Sources:
Icons of St. Glycherie the Confessor of Romania and St.
Philaret the New Confessor from the nuns of the Convent of Saint Elizabeth in Etna, CA. Icon of
St. Chrysostomos the New, Confessor and Hierarch, from the nuns of the Convent of Saint Philothei in
Enköping, Sweden.
+ Tychikos of Paphos | July 15, 2026 | Paphos, Cyprus
Saints Cyricus and Julitta, his mother,
Saint Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles, King of the
Russians,
Finding of the Precious Head of Saint Matrona of Chios
“Except ye be
converted, and become as little children…”
Introduction
Our Lord and God Jesus Christ,
when His disciples were preventing the children from approaching Him, rebuked
them sternly, saying:
“Suffer the little children to
come unto Me, and hinder them not; for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt.
19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).
And elsewhere He adds:
“Verily I say unto you, except ye
be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3).
These words of Christ caused
perplexity: how is it possible for us to become children again? Does He mean a
biological return to childhood?
The Lord Himself makes it clear
elsewhere that this is not a carnal, but a spiritual rebirth:
“That which is born of the flesh
is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).
Childlikeness: Not
Immaturity, but Purity
Christ does not call us to
irresponsibility or spiritual immaturity. He calls us to return to the purity,
simplicity, and trust possessed by a child before being defiled by the sin,
malice, and hardness of the world.
Saint John Chrysostom
characteristically says:
“Christ does not seek childhood
in age, but rather the disposition and purity of the soul.”
If we have lost this
childlikeness, we can regain it. The path is repentance, confession, prayer,
the study of Holy Scripture and the lives of the Saints, our frequent
participation in the Holy Mysteries—especially in the Divine Eucharist—and the
unceasing spiritual struggle for the purification of the passions.
Saint Isaac the Syrian writes:
“Repentance is a door of mercy,
through which man enters once again into innocence.”
The Loss of
Childlikeness in the Modern World
Today, unfortunately, many
children cease to be children from a very early age. The school environment,
the mass media, television, mobile phones, social networks, and the internet
prematurely alter their souls. This is not progress, but spiritual deterioration.
A contrary and radiant example is
the Most Holy Theotokos. According to Holy Tradition, at the age of three she
entered the Holy of Holies and remained there until her betrothal. She lost
nothing; on the contrary, she gained everything: purity of soul, body, mind,
and tongue. Thus she was deemed worthy to become the Mother of God.
Saint Gregory Palamas says:
“The Virgin purified her mind of
every worldly thought.”
The
Characteristics of Childlikeness According to Christ
1. Purity of Soul, Body, and
Mind
Children have not yet had the
opportunity to sin. If, however, this purity has been lost, it can be restored
through ascetic struggle, repentance, and spiritual warfare, by mortifying the
passions or redirecting them toward divine love.
“Blessed are the pure in heart:
for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8).
2. Complete Trust in the
Father
Just as a child trusts his
parents, so also do we trust in the Providence of God and the intercession of
the Most Holy Theotokos.
“Casting all your care upon Him”
(1 Pet. 5:7).
3. Freedom from Anxiety about
Tomorrow
Without neglecting our
responsibilities, but also without anxiety and depression.
“Take therefore no thought for
the morrow” (Matt. 6:34).
4. Forgiveness and
Forgetfulness of Wrongs
Children forgive quickly and
become friends again.
“But if ye forgive not… neither
will your Father forgive” (Matt. 6:15).
5. Trust Not in Oneself, but
in God
Saint Anthony the Great says: “I
do not fear God, but myself.”
6. Guilelessness and Absence
of Suspicion
We should not think evil lies
behind what we hear or see.
“Be ye… harmless as doves” (Matt.
10:16).
7. Sincerity and Love of Truth
Children tell the truth without
calculation.
“The truth shall make you free”
(John 8:32).
8. Simplicity and Humility
They do not love ostentation and
grandiosity.
“Whosoever therefore shall humble
himself… the same is greatest” (Matt. 18:4).
9. Compassion and Fellowship
with Others
They share in the joy and sorrow
of their neighbor.
“Rejoice with them that do
rejoice, and weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15).
Conclusion
To “become as little children” is
not a return to immaturity, but a journey toward holiness. It is purification,
humility, trust, and love.
“Christ desires simplicity,
goodness, and a childlike heart” (Saint Porphyrios).
Let us therefore struggle to
rediscover the lost child within us, that we may be deemed worthy not only to
enter, but also to dwell in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Greek
source:
Ioannis N. Paparrigas | July 16, 2026
We were sent an article [by walled-off
new calendarist Fr. Dimitrios Athanasiou] that was published on Facebook.
[English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/07/one-non-commemorators-opinion-comments.html]
The author of the article
essentially acknowledges Fr. Theodore’s contradiction, writing:
“On the one hand, Fr. Th. Z.
says: ‘we will not create bishops of our own,’ but on the other hand, he hopes
‘that Orthodox Bishops will be found who will wall themselves off’ (A GLARING
CONTRADICTION). If the latter were to occur (if serving bishops were to wall
themselves off), from the perspective of those who have walled themselves off,
this would not constitute the ‘founding of a new Church’ (as the G.O.C. are
accused of doing), but rather the ‘healthy portion’ of the already existing
hierarchy reacting.”
As we ourselves also pointed out
yesterday, with the difference that he proposes to those who have walled
themselves off that:
“Joining forces with an existing
anti-Ecumenist hierarchy, such as that of Artemije (formerly of Raška and
Prizren), is not merely an option, but the only path that preserves dogmatic
and ecclesiological consistency in practice.”
We should, of course, emphasize
that we personally do not like terms such as “only path” and similar
expressions, because we have had bad experiences with terms of this kind... In
any case, that is not the issue.
The author states:
“Since Fr. Theodore and those
with him wanted a bishop to lead the walling off, why did they not recognize
Metropolitan Artemije, who had been deposed by the Patriarchate of Serbia and
who did precisely that? Fr. Theodore and other walled-off theologians maintain
that Artemije proceeded with ‘uncanonical ordinations’ (he ordained ‘chorepiscopi’
without the approval of a synod), thereby creating de facto his own
parallel hierarchy—a schism—in Serbia. The reality, however, is otherwise.
Their refusal to ‘bow their heads’ to Artemije demonstrates the impasse of
their theory. Fearing that they might be characterized as schismatics by the
official Church, they isolate themselves even from those bishops who took the
very step that they themselves proclaim.”
According to the author’s
reasoning, “The reality, however, is otherwise,” and it is this: “Fearing that
they might be characterized as schismatics by the official Church...”
And further on, he presents
proposals that were implemented years ago by the G.O.C., such as, for example:
“Joining this particular Synod
(ed. note: he means that of His Eminence Artemije) fully restores the necessary
hierarchical structure (Bishop–Presbyters–Deacons) and guarantees the
continuity of Apostolic Succession through future ordinations, preventing
spiritual withering and a biological dead end,”..... “Joining his Synod is the
only position that brings actions into complete alignment with words”......
“joining it creates a clear, cohesive, and well-organized ecclesiastical
structure. This structure can withstand the pressure of time, organize
parishes, catechize the faithful, and bequeath the anti-Ecumenist witness to
future generations”..... “The theory of the ‘middle way’ has exhausted its
limits. For anyone who rejects a return by way of compromise, joining forces
with an existing anti-Ecumenist hierarchy, such as that of Artemije, is not
merely an option, but the only path that preserves dogmatic and ecclesiological
consistency in practice.”
Although, therefore, he accepts
the above realities, he does not propose that those who have walled themselves
off join the already existing Synod of Genuine Orthodox Christians, which has
existed in Greece for many decades. On the contrary, he presents joining the
Synod of His Eminence Artemije, which is in fact located in another country, as
the “only path.”
This position creates an evident
contradiction.
On the one hand, he acknowledges
that the walling off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a
new Church, but rather represents the healthy portion of the Hierarchy. On the
other hand, he does not regard the already existing Synod of the G.O.C. as a
possible ecclesiological solution for those who have walled themselves off, and
for this reason he does not propose it.
The contradiction becomes even
greater in view of the fact that he himself has repeatedly defended the G.O.C.
of Indonesia through comments on our blog. [Trans. note: This concerns the G.O.C.
of Indonesia controversially participating in certain ecumenical events.]
He has commented on our blog many
times, essentially recognizing their Orthodoxy.
If the G.O.C. of Indonesia (who
belong to the Synod presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos) are Orthodox, then
the corresponding Synod to which they belong also constitutes an
ecclesiological solution for those who have walled themselves off.
Nevertheless, when he seeks a
solution for those who have walled themselves off, he completely suppresses any
mention of the existence of the Synod of the G.O.C. and presents the Synod of
His Eminence Artemije as the “only path.”
Since he accepts that the walling
off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a new Church, by
his own parenthetical comment (“as the G.O.C. are accused of doing”), he
essentially also recognizes the ecclesiological framework within which the
G.O.C. acted.
The well-known argument that the
G.O.C. supposedly founded a “new Church” is essentially refuted by the above
admission. Since no new Church is founded in this case, there is no difference
whatsoever.
A full eleven years after the
unilateral and uncanonical change of the festal calendar, Orthodox Bishops
walled themselves off, took up the struggle of the Old Calendarists, and
constituted the healthy portion of the hierarchy at that time that reacted
against the innovation; subsequently, the Russians Abroad renewed the struggle
of the Old Calendarists through new episcopal consecrations.
It emerges, however, from his own
article that his argumentation is not applied according to the same standard in
every case.
While he recognizes that the
walling off of Orthodox Bishops does not constitute the founding of a new
Church, and while he publicly defends the G.O.C. of Indonesia, he completely
disregards the existence of the Greek Synod of the G.O.C. and presents joining
the Synod of His Eminence Artemije as the “only path.”
In our humble opinion, his
inconsistency and his own contradiction are evident.
Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/07/blog-post_16.html
by Nicholas Maas
Mr. Maas, a former
Greek Catholic, was received by Baptism into the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
and attends St. John the Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.
Much has been written about the
problem of Uniate conversions to the Orthodox Church, and in particular about
the reception into Orthodoxy of Greek Catholics in North America and Eastern
Europe at the turn of the century. The use of economy (that is, Chrismation or
a confession of faith) in receiving these converts from the Unia is often cited
to support the general reception of Uniate converts in this way in contemporary
times. This is the result of a misrepresentation of this earlier use of economy
as a precedent-setting gesture on the part of the Orthodox Church. In reality,
the instances of the use of economy in receiving Uniates into the Faith were
relatively rare even in the nineteenth century— instances deemed necessary
because of what were then very exceptional circumstances. It can be
persuasively argued that today, especially in the free world, circumstances are
such that the nineteenth-century exception to the rule of conversion by Baptism
should be put aside completely and that Uniates should be received into the
Church only by Baptism.
During the latter half of the
nineteenth century, millions of Greek Catholics were finally able to break away
from the centuries-old bonds of the much-despised Unia. These were people who
had been forced by circumstances beyond their control into union with the Roman
Church. They never desired to be Latins, never were Latins, and never accepted
the confession of the Roman Church. A few of their Hierarchs—cowardly apostates
or ambitious men—allowed the Church to be enslaved by force of arms and by
so-called "treaties" dictated by the interests of political
expediency. Thus it is that, when no political power could impede them, these
people returned to the Orthodox Church by the millions—and without hesitation,
one might add.
Now, in the latter half of the
twentieth century, however, there is a clear understanding among Greek
Catholics of what they are: Greek Catholics. They are not Orthodox held by some
political force in a false union in which they do not believe. Indeed, the
Ukrainian Catholic Church, for example, is one with Rome. Ukrainian Catholics
willingly embrace the Latin Church. The Melkites, too, are obviously Greek
Catholics and clearly constitute an eastern rite of the Roman Church. There is
no fear of persecution that keeps Uniates where they are; there is no threat of
death at the hands of the Austro-Hungarian army or some other bellicose
element. To claim that converts from the Greek Catholic Faith in our day are
anything but converts from the Roman Church is simply to play an intellectually
dishonest game.
Let us not hesitate to be honest.
Greek Catholics are Greek Catholics, or Uniates, not Orthodox. This is a simple
statement of fact. Unfortunately, a strange confusion with regard to this fact
took root among some Uniate believers following the Second Vatican Council. The
post-Vatican II changes in Latin attitudes towards the Eastern Church led many
Greek Catholics—whether by a deliberate design of the Council Fathers or
adventitiously, one cannot say—to think of themselves as members of an
"Orthodox Church in union with Rome." This has become one of the
burning convictions of the Melkite Greek Catholics, especially. Any serious
Orthodox Christian—or any serious Roman Catholic, for that matter—would find
that idea ludicrous, if not totally insane. Orthodox are Orthodox simply
because they are not in union with Rome. Nonetheless, this idea holds
forth strongly among many Greek Catholics and, worse yet, among some Orthodox
modernists! Here is a clear example of the abuse of economy, that treasure of
the Church, being made the source of serious harm to the Faithful and of an ecclesiology
which is as wrong as it is wholly dishonest.
By abusing economy and receiving
contemporary Greek Catholics by Chrismation or economy, many Greek Catholics
and unlearned Orthodox come to believe that Greek Catholics are legitimately
Orthodox. With such an abuse of economy, political ecumenism advances farther,
denigrating and misrepresenting the Church to which the convert is supposed to
be converting. For the sake of converts from the Unia, it must be made clear
that conversion to Orthodoxy is to embrace the fullness of Christ in the One
Church which He established. Greek Catholics are not simply changing
jurisdictions. They are members of the Roman Church and outside the Greek
Orthodox Church. And we Orthodox are not just Greek Catholics without a Pope.
We are Orthodox Christians who consider the idea of the papacy a heresy and a
distortion of the Apostolic Church.
Modernist jurisdictions are
causing untold harm to their own Churches when, instead of inviting solidly
converted Orthodox into their ranks, they make of their half-converted Greek
Catholic guests nothing more than disgruntled Uniates on the "Orthodox
side" of the Schism. How can a mere disdain for Rome be a substitute for
the compelling Grace that leads a true convert humbly to enter the Orthodox
Church through the salvific Grace of the waters of Holy Baptism? How can a
change from one side of the "political" spectrum to another really
accomplish what conversion to the fullness of Orthodox Christianity entails?
And what of the poor convert?
When the novelty of being a convert—of being on the other side of the fence, no
longer under the thumb of the Pope— wears off, where does he go? For all
intents and purposes, he must begin anew his search for Orthodoxy, for true
Orthodoxy, his soul thus in danger because of the time wasted.
Economy is, of course, not
without very practical application in the Church under unusual and exceedingly
rare circumstances. But prudence must guide us in its application in the
contemporary Church. If we abuse economy in the name of ecumenism, in the name
of misrepresenting those things which separate the Mother Church of Orthodoxy
from all who have deviated from her teaching, and as a tool for fostering
political attitude changes rather than true conversions, then we misuse and
denigrate one of the Church's great treasures of love—her ability to relax the
law for the sake of the spirit—, making of a tool of love a crude hatchet by
which to cut away the image of the Faith in frenzied attempts to distort the
truth which she symbolizes and embodies.
Source: Orthodox Tradition,
Vol. VII (1990), No. 3, p. 10.
by Father James Thornton
The following essay is taken from Bather James' doctoral
dissertation (S.T.T.S., '90) and provides interesting insight into a much-neglected
area of Orthodox studies.
In the long history of
philosophical, religious, and ethical concepts, the greatest of all revolutions
was that of Christian thought. As the Roman Catholic scholar Giordani, puts it:
...[Christ]
established a new moral and religious order, leaving apparently intact the old
social and political order. But having wrought a change in man at the very
roots of his mind and heart, he made him a member of a new order, even from the
point of view of social ethics and activity. [1]
It is obvious, then, that an
abstract philosophy of ethical teachings is not the raison d'etre for
Christian thought. Christianity is at once a matrix of beliefs about life, the
worlds seen and unseen, of the Divine Creator and Benefactor, of moral
precepts, and of an existence beyond the grave. Christianity, unlike the pagan
systems which preceded it, is a religion which brings to bear abstract,
"otherworldly" things on practical worldly concerns:
"The Church
is indeed 'not of this world,' but it has nevertheless an obvious and important
mission 'in this world' precisely because it [the world] lies 'in the evil.'"
[2]
No one can read the Holy Gospels
thoroughly and escape this conclusion. While Christ speaks of a kingdom
"not of this world," [3] He insists that those who ignore those in
want will themselves be judged harshly in His kingdom. [4] Christ's words in
this respect are ultimately the root of the Orthodox Church's teachings on
social ethics.
The Eastern Church Fathers, who
express the conscience of the Orthodox Church, were exegetes par excellence,
and thus followed in the footsteps of their Divine Teacher in understanding
the issues of social ethics. So it is that the Orthodox Church insists that
Christianity is "integral," as Father Florovsky writes, and that
"faith and charity, belief and practice, are organically linked...."
[5]
But what is the source of this
link?
The Eastern Church, through the
Gospels and the writings of the Fathers, has always insisted that the first law
of the Christian religion is the "law of love." We must love God
above all else and we must love our neighbors as ourselves. [6] We must,
furthermore, love all of God's creatures, including our enemies. [7] Love links
all creation together.
The religion of Christ and of the
Fathers, then, is one which commands love, which insists that enlightened
Christians serve the members of the human community and not seek to
exploit them or attain power over them. [8] As Christians, we are bound to this
service. The Church, in its early centuries, strove with great zeal to impart
this notion of love to mankind, to a civilization utterly ignorant of the
concept. It also sought to put this notion into action at the practical level.
St. John the Theologian writes
that "God is love." [9] Love is an attribute of God. "The
Goodness of God extends not to some limited region in the world, which is
characteristic of love in limited beings, but to the whole world and all the
beings that exist in it." [10] God's love is demonstrated in many ways. He
created us in His image, for example. [11] He loved humankind even more than He
loved His own glory, as St. John Chrysostom writes, in that He was willing to
become incarnate, to live among His creatures and serve them, and to suffer and
die for them. [12] St. Gregory the Theologian speaks of this in his
twenty-third homily: "If someone were to ask us what it is that we honor,
and what we worship, we have a ready reply: we honor love." [13] We see,
then, that love is central to Orthodox Christian theology and its notion of
practical living. [14]
Let us consider a particular
aspect of Eastern Church theology which has great importance and bearing on the
teachings of the Eastern Fathers with respect to love. Eastern Church theology
differs from that of the medieval or modern Western confessions in a number of
areas. One important difference is that the Eastern Church Fathers distinguish,
in their understanding of the creation narrative in the book of Genesis,
between the terms "image" and "likeness." The Western
Church generally ignores this distinction. [15] While all human beings are born
in God's image, the Greek Fathers assert, God's likeness is something towards
which we must struggle. As the Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky
says:
'Let us make man
according to our image and likeness' (Gen 1:26). According to this design, man
should not be only an image of God, his Creator, but should also bear His
likeness. Yet in the description of the accomplished act of creation 'And God
made man, according to the image of God he made him' (Gen 1:27), nothing is
said about likeness. [16]
The image of God was given to all
humankind and this, as we noted above, is proof of God's love for us. Various
Fathers have emphasized various facets of the imago Dei. One of these
facets is mentioned by St. John of Damascus who, because he wrote at length on
the Orthodox doctrine of Icons, devoted considerable attention to this matter.
He asserts that "the expression 'according to the image' indicates
capacity of mind and freedom." [17] St. Gregory put it thus: "God
honored man in giving him freedom, in order that goodness should properly
belong to him who chooses it, no less than to Him who placed the first fruits
of goodness in his nature." [18]
The image of God was retained by
humankind after the Fall. However, it became obscured by evil, disobedience,
discord, and pride—in a word, sin. Humans were intended for union with God, for
perfect cooperation (synergia) with God, and even for eventual
deification (theosis) by the Grace of God. [19] But man, in his freedom,
chose another path, which involved "a rejection of the interior working of
grace and a subsequent bondage to sin.... Having isolated himself from the
grace of God, he became entrapped in his illusory self-worldview, which came to
bear less and less resemblance either to the real world (and its corresponding
potential) or to the 'image' within him...." [20]
The Fathers also teach that the
individual human person is not a part of humanity, but is humanity. Just
as the whole of human nature was contained in the first human being created by
God, it is also contained in each of us. [21] Speaking of the first human, St.
Gregory of Nyssa writes:
...The name Adam
is not yet given to the man, as in the subsequent narratives. The man created
has no particular name, but is universal man. Therefore by this general term
for human nature, we are meant to understand that God by His providence and
power, included all mankind in the first creation.... [22]
Thus, again to quote Lossky,
"The divine image proper to the person of Adam is applied to the whole of
mankind, to universal man." [23] Humankind, rightly seen, is united fully
in this divine image which God has stamped on every individual. In the words of
St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Thus man is made in the image of God, that is to
say the whole human nature; it is that which bears the divine 'likeness.'"
[24]
When individuals attain to
perfection, they conduct themselves, in every aspect of their lives, with this
unity of humankind in mind. Bonded in love to others, they act always in the
interest of others, since their own self-interest is tied to that of others.
When, on the other hand, humans act contrary to the manner in which all have
been created, as they generally do in this fallen world, "the one nature
common to all men...appears to us split up by sin, parcelled out among many
individuals." [25] A person who acts in accordance with the fallen nature
of the present world, instead of the image of God, becomes dominated by ego and
by the worship of ego. He becomes separated from others and from his natural
concern for them. The bond of love with them is broken.
Humans, while born in God's
image, are not so born with God's likeness; rather, they have only the
potential for the likeness of God in them. This likeness is something for which
they must strive, for which they must indeed struggle more greatly. This likeness,
St. John of Damascus states, "...means likeness to God in virtues
(perfection)." [26]
Those who succeed in this
struggle acquire, among other attributes proper to God's likeness, a facility
for the utterly selfless love of all humankind:
In the love of
our neighbor, philia, we come to see God in others. In community love, agape,
we see ourselves in others and are united to our fellow men in the Energies
of God. Being one with Christ, we are made one with all mankind. [27]
Such love must not only crown
individual human efforts, but must be part of the effort from the very
beginning:
If we begin the
life lived in pursuit of virtue by cultivating in ourselves a love of our
fellow man, we reach success in that life by dwelling in the love of God, which
God has cultivated in the human heart; 'for,' writes the divine [St. John]
Chrysostomos, 'the beginning and the end of virtue is love.' [28]
All charitable acts, all
philanthropy, if they are not merely self-serving, are necessarily based on
love. This love, in its highest degree, is acquired in the struggle for the
likeness of God; or, rather, it fulfills this struggle. "For love is the
'union of all perfection.'" [29] The human being who is pure, who has
acquired the Holy Spirit, who shines with God's likeness, possesses, as St.
Issac the Syrian writes:
...a burning of
the heart for all creation, for men, birds, beasts, demons and all creatures.
And from remembrance of them and contemplation of them such a man's eyes shed
tears: because of a great and strong compassion which possesses his heart and
its great constancy, he is overwhelmed with tender pity and he cannot bear, or
hear of, or see any harm or any even small sorrow which creatures suffer. [30]
The history of the Eastern Church
is adorned with the stories of the lives of holy women and men who exemplify
the teachings of the Fathers on social ethics and our responsibilities towards
others. The early monastic Fathers and Mothers of the desert, in particular,
have much to tell us about the love of God and of fellow humans, about charity,
about equality, and, by their forthright renunciation of material things, about
the true import of wealth and poverty.
As many historians have noted,
with the rise of Christianity to official favor in the fourth century, the
Church was inundated with nominal believers. Before the Peace of the Church
under St. Constantine, Christians "...were bound to resist any attempt at
their 'integration' into the fabric of the Empire." [31] With the great
changes set in motion by the Emperor Constantine, another revolution of sorts
appeared, spreading with tremendous rapidity throughout the Empire:
monasticism. The monastic movement embodied a continued resistance to the
world: "...Monks...[left]...the world in order to build, on the virginal
soil of the Desert, a New Society, to organize there, on the Evangelical
pattern, the true Christian Community." [32]
This "New Society" did
not stand in opposition to the established Church authorities. It remained
wholly a part of the Church and within Her organizational structure. This early
monasticism became the ideal, the "barometer" of life for all members
of the Church. In numerous battles with secular authority in the course of the
centuries after St. Constantine (during the reign of the Arian Emperors of the
fourth century, for example, or the Iconoclasts in the eighth century), the Church
looked to the monasteries [33] for the embodiment, preservation, and protection
of Christian doctrine and teaching.
One must note, in fact, that the
Fathers of the Church, who insisted on faithfulness in both theoria and praxis,
have nearly always been monastic saints. Thus in their adherence to the
requirements of a theoretical life of renunciation and asceticism, they
believed that monastics must, in practice, work. "Man was created for
work. But work should not be selfish. One had to work for common purpose and
benefit, and especially to be able to help the needy....Labor was to be, as it
were, an expression of social solidarity, as well as a basis of social service
and charity." [34] Even in their work, monastics expressed the care for
their fellow man that is pivotal to Christian love.
Moreover, monasteries, by their
very nature, insisted on the essential equality of all human beings, both in a
spiritual sense and a material sense. Monks were enthusiastic practitioners of
Christ's "law of love," and their example stands before the eyes of
pious Orthodox Christians, monastics and non-monastics alike, as a genuine
ideal and as a benchmark by which we might judge our own spiritual health. This
"law of love" is extended to everyone. An historian, referring to the
earliest monastics, writes that they were
...fathers of
the people. Let disease or misfortune come: the holy man was at hand. Let land-
owner oppress or bureaucrat extort: the champion of the poor was waiting. For
what could an anchorite suffer at the hands of authority? The world could lose
him nothing. He stood, rather, to gain a martyr's crown. [35]
For fifteen centuries, the lives
of the desert monastics have inspired the Church faithful. Precisely because
the Church insists that "we must find a goal and a view of life which can
serve to guide human action and that can release us from a cycle of
gratification that derides, belittles, and compromises our humanity," [36]
it turned to the example of the Desert Fathers. As we have learned from these
holy men and women the standard of many Christian virtues, so, too, we have
learned from them the standard of Christian love, by which we form our social
consciences as contemporary Orthodox Christians. A single excerpt from the Evergetinos
gives us insight into this standard of the desert—into the standard set by
those transformed in God, conformed to his image, and made like Him by Grace:
Abba Agathon was
asked how sincere love for one's neighbor might be made manifest, and this
blessed man, who had attained to the queen of the virtues to a perfect degree,
responded: 'Love is to find a leper, to take his body, and gladly to give him
your own.' [37]
Notes
1. Igino Giordani, The Social Message of Jesus, trans.
Alba Zizzamia (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1977), 45.
2. Georges Florovsky, "The Social Problem in the Eastern
Orthodox Church," chap, in Christianity and Culture, vol 2, The
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co.,
1974), 142.
3. Jn 18:36.
4. Mt 25:31-46.
5. Georges Florovsky, "St. John Chrysostom: The Prophet
of Charity," chap, in Aspects of Church History, Vol. 4, The
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing
Company, 1975), 87.
6. Mt 23:37-39.
7. Mt 5:44.
8. Giordani, 47.
9. 1 Jn 4:16.
10. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic
Theology: A Concise Exposition (Platina, CA: St. Herman Press, 1984), 63.
11. "All of the Fathers of the Church, both of East and
West, are agreed in seeing a certain co-ordination, a primordial correspondence
between the being of man and the being of God in the fact of the creation of
man in the image and likeness of God." Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary
Press, 1976), 114.
12. Pomazansky, 64.
13. Ibid., 63.
14. Nicholas Cabasilas, The Life in Christ, trans.
Carmino J. de Catanzaro (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974),
172-3.
15. Typical of the Western view is that expressed in a
popular Protestant theological manual: "The terms 'image and
likeness'...do not distinguish different aspects of the imago, but state
intensively the fact that man uniquely reflects God. Instead of suggested
distinctions within the image, the juxtaposition vigorously declares that by
creation man bears an image actually corresponding to the divine
original." Baker's Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1960), s.v. "Man."
16. Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of
Icons (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983), 34.
17. Ibid.
18. Lossky, Mystical, 124.
19. John S. Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and
Doctrine (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981), 46, and Lossky, Mystical,
196-216.
20. Hieromonk Auxentios, "Notes on the Nature of God,
the Cosmos, and Novus Homo: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective," chap.
in Contemporary Traditionalist Orthodox Thought (Etna, CA: Center for
Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1986), 11.
21. Lossky, Mystical, 120.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., and Lossky, Vladimir, "The Theology of the
Image," chap.in In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), 125-39.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 121.
26. Ouspensky, Icons, 34.
27. Bishop Chrysostomos and The Reverend James Thornton, Love
(Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990), 54.
28. Ibid., 61-2.
29. Georges Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, vol.
3, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland
Publishing Company, 1976), 206.
30. Ibid. Cf. John S. Romanides, "Jesus Christ-The Light
of the World." In Xenia Ecumenica (Helsinki: n.p., 1983), 244-52.
31. Georges Florovsky, "Antinomies of Christian History:
Empire and Desert," chap in Christianity and Culture, vol. 2, The
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co.,
1974), 72.
32. Ibid., 86.
33. In Eastern Church usage, the words "monastery"
and "monk" are entirely inclusive terms.
34. Florovsky, "Antinomies," 87.
35. Robert Byron, The Byzantine Achievement: An Historical
Perspective (NY: Russell and Russell, 1964), 158.
36. Bishop Chrysostomos, The Ancient Fathers of the
Desert: A Second Volume (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1986), 13.
37. A complete translation of this work is now in process,
the first volume of which appeared recently. Bishop Chrysostomos, trans., The
Evergetinos: A Complete Text, vol. 1 (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist
Orthodox Studies, 1988).
Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII (1990), No. 3, pp.
11, 16.
An Interview of Bishop Xenophon with the American Serb newspaper Sloboda (Part 1)
Source: Слобода, no. 2273,
July 10, 2026, p. 12.
Interview conducted by Dobrana
Komnenić and Jelena Tasić.
In the following lines, we present the first part of the
interview given by His Grace Xenophon, Bishop of Raška and Prizren in Exile, to
the newspaper of the American Serbs Sloboda. The interview was published
on July 10, 2026.
The Editorial Board
In June, sixteen years passed since the establishment of the
Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile, which arose from a portion of the
monastic community that, following the expulsion of the late Bishop Artemije
(Radosavljević) from Kosovo and Metohija, left the Eparchy of Raška and
Prizren. Today, the Eparchy in Exile has more than forty catacomb institutions,
around 150 monks and nuns, fifteen non-monastic priests, and a large number of
faithful. Bishop Xenophon (Tomašević) of Raška and Prizren in Exile speaks to Sloboda
about the reasons for the establishment of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in
Exile, the life of its catacomb monasteries, and the state of affairs in the
Serbian Orthodox Church, Orthodoxy, Serbia, and its southern province. We are
publishing the interview in two installments.
* * *
How well informed is the
public today about the expulsion of the late Bishop Artemije from the see of
the Bishop of Raška and Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija in 2010, and how did
the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile come into being?
It was precisely in June of this
year that sixteen full years had passed since that tear which Bishop Artemije
shed as he bade farewell to the faithful people and monastic community in the
refectory of Gračanica Monastery on June 8, 2010, and since his moving homily
in which he said that one day we would gather at Gračanica Monastery and bury
him in the monastery cemetery, as was fitting and proper. But the providence,
will, and permission of God ordained otherwise.
Neither our Synod of the Serbian
Orthodox Church nor our Elder had any plans as to what would come next after he
was assigned exile to northern Serbia, to Šišatovac Monastery. This persecution
was unjust, unsupported by any evidence, and carried out contrary to all the canons
and the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church. He was uncanonically
retired and relieved of the administration of the eparchy. He was not even
permitted to remain and live in one of the monasteries of the Eparchy of Raška
and Prizren, which he had governed.
To those who possessed even a
modicum of sound reason and who were not bound to Christ and His Church by any
day-to-day political, ecclesio-political, or ecclesio-economic interests, it
was clear from the very beginning that this was a religious persecution as
well, and not merely a politically motivated one.
The late Bishop held clear,
well-argued, and concrete positions, which he put into practice through
decisive actions that our Elder carried out with foresight and courage from the
very moment he ascended the throne of the Bishop of Raška and Prizren in 1991,
and especially after the occupation of Kosovo and Metohija in 1999. His
struggle against the outrages committed by the Šiptars against the Serbian
people, under the lethargic and approving gaze of the international community
and the purported peacekeeping forces sent to Kosovo and Metohija to implement
UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which remains internationally valid and
legally binding, was widely noted. His religious and national work was closely
monitored not only by domestic powerbrokers but also by foreign ones. Thus, in
2010, the then U.S. Ambassador Mary Warlick drew the attention of the then
Patriarch Irinej to the “harmful” work of Bishop Artemije. Patriarch Irinej
soon carried out this important intelligence and logistical assignment.
What was he reproached for?
In addition to his efforts to
preserve Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia and to ensure the survival of the
Serbian people, Bishop Artemije and his clergy were waging another great
battle: the preservation of the faith and the holy things of the Orthodox Church
from the heresy of Ecumenism. I would say with the utmost certainty that the
struggle against Ecumenism was the principal factor behind Bishop Artemije’s
being so brutally removed from his episcopal throne and, following his removal,
a more “cooperative” and “peaceable” bishop being placed upon the throne of the
eparchy—one who would not constitute a disruptive factor in establishing the
rosy fairy tale of an independent Kosovo, if we are speaking of the national
and state-political aspect, and of the Ecumenist heresy, if we are speaking of
the spiritual and ecclesiastical aspect.
The Serbian people have largely
seen and understood this, for otherwise the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in
Exile would not, throughout all these years, have led an ever more active
liturgical and spiritual life, preaching in a missionary manner the Gospel of
the Church of God and of Saint Sava’s “Serbian Christ.” This is also confirmed
by the large number of faithful in each of our approximately forty holy
places—catacombs, monasteries, and parish places of worship—which today are
found not only in Serbia and Europe.
The truth cannot be hidden and
buried. For, as our holy Elder often said, the more deeply it is buried, the
more brilliantly it will rise again.
After sixteen years, are the
political and ecclesiastical motives behind the persecution of Bishop Artemije
clearer, motives also attested by documents from WikiLeaks, even though he was
officially punished by the Church for the alleged misuse of eparchial finances,
for which he was also tried before a secular court, while after his repose his
associates were sentenced to prison terms and fines, which were subsequently
upheld?
From the very beginning of those
tragicomic proceedings conducted before the Belgrade court, we requested that
the trial be open to the public, and many of us monks and faithful attended
every hearing. We did not want our Elder and his associates to be tried in
secret and behind closed doors in that joint proceeding. None of those who
attended as observers could escape the impression that the entire farce had
been rigged through collusion between the regime and the ecclesiastical
leadership—by “the regime,” I should note, I mean not only the present one, but
also the previous one, Tadić’s—with such clumsy and wretched arguments and such
enormous procedural failings, concerning which legal experts could speak in
greater detail and, I am certain, will speak; experts who, I believe, will one
day study and explain that tragic legal mockery. I say “mockery” because that
is what the trial looked like: incompetent judges; scandalous police failures
in losing the seized registers—the so-called evidence, which could no longer be
traced; prosecution witnesses who did not indicate, by a single word or even
the most elementary piece of evidence, that any misuse had occurred; and the
transparent and obvious collusion between the prosecutors and the judge…
It was moving to watch our
eighty-five-year-old Elder, our spiritual father, answer every question put to
him calmly and with well-founded arguments. One day, it will be very useful to
read and publish those court records, provided that they are not somehow
mislaid and disappear, like those notorious registers that could not be traced
throughout the entire trial.
With the Bishop’s death, that
tragicomic proceeding was brought to an end—to the great relief, I would say,
of both the prosecutors and the judges. Of course, sentences had to be imposed
upon the remaining defendants, so that at least some semblance of legality
might be displayed before the public. Particularly shameful was the sentence
imposed upon Jelena Šubarević, who, in her professional capacity as an
architect, took part in the restoration of and work on Serbian holy sites
within the territory of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren—a wonderful Serbian
woman and a zealous Orthodox Christian—who was sentenced, though entirely
innocent, to house arrest, which she is still serving. We wish her, trusting in
Christ, the dishonored Founder of the spiritual contest, to endure all that
injustice and the humiliation and persecution inflicted upon her on earth; and
we remind all the unjust persecutors, prosecutors, and judges of the innocent
that no one will escape the justice of God and the righteous right hand of Saint
Sava.
The case of Bishop Artemije
marked the beginning of canonically questionable removals of bishops in the
Serbian Orthodox Church. The most recent removal took place at this year’s May
Assembly, at which Metropolitan Justin was removed from the Eparchy of Žiča. He
is Bishop Artemije’s longest-standing spiritual child. How do you comment on
the fact that these indictments concern only financial matters, even though in
the case of Bishop Justin, as in that of Bishop Artemije, there are clear
elements of political persecution?
You see, stories about money,
abuses, and stealing from innocent people are the easiest to promote and
justify before our tormented, long-suffering, and impoverished people. It is
much more difficult to promote a narrative or an indictment concerning the
faith, the canons, the dogmas, and the truths of Orthodoxy, because in these
stories about the misuse of money you can always find something and present it
in whatever way suits you, especially in this insane age of an enormous
quantity of all manner of information and disinformation.
Thus, on one occasion, an
unfortunate metropolitan, a fellow hierarch and persecutor of Bishop Artemije,
declared amid sobs that “Artemije is building villas throughout Serbia with
money he took from the slaughtered people of Kosovo and Metohija.” Some unworthy
ecclesiastical powerbrokers who, regrettably, for several decades have governed
the Serbian Orthodox Church not pastorally in the name of Christ, but in the
name of those from whom they received pectoral crosses, episcopal rings, and
other comforts and privileges of life—some of those ecclesiastical powerbrokers
of ours—have “gone before God to answer for the truth.” Bishop Irinej (Bulović)
of Bačka still remains, known for his “charism” that no one who has ever
crossed him will go unpunished.
I would by no means equate the
persecution and removal of Bishop Justin of Žiča, certainly uncanonical and, in
all likelihood, based on false accusations, with the relentless persecution of
Bishop Artemije. Unlike the perpetual “swimmer against the current” that Bishop
Artemije was—a defender of the Kosovo Covenant and of the truth of the Orthodox
Church—Bishop Justin, apart from his venture of receiving and supporting
Serbian students and farmers during the protests, did not enrich his life’s
record with any particular ascetic struggles in opposing Serbian ecclesiastical
innovators and Ecumenists. On the contrary, he very much swam downstream
together with the others at the heretical robber council of Crete in 2016 as a
member of the Serbian delegation: he demonstrated his agreement and
cooperation, participated in prayer services with the heterodox, and abandoned
his spiritual father Artemije to be carried away by the turbulent sea into
which they had thrown him from the synodal deck in 2010.
Of course, the Bishop of Bačka
could not forgive Justin for being the first monastic tonsure of Crna Reka, for
having sprung from the nursery of Serbian monasticism established by Bishop
Artemije, the restorer of that monasticism, for which Elder Justin of Ćelije
blessed and commended him shortly before his death. This, it appears, was
decisive in the persecution of Bishop Justin, for the powerbroker of Bačka will
exert every effort to eradicate any mention whatsoever of Bishop Artemije from
the Serbian Church. If this is so—and I believe that it is—then let the other
spiritual children of Bishop Artemije, who beat their breasts declaring that
they would “not obey Artemije, but the Church,” prepare themselves as well. Are
they now next on the agenda?
Despite the depositions and
excommunications pronounced against Bishop Artemije and the monastic community
that followed him out of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in 2010, how are we
to understand your words that the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in Exile is “the
purest and healthiest part of the Serbian Orthodox Church”? Are there examples
in the history of Orthodoxy of one man or a smaller religious group, such as
yours, succeeding in preserving and strengthening the faith?
Persecutions, anathemas, and
depositions inflicted upon the right-believing by heretics never have any
effect or grace-bearing efficacy before God and the Church of God, regardless
of how much power those heretics possess within the Church and regardless of
the support they receive from state authorities and foreign powerbrokers. This
is what the history of the Church teaches us, for it is replete with such
examples.
Let us mention only a few Saints
and God-pleasers who found themselves in similarly difficult circumstances at
various times and in various places: Saint John Chrysostom, one of the most
beloved Fathers of the Church, was twice exiled and unjustly deposed, although
he was Bishop of Constantinople. Employing various intrigues, they accused him
of causing a schism, which he did not acknowledge, and he asked his followers
not to recognize his deposition.
Then there was Saint Maximus the
Confessor, a Byzantine theologian who upheld the teaching upon which the
Orthodox Church rests today: that Christ has a human and a Divine nature.
Because of this teaching, the Byzantine emperor and patriarch banished him into
exile, where he died. The Sixth Ecumenical Council accepted Maximus’s teaching
and proclaimed him a Saint.
Let us also mention Saint
Theodore the Studite, who was twice exiled because he opposed the uncanonical
decisions of the Patriarch of Constantinople. He was tortured and exiled for a
third time because of Iconoclasm—his struggle against those who were destroying
the icons. Today, all Orthodox churches are adorned with icons. And then there
was Saint Mark of Ephesus, who fought against the decision to unite with the
Latins.
There are many other inspiring
examples from sacred Church history, down to the most recent example of the
Russian Church Abroad, which brought forth Saints after separating itself from
communion with the Sergianist, state-subservient, and Ecumenist Moscow
Patriarchate.
Therefore, to answer your
question directly: the Orthodox Church has many individuals who preserved our
holy Orthodox faith. Our example is neither unique nor isolated, but is simply
a following of the holy and sacred examples of the Fathers of the Church, the
confessors of the Orthodox faith.
Such faith and such a sacred
disposition are, glory be to God, seen and recognized by a multitude of
Orthodox people, both in Serbia and throughout the inhabited world, who
joyfully place themselves beneath this sacred banner, which was raised so high
and held so firmly by our predecessor upon the confessional throne of the
Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, our Father and Elder of blessed and eternal
memory, Bishop Artemije. We, his spiritual children, strive to continue
confessing that Truth and steadfastly serving God and His Church according to
our strength and by the grace of God, by which, in the words of the Apostle
Paul, we are what we are. We pray to God and Saint Sava that He may strengthen
and bless this path of ours, to the glory of God and the triumph of Orthodoxy
and the Saint-Sava tradition.
More than one-third of the
monastic community left the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren in 2010. What is the
structure of the Eparchy in Exile today: how many catacomb monasteries are
there in Serbia and outside it, how many monks and priests does it have, and
how is the Eparchy in Exile governed, having, in addition to you as Bishop
Artemije’s successor, three chorepiscopi?
A large number of monastics left
the nursery of monasticism, the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren—that is, the
territory of the eparchy as it had existed until then—when Bishop Artemije was
persecuted, because they neither consented to nor agreed with the uncanonical
decisions concerning his persecution. The Bishop himself, warning against the
unscrupulous and unjust members of the Synod, the usurpers of ecclesiastical
authority, commented in these words: “You have dropped an atomic bomb on the
Eparchy of Raška and Prizren!”
We followed the Bishop without
any plan or program whatsoever, with only the awareness that we did not wish to
consent to those uncanonical and unecclesiastical decisions concerning our
Elder, whom they not only uncanonically deposed but also forbade to be our
spiritual father, parent, and guide.
The uncanonical decisions did not
cease even after the Elder’s exile to Šišatovac Monastery. There too, after
several months, in September 2010, they forbade him to conduct any divine
service whatsoever. And why did they forbid him? Only because the people had
begun coming in great numbers to the Divine Liturgies at the monastery where
our blessed Elder served. Realizing that there would be no end to the
uncanonical measures, that he could no longer submit to any uncanonical
decisions—to which, as he said, he had until then submitted solely for the sake
of peace in the Church—and seeing that he would not be summoned to the autumn
session of the Assembly that year, the Bishop returned to the territory of
Kosovo and Metohija and celebrated the well-known Divine Liturgy at Duboki
Potok Monastery. Thereafter followed events familiar to many: for the first
time in Serbian history, through a joint operation of the Šiptar and Serbian
police in Kosovo and Metohija, the monks and the Bishop were forcibly expelled from
Duboki Potok Monastery and driven from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. In
fact, it was from that time, from the Feast of the Holy Archangel Michael in
2010, that the exile began.
The construction of so many
catacombs and monasteries is truly a miracle of God. The Eparchy in Exile is a
highly functional eparchy, with its own missionary and publishing activities.
We have more than forty catacombs, around 150 monks and nuns, fifteen
non-monastic priests, and thousands upon thousands of faithful, through whose
selfless assistance, sacrifice, effort, and labor we have accomplished what we
have accomplished, with the blessing of God and through the prayers of Saint
Sava and the other Serbian Saints and Saints of all Orthodoxy.
Serbian source online:
Sources: Icons of St. Glycherie the Confessor of Romania and St. Philaret the New Confessor from the nuns of the Convent of Saint ...
