Spiritual Healing from the Divine Scriptures and the Holy Fathers: Part 1

By Archimandrite Photios (Spassky) (+1838)

Abbot of St. George (Yuriev) Monastery, Novgorod

 

Discourse 1. On evil passions in general

 

 

Question. For what reason did the Most High Creator will to create man, subject to evil passions?

Answer. Man was not created such, but free from evil passions: “God made man upright” (Eccl. 7:30).

Question. From what, then, did he become subject to passions?

Answer. From the fact that he did not preserve himself in his original state.

Question. And in what state was he?

Answer. In perfect holiness and blessedness.

Question. Tell me about this more fully.

Answer. He was created in the image of God and according to the likeness—endowed with wisdom, holiness, free will, without sinful inclinations, with immortality of soul and body, and with dominion over the animals. And as the place of his dwelling, he had the God-planted Paradise, where from the tree of life he partook of immortality, and from all the trees of Paradise he enjoyed their fruits. But after this he was deprived of it.

Question. In what manner?

Answer. Having been deceived by the serpent (the devil), he desired for himself the highest deification, to become equal to God in knowledge; he tasted of the forbidden tree, and by his disobedience angered his Creator.

Question. What followed from this?

Answer. Alas, a lamentable condition! As a transgressor he was driven out of the paradise of sweetness, deprived of the tree of life—the earth, cursed in the works of his hands, began to bring forth thorns and thistles. And the Cherub, with his flaming weapon, barred also the way to the God-planted Paradise.

Question. What befell his body?

Answer. Heavy labors, various illnesses, and death.

Question. And the soul?

Answer. Darkening of the mind and corruption of the will.

Question. Why so?

Answer. From the uprising of evil passions, to which his soul, after the transgression, became subject.

Question. What are passions?

Answer. Passions are those evil inclinations of the human heart which draw him to do that which is contrary to sound reason, a pure conscience, and the Law of God.

Question. By what other names are passions called?

Answer. Diseases, sufferings, ulcers, wounds, thorns, and the like.

Question. Why are they called diseases?

Answer. Because passions produce the same effects as bodily diseases. If someone’s leg hurts, he, although he desires, cannot walk without limping. In the same way the soul, when it has its wound (a passion), suffers. And from this a man cannot, although he desires, walk blamelessly in the Law of God, but, being crushed within himself, says: “Why do I suffer? Alas! For the good that I will, I do not; but the evil that I will not, this I do” (Rom. 7:19).

Question. And why are they called thorns?

Answer. Because just as thorns hinder the good seed from sprouting, so passions do not allow the sprouting of virtues to arise.

Question. Is every man subject to such passions?

Answer. “For as from one Adam the human race multiplied upon the earth, so an equal evil corruption in passions has settled in the whole human race,”*—says Macarius the Great. And the holy Apostle: “By one man,” he says, “sin entered into the world…” (Rom. 5:12).

Question. What is sin?

Answer. Sin is a transgression of the Law of God in thought, desire, feelings, word, and deed, to which the passions incline.

Question. Are passions indeed the cause of sin?

Answer. So it is! “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed: then lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin” (Jas. 1:14–15).

Question. From what does this sinful thorn spring up within us?

Answer. 1. From bad upbringing.

2. From one’s own negligence.
3. From the example of passion-loving people.
4. From the flesh warring against the spirit.
5. From the tempter, the devil, who deceived Adam and even dared to tempt the Son of God Himself.

Question. In what manner does the devil tempt us?

Answer. He wars against us not by anything else, but by our own instruments. Through our senses he wounds us and with the fire of our lusts he inflames our hearts. And as Delilah bound Samson with the braids of the hair of his head (cf. Judg. 16:14), so the devil binds us with the braids of our passions. However, he draws no one to evil by force, but it depends upon our will: to accept the temptation or not to accept it (Saint John of Damascus).

Question. What should I do, that I may not fall under his temptation?

Answer. Be sober and watchful always with your mind, and repel the crafty suggestions and evil thoughts by the word of God and by prayer at their very beginning. And guard your heart with all your strength from corrupt desires, according to what is written: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist, steadfast in the faith” (1 Pet. 5:8–9).

Question. For what reason does God permit the devil to tempt us by our passions?

Answer. Saint Maximus sets forth five reasons for this:

“1. That, being fought and fighting in return, we may come to discern virtue and evil.

2. That, having acquired virtue through struggle and labor, we may possess it as sure and inalienable.
3. That, advancing in virtue, we may not become high-minded, but may learn to be humble-minded.
4. That, having been tested by evil, we may hate it with perfect hatred.
5. That, having become passionless, we may not forget our own weakness, nor the power of God who helped us.” [3]

Question. Does not our own heart also have an inclination toward the passions?

Answer. It is very much inclined: “For the imagination of man’s heart is diligently inclined to evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21).

Question. How strongly are men sometimes overcome by the passions?

Answer. So much so that many even deify them. The pagans, deifying the passions, called shameful lust Venus, wrath—Mars, drunkenness—Bacchus. And the holy Apostle calls the belly a god (Phil. 3:19), and covetousness—idolatry (1 Tim. 6:10).

Question. To whom is one who serves evil passions like?

Answer. To irrational animals: “Man being in honor did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts, and became like them” (Ps. 48:13).

Question. In such a state is a man pleasing to God?

Answer. No! “My Spirit shall not abide in these men forever, for they are flesh,” said God concerning those who lived corruptly before the Flood (Gen. 6:3).

Question. And to men?

Answer. Even well-disposed men turn away from such as serve evil passions, when they see that there is no hope of their correction.

Question. What harm proceeds from them?

Answer. As those infected with a pestilence destroy themselves and others, so those infected by their passions inflict harm upon themselves and their neighbors.

Question. In what way do they harm themselves?

Answer. 1. They are deprived of the grace of God, of light and strength in law-keeping.

2. They fall into godlessness, into heresies, into many vices and lawlessness.
3. They bring upon themselves the vengeance of God.
4. They are deprived of temporal goods.
5. They fall into manifold illnesses and sorrows.
6. They die an untimely and grievous death. And finally,
7. they shall not enter into the joy of the righteous; but, alas, with the impious they shall be condemned to eternal torments prepared for the devil and his angels.

Question. And how do they harm their neighbors?

Answer. Some they embitter, persecute, and kill; others they corrupt by their depraved life and by their evil counsels. But blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly (Ps. 1:1).

Question. When it is so soul-destroying to indulge evil passions, what then should I do?

Answer. “Turn away from evil and do good, that is, struggle against the enemies (evil spirits), that you may diminish the passions. Then be sober, that they may not increase. And again struggle, that you may acquire virtues. After this be sober, that you may preserve them. And this is what it means to do and to keep,” says Saint Maximus. [4]

Question. For what reason is it so?

Answer. Since you are a man, it is not fitting to live contrary to your rational nature in an irrational manner. And since you are a servant of Christ, it is unseemly to be a slave of dishonorable passions.

Question. Is it not possible partly to please God and partly one’s passions?

Answer. No! “Whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. No one can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and mammon. Those who are in the flesh (living corruptly) cannot please God” (John 8:34; Matt. 6:24; Rom. 8:8).

Question. Must everyone conquer sinful passions?

Answer. Everyone must:

1. because the Heavenly Creator created all of us for this alone—that we might live without passions: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
2. because He did not leave us, having fallen, to be utterly corrupted, but gave us His Law as a guide to passionlessness: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Ps. 18:9).
3. because He stirs us to a virtuous life through the prophets, of whom one cries out: “Turn away from evil and do good” (Ps. 33:15).
4. because in the last days He was pleased to send to us His Only-begotten Son, that He might lead us out of darkness and the shadow of death, those enslaved by passions, into the consolation of passionlessness (cf. Luke 4:18).
5. because the Son of God, for our sins, was tormented by the lawless and endured a shameful death on the Cross, that He might free us sinners from the tyranny of the passions (cf. Titus 2:14).
6. because all of us at Holy Baptism renounced Satan and all his works, and were joined to Christ, who requires a virtuous life. And at monastic tonsure we again make vows to a life of passionlessness. And finally,
7. because the wide gate and the broad way lead us to destruction, but the narrow gate and the strait way to eternal life (Matt. 7:13–14).

Question. By what, then, is one to restrain the striving of evil passions?

Answer. By the fear of God, which is born:

1. From reflection on the omnipresence of God, and that God in the very act of passions has destroyed and does destroy many.
2. From the remembrance of the last things, that is, death, the Judgment of Christ, the Heavenly Kingdom, and the eternal torments in Hades. And according to Saint Maximus: “We abstain from the passions either for the sake of human fear, or for the sake of the fear of judgment, or for the sake of the future recompense, or for the sake of the love of God, or for the sake of the conscience that reproaches” (Saint Maximus the Centurion). [5]

Question. In the struggle against the passions, what is most necessary?

Answer. The presence of the grace of God, that it may instruct in this spiritual struggle. For man by his own power can do nothing good: “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13). And grace is acquired by humility and unceasing prayer. Along with grace, one’s own zeal and labors are also necessary.

Question. I ask you to tell me what and how I should do with the help of grace.

Answer. First: Having in your heart the fear of God, be sober and watchful always with your mind, that, instructed and strengthened by grace and armed with prayer, you may more easily strike the noetic enemies, the evil thoughts introduced by the spirit of wickedness, with the sword of the Word of God at their very beginning. For from noetic sobriety evil thoughts vanish like smoke, and the power of the passions is weakened.

Second: Flee idleness, but always occupy yourself with blessed labors and the reading of the Word of God, of the books of the Fathers, especially those which teach the struggle against the passions.

Third: You must have a spiritual guide, able by word and deed to instruct how to arm oneself against each passion and by what to overcome each one. And to him open with a sincere heart all your thoughts and desires of the heart frequently, that he may be able to instruct you and establish you in this spiritual struggle. For “where there is no guidance, the people fall like leaves, but in much counsel there is salvation” (Prov. 11:14). Under an experienced guide, being subject to passions, never follow your own will and understanding, lest you fall, cast down by self-will. According to his instruction, follow his will and understanding.

Fourth: Withdraw from the fearless and corrupt, lest you learn to indulge corrupt passions. Likewise withdraw from those things, occasions, and causes which stir up the passions in us.

Fifth: If you are overcome by some passion, do not delay to rise up and conquer it in return. For it is easier to uproot a young shoot than to tear out an old thorn. Just as a fresh and still warm wound is quickly healed, so wounds (passions) neglected in our soul over a long time suffer the opposite, even if one should begin to treat them (Venerable John of the Ladder). [6]

Sixth: Even if it should happen many times that through the force of the passions you stumble, do not weaken yourself by despair, but, rising again courageously against them, take up the struggle, calling upon the All-powerful God for help and beseeching the intercession of those saints who, being subject to the same passions as we, also struggled.

Question. Is it possible to be rid at once of evil passions?

Answer. No! “Do not struggle against all the passions at once, lest perhaps, turning back, you should be unable to proceed and be found unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven; but fight against each passion one by one” (Saint Peter of Damascus). [7]

Question. What is the reason for this?

Answer. It often happens that a man, at the beginning of his struggle, wishing to overcome the passions at once, but seeing them arise like waves one after another and plunge him into the depth of evils, becomes disturbed, falls into perplexity, is crushed, grows weak, and then even falls into despair. Therefore, not all at once, but first take up arms against that passion which most of all overcomes you. Does anger disturb your inner peace—overcome this passion. Does the carnal passion trouble you more—use all your powers and means to extinguish the flame of shameful lust. And when God helps you to become chaste, do not grow negligent, but also subject the other passions to reason with the help of God.

Question. From what is a passion recognized in me?

Answer. From thoughts: “For as the mind of one who hungers imagines bread, and of one who thirsts water, so also the glutton imagines various foods and drinks, the pleasure-lover imagines female faces, the vainglorious imagines honors from men, the lover of money imagines acquisitions, the resentful imagines revenge against the one who has grieved him, and the envious imagines the harming of those envied. For when the mind is troubled by passions, it receives passionate thoughts” (Saint Maximus the Centurion). [8]

Question. And are passions sometimes hidden even from ourselves?

Answer. “Many passions are hidden in our souls. If there are no things or causes that awaken the passions, they do not manifest their activity. But when there are things or causes present, then the passions also manifest their activity” (Saint Maximus the Centurion). [9]

Question. What are the causes of the passions?

Answer. Sweet foods, drinks of various kinds, beautiful-faced women, money, possessions, honor, glory, and the like.

Question. How can I know whether I love a passion or not?

Answer. “A sign that someone acts according to a passion willingly is that, when he is reproved or corrected concerning it, he becomes disturbed. But to endure reproof and correction concerning it without disturbance is a sign that he is overcome by the passion unwillingly or falls through ignorance,” says Saint Dorotheos. [10] “He who hates the passions removes their causes, but he who remains among the causes, even unwillingly, is attacked,” said the Venerable Mark the Ascetic. [11]

Question. For the restraint of evil passions, what else must be known?

Answer. It is necessary to know the initial passions, from which all vices and lawlessness, as evil branches from evil roots, spring forth.

Question. How many initial passions are there?

Answer. Eight, namely: gluttony, fornication, love of money, anger, sorrow, despondency, vainglory, and pride.

Question. Of these eight, which are the root ones?

Answer. Gluttony, love of money, and vainglory. For from these three the other five are born.

Question. And these three from what?

Answer. From self-love. “Guard yourself from the mother of evils, self-love, which is the irrational love of the body; for from it are born the first three passionate thoughts: gluttony, love of money, and vainglory. From these is born every assembly of evils” (Saint Maximus the Centurion). [12]

Question. Is it not necessary for me to know in detail about each of these passions?

Answer. It is very necessary. And first, let us begin the discourse concerning self-love.

(To be continued)

 

NOTES

* Quotations from the works of the holy Fathers are given by Archimandrite Photios in Church Slavonic, since most translations into Russian were made much later, in the second half of the 19th century. Here and below, editorial notes and explanations are given in square brackets.

1. Philokalia, vol. I. Instructions of Saint Macarius the Great on the Christian life, selected from his homilies, part 2, 17.

2. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Book 2, chapter IV. On the devil and demons.

3. Philokalia, vol. III. Second century on love, 67.

4. Philokalia, vol. III. Second century on love, 11.

5. Philokalia, vol. III. Second century on love, 81.

6. The Ladder. Step 5, 30.

7. Philokalia, vol. V. Book two, discourse 5.

8. Philokalia, vol. III. Second century on love, 68.

9. Philokalia, vol. III. Fourth century on love, 52–54.

10. Soul-profiting instructions. Instruction 19.

11. Philokalia, vol. I. To those who think to be justified by works, 119.

12. Philokalia, vol. III. Second century on love, 59.

(To be continued.)

What Constitutes Ecclesiality

Bishop Mikhail (Gribanovsky) of Taurida and Simferopol (+1898)

December 14, 1886

 

The idea of ecclesiality has only quite recently begun to attract public attention and, up to the present, has been very little clarified and even less understood. Each of its friends and enemies puts into it such content as seems good to him. In various spheres it appears in entirely different coloration and evokes the most opposite views and judgments. To clarify, as far as possible, on every convenient occasion, the great idea of ecclesiality constitutes the moral duty of its bearers and defenders.

The most general, the most fundamental concepts of ecclesiality still appear very vaguely and in the form of certain indefinite and scattered shadows before our social consciousness. The most clear and widespread is that understanding of ecclesiality according to which it embraces the external liturgical and ritual aspect of our Orthodox faith. Such an understanding has taken root among us because, first, it is very easy and evident, and second, taken by itself, it is indisputably correct, insofar as ritual constitutes a necessary and essential attribute of Orthodoxy. But both defenders and opponents of this understanding must always remember that it is far from exhausting the entire content of the concept of ecclesiality; the latter is incomparably richer and immeasurably higher, since it embraces, besides the external, also the internal aspect of church life.

Ecclesiality—according to the direct meaning of the word—is that which is proper to the Church, that which distinguishes it from the rest of the world standing outside ecclesial grace: ecclesial is that upon which lies the seal of the Church. We must call that person ecclesial who lives by the spirit of the Church of Christ, is sanctified by her Mysteries, loves her ordinances and is guided by them in all his affairs. That society we must consider ecclesial in which the spiritual authority of the Church reigns, in which her representatives have a decisive moral influence on all forms of private, social, and state life, in which, finally, all individual persons and institutions freely and lovingly bow before her divine directives and receive from them the strength and direction of their activity.

Called by her divine origin to give direction and character to all aspects of life, the Church in no way restrains their free growth, in no way imposes upon them a uniform, deadening coloration.

Ecclesiality is such a direction of life in which the transforming action of the Holy Spirit, inherent in the Church, is visible. Through ecclesiality, He penetrates into our earthly elemental life, regenerates and strengthens it. This active participation of the Spirit of God illumines the idea of ecclesiality with divine light and imparts to it the character of indestructible firmness and heavenly grandeur, however much the children of the world may neglect it in their frivolity, however much its enemies may struggle against it, however much its friends may distort it and reduce it to trifles. In vain do they think that ecclesiality is the banner only of this or that social or political party and therefore has a transient interest. No, it is the banner of the Holy Spirit. It is the banner of those who look upon the temporal course of personal and social life from the point of view of eternity. Nations and states have passed, pass, and will pass from the face of the earth; the Church will abide forever. Only that people and only that state can stand firm and grow which will subject its unstable natural life, exhausted in its own development, to the mighty, unconquerable, and even for Hades itself irresistible grace-filled power of the Holy Spirit. They are mistaken who think that ecclesiality is an incidental secondary current in the general course of national development. No, it is the sole conduit of the divine creative forces on earth, and upon it entirely depends the growth and prosperity of every nation. Whoever does not graft himself onto this vine of Christ, does not draw in its life-giving sap into all the branches of life, both internal and external, will morally wither and perish forever, whether an individual man or an entire, even great, nation.

But to introduce ecclesiality into the particular aspects of life, opponents will say, does this not mean to drive this life into outdated and petrified ecclesial frameworks which it has long since outgrown? Is this not the same as suppressing and destroying all the inexhaustible richness of individual forms of development which constitute all the color and beauty of our existence?

Called by her divine origin to give direction and character to all aspects of life, the Church in no way restrains their free growth, in no way imposes upon them a uniform, deadening coloration. Bearing within herself an infinite authoritative height, ecclesiality at the same time is distinguished by boundless loving breadth. It gives full scope to all particular manifestations of life, only deepening, directing, and elevating them toward the true ideal. It is false to suppose that if a people takes ecclesiality as its banner, it will cease to develop and will become frozen in established forms. Quite the contrary. There is not a single living blade of grass in the field of a people which, having received within itself a ray of ecclesiality, would not blossom in all its ideal divine beauty. Ecclesiality does not kill life, but its discord, its evil struggle, its painful contradictions. It is not the fullness of life that withers, but its illusory, merely beguiling illusions disappear under the radiant sun of ecclesial truth. Not outdated, outlived frameworks are imposed by ecclesiality upon society, but ideal, heavenly, ever-youthful frameworks; they do not hinder, do not distort the shoots of life, but only direct them to their true norm of life in Christ—in all the fullness and harmony of its divine powers. And can a believing Christian admit the possibility that the Spirit of God, the Spirit of life, would kill life? Does this not mean to admit the Kingdom of God divided against itself? Only a weak lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit acting in the Church could have produced an unfounded fear for the development of life upon its reception of ecclesiality. Quite the opposite. The real growth of life is possible only in the Church, as in the kingdom of the life-giving, all-powerful love sent down by God. Therefore only he walks on the right path of development who brings into all its even most subtle turns the light of true ecclesiality. “But how is this to be done?—you will ask.—Granted that we, as believers, are convinced that ecclesiality is necessary for life, but how is it to be applied to the particulars of the latter? How is ecclesiality to be manifested in current reality, in the order of our ordinary everyday life?” Here we enter into a realm completely obscure for social consciousness. We do not have sufficient acquaintance with the life of the Church either in her dogmatic teaching and moral teaching, or in her canons, or in her historical development. And without this acquaintance, how can we illumine ourselves and our surroundings with her light? We often do not know even the most initial simple requirements of the Church concerning the structure and character of one or another aspect of life. It would be desirable to outline the most general and fundamental points of these requirements.

Bearing within itself an infinite authoritative height, ecclesiality at the same time is distinguished by boundless loving breadth.

First of all, how is one to introduce ecclesiality into one’s thoughts, into one’s worldview? What counsels does the Church offer to seekers of theoretical truth? The Church requires that, before wandering along the tangled paths of natural human thought, they turn their attention to her teaching, as it has been expressed in the Gospel and at the Ecumenical Councils. Then she requires that this acquaintance with her teaching be free from all prejudices, from every preconceived notion, that it be simple and natural, as befits impartial seekers of truth. Finally, she requires that, in this, one avoid as much as possible a one-sided evaluation of it, not to be carried away by arguments of reason alone or by images of imagination, not to trust the inclination of a single feeling or the protests of a single will, but to strive to receive her teaching with the whole being, in full harmony of the powers of the soul, after one has succeeded in concentrating, in deepening within oneself, in attuning one’s heart and spirit in an elevated manner. Then the Church promises to give the testimony of her truth. Then the seeker, in the depth of his being, will see that here precisely, in this teaching, is contained that which his soul, thirsting for truth, asks for and strives toward. Then there will remain only to clarify and polish the discovered precious pearl. The Church here proposes as guides the holy Fathers, who in their writings have presented the greatest examples of the elucidation of Christianity. Finally, following the example of the same holy Fathers, one must make use of all possible aids of science and philosophy. Through this, with even greater sharpness and clarity, there will appear before the spiritual vision of the seeker of truth all the divine grandeur of the Church’s teaching, its complete and incomparable superiority even over all the dim and one-sided inventions of the human mind and imagination.

No less definite indications can also be found concerning the question of how to introduce ecclesiality into the sphere of one’s feelings, how to relate, from the point of view of the Church, to those one-sided impulses and strivings of the soul and to those passions which fill and violently agitate our elemental sinful nature. If the world looks upon all this with indifference and even considers affects and passions to be useful and necessary motors of life, then the Church commands that they be eradicated with all possible energy. For the Church, purity of heart and a joyful spiritual peace constitute the highest ideal of life and the chief condition of unfailingly fruitful practical activity. Further, the Church proposes an entire system of struggle against the passions, a system tested by many experiences and sealed by the greatest feats of self-denial and ardent love for Christ.

A multitude of ascetical works provide an inexhaustibly rich aid to everyone who wishes to become acquainted with the ecclesial experience of this kind. As a necessary condition for success in the struggle, the Church commands, first of all, to renounce the feeling of proud self-reliance. She declares that if a man relies only on his own personal powers, then failure and defeat will certainly await him, for the enemy is undoubtedly stronger than he. According to her teaching, one must constantly call upon the higher help of Christ and of His saints, with a sincere acknowledgment of one’s powerlessness and one’s sinfulness. Only with such a feeling of unconditional humility is victory over evil, with God’s help, possible, and the approach to that moral purity to which the Church calls each of her members. Finally, throughout the entire difficult path of struggle, she proposes as guides pastors and ascetics, from whom one must seek practical counsel, help, consolation in sorrow, and elevation of spirit, and through whom she imparts her most saving Mysteries, at all the falls of life, of repentance and Communion.

If we pass from personal life to family life, then here also we shall hear the entirely clear voice of the Church concerning the true aim and proper ordering of family relations. The Church unconditionally forbids marriages for the sake of mere personal pleasure, on account of gain, or other extraneous considerations. She recognizes only one aim—mutual self-sacrificing love for the sake of the glory of Christ. In the family she desires to see a sanctuary, in which, above all, faithful servants of Christ would be brought up. What the constant moral atmosphere in the family must be, what religious character all its everyday details must bear in view of such a lofty aim—this can already be understood by everyone who sincerely resolves to order his family life according to the ecclesial ideal. But, of course, even for one who has made such a resolve, there may arise in the family such misunderstandings in which it will be very difficult for him to discern impartially. In such cases, according to the instruction of the Church, the authoritative participation of her pastor is necessary, who, by his very calling, is obliged with all his strength to safeguard the family well-being of his flock, entering into their spiritual needs and reconciling their mutual disagreements. As a confessor, as a teacher, as a minister of the sacred rites, he possesses all possible means to act successfully in this direction and is a necessary and guiding member of the family, ordered upon the principles of ecclesiality.

If we turn our attention to social activity, then, according to the ecclesial view, it is entirely only a manifold feat of love for one’s neighbors for the glory of Christ. All selfish, power-loving, and self-loving motives for it are a direct overthrow of the fundamental requirements of the Church. According to the meaning of the latter, every social actor must have one thing in view—to assist by his activity in the building up of the Kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of love and truth, in the inner and external life of men.

…We must with all our soul beseech God that we may finally understand that all our salvation—as individuals, as a society, as a state, as an entire people—lies in introducing everywhere the Christian-ecclesial spirit and in being guided by the moral authority of the Church and her representatives at every step of our personal and social life.

 

Russian source: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Mihail_Gribanovskij/v-chem-sostoit-tserkovnost/

 

 

The Impossibility of Depicting God and the Possibility of “Seeing” Him

“There is no specimen in creation that can represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

(St. Ammon)

 

 

A Mystery Which Cannot Be Expressed or Depicted. In a previous article, [1] we presented the teaching of the Holy Fathers on God: that He is “in every respect without form or figure” and “beyond every image” [2] and that, consequently, “it is the height of insanity and impiety to give form to the Divine.” [3] In order to deter our minds from the eror of attempting “to circumscribe the Divine in figures and forms,” [4] the Saints insist emphatically on the impossibility of depicting God.

The Mystery of the Holy Trinity, although mystically revealed to the Prophets and the Saints, remains beyond conception and is, therefore, incapable of being expressed or depicted. The Holy Fathers, as one theologian correctly writes, “never allowed their thought to cross the threshold of the mystery, or to substitute representations of God for God Himself.” [5]

“Types” of the Holy Trinity Deriving from Divine Revelation. Yet, God, Who loves mankind, while not allowing us to endow Him with form or figure or to depict Him, has, in His gracious condescension, nonetheless revealed His Triune nature to many Saints, and this through a variety of “types,” so that we might be confirmed in the Divinely-inspired dogmatic teaching of our Church.

1. During the period of the Arian heresy, St. Theodore the Sanctified (commemorated on May 16), while at prayer, saw “something like three pillars of light that were equal in every way and identical with each other” and heard a voice saying to him: “Pay no heed either to the separation in the figure that you see, or to its circumscription, but only to its sameness; for there is no specimen in creation that can represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” [6]

2. St. John of the Ladder (commemorated on March 30) enigmatically describes an astonishing revelation that he had while at prayer. After reaching a state of ecstasy and Divine vision, he found himself in the midst of the Holy Angels. In his thirst and longing to know the mysteries of God, the Saint was impelled to ask the Angel who was serving as his companion and guide, “What was the Ruler [Christ] before He assumed a visible form?”; “In what form does He now exist?”; “What is the meaning of His standing and sitting at the right hand of the Cause [the Father]?”; and “Lead me to that to which my longing has been drawing me”—that is, to the vision of the ineffable majesty of the Holy Trinity! His Angelic guide “could not teach him these things, because he was not permitted to do so.” “It is impossible,” he said, “for human ears to be instructed in these mysteries”; “the time has not yet come,” he went on, “since you lack the fire of incorruption.” [7]

 

3. St. Symeon the New Theologian (commemorated on March 12) recounts a mystical vision, during which he conversed with the three Hypostases of the Blessed and most regal Trinity. The Essence of God, among other astounding revelations, assured the Saint:

According to the nature that is in Me, I am entirely invisible, indescribable, without form, impalpable, untouchable, immovable, ever-moving, filling all fillings and yet being nowhere at all, neither in you, nor in any other of the Angels or Prophets who of old or now are close to Me, by whom I have never been seen in any way, nor am I ever seen. [8]

The “Vision” of God. According to the Holy Fathers, it is therefore “absolutely impossible for anyone to see God with the eyes of his senses, since God is wholly invisible and without form and is, first and foremost, completely simple.” [9]

“No man hath seen or can see” [10] God—that is to say. His transcendent Nature and Essence—, but all that we have seen or heard through His condescension, God effects “by conforming Himself for the sake of accommodation [οίκονομικώς, or “by economy”—Trans.] to our needs,” [11] for the Lord “is higher than forms and words of this kind.” [12] In spite of this, God is (and becomes) “participable and visible” “according to His energy, Grace, and power,” to which “the whole choir of holy theologians attests.” [13]

Pure and sincere love towards our brother is also one of the Divine Energies. The more we cleanse our hearts, the greater will be our love for our brother and God’s love for us, and all the more will we “see” God, Who will then abide and dwell in our hearts: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” [14] When we have God dwelling and abiding in our hearts by means of His uncreated Energies, then we are enriched by a spiritual gift even greater than that of beholding God with the eyes of our senses: “No man hath seen God at any time; if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us.” [15]

 

Notes

1. For an English translation of the article in question, see “On the Ascension of Our Lord,” Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (2002), pp. 2-4.

2. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, ’Αόρατος Πόλεμος [Unseen Warfare], Part I, Chap. 25.

3. St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chap. 16, Patrologia Grceca, Vol. XCIV, cols. 1169C-1172A.

4. St. Neilos, On Prayer, §116, Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LXXIX, col. 1193A.

5. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology’ of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), p. 42.

6. St. Ammon, Epistle to Theophilos, §11 (Athens: “Harmos” Publications, 1991), pp. 52-53.

7. St. John of Sinai, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 27.B.13, Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LXXXVIII, col. 1109C.

8. St. Symeon the New Theologian, “Ethical Discourse (8),” Sources Chretiennes (Paris: Cerf. 1967). Vol. CXXIX. 11. 99-123.

9. St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, “Interpretation of I St. John 4:12.”

10. I St. Timothy 6:16.

11. Cf. St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,” Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LXXIII, col. 417D (note on St. John 5:37).

12. St. John Chrysostomos, “Homily 40 on the Gospel of St. John (§3),” Patrologia Grceca, Vol. LIX, col. 232 (note on St. John 5:37).

13. See note 9.

14. St. Matthew 5:8.

15. I St. John 4:12; cf. I St. Timothy 6:16.

 

Original Greek source: ’Άγιος Κυπριανός. No. 308 (May-June 2002), pp. 129-130.

English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXI (2004), No. 3, pp. 48-49.

St. Philaret the New Confessor: On the Sunday of St. John of the Ladder

 

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

More than once, brethren, the fact has been mentioned that on each Sunday in the Great Fast there are other commemorations beside that of the Resurrection. Thus, on this day, the Church glorifies the righteous John of the Ladder, one of the greatest ascetics, which the Church, in speaking of them, calls “earthly angels and Heavenly men.”

These great ascetics were extraordinary people. They commanded the elements; wild beasts willingly and readily obeyed them. For them, there were no maladies they could not cure. They walked on the waters as on dry land; all the elements of the world were subject to them, because they lived in God and had the power of grace to overcome the laws of terrestrial nature. One such ascetic was Saint John of the Ladder.

He was surnamed “of the Ladder” (Climacus) because he wrote an immortal work, the Ladder of Divine Ascent. In this work, we see how, by means of thirty steps, the Christian gradually ascends from below to the heights of supreme spiritual perfection. We see how one virtue leads to another, as a man rises higher and higher and finally attains to that height where there abides the crown of the virtues, which is called “Christian love.”

Saint John wrote his immortal work especially for the monastics, but in the past his Ladder was always favorite reading in Russia for anyone zealous to live piously, though he were not a monk. Therein the Saint clearly demonstrates how a man passes from one step to the next.

Remember, Christian soul, that this ascent on high is indispensable for anyone who wishes to save his soul unto eternity.

When we throw a stone up, it ascends until the moment when the propelling force ceases to be effectual. So long as this force acts, the stone travels higher and higher in its ascent, overcoming the force of the earth’s gravity. But when this force is spent and ceases to act, then, as you know, the stone does not remain suspended in the air. Immediately, it begins to fall, and the further it falls the greater the speed of its fall. This, solely according to the physical laws of terrestrial gravity.

So it is also in the spiritual life. As a Christian gradually ascends, the force of spiritual and ascetical labours lifts him on high. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Strive to enter in through the narrow gate.” That is, the Christian ought to be an ascetic. Not only the monastic, but every Christian. He must take pains for his soul and his life. He must direct his life on the Christian path, and purge his soul of all filth and impurity.

Now, if the Christian, who is ascending upon this ladder of spiritual perfection by his struggles and ascetic labours, ceases from this work and ascetic toil, his soul will not remain in its former condition; but, like the stone, it will fall to the earth. More and more quickly will it drop until, finally, if the man does not come to his senses, it will cast him down into the very abyss of Hell.

It is necessary to remember this. People forget that the path of Christianity is indeed an ascetical labour. Last Sunday, we heard how the Lord said: “He that would come after Me, let him take up his cross, deny himself, and follow Me.” The Lord said this with the greatest emphasis. Therefore, the Christian must be one who takes up his cross, and his life, likewise, must be an ascetic labour of bearing that cross. Whatever the outward circumstance of his life, be he monk or layman, it is of no consequence. In either case, if he does not force himself to mount upwards, then, of a certainty, he will fall lower and lower.

And in this regard, alas, people have confused thoughts. For example, a clergyman drops by a home during a fast. Cordially and thoughtfully, they offer him fast food, and say: “For you, fast food, of course!” To this, one of our hierarchs customarily replies: “Yes, I am Orthodox. But who gave you permission not to keep the fasts?” All the fasts of the Church, all the ordinances, are mandatory for every Orthodox person. Speaking of monastics, such ascetics as Saint John of the Ladder and those like him fasted much more rigorously than the Church prescribes; but this was a matter of their spiritual ardour, an instance of their personal ascetic labour. This the Church does not require of everyone, because it is not in accord with everyone’s strength. But the Church does require of every Orthodox the keeping of those fasts which She has established.

Oftentimes have I quoted the words of Saint Seraphim, and once again shall I mention them. Once there came to him a mother who was concerned about how she might arrange the best possible marriage for her young daughter. When she came to Saint Seraphim for advice, he said to her: “Before all else, ensure that he, whom your daughter chooses as her companion for life, keeps the fasts. If he does not, then he is not a Christian, whatever he may consider himself to be.” You see how the greatest saint of the Russian Church, Saint Seraphim of Sarov, a man who, better than we, knew what Orthodoxy is, spoke concerning the fasts?

Let us remember this. Saint John Climacus has described the ladder of spiritual ascent; then let us not forget that each Christian must ascend thereon. The great ascetics ascended like swiftly-flying eagles; we scarcely ascend at all. Nonetheless, let us not forget that, unless we employ our efforts in correcting ourselves and our lives, we shall cease our ascent, and, most assuredly, we shall begin to fall. Amen.

 

From The Ladder of Divine Ascent, by St. John Climacus, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, ΜΑ, 2001.

Comments on Ecumenism

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 1 (1984), No. 3, pp. 48-51, 54.

 

 

Before the advent of ecumenism, so much religious bigotry and hate marked the relationship between people of different religions that one is, on first glance, suspicious of anyone who questions the contemporary ecumenical movement. This is natural, since no real Christian—no really humane person—wishes to live in an atmosphere of hate or animosity. This is antithetical to Christian principles, contrary to spiritual laws, and a real hindrance to personal growth in the religious realm.

One might ask, then, why we traditionalist Orthodox are so wholly opposed to ecumenism, which we find to be not only a heresy, but a “pan-heresy.” Certainly we do not want the hate that marked the relations between religions before the ecumenical movement was popularized, many will ask. And our answer is that indeed we do not want such hate. Accepting the religions of others, whether we agree or not with those who hold beliefs contrary to our own, is a necessary part of civilized living—a necessary part which even here in America, which preaches religious freedom, is not adequately respected. No, our real objection to the ecumenical movement is that it does not stop at mutual understanding and mutual acceptance. It has a philosophy, if not an actual goal, behind it that frightens us and that compromises our witness as Orthodox.

In the first place, we Orthodox believe that Christ established a Church on earth, that it has never been divided, that it has never been lost, and that, Christ not being a liar, the Gates of Hell have never prevailed against it. We believe that we constitute that Church: founded by Christ, preached by the Apostles, and preserved in our Holy Tradition. We believe that our ancient customs began in the Apostolic Church, matured through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and reach us as the authentic voice of Christianity. We do not deny that other Churches exist, nor do we deny that much of what they practice they received from us, the Christian East, the birthplace of Christianity. However, we believe that they are separated from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is preserved within the Orthodox national Churches, and that they are without the fullness of Christianity which is passed on to us in the Grace of God’s Church. This is the very cornerstone of our beliefs. And if anyone should wish to join us, we ask simply that he return to the tenets which belonged to the undivided Christian Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, these being the very tenets which guide and constitute our Church.

In claiming to be the historical Church, the standard of Christianity, the “Mother Church,” we feel a great need to understand our brother Christians and to draw near to them, it being a natural thing for a mother to draw near to her children. Our claim to primacy is not an exclusivistic one, but one which embodies a sincere invitation: an invitation to return to the true Church established by Christ on earth. And this exclusive claim moves us to compassion for our fellow Christians, imprinting on our hearts with particular force a sense of responsibility. It is, to be sure, part of our self-understanding that we are responsible for the preservation of the Faith, so that our fellow Christians, who have in our eyes strayed from the true standard of Christianity, may measure themselves against that which we have preserved. It is an act of love which prompts us to desire to extend the perimeters of the Church, this love guided in the wisdom by which we extend those perimeters only within the defined limits of the Church as the Apostles and the Fathers have defined it for us.

To the view of us Orthodox traditionalists the ecumenical movement has grown increasingly hostile, revealing to us the real intentions and goals of many ecumenists. In fact, some ecumenists have stated that they will not tolerate any religion which claims to embody the criterion of truth! In the name of understanding each other’s religion, the ecumenical movement is now preaching an intolerable intolerance of its own. It is no longer acceptable for me, as a sincere Orthodox Christian, to stand up in ecumenical circles and say that, while I believe that my Church is the true Church, I wish to know and understand other Christians, if not, in love, to attract them to the standard of Christianity preserved over the centuries in our Faith—not by proselytizing or “pushing” my views on others, but by maintaining the true Faith, which has an internal power of its own. And herein lies the problem of the ecumenical movement. Its ultimate goal is not understanding and dialogue, but (as official statements now indicate) the formation of one world religion, in which no single religion can claim to have primacy, but in which all religions, theoretically containing some aspects of the truth, will join together in finding a single truth.

We Orthodox Christians believe that the Church already exists and that what the ecumenists will produce in these schemes is, at best, an ugly mosaic of half-truths or suppositions about the truth. And, to be sure, if elements of truth can be brought together in a composite, so too can elements of untruth. And if each religion, in addition to containing aspects of the truth, contains also elements of falsehood, then the end result may be something monstrous: a giant composite of every conceivable human error about religion. We Orthodox conceive of the truth as an absolute, inseparable whole, indivisible and present as a single principle, from which all relative truths are derived. That our view should not be allowed is, again, a demonstration that the modern-day ecumenical movement is more than meets the eye.

What, in actuality, has the ecumenical movement brought to Orthodoxy? Understanding? Hardly. Here in America there are so many separate Orthodox jurisdictions that one is overwhelmed in trying to understand their histories and relationship to one another. Hatred exists between some groups. And what have we done? Rather than talk to one another, we have been enticed into talking to non-Orthodox, often showing greater affection for the heterodox than our own brethren. Many modernist Greek clergy in this country believe that Old Calendarist Greeks are all miserably illiterate, self-ordained fanatics. This is not true. Many traditionalists believe that all New Calendarists follow the perilous course toward modernism and ecumenism of the majority of the modernist Hierarchy. This, too, is not true. And yet, while we do not talk to one another about these misconceptions and problems, the ecumenists among us are quick to embrace Protestants and Roman Catholics, often to the point of violating Holy Canons by joining with them in prayer and services, thereby clouding the standard of purity which we are called, as Orthodox, to uphold. No unity and mutual understanding have come to the Orthodox, then, from the ecumenical movement. Rather, the movement has diverted our attention away from unity among ourselves. If its aims were true and sincere, it would seem, ecumenism would have begun “at home.” Such, among us Orthodox, is not the case.

One must also very frankly acknowledge that the ecumenical movement has greatly compromised the stand which the Orthodox Church has for centuries taken against Papism. If there is much that Roman Catholics and Orthodox share, having once been united in the Faith, there is one truly significant difference—aside from the great divergence in spiritual life which has been evidenced since the Great Schism especially—that stands out: the Orthodox Church recognizes no worldly head of the Church, but only Jesus Christ as its Head and Founder. The modern ecumenist movement, which proposes that all religions must join together in one world religion, also opens the way for a single leader of this one world religion. And such thinking is compatible with the notions of Papism, which have plagued Christianity for many centuries. Participation by modernist Orthodox in the ecumenical movement, then, has compromised the Orthodox stand against a universal human head of the Church, just as it has compromised the very ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. We Orthodox have always stood, not against the pious Roman Catholic Faithful, whom we wish to return to the Orthodoxy of their past, but against the politics of Papism. Elsewhere in this issue of Orthodox Tradition the reader may see for himself, in Bishop Cyprian’s laconic response to Archbishop Seraphim’s Paschal address, evidence of what ecumenism has done to serve the ends of the Vatican in Greece.

We might just add that the Uniates (Eastern Christians united to Rome) have benefited little from the ecumenical movement as well. Their attempts to maintain a separate identity within the Roman Catholic world have been clouded by the uniformity demanded by ecumenical philosophies, such that the most hated attempts by the Vatican to “Latinize” the Uniates have been easily implemented, the Uniates often fearing to emphasize a unique identity within an ecclesiological atmosphere that tolerates only similarities. Likewise, the Uniate movement in Greece, as many Uniates themselves admit, has been ever bolder in the last few decades, so-called ecumenical understanding again serving the purposes of the Vatican and the Hierarchy of the State Church of Greece showing great hesitancy to resist the Uniate movement as it did in the past, fearing that this might alienate it from the ecumenical movement itself.

Somewhere, too, we Christians have forgotten what we believe. We believe Christ to be the Incarnation of the universal God. Yet, in ecumenical gatherings we act as though we did not believe this. The late and blessed Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), a man who suffered much and endured much, spoke, out of his sorrow, some blunt words of love about what ecumenism has done to our basic Christian beliefs. Let us look at his words [Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, p. 27]:

[Many non-Christian participants in the ecumenical movement will admit that] ...Christ is an extraordinary and exceptional being and that He was sent by God. But for us Christians, if Jesus Christ is not God, we cannot consider Him either as a ‘prophet’ or as ‘one sent by God,’ but only as a great imposter without compare, having proclaimed Himself ‘Son of God,’ making Himself thus equal to God! (St. Mark 14: 61, 62.)

In effect, does not ecumenism betray itself when it extracts from unknowing (though perhaps naive) Christians views that are antithetical to its tenets —views which were so repugnant to the Early Church that the great Christian martyrs gave their blood and lives, rather than confess them? In other words, is not ecumenism extracting from us views that wholly compromise our basic Christian beliefs in the unique divinity of Christ? Does it not leave us unable to say that Christianity has a unique truth, that the Church of Christ is a unique institution, and that Christ Himself is a unique manifestation?

If, as a Christian, I cannot say that Christ is, for me, the Son of the Living God, the Truth of truths, the light from Whom all creation flows, the True God, the God beside Whom there is none, and the only God worthy of worship, then am I any longer allowed to be what a Christian is? And if this is ecumenism, then something is wrong. The result of a movement designed to promote understanding between religions—a noble end—should not destroy my Faith! Nor should it be intolerant of those who believe in an absolute. Yet this is exactly, precisely what the ecumenical movement is doing. And Christians of all denominations, who should be appalled, are sitting by as their ministers, Priests, Bishops, and Prelates ignore the insidious core of the ecumenical movement.

If you dare to hate your neighbor for what he believes, then you are not a Christian. You are basically inhumane, a cultist, and a misanthrope. But if you refuse to allow your neighbor to proclaim the primacy of what he believes, and yourself refuse to stand firm in what you believe as a Christian, then you are a contrived creature of an unknown future. Let us Orthodox beware of such a future! Let all Christians stand in fear before this new intolerance in the guise of understanding and love—an intolerance which has caused strife and dissent in the Church of Christ.

The Persecution of Patriarch Diodoros I (+2000)

How Constantinople Arranged a Tribunal Against the Righteous Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem

Athanasius Zoitakis

The unlawful actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine are certainly not the first incident of the Phanar’s non-canonical encroachment into the affairs of the Local Orthodox Churches. A clear example of an attempt to substitute an Ecumenical Council with the court of the Patriarch of Constantinople is found in the councils of the Greek-speaking Churches in 1993 and 1994. We would like to tell our readers about these little-known events.

 

 

In 1981, the Church of Jerusalem was headed by Patriarch Diodoros (Karivalis, 1981-2000). He began his ministry with words about how the patriarchal throne “is a throne not of majesty and glory, but martyrdom and Golgotha.”

Patriarch Diodoros embodied relentless loyalty to the Church canons and dogmas in spite of the pressure of the spirit of the times. He was known for his strict anti-ecumenist views.

At a session of its Synod on May 9, 1989, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem decided to cease theological dialogue with Anglicans and with all the non-Orthodox in general.

Patriarch Diodoros’ letter to the heads of all the Orthodox Church stated: “This step was inspired above all by the conviction of our entire Orthodox Church that it contains within itself all the fullness of truth and is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and the trustworthy repository of the Divine dogmas of our immaculate faith and our Sacred Tradition, having Jesus Christ as its head. Therefore, our Orthodox Church, being absolutely assured of the rightness of its path and its saving apostolic mission on earth, has no need for theological dialogue with the non-Orthodox, who, by the way, can study our Orthodox Church themselves and, if they want, live according to it. Any further dialogue with the non-Orthodox becomes dangerous for our Orthodox Church of Jerusalem as they use this dialogue to pursue… a policy of proselytism and to continue other activities that are unacceptable for the Orthodox Church.”

Later, on October 2, 1989, preaching in the Greek Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Patriarch Diodoros said: “This isn’t the first year they’ve been working to destroy Orthodoxy in the Holy Land. However, the Lord, having defended the Jerusalem Church for many centuries, has always saved Orthodoxy from any danger. Never in its two-thousand-year history has a single conqueror been able to master Jerusalem. Satraps, kings, and governors succeeded one another. But they are all gone, and only hundreds of Greek Orthodox monks remain—the watchful guardians of our holy heritage. Unfortunately, for decades now, not wanting to destroy the unity of the Orthodox Church, Jerusalem has nominally followed the other Churches participating in ecumenical dialogues, although ecumenism has never had any influence on us. Nevertheless, Jerusalem’s participation in these dialogues has given cause to claim that the Patriarch of Jerusalem also participates in the ecumenical movement. We note with dismay the serious abuse of these dialogues by the heretics. They confuse our faithful and try to convert them to their faith by any means necessary. They show them photographs of the Pope with our patriarchs and bishops, saying the Unia has already been achieved: ‘Don’t listen to your bishops, the Unia already exists, the Orthodox Church has united with the Roman Catholic Church.’ The word ‘Unia’ is likely used here with the meaning that ecumenists invest it with, namely—submission. Therefore, having reflected upon our responsibility before the Lord, before the Church, before our history, we decided in Divine enlightenment to cease all dialogue of the Patriarchate with non-Orthodox churches, since after many years of contact with them, no positive results have been achieved. We announced our decision to all the sister Churches and we will adhere to it as long as possible. You know that the Jerusalem Patriarchate follows the old calendar. It never changed and will not change the doctrine, canons, and dogmas of our Church. We are ready to continue laboring, and if necessary—to suffer for the sake of preserving them. The threats received by us daily and the actions of our opponents do not frighten us at all. We will remain steadfast guardians, faithful to the teachings of our Church.”

In a letter dated August 12, 1992, the Patriarch of Constantinople called on Patriarch Diodoros to participate in the development of relations with the anti-Chalcedonians. In his response to Patriarch Bartholomew’s letter, which called for participation in the discussions concerning the possibility of uniting with the Monophysites, the Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote that the Jerusalem Church has always advocated for reconciliation and the unity of all peoples, and in particular for “converting the non-Orthodox, who we, demonstrating all the spiritual riches of our holy Orthodox Church, call to accept its true and unchanging teachings, that we might all achieve the unity of faith and, having fulfilled the commandment of the Lord, be together,” and emphasized that “the holy Mother Church [1] has always joyfully accepted the repentant non-Orthodox into its bosom.” Thus, Patriarch Diodoros formulated an idea and method for unity that the Holy Fathers had already taught: There can be no compromise between heresy and truth; the sole path of unification with the universal Orthodox Church is the path of repentance.

The Patriarch further emphasizes how much more reasonable it would be to use the time that is needlessly wasted on useless ecumenical dialogues on establishing mutual contacts with the sister Orthodox Churches and overcoming inter-Orthodox problems and disagreements, since dialogue with the non-Orthodox has brought no results: “What positive result has the dialogue with the Anglicans brought when they are increasing the gap between the Orthodox and Anglican churches at this point by the practice of ordaining women, and also with the Roman Catholics who widely use proselytism and continue to make incredible efforts to harm the Orthodox Church?” In conclusion, he argues that “Dialogue with the non-Orthodox cannot only not strengthen our ties, but conversely, it further divides them from the teachings of the Orthodox Church.”

Continuing his letter, the Patriarch emphasizes that as a result of all the reasons mentioned, he “does not want to take part in the dialogue with the anti-Chalcedonians, following the path of abolishing the anathemas that the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils placed upon the Monophysites Dioscoros, Anthimos of Trebizond, Eutyches, Severus, Peter of Apamea, and many others—those whom the anti-Chalcedonians today consider to be “great fathers” and “holy hierarchs,” and their opponents—Orthodox fathers and holy hierarchs—heretics. “We ask the question,” the Patriarch continues, “how could we reach an agreement between our holy Orthodox Church and the anti-Chalcedonians? What communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14). To become members of our Church,” Patriarch Diodoros believes, “heretics must repent and fully, not partially, accept the decisions of all the Ecumenical and Local Councils. Until then, the Mother Church will remain outside of this dialogue and not recognize any decisions that are in conflict with the decisions of the holy Ecumenical Councils and sacred Orthodox Tradition” (signed September 22, 1992 in Jerusalem).

This implacable position of Patriarch Diodoros led to strife between the two ancient Patriarchates. Constantinople watched askance as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem became the main spiritual center drawing anti-ecumenist forces. Jerusalem’s frequent contact with adherents of the old style and also Jerusalem’s open support for those parishes in Australia that were in conflict with their Archbishop Stylianos became a particular problem.

The July 1993 Council

The culmination of the confrontation between the two Patriarchs was a council held in Istanbul on July 30-31, 1993, chaired by Patriarch Bartholomew, with Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria, the Greek Archbishop Seraphim, a large number of bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (including Iakovos of America and Stylianos of Australia), and representatives of the Cypriot Church and the Greek diaspora from the entire world.

This council, which defenders of Patriarch Diodoros consider to be a “robber council” and anti-canonical, gathered the most famous Orthodox ecumenists and, in fact, was convened with the aim of condemning Patriarch Diodoros and his actions, which the Phanar considered non-canonical. The Patriarch of Jerusalem himself did not respond to the invitation, saying that, in accordance with the sacred canons, only an Ecumenical Council can judge the Patriarch of a Local Church.

Patriarch Diodoros was convicted on many points, including interference in affairs outside his jurisdiction, “factional activity,” a plot against the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and Eucharistic communion with “schismatics and heretics.” The council decided to defrock Patriarch Diodoros and two of his archbishops: “The great council, aimed at defending unity and peace in the Church, and also to restore the authority of the holy canons that were blasphemously violated, unanimously decided to temporarily suspend Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem from his positions, and those close to him the Archbishops Timothy of Lydda and Hesychius of Capitolia, who, not repenting, continue to tempt and divide the Greek people both within Greece and beyond its borders.”

However, “for the sake of mercy and the love of mankind,” a qualification was made that delayed the execution of the decision: The Patriarch was given until Nativity to repent and change his position. Until then, he was “under suspension.” And the heads of all the Local Churches were called to avoid contact with him.

The council’s decision was brought to the attention of the heads of all the Orthodox Churches, causing quite a violent reaction. Nevertheless, not a single Patriarchate expressed any official indignation. There came a protest from Mt. Athos, although other large monasteries were silent. Some saw in these decisions the obvious papist tendency of the Patriarch of Constantinople, others an attempt by ecumenists to crack down on the anti-ecumenical attitude of Patriarch Diodoros that began to hinder the process of unification with the anti-Chalcedonians and Roman Catholics and to gradually create a coalition of traditionalists against the Phanar’s ecumenist course. At the same time, the ecumenical course was supported from within the Jerusalem Patriarchate itself: Following the decision of the 1993 Constantinople Council, Archbishop Damian of Mt. Sinai stopped commemorating Patriarch Diodoros.

Moreover, the council document clearly condemns the interference of Patriarch Diodoros in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Australia, in which is clearly expressed the Phanar’s desire to keep the Greek diaspora and the diaspora of other Orthodox peoples under its control.

Not a council, but a congress

Professor of canon law at Thessaloniki University Kyriakos Kiriazopoulos emphasizes that what occurred in July 1993 cannot be called a council -- “It’s only a congress or a meeting.”

The composition of the Constantinople assembly of autocephalous Churches was Greek-speaking. According to Professor Kiriazopoulos, this was certainly not accidental: The refusal to invite representatives of the other Local Churches to Istanbul was due to “the ethnophyletism of the organizers.”

The trial of Patriarch Diodoros and the hierarchs of the Jerusalem Patriarchate was also conducted with procedural violations and not in accordance with the Church’s established order.

In the context of the Phanar’s grievance against Jerusalem regarding the latter’s founding of a representation in Australia, it should be noted that not a single Ecumenical (or pan-Orthodox) Council establishes the exclusive right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to pastor Australia. Moreover, several Local Churches have their dioceses there—in particular, the Serbian, Antiochian, Romanian, and Russian Church Abroad.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople based its “exclusive right” to pastor Australia on the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council—the canon that (from the Phanar’s point of view) grants the Patriarchate of Constantinople the right to pastor the Orthodox diaspora throughout the whole world. Such a free reading of the 28th canon is still not acknowledged by many Local Churches.

According to the canonist Professor Kiriazopoulous, “The other Local Churches were not invited by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to participate in the assembly because the non-Greek autocephalous Churches do not recognize the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s exclusive jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora (including Australia), and, therefore, could support the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Additionally, it’s obvious that the real reason for the excommunication of the ever-memorable Patriarch Diodoros was not the so-called “invasion in the jurisdiction of the Australian Archdiocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” but the desire to bring Jerusalem into submission regarding its resistance to ecumenism.

The prototype for the July 1993 council (followed by several other similar councils) was, obviously, the pan-Orthodox assembly of 1923. Despite the “pan-Orthodox” epithet, the majority of the Local Churches also did not participate in it. Under Patriarch Bartholomew, congresses of Local Churches were renamed as “councils.” It should be noted that the notorious “Holy and Great Council on Crete,” also claiming “pan-Orthodox” status, was held without the participation of the Local Churches representing the majority of the Orthodox world.

Compromise. The councils of 1993 and 1994

Immediately after the council, the name of Patriarch Diodoros was stricken from the diptychs [2] of the Church of Constantinople. However, a few months later, after reaching a compromise, communion was restored, and the Jerusalem hierarchs were also “restored” in their dignity. It is indicative that this happened at similar gatherings of the Greek-language Churches—the second on December 14, 1993, and the third on April 21, 1994. Both gatherings were held with the same composition in Istanbul.

Translated by Jesse Dominick

1. It is noteworthy that Patriarch Diodoros here refers to the Church of Jerusalem as the “Mother Church,” as this is the term that Constantinople endlessly applies to itself to justify its interference in other Local Churches. -- Trans.

2. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has characterized the Moscow Patriarchate’s breaking of communion with itself over the Ukrainian crisis as an abuse of the Eucharist—using it as a weapon. However, we see here that Constantinople has taken the same action, and for much less, in Jerusalem, and it has also done so with the Greek Church, again, for much less. -- Trans.

 

Source: https://orthochristian.com/118965.html