and the heart—as well as to the table with votive offerings and above beds.... If we must cast out demons, we make use of the Cross, just as we also do for the healing of the sick.”

Saint Benedict made the sign of the Cross over a cup containing poison, and the cup shattered as though it had been struck by a stone. Saint Julian made the sign of the Cross over a cup of poison that had been brought to him; afterward he drank it and suffered no harm. The Holy Great-Martyr Basilissa of Nicomedia protected herself with the sign of the Cross, stood amid the flames, and was preserved unharmed. The Holy Martyrs Audactus and Callisthenes made the sign of the Cross when the wild beasts that had been let loose rushed upon them, and immediately the beasts became as gentle as lambs.

From the time of the ancient ascetics down to the present day, the sign of the Cross has been the most powerful weapon against the temptations of the demons. The most fearsome devices of the devil vanish like smoke when a person makes the sign of the Cross.

Thus, it is a proof of the love of the Lord Jesus Christ for the human race that the Cross—once a sign of dishonor and shame—became, through His Crucifixion and Resurrection, a great and fearful sign, a treasury of every victorious power and might.

 

- Saint Nikolai Velimirovich, The Prologue of Ohrid [Greek edition], August 25, pp. 221–222, 1st ed., 2015, Stamoulis S.A. Publications. Shared by the G.O.C. Metropolis of Oropos and Phyle:

https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2026/09/27/20260927aDinamisStayrou.pdf

 

Blessed Theodoretos Mavros and the Old Calendar Church

Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, the G.O.C., and the “Newly Walled-Off”

Nikolaos Mannis | May 22, 2016

[Note: For those who are unaware, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros (+2007) was an Athonite zealot well-known – in both Greece and America, through articles in St. Seraphim of Platina’s The Orthodox Word – as an advocate of the “moderate” and prudential Orthodox ecclesiology of St. Chrysostomos the New. He was a graduate of the University of Athens School of Theology and a spiritual disciple of Elder Kallinikos of the Skete of Saint Anna. He also was publicly in agreement with the ecclesiology of the Holy Synod in Resistance, though he never was a member of that community. It is noteworthy that he was selected (as mentioned below) as a theologian by Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessalonika (along with Metropolitans Gabriel of the Cyclades, Akakios of Diavleia, and Petros of Astoria) to give an analysis of the contemporary state of the G.O.C. in 1985, prior to Metropolitan Chrysostomos’s union with and election as Archbishop of the G.O.C. – Blog Admin.]

 

 

On a blog of the “newly walled-off,” [1] we saw a post concerning the ever-memorable Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros and his relationship with the G.O.C. Specifically, the following was written:

“With great sorrow, we have for some time been witnessing the systematic efforts of certain people to identify the great struggler for Orthodoxy, Hieromonk Theodoretos Mavros, with the factions of the G.O.C. The time has therefore come to restore the truth concerning the confessor Elder. For this reason, we are publishing a Divine Liturgy which he himself celebrated as a priest, and at which no bishop was commemorated, whether of the New or the Old Calendar!” [2]

Although we have not identified any “systematic efforts” to identify the late Fr. Theodoretos with the G.O.C., for the sake of truth his relationship with them should nevertheless be presented, after first posing the question that ought above all to concern the esteemed administrator of the blog Apoteichisis Now:

“What was your personal relationship, dear sir, with the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos? Did you perhaps know him personally, or at least read his writings, so as to understand what his position regarding the G.O.C. actually was before crudely presenting him as an adherent of the theory of the two extremes?” [3]

* * *

a. Fr. Theodoretos, together with his ever-memorable Elder Kallinikos, broke communion with the Ecumenists in 1970 and aligned themselves with the company of the Zealot Fathers (those in communion with the Synod of the G.O.C. under Archbishop Auxentios). In 1972, he wrote in a work defending the Old Calendarists:

First of all, I must state that I have never been in communion with the Matthewite faction; I am in communion only with the Chrysostomite faction (now under Archbishop Auxentios). Nevertheless, the latter faction happens to maintain a reserved attitude toward me and those who share my views. The reason? Nothing other than the disagreement that has existed for years between us and the Zealots, especially the Athonite Fathers, concerning the time and manner of approaching the most divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Regarding this disagreement, you may learn every detail from our recently published work, Eucharistic Participation on the Holy Mountain. Consequently, I decided to appeal to the Russian Church Abroad, which is in communion with the Chrysostomite faction, in order to avert a rupture between the Zealot Fathers here and the hierarchy of Archbishop Auxentios.

Reply to the newspaper, Ecclesiastical Struggle – 1972.

And in another work of his from the same year:

As is well known, the whole of the Holy Mountain is subject to (= belongs to) the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and indeed is directly dependent upon it, having as its proper bishop the Ecumenical Patriarch for the time being. In the event that the Ecumenical Throne should proclaim some false doctrine or heresy—as is happening today—every Athonite who wishes to preserve the Orthodox Traditions is obliged to sever all ecclesiastical communion with it, notwithstanding his now merely formal dependence upon it, and henceforth to be in communion only with any Orthodox Church that, for the aforementioned reason, is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In our view, at the present time, such Orthodox Churches are the Russian Church Abroad (under Metropolitan Philaret), the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (under Chrysostomos), and the martyric Church of the Catacombs in Russia.

Second Open Letter to Protopresbyter Eugenios Tombros

Thus, the Synod of the G.O.C. (the successors of Metropolitan Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina), with which he had been in communion, was an Orthodox Church, and not a “Schism,” as the “newly walled-off” would have it.

b. In 1975, together with his Elder, Fr. Kallinikos, and his spiritual father, Fr. Maximos Agiovasileiatis, he broke communion with the episcopal leadership of the G.O.C. for specific reasons: (a) communion with the Russian Church Abroad, which at that time was still in communion with certain official Churches; (b) the Matthewite error concerning the invalidity of the Mysteries; and (c) bishops and hieromonks keeping syneisaktoi [women living with them]. He did not, however, break communion with those clergy or laypeople of the G.O.C. who were of like mind with them on the issues raised by these objections:

FOR THESE REASONS

Just as, years ago, we duly acted toward the ecclesiastical authority presiding over us here, to which we canonically belong, on account both of the calendar innovation and of the contemporary false teaching of Ecumenism, so now also we consider it incumbent upon us to declare hereby that:

We sever all ecclesiastical communion with the hierarchy of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios—which, until today, we had regarded as canonical—because of its deviation and fall from canonical order and from the purpose of the sacred struggle, as sufficiently explained in sections 1 and 2 above. Henceforth, we shall be in communion only with those among its clergy and laity who, rejecting the aforementioned uncanonical practices, unite themselves with the positions set forth in the present Declaration.

We believe, moreover, that the Builder of the Church, Who in the beginning blessed the sacred struggle by various signs, both visible and invisible, will not ultimately permit it, today, when heresy brazenly raises its head, to be brought to an inglorious end because of its unworthy leaders; rather, He will soon raise up men of aspiration and discernment, capable and worthy of shepherding the elect remnant of the new Israel of Grace. These may come from the ranks of either the New Calendar or the Old Calendar, but with one desire and one consuming passion: the preservation of that which is free from innovation and of the genuineness of the Orthodox proclamation, far removed from every adulteration or exploitation of things sacred and holy.

Finally, greeting in the Lord everyone who embraces this present Declaration of ours, we pray that the Lord our God may soon raise up our sacred struggle from its fall, once again to the glory of His Name and of the Church, “which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Holy Mountain, March 25, 1975

Hieromonk Maximos
Monk Kallinikos
Monk Theodoretos
Monk Vasileios

Orthodox Word — May 1975

c. In 1985, following the deposition of Auxentios and before the election of the new Archbishop, Chrysostomos Kiousis—with whom he maintained relations throughout their lives—he was invited, together with other theologians, by the four independent hierarchs of the G.O.C. (Akakios of Diavleia, Chrysostomos Kiousis of Thessaloniki, Gabriel of the Cyclades, and Petros of Astoria), to give his opinion concerning the further course of the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C.:

ADVISORY OPINION

We, the undersigned theologians, having been called upon by Their Eminences the Hierarchs Akakios, Chrysostomos, Gabriel, and Petros to express our opinion as to what position the aforementioned Hierarchs should adopt with regard to the present crisis of the Sacred Struggle, respectfully submit the following:

Archimandrite Chrysostomos Spyrou [A walled-off member of the Official Church, interestingly enough – Blog Admin.]
Protopresbyter Chrysostomos Oikonomakos
Monk Theodoretos [Mavros]
Stavros Karamitsos
Vasileios Premos
Avraam Tsimbrikas

d. In 1990, he wrote the following in his book The Antidote (I wonder whether his supposed “successors” have read it):

(Whether Fr. Nikodemos will place himself under the G.O.C. or not is purely a matter of personal choice, in view of our “ecumenical” times, given that the G.O.C. do not constitute a parasynagogue, as some maintain, but rather the continuation of the uninnovated Church of Greece.)

For, as one pious priest of the Russian Church Abroad also writes: “The purpose of the Most Holy Church of the G.O.C., Fr. Nestor, is not the observance of STRICTNESS, but the SALVATION OF MEN AND THEIR SANCTIFICATION.” The Most Holy Church of the G.O.C. recognizes no other purpose.

Your attempt to tarnish the righteous struggle of the G.O.C. on account of certain deviations that have occurred and continue to occur within this noble resistance places you beside the point and outside the substance of the matter. We are all aware of the weaknesses and passions of the leaders and people of the G.O.C.... This, however, by no means signifies that the New Calendarists are characterized by strength and dispassion.

Let us not, then, confuse ideas with those who represent them!

In any case, it would be highly desirable for the various “irregularities,” “human teachings,” and “administrative disorders” soon to disappear completely from among the G.O.C. The times demand it, the people demand it, and so does the “symbol” of their struggle. Only in this way will every critical tongue and malicious disposition be silenced which, relying on the foregoing, seeks to diminish the overall theoretical position of the Old Calendarist movement.

From the book, The Antidote (1990)

e. But the Church of the G.O.C. also regarded him as one of its own clergymen, and not as an enemy, as is evident from an article published in what was then (1998) its official periodical:

Hieromonk Theodoretos the Athonite, The Antichrist and His Mark.
Published by the Monastery of the Annunciation, Paros, 98 pp., Athens 1998.

The author, Fr. Theodoretos, an accomplished theologian, is one of the most prolific clergymen of our Church and has, over the years, dealt with many important and pressing issues.

In this book, he refutes the erroneous views concerning the Antichrist held by the New Calendarist bishop Meletios Kalamaras, well known for his ecumenist positions in connection with the Chambésy Agreement with the Monophysites, as well as the corresponding views of Protopresbyter Vasileios Voloudakis.

Fr. Theodoretos’s work is indeed a very serious one, and is the fruit not only of the author’s well-known piety, but also of his extensive learning and scholarly training. We warmly recommend the reading of this book, as well as its further dissemination for the benefit of souls. We congratulate Fr. Theodoretos and pray that he may give us other works of such importance.

Church of the G.O.C. of Greece (September–October 1998)

f. In 2003, he published in Orthodoxos Typos the following, indeed very instructive, reply to a commemorator, in which the differing understanding of the G.O.C. held by the ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos and by the “newly walled-off” is clearly evident:

Dialogue with Zealots

Dear Editor,

Greetings in the Lord,

My dear Fr. Maximos, commenting on my article concerning the calendar innovation, concludes that “Fr. Theodoretos speaks quite well against the New Calendar....” He does, however, have a few questions, which I answer here.

1. He is perplexed by the many factions of the Old Calendarists and asks in which one he will be saved. The answer is simple. It is a thousand times preferable for him to follow one of the existing Synods than to commemorate a heretical patriarch. The difference is an immense abyss! And let him not forget that, as I have written many times in the past, most of the divisions were created and perpetuated by the New Calendarists, in order to bring this splendid movement into disrepute—a movement far superior in significance and importance to that of the Kollyvades.

Since behind Fr. Maximos’s above question lies the position, “We of the New Calendar, by virtue of our unity, demonstrate the correct position regarding the calendar question,” we inform him that unity has importance and significance only when it serves the truth; otherwise, it degenerates into Papism—that is, unity in falsehood and manifold wrongdoing.

2. He then adds: “The calendar is not a dogmatic issue, and for that reason Christians should not be divided over it.”

By this statement he shows that he did not pay due attention to my article, which proves precisely this point: namely, that even for reasons that are not dogmatic, cessation of commemoration is required.

With regard to the Old Calendar Synods, which he criticizes, he should know that their ordinations are dogmatically valid and that they are fully covered by the Sacred Canons, since they do not maintain communion with the New Calendarists, who since 1924 have been following the heresy of Ecumenism. In proof of the above, I refer him to the recent and comprehensive articles by Mr. D. Chatzinikolaou (St. Agathangelos, April 2003, pp. 11–19) and Fr. N. Dimaras (The Holy Kollyvades, April 2003). Let him study them carefully, and he will see to what degree of heresy Mr. Bartholomew and his followers have led him; and let him not stop at the calendar innovation, which constitutes the beginning of the ecumenist false teaching and scourge.

3. For the New Calendarists simply to return to the Old Calendar would not remedy the situation, just as the lifting of the anathema of 1054 by itself does not remedy the Pope’s position.... Since 1924, so many heresies have followed that one would now need a computer just to keep track of them....

4. His final conclusion, that the G.O.C. must come to terms with one another, “otherwise they remain outside the Church,” is ecclesiologically unacceptable; for if each Synod does not constitute a saving Church, neither will they create such a Church by uniting with one another.

Finally, with regard to the “contemporary miracle-working saints” whom he mentions, I have dealt with this subject almost exhaustively in my book When the Guardians Betray, pp. 63–68, in response to a related question by the theologian Mr. N. Sotiropoulos.

Thank you for the hospitality.

I remain, with love in the Lord,

Hieromonk Theodoretos
Holy Monastery of the Annunciation
84400 Paros – P.O. Box 27

Orthodoxos Typos, June 27, 2003

g. The fact that Fr. Theodoretos did not commemorate aloud any particular bishop of the G.O.C. (but commemorated “EVERY ORTHODOX BISHOP”) has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason invoked by the “newly walled-off” for doing the same—namely, their appeal to Canon 16 of the First-Second Council of Constantinople, which the late Fr. Theodoretos never cited in order to attack the G.O.C. [4]

On the contrary, this unifying practice that he followed with regard to commemoration arose both from the division of the G.O.C. (the successors of Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina) into more than one Synod—a fact over which he grieved, since, unlike the self-styled “newly walled-off,” he was not indifferent to the Sacred Struggle—and from the fact that, at that time, none of these Synods was beyond reproach, whether with respect to ecclesiological views or to canonical order, so that he could attach himself exclusively to one of them while rejecting communion with members of the others.

The ever-memorable Fr. Theodoretos, whom we had the blessing to know personally and from whom we benefited greatly, never distanced himself from the Sacred Struggle of the G.O.C., nor was he ashamed to bear the marks of the reproach directed against them. Let the “newly walled-off” keep this firmly in mind. They have the right to believe whatever they wish, but not to present as sharing their views that unforgettable struggler for Orthodoxy, with whose spirit, unfortunately, they have no connection whatsoever, as has been clearly demonstrated by the evidence presented above.

 

NOTES

1. By “newly walled-off” (to distinguish them from those who walled themselves off earlier), we mean a significant group of faithful who walled themselves off from the official Church following the Pope’s visits to Athens (2001) and the Phanar (2006). They are divided into two groups:

a. the New Calendarist “newly walled-off,” under Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas; and

b. the Old Calendarist “newly walled-off,” who express their views online through the blog Apoteichisis Now.

2. http://apotixisis.blogspot.gr/2016/05/blog-post_59.html

3. According to this “theory of the two extremes,” which was taught by Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, the Ecumenists and the G.O.C. constitute two extremes. Fr. Theodoretos opposed this theory in his books Dialogues of the Desert Concerning Ecumenism and The Antidote.

4. Indeed, if the “newly walled-off” wish to be consistent with their “ecclesiology,” they should not commemorate “every episcopate of the Orthodox” (since they recognize no bishop as Orthodox), but rather “For our Archbishop,” omitting the name.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_22.html

Metropolitan Petros: To the Priest in a Foreign Land

 

A priest upon a foreign shore
hides in his heart a wound he bore...
He is not only Christ’s devoted
servant and minister.
In the open-hearted light of dawn,
he is the Apostle of that land...
a star pursued by the rainstorm
of the night.

As a priest in foreign lands,
he lives with longing, without solace,
a laborer in the vineyard and in
the service of Christ;
he scatters light and joy,
but his... broken wings
cannot fly as far as the distant
motherland...

And so, no one speaks of it anymore;
yet sometimes there falls
into the chalice the tear
of the homesick priest...
Upon the bed of faith,
the lambs of longing are sacrificed;
and the soul dozes lightly
at the edge of expectation.

 

Greek source: Ἀπό τό περιβόλι τῆς Παναγίας τήν Μυροβόλο Χίο καί τήν Ἀμερική [Sacred Memories from the Garden of the Theotokos, Fragrant Chios, and America], Metropolitan Petros of Astoria, Athens, 1990, pp. 98-99.

Concerning Canonical Order, Ecclesiastical Confession, and the Responsibility of Pastors

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | September 26, 2026

 

 

Every clergyman certainly has the right to formulate personal theological or canonical views and to express reservations or disagreements. There is, however, an institutional reality that personal assessments cannot set aside: decisions already taken by the competent ecclesiastical bodies remain binding elements of ecclesiastical order until revoked, corrected, or replaced by a new ecclesiastical decision. However much a clergyman may believe that expressing his personal disagreement constitutes “confessing the Faith,” he should remember the distinction between inward conviction and actual ecclesiastical action. Confession is not exhausted by stating a theological position one personally considers correct. It also entails the responsibility to struggle within the Church to restore what one believes has deviated, accepting, when necessary, the cost of one’s stance.

The Fathers of the Church did not treat major ecclesiastical problems as personal disagreements that could simply be placed on record and then set aside. When they perceived that the faith or the canonical order of the Church was at stake, they were not content merely to state their opposition privately, nor did they consider that their personal disagreement, by itself, marked the end of their responsibility. They struggled, appealed to the competent ecclesiastical authorities, requested that the matter be examined, presented their testimony, and insisted upon the need to correct the problem. For this reason, the severing of ecclesiastical communion was not, for them, the first or easy solution. It came as a last resort, when it had become clear that there was no longer any possibility of healing the situation through the ordinary ecclesiastical means, or when persistence in a particular error had assumed such proportions that the continuation of communion itself created a serious ecclesiological problem.

There is an essential difference between saying, “I disagree,” which expresses a personal position, and saying, “I am striving to have the matter with which I disagree corrected,” which denotes ecclesiastical responsibility, personal cost, and concrete action. Greater still is the difference between declaring that one is “confessing the Faith” and actually assuming all the consequences of that confession when it comes into conflict with an already established ecclesiastical situation. True confession, therefore, cannot be confined to words that soothe the personal conscience while, in practice, everything remains exactly as it was before. If someone believes that an ecclesiastical decision or practice is mistaken, the matter does not end simply with his stating that he personally disagrees with it. The real question is what he does in order to seek the restoration of order, what ecclesiastical means he employs, and, above all, how far he is prepared to go when he sees that efforts at correction are bearing no fruit. The history of the Church presents to us as a model neither unconditional submission nor facile withdrawal. It presents the difficult path of struggle: first, the effort to heal the problem within the Church and, when this becomes impossible and the requisite ecclesiological conditions are present, the acceptance of the necessary consequences of confession as well. Confession without a struggle for the restoration of truth risks remaining merely a personal disagreement, while confession that is never accompanied by action and sacrifice may ultimately become a convenient form of inward dissent without any real ecclesiastical consequence.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_26.html

Aids to Success in Gaining the Habit of Prayer

From Unseen Warfare, edited by Saints Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and Theophan the Recluse

 

 

If you desire to seek success in the work of prayer, adapt all else to this, lest you destroy with one hand what the other builds.

(1) Keep your body strictly disciplined in food, sleep, and rest. Do not give it anything simply because it wants it, as the Apostle says: Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof (Rom. 13:14). Give no respite to the flesh.

(2) Reduce your external contacts to the most inevitable. This is for the period of your training in prayer. Later, when prayer begins to act in you, it will itself indicate what can be added without harming it. Especially guard your senses, above all eyes and ears; also tie your tongue. Without this guarding, you will not make a single step forward in the work of prayer. As a candle cannot burn in wind and rain, so the flame of prayer cannot be lit in a flood of impressions from outside.

(3) Use all the time left from prayer in reading and meditation. For reading, choose mainly such books as deal with prayer and generally with inner spiritual life. Meditate exclusively on God and on divine matters and above all on the incarnate dispensation for our salvation, chiefly on the Passion and death of our Lord and Savior. Doing this, you will always be immersed in the sea of divine light. In addition, go to church, whenever you have the possibility to do so. Merely to be present in church will envelop you in a cloud of prayer. What then will you receive if you stand throughout the service in a true state of prayer?

(4) Know that it is impossible to make progress in prayer without general progress in Christian life. It is absolutely necessary that no sin, not purified by repentance, should burden the soul. If during your work on prayer you do something that troubles your conscience, hasten to purify yourself by repentance, so that you can look up to the Lord boldly. Keep humble contrition constantly in your heart. Moreover, neglect no opportunity for doing some good or for manifesting some good disposition, above all humility, obedience, and cutting off your own will. It goes without saying that zeal for salvation must always be burning and fill the whole soul; in all things, great or small, it must be the main impelling force, together with fear of God and unshaken trust.

(5) Thus established, labor in the work of prayer, praying now with set prayers, now with your own, now with short appeals to the Lord, now with the Jesus Prayer, omitting nothing that can be of help in this work. And you will receive what you seek. I remind you of the words of St. Macarius of Egypt: God will see your work of prayer and that you sincerely wish to succeed in prayer and He will give you prayer. For you must know that, although prayer done and achieved with one’s own efforts is pleasing to God, yet that real prayer, which comes to dwell in the heart and becomes constant, is the gift of God, an act of divine grace. Therefore, in your prayer for all other things, do not forget to pray, too, about prayer.

(6) I shall repeat to you what I heard from a God-loving man. ‘I was not leading a very good life,’ he said, ‘but God had mercy on me and sent me the spirit of repentance. This was during preparation for Communion. I was trying hard to plant in myself a firm resolve to mend my ways, and especially before Confession I prayed for a long time before the icon of the Mother of God, begging her to obtain this resolve for me. Then, during Confession, I candidly related everything. My spiritual father said nothing; but while he was reciting the prayer of absolution over my head, a small sweet flame was lit in my heart. The sensation was like swallowing some delectable food. This little flame remained in the heart, and I felt as though someone was gripping my heart. From that time, I prayed continuously, and kept my attention there, where this sensation was, my only care being to preserve it. And God helped me. I had not heard about the Jesus Prayer, and when I did hear of it, I saw that what was within me was precisely that which is sought by this prayer.’ I mention this story to make you understand what the work of prayer seeks and what are the signs that it is received.

(7) I shall also add the following words of St. Gregory of Sinai:

Grace abides in us from the time of our holy Baptism; but, through our inattention, vanity, and the wrong life we lead it is stifled, or buried. When a man resolves to lead a righteous life and is zealous for salvation, the fruit of his whole labor is, therefore, the restoration in force of this gift of grace. It comes to pass in a two-fold manner: first, this gift becomes revealed through many labors in following the commandments; in so far as a man succeeds in following the commandments, this gift becomes more radiant and brilliant. Secondly, it manifests and reveals itself through constant invocation of the Lord Jesus in prayer. The first method is powerful, but the second is more so, so that even the first method gains power through it. Thus, if we sincerely wish to open the seed of grace concealed in us, let us hasten to train ourselves in this latter exercise of the heart, and let us have only this work of prayer in our heart, without forms, without images, till it warms our heart and makes it burn with ineffable love of the Lord.

 

Source: Daily Prayers of the Orthodox Church, with Short Rules of Prayer and Teachings from Holy Tradition According to the Use of the Holy and God-Protected Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sitka and All Alaska Mother Church of the New World, Spruce Island Books, 2026, pp. 187-191.

“Forward with Holy Determination”

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia | September 25, 2026

 

 

Today, by the grace of the Thrice-Holy God, we have entered upon yet another new year, according to the ecclesiastical order. A new beginning opens before us. New opportunities call us to leave behind the oldness of the passions and of sin and to be renewed according to God, making the “pursuit” of holiness our foremost concern.

At this initial stage, it is worthwhile to take stock of the year that has passed. What went well? What could have gone better? What mistakes did we make? Did we learn anything from them? Did we make proper use of the days, the hours, the moments? Finally, did we remain faithful and in accordance with the will of God?

Closely connected with this last question is the second reading from Vespers for today’s feast, taken from the Book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. In just a few lines, there is set forth God’s promise and warning concerning what the “sons of Israel,” and by extension the “new Israel,” that is, the members of the Church, are to receive according to their attitude toward the divine will.

More specifically, if we keep the divine commandments, the greatest of which are love for God and love for our neighbor, the climate will be favorable, the earth will yield its fruits abundantly, our food will be plentiful, security will prevail, and such will be our strength that five men will defeat a hundred, while a hundred will pursue tens of thousands. Our offspring will multiply, and we shall live at rest beneath the shelter of the Most High. If, on the contrary, we disobey His commands, the results are to be expected in inverse proportion.

Of course, even these results, even this painful consequence of trials—which is due to our own fault—does not have, on God’s part, a punitive character, but a corrective and pedagogical one, with the sole purpose of bringing us back to the straight path of His commandments and, ultimately, to our salvation.

For this reason, when faced with the various problems that afflict our age, let us not rush to complain, nor ease our conscience by blaming others. On the contrary, let us assume our responsibilities, and leave the rest to God. Saint Seraphim of Sarov once said: “Acquire inner peace, and thousands around you will find salvation.” Through this renowned saying, he conveys to us the experience that he himself lived: that if even one of us is transformed, if one person becomes filled with the Light of Christ, then, acting as a spiritual luminary, he will illumine society and dispel the darkness.

The Apostles were but a small group of men. And yet, they changed the course of world history. Father Kosmas was but a humble little priest. And yet, he succeeded in raising up an entire nation. How did they accomplish this? Through faith in God, but also through something more: through blessed determination for what is good.

My prayer is that, during the course of the new year, we may unbolt the door of our soul and little by little—or why not, quickly?—open it, so that the Light of the noetic Sun of Righteousness may dwell within us. And if something stands in our way, let us too show that holy determination.

 

Greek source:

https://ecclesiagoc.gr/2026/09/25/%e1%bc%90%ce%bc%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-%ce%bc%e1%bd%b2-%e1%bc%85%ce%b3%ce%b9%ce%bf-%cf%80%ce%b5%e1%bf%96%cf%83%ce%bc%ce%b1-%cf%84%ce%bf%e1%bf%a6-%cf%83%ce%b5%ce%b2-%e1%bc%80%cf%84/

Steadfastness in the Experiences of the Saints

Protopresbyter Dionysios Tatsis | September 25, 2026 | Orthodoxos Typos

 

 

Many Christians possess knowledge about Christ the Savior, about His commandments, about the obligations that arise from them, about the way of spiritual life, about the lives of the saints, and so forth. They are satisfied and take joy in what they know. Yet this knowledge is put to the test by the influence of the passions that lie hidden within them. It is unstable knowledge, because it has never been put into practice, and the necessary vigilance is lacking.

Saint Justin Popović likens knowledge to a small island in the ocean of human existence, which is often flooded by raging waves. In other words, the passions affect a person’s knowledge and reveal it to be shallow, without deep roots. “For example, the passion of anger momentarily clouds this small measure of knowledge within a person; the same is true of the passion of avarice, sensual pleasure, envy, gluttony, and so forth.”

The passions are contrary to the commandments of God, which people know only superficially, and for this reason they are easily influenced by them. The saints, by contrast—who should be the shining example for Christians engaged in the spiritual struggle—had deepened their knowledge of the mystery of salvation through Christ, had acquired spiritual roots, and were therefore able to combat their passions with ease. They remained in continual watchfulness of soul and heart and, for this reason, never relaxed in their struggle, Saint Justin points out. He also exhorted Christians to study the Lives of the Saints, because they are “the dogmas translated into life.” And when asked what dogmas are, he would answer that “they are the Lives of the Saints put into practice.”

This phenomenon that we are discussing is also encountered among clergy and well-known theologians. They may be brilliant in theory and theological analysis, yet the little candles of their wisdom are extinguished by the fierce wind of their passions. In their spoken and written words, they are excellent, but in practice they fall so far short that they scandalize those who know them and have dealings with them. Saint Justin feared this kind of fall, and for this reason he would ask his spiritual children, as well as those who followed what he said and wrote, to pray for him that he might never sin in his mind. He would say, in a confessional spirit: “I always strive to verify my thoughts by the writings of the Holy Fathers. I therefore ask you as well to verify whatever you receive from me by this steadfast adherence to the Holy Fathers, lest my soul should sin in thought, lest my mind become attached to some sin and thereby sin against the sacred mystery of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, do not cease praying for me, that my mind may always be a joyful servant of holy humility and of sacred prayer, unceasing and tireless.”

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b1%ce%b8%ce%b5%cf%81%cf%8c%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-%ce%b5%e1%bc%b0%cf%82-%cf%84%ce%ac%cf%82-%e1%bc%90%ce%bc%cf%80%ce%b5%ce%b9%cf%81%ce%af%ce%b1%cf%82-%cf%84%e1%bf%b6%ce%bd-%e1%bc%81%ce%b3/

A Proclamation on Ecclesiology (2006)

Holy Metropolis of the G.O.C. of America

 

 

1) We believe and confess that the Orthodox Church is neither of man nor a product of the human mind, but is by the revelation of Jesus Christ. This revelation was preached by the Divine Apostles, confirmed by the Holy Ecumenical Councils, passed down by the wisest and greatest teachers in the world, and sealed by the blood of the martyrs.

2) The purpose of the Church of the G.O.C. of America is the purification, enlightenment, and divinization in Christ of the entire population of the American continent. To this end she preserves unsullied the Apostolic faith and Tradition as the sole means of and sole route to perfection. This faith was revealed and entrusted to the Church by God the Word Himself; therefore, the Church neither adds nor subtracts anything from what she has received from Christ through the Prophets, Apostles, and Holy Fathers. For this reason, she remains steadfast in the decisions of the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox councils. We accept and revere all the Holy and Ecumenical Councils, as well as the decisions of the Quinisext Council of 692, the First-Second Council of 861 held in Constantinople under St. Photius the Great, and the Tome of the Synod of Blachernae held in 1351 under St. Gregory Palamas and the holy Patriarch Kallistos I, as having ecumenical and catholic force. We also love and obey the decisions of the Holy Pan-Orthodox Councils of 1583, 1587, and 1593, which condemned the so-called "Frankish" or "New" Calendar (instituted by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) as a departure from the catholicity of the Church. In respect to this we accept and recognize as an ecumenical and catholic monument of the Orthodox Faith the Patriarchal Tome of 1756 regarding the Baptism of heterodox, as well as the Synodal Sigillion of 1848 pronounced by the Patriarchs of the East. The mission the Church of the G.O.C. of America is identical to the mission of Christ's whole Church: i.e., by means of divine grace (in which man can participate or acquire through the Mysteries of the Church), a correct confession of the Orthodox faith, and the struggle to keep God's commandments, she seeks to save all her members and bring them to a state of spiritual perfection, which is sanctification and deifying union with God Himself.

3) The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As such, she cannot recognize any heterodox church or religious community outside her as a parallel expression of the Catholic faith or continuation of the Church of Christ and the Apostles. The Orthodox Church confesses one Baptism and one Eucharist, just as Christ is one hypostasis, one person. The Orthodox Church pursues her sanctifying mission of salvation through Orthodox faith, acts, and divine vision, but particularly through the highest communion between God and man in the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist. There can be no division or sundering of the catholicity of the Church such as the heresy of Ecumenism preaches, falsifying and adulterating the true faith and tradition. There can only be a falling away from the catholicity, for that which is whole is not subject to division. For this reason, Ecumenism is the greatest temptation today for the Orthodox, who are called to emulate Christ in the desert and reproach Satan, resisting the temptations of the "favors," the "glory" and the "kingdoms of the world" which it promises in exchange for the soul.

4) Thus, the Church of the G.O.C. of America continues the Holy Tradition of the truth of the Orthodox Catholic Church, introducing no innovation, and revering the holy struggle of our predecessors from 1924 to the present. She prays that the portion of Christian brothers who follow the New Calendar innovation will return to the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils, so that full communion will be restored among all Orthodox Christians within the bounds of the sacred canons and the common Orthodox confession. The Calendar change was instituted unilaterally in 1924, at first in the Greek Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and then slowly spread like a disease to other local Churches (but never Catholically), thus opposing the catholicity of the Church both in its method of implementation and in its goal. The unilateral introduction of the New Calendar was an uncanonical and uncatholic act of local hierarchs which violated the external manifestation of the catholicity and ecumenicity of the world-wide Orthodox Church. The Church's unity has always been expressed through the use of a single calendar, which was established at the First Ecumenical Council for that very purpose. Its pervasiveness in the liturgical life and the Eucharistic experience of the Church has steadily increased from that time forward, both through Synodal acts and through unwritten tradition. The changing of the calendar was an attempt to harmonize the external signs of the Church's unity with the heterodox churches of Western Europe, at the expense of unity within the Orthodox Church Herself. The calendar change was the result of a secularized mindset which suffered from an inferiority complex toward the West; and it was only forced through during a time of national disaster. The Church calendar is the external manifestation of the unity of the Orthodox Churches, and to dispose of it in favor of unity with heretical churches is to violate the catholicity of the Church.

5) The Church of the G.O.C. of America has no relations or communion with the local Churches which have accepted the calendar innovation (i.e., adopted the Gregorian calendar of the Vatican), nor with the Churches which have any communion with the pan-heresy of Ecumenism and which belong to the World Council of Churches. She will never have communion with these Churches as long as they remain in their cacodox state. The contemporary movement of Ecumenism is the result of thinking that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ has lost her catholicity due to theological and political quarrels. It seeks to reconstitute the Church's lost catholicity by uniting the split parts and restoring Eucharistic communion with heterodox groups without first reaching a common theological stance. Participation in the World Council of Churches (an organization which embodies the feeling of lost catholicity and seeks to restore it) on the part of local Orthodox Churches is a radical denial that the Orthodox Church is the totality of the Church of Christ. It presupposes the denial of the existence of authentic ecclesiastical catholicity today and it recognizes the need to reconstitute a "truly authentic" catholicity.

6) When our Lord Jesus Christ asked his apostles and disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" the Apostle Peter confessed, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And straightway Christ answered, saying, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail over it" (Matt. 16:15-19). The rock upon which Christ built His Church is precisely that confession of the truth which the heavenly Father revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, His Son and Word. This confession binds the Church together and makes her one body, receptive of divine illumination, able and sufficient to assemble at the Eucharistic table.

7) The Greek Orthodox Church of the Patristic Calendar, whose jurisdiction extends throughout the United States of America and beyond, recognizes that the greatest danger to the Church and her members is secularization; which, in the mind of the Church, is a heresy threatening her very foundations. Especially today it is capable of destroying our unity and particularly our Orthodox lifestyle. Secularization is any action which pushes aside the workings of the Holy Spirit, seeking to promote lust for worldly power in the Church; whether in pastoral work, missionary work, or governmental duties of all her faithful members, both clergy and laity. Secularization is the greatest danger for the human dimension of the Church, since it slowly eats away at the Orthodox lifestyle and mindset.

8) The Orthodox Church of the G.O.C. of America imparts the mysteries to her faithful members in accordance with age-old Orthodox tradition, inasmuch as she bears responsibility for their souls. The Orthodox Church always recognizes as valid, canonical, and efficacious only those mysteries performed within herself. Those outside the Orthodox Church (heterodox and non-Christians) who wish to become members of the Church, are accepted after rejecting every heresy (especially the one to which they belonged) and receiving baptism and chrismation, unless the Holy Canons permit some economy.

9) In addition to her pastoral work, the Church of the G.O.C. of America preaches the Holy Gospel of Christ and seeks to evangelize or re-evangelize into the traditional Orthodox faith every human being, regardless of race, color, or religion. The Church has therefore a missionary nature, and wishes to pass on the light of Orthodoxy to those who are outside her and bring everyone into her bosom, without engaging in proselytism. She preaches to all the Word of the Gospel and calls upon all who desire salvation to join her, for the Church ever since Apostolic times has been multicultural and multiracial. Our Church continues in this tradition, the tradition of Romanity, for which there is "neither Jew, nor Greek, slave, nor free" (Gal. 3:28).

 

Source: Romiosini: Diocesan Bulletin of the Holy Metropolis G.O.C. of North and South America, (Series II) Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 56-59. Typos corrected.

The Cave of “Rejoicing”

Greek source: The Invisible Hermits of Athos, by Monk Vlasios the Athonite, Tertios Publications, pp. 127–128.

 

 

Opposite the cell of Saint Neilos, to the north, lies the solitary kellion of Saint Euthymios.

Today, five or six monks live in asceticism in this cell. Their Elder is the very aged and highly experienced ascetic, Father Joachim.

He himself related the following story to me:

“My Elder, the spiritual father, Father Nektarios, had a fellow brother-monk named Gerasimos.

One day, then, the monk Gerasimos took a basket and went out—after it had rained—to gather snails.

About an hour’s walk from our cell, toward ‘Krya Nera’ [‘Cold Waters’], lies the solitary cell of Saint Artemios.

Father Gerasimos was making his way up this path, gathering snails as he went.

About midway between these two cells—that is, half an hour above our cell—he turned off to the left of the path into rough and rocky terrain, searching for snails.

At one point he found himself before a cave. As soon as he caught sight of the cave, he perceived a fragrance and felt a sense of rejoicing in his soul.

For the entire time that he was looking at and examining the cave, he felt this rejoicing in his soul.

Little by little, without realizing it, he moved away from the cave as he continued searching for snails.

Once he had found enough, he returned, descending toward our cell.

When he met his fellow brother-monk, Father Nektarios, he told him about the cave he had seen and about the rejoicing he had felt in his soul.

Father Nektarios immediately asked him to go with him to the place where he had seen the cave.

When they had gone up and made their way well along the path, and had reached approximately that place, no matter how much they searched and no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to locate the cave that Monk Gerasimos had seen.”

 

Online: https://armenisths.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_2470.html

Elder Joseph the Cave-Dweller: The Three Enemies

For three enemies wage war against the human race: the demons, our own nature, and habit. Apart from these, there is no other warfare.

So then, if you remove the demon who torments all mankind, we shall all be good. It is to him that you should attribute the injustice; him you should hate, him you should condemn, and him you should regard as your enemy to the end.

The other enemy, as we have said, is nature, which, as soon as a person comes to know the world, resists the law of the spirit and demands everything that leads to the destruction of the soul. Here, then, is another enemy, worthy of hatred until the end of your days. This enemy you must judge and condemn.

In addition, we also have a third enemy—habit—which, because we become accustomed to committing every kind of evil, becomes an ingrained disposition in us, takes the place of a second nature, and establishes sin as a law. And this likewise requires an equal struggle, so that we may receive divine transformation and deliverance. Here, then, is the third enemy, worthy of perfect hatred.

If you want your neighbor to be good in every respect, as you would like him to be, separate these three enemies from him by the grace you possess. This is what justice is, if you wish to find it: pray to God that He may deliver him from these enemies. Then there will be harmony between you.

But if you seek justice in some other way, you will always be in the wrong, and consequently grace will be compelled to come and go until it finds rest in your soul. For a person is entitled to have within himself as much grace as he gratefully endures temptation and uncomplainingly bears the burden of his neighbor.

 

 

Translated from the Russian edition.

St. Philaret the New Confessor Recognizes the Priesthood of New Calendar Zealots (1985)

An unpublished letter (note the “Personal / Not for Publication” in the upper right-hand corner) dated October 11/24, 1985, less than a month before St. Philaret fell asleep on Nov. 21, 1985. Addressed to Elder Chrysostomos (Spyrou) of Spetses (+2014).

 

 

Q: What does he say to Fr. Chrysostomos in general?

A: (from Nikolaos Mannis, holder of the letter)

Three things mainly:

1. He praises him for his Confession

2. He consoles him for his persecutions

3. He recognizes his Priesthood (he had been ordained by a “New Calendarist / Ecumenist”)

* * *

On Elder Chrysostomos, written by the respected clergyman of the G.O.C., Hieromonk Nikephoros Nassos:

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/04/when-righteous-are-praised-people.html

And his support by G.O.C. clergy during the time of his persecution:

https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/05/trial-of-elder-chrysostomos-spyros-of.html

 

 

 

 

An Open Letter to Patriarch Bartholomew

 

TO HIS ALL-HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW I, ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE – NEW ROME AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH

AN OPEN SORROWFUL EPISTLE from the clergy, monastics, and laity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate, regarding Your forthcoming visit to the Holy Monastery of Rila

Your All-Holiness, 

We address You driven not by worldly enmity or human bias, but moved by profound spiritual sorrow. This sorrow overtakes our hearts as we behold how the Ecumenical Throne, which was once a pillar of Orthodoxy and a defender of the dogmas, has today become a wellspring of scandal and a stumbling block for the entire One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

The occasion for this epistle is the widespread information concerning Your forthcoming visit and presiding over the Holy Eucharist in the spiritual heart of Bulgaria—the Holy Monastery of Rila, on October 19, 2026. 

Holy Tradition binds us to guard the purity of the Faith more than our very lives. As the ever-memorable confessor Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) wrote in his Sorrowful Epistles: "Love which is not conjoined with Truth is not the love of Christ. To keep silent concerning the Truth for the sake of a false peace means to betray God Himself." For this very reason, as faithful children of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, we have no right to remain silent. 

Your All-Holiness, over the past decades, and with particular audacity during the current year of 2026, You have openly and consistently preached teachings that have been anathematized by the Holy Fathers: 

1. You affirm the pan-heresy of ecumenism: In Vilnius (June 8, 2026) and Budapest (September 4, 2026), You preached the condemned “Branch Theory,” speaking of the “agony of divided Christianity.” You referred to holy dogmatic zeal as "sterile confessional entrenchment" and introduced the ruinous concept of "juridical ecumenism," legitimizing Roman Papal delusions and acknowledging a primacy of the Vatican without Rome having offered any repentance whatsoever. 

2. You preach a pernicious religious syncretism: In Istanbul (July 29, 2025), You equated the Divine Revelation with pagan idols and Eastern cults, claiming that the Sacred is expressed equally as “God, Allah, Brahman, or the Luminous Emptiness.” For the Orthodox Church, this is not dialogue, but a grievous blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and a direct trampling of the First Commandment of God. 

3. You tore open the bleeding wound in Ukraine: Your anti-canonical incursion into a foreign jurisdiction in 2019 served as a justification for the most terrible persecution against Orthodoxy in recent history. The blood, the tears, the seized temples, and the hierarchs, clergy, and laity of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church cast into dungeons all weigh heavily upon Your archpastoral conscience. 

We remind You that You are preparing to visit the diocese of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, whose Holy Synod in 2016 conciliarity, categorically, and in a confessional manner rejected the Council of Crete and decreed that "outside the Holy Orthodox Church there are no other churches." Your teaching is in direct and insurmountable dogmatic collision with the confessional stance of our native Church. 

The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament of perfect unity of mind in the Faith. We cannot pronounce the sacred exclamation "Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess..." together with a hierarch who preaches the destruction of the dogmas. 

Therefore, following the example of the thousands of faithful clergy and laity in Georgia in 1997, and standing firmly upon the 15th Canon of the First-Second (Constantinopolitan) Council, we declare the following: 

We, the Orthodox clergy, monastics, and laity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, refuse to accept prayerful and eucharistic communion with a primate who publicly preaches heresy. Your presiding over the Holy Liturgy on the feast day of St. John of Rila is spiritually and canonically unacceptable to us. 

We call upon You to exercise prudence and to cancel Your visit to the Holy Monastery of Rila. Do not turn the brightest all-Bulgarian feast into an occasion for scandal, schism, and public unrest. Do not violate the spiritual conscience of the Bulgarian ecclesiastical fullness, which is resolved to keep the Testament of St. John of Rila and to not allow "the evil wolf to trouble the peaceful flock of Christ." 

We believe that our refusal to concelebrate with You is the highest form of true Christian love, for only strict reproof can awaken the conscience. With this sorrowful yet firm love, we pray that the All-Merciful God will enlighten Your heart, grant You a spirit of sincere repentance, and restore You to the bosom of uncorrupted Patristic Orthodoxy. 

Until then, however, Your presence before the holy altars of Bulgaria is a stumbling block that we shall not permit. 

Clergy, monastics, and laity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate 

September 23, 2026 

Sofia, Bulgaria 

 

Source (Greek and English): https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_24.html