Saturday, February 14, 2026

Against Neo-Papism

Nikolaos Mannis

 Source: Τιμητικός Τόμος Διονυσίου Μ. Μπατιστάτου, Athens, 2024, pp. 247-255.


“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

(Isaiah 14:12-14)

 

 

If we wanted to give a short definition of the concept “Papism” it would be: Papism is the conversion of Christianity into “Anti-Christianity” through the beheading of Christ. And indeed, the Luciferian arrogance of the Bishop of Rome who placed himself at the Head of the Church, instead of Christ, through the theories of Papal Supremacy and Papal Primacy, led to this blasphemous conversion.

True Christians, Christians whose behavior and heart reflect Jesus Christ, did not accept this “Anti-Christianity” conversion which the Bishop of Rome promoted. Why? Is it because true Christians had personal issues with the Bishop of Rome? No, not at all. In fact, true Christians would not have accepted any Bishop daring to usurp the place of Christ, Bishop of Rome, or Bishop of Constantinople or Bishop of Jerusalem. True Christians reject anyone who attempts to remove Christ from His place at the Head of Church, because he is a type of the Antichrist.

This has been clarified by the Saints in the past and in the present.

Specifically in the 6th century, St Gregory the Great, found unacceptable the literal meaning of the title “Ecumenical” i.e., “Universal” attributed to Patriarch. St Gregory the Great wrote: “...the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13), regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High (Isaiah 14:13)”. [1] And elsewhere: “If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the head of all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he who is called Universal falls”. [2] The reason for this refusal is that it contradicts the Bible, which teaches us that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22), “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23) and “he is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). And below: “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others”. [3]

In the 20th century St. Sophrony (Sakharov) pointed out in the same way of thinking: “Fighting against neo-papism that has appeared in the bowels of our Holy Church, we are fighting only for the truth in the ecclesiastical and eternal sense of the word. We reject any “Rome”, both the First, and the Second, and the Third, if we are talking about introducing the principle of subordination into the existence of our Church. We reject Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, London, Paris, New York, and any other papism as an ecclesiological heresy that distorts Christianity”. [4]

Of course, the followers of Papism do not admit that they behead Jesus Christ. They claim that they accept Jesus Christ as head but in heaven, while in the Church on earth the head of the Church is the Pope as “Vicar of Christ”...

But, as St. Macarius of Patmos (+1737) points out, [5] this view is also unacceptable because it breeds the following blasphemies:

1. That when Christ was on earth, he had all authority, but when he was taken up, he lost it.

2. That the incarnation caused great harm to Christ, because before he was born, he was king of heaven and earth, but when he was incarnated, the Pope took the kingdom of the earth from him.

3. If a man (such as a Pope or a Patriarch) and not Christ, is the head of the Church on earth, then a great loss follows in the Body of the Church because it lacks such a head, almighty, all-wise, forecaster of the future, all-merciful, as Christ is and the Church is condemned to have a head which is perishable, weak, mortal and other which come from the wretched state of human nature.

4. If Christ, Who now is in heaven with His flesh, does not rule over the earth, nor when He was on earth did He rule over heaven, because that which hinders Him now, also hindered Him then.

This is why true Christians believe that it is impossible for the Church to have a mortal man as its head because it needs a Head that will always live, always give life and always sanctify.

Those who believe that a man, such as the Pope, can be the head of the Church then have to ask themselves: what happens when this “head” dies? Does the Church die with him and resurrect after the ordination of the next Pope?

And if someone hypothetically answers that for that time the Head of the Church on earth is Christ, then one cannot help but wonder: that is, Christ must will beg, when will the Pope die so that he becomes the Head of the Church on earth for a while, while when the new Pope is ordained, he will be sorry because lost His authority? What nonsense is this!

Unfortunately, this anti-Christian and irrational heresy has been adopted in recent years by the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading many fathers and teachers of the Church to criticize this danger, which they call Neo-Papism.

The Neo-Papism is essentially a copy of the Papism: decapitation of Christ and placing in His place, as head, a mortal human, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who prefers the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”, in which title he gives a wrong meaning.

The followers of Neo-Papism constantly declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople is “first without equal” (Archbishop Elpidophoros of America), is “the head of the Orthodox” (Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria), is “the head of the earthly Church” (Metropolitan Efstathios of Sparta), is “the Primate of Orthodoxy, the visible sign of its Unity and the guarantee of the normally functioning institution that we call the ‘Orthodox Church” (Protopresbyter George Tsetis), is “the head of the Orthodoxy under heaven” (Panagiotis Andriopoulos) etc.

Bishop Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum had already tried to justify theologically, from an “orthodox” point of view, this anti-Christian Primacy. Claiming that the Holy Trinity is “the primacy of God the Father” (a position which even the papists did not dare to express), he tried to establish a kind of episcopocentrism that changes the purely Christ-centered character of the Church, since it establishes its unity “in the person of the bishop” and not Christ. This is a heresy that contradicts the teachings of the holy fathers. [6]

It is clear that some Orthodox (?) theologians are trying to secure theologically the Primacy for the Ecumenical Patriarch so that after the planned union with the Papists, the Orthodox will now more easily accept the primacy of the Pope...

Unfortunately, the most important representative of Neo-Papism today is the Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos. With an article on the internet in June 2019, he tries to establish the Neo-Papism of Constantinople by writing:

“The Ecumenical Patriarch, as first-throne patriarch, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized as his. Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at later Ecumenical Councils”. [7]

However, this is not correct, because:

1. The first president of the Second Ecumenical Council was Bishop of Antioch St. Meletius. And only after his death, the Bishop of Constantinople, St. Gregory the Theologian, was elected president. [8]

2. In the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius of Constantinople not only did not preside, but was the main accused. In this Synod (which finally deposed Nestorius) the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, was the president. [9]

3. In the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Legates of the Pope of Rome Leo were the presidents. [10].

4. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which anathematized, among others, four Patriarchs of Constantinople in a row!) the Legates of the Pope of Rome again held the presidency. [11]

5. Therefore, the only Ecumenical Synods, after the Second, presided over by Constantinople were the Fifth (St. Eutychius) and the Seventh (St. Tarasius).

Continuing, Metropolitan Ierotheos writes that the Patriarch of Constantinople “granted not only the tomoi of autocephaly, but also patriarchal dignity and honour, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia until today”. But that’s not right either!

It is known from ecclesiastical history that in 1589 the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II Tranos irregularly granted the patriarchal value to the Church of Russia (giving it the third place) and appointed the Metropolitan Job of Moscow as Patriarch. It is known, however, that many enlightened Hierarchs reacted to this arbitrary act, such as Bishop Ierotheos of Monemvasia and St. Meletios Pegas (Patriarch of Alexandria), who knew that according to orthodox ecclesiology only the Ecumenical Synod grants Patriarchal values and honors. Ierotheos of Monemvasia was the first to react and “says specifically to the patriarch: my lord, this cannot be done, because the great Constantine with an ecumenical council made the patriarchates; and the great Justinian with an ecumenical council (the fifth) made Ohrid an Archbishopric, and made Jerusalem (for the Passions of Christ), Patriarchate”. [12]

Patriarch Jeremiah, in his attempt to legitimize his arbitrary act, convened an endemic Synod in May 1590 in Constantinople (which assigned the Patriarchal Volume to the Church of Russia, ranking it in fifth place), which was also attended by the Patriarchs of Antioch Joachim, Sophronius of Jerusalem and eighty-one more Bishops! [13]

Despite this, the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Meletios Pegas reacted and demanded the convocation of an ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Council. In his letter to Jeremiah of Constantinople in 1591, he writes the following important points, which are a catapult against the positions of every supporter of Neo-Papism: “regarding the elevation of the Moscow Metropolis to a Patriarchate, you must not forget that this is the responsibility of not one A Patriarch (unless the New Rome wants to follow the Old) but a Synod and indeed an Ecumenical Synod; in this way the Patriarchates up until now have also been raised. For this you have to take into account the rest of your brothers, and indeed of all without exception (as the Fathers defined in the Third Ecumenical Council) to decide what will happen. For it is evident that no patriarchal throne is subject to another patriarchal throne, but they are all connected in the Catholic Church”. [14]

The Pan-Orthodox Synod finally took place in 1593 and conferred patriarchal value on the Church of Russia, ranking it fifth.

Therefore, in all subsequent newer Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches (i.e., after of 1593), the Patriarchal values and honors and the autocephalies were given temporarily and, as everyone admits, they are in reference (“ad referendum”) to the Ecumenical Council.

So, there are no “exceptional privileges and duties” of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as claimed by the devotees of Neo-Papism. The only Primacy recognized by the Church of Christ is the completely formal Primacy of honor, based on which the Primate (according to Makarios of Ankara) simply presides at the Divine Liturgy, sits in the first place, speaks and gives his opinion first, puts his signature first and his name pronounced first in Diptychs! in other words, nothing to do with the “privileges” that the neo-papists and the advocates of the “Primacy of power” want to recognize for him!

All the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church reject Monarchy in administration.

As an example, let’s remember St. Theodore the Studite who called the body of the Church “five-headed” (πεντακόρυφον), [15] because it is governed by the five Patriarchates.

The famous canonist Theodore Valsamon, bishop of Antioch, states more graphically that the five Patriarchates are “like the five senses that are led by one head (Jesus Christ) and are equal to each other”. [16]

St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos, responding to those who, by misinterpreting the Canons, consider that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge in the Church, since he correctly interprets the relevant Canons, he characteristically writes concluding: “The Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge exclusively of the High Priests who are under his jurisdiction and not of the High Priests who are subordinate to the other Patriarchs. Because only the Ecumenical Council - no one else! - is the last and common Judge of all the Patriarchs”. [17]

Another proof against Neo-Papism is that at no time in the past did any Patriarchate have unlimited jurisdiction. On the contrary, the territorial boundaries of the Patriarchates were clearly defined by decisions of Ecumenical Synods.

Summarizing, we conclude that the only way to deal with the rising Neo-Papism in the east is to emphasize the value of the Ecumenical Council (a truly Orthodox Ecumenical Council, of course, and not a bad imitation organized by secular forces) and to work all Orthodox in favor of its convening, as soon as possible with the help of God.

 

NOTES

1. Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 18.

2. Ibid, Letter 20.

3. Ib., Book IV, Letter 33.

4. Vestnik of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1950, No. 2-3, p. 31.

5. In his book “Evangeliki Salpinx”, published in the middle of the 18th century in Leipzig. The book was first published in Venice in 1752, but the papists collected almost all copies of this edition and burned them!

6. “The unity of the Church is not founded and does not consist in one person of one of the apostles, but in the person of Our Savior Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church” (St. Nectarios of Aegina, A Historical Study of the Causes of the Schism, Athens, 1911, p. 69).

7. https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/5809-2019-07-01a

8. St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, The Ecumenical Councils, Athens 1892, p. 83.

9. Ibid, p. 95.

10. Ibid, p. 112.

11. Vasileios Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History, 2nd ed., Athens 1959, p. 224.

12. Constantine Sathas, Biographical Plan of Patriarch Jeremiah II, Athens 1870, p. 21.

13. Kallinikos Delikanis, Patriarchal Documents, vol. 3, Constantinople 1905, p. 24-26.

14. Methodiοs Fouyias, Epistles of Meletios Pegas, “Ekklesiastikos Pharos” 52 [1970], p. 232.

15. PG 99, 1280, 1417. 16 B. Kalliphronos, Ekklesiastika, Constantinople 1867, p. 106-107.

17. Footnote to Canon IX of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

 

 

Report of Archbishop Leonty of Chile to Metropolitan Philaret of New York on the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece

September 22, 1964 (O.S.)

 

 

To His Beatitude Philaret, Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.

Your Beatitude, First Hierarch, bless.

I received the telegram you sent and the Russian translation of the letter from the Greek Archbishop Auxentios, to whose statements I have the honor to respond.

Your Beatitude knows what compelled me to intervene in Greek affairs, as well as to endure all kinds of unpleasant consequences for it. I was guided solely by the defense of Holy Orthodoxy and its triumph.

His Eminence Auxentios, who was ordained by me, repeatedly turned to me for advice, asking for my help in various difficult circumstances. There are many written proofs, signed by all the Bishops, in which they refer to me as their spiritual leader and similar expressions.

In recent months, I have begun receiving disturbed letters from them. That is, for some reason unknown to me, they have come into conflict with the lay figures of the Church, who had continuously supported them during difficult times of persecution against their Church and who were the ones who upheld Athens and the branches throughout Greece.

The laity also began to send appeals, with reports from all over Greece, seeking help and protection from neglect, disintegration, and the intention—without the consent of the popular will—of the Bishops, led by the despot Auxentios, to ordain an entire group of illiterate Bishops who, however, had promised to obey them in everything.

Since our Hierarchical Synod entrusted me with the responsibility for the episcopal ordinations in Greece, which I carried out—on the one hand, taking into account the requests of their Bishops, and on the other, supporting the requests of the laity—I advised them to reconcile with one another and to live in peace, as before. Otherwise, they themselves would not be able to fulfill such a tremendous duty as the defense of Holy Orthodoxy.

Moreover, many times, the primary burden of defending Holy Orthodoxy fell upon the laity, whom the Bishops (three individuals) are now persecuting—even to the extent of calling the police, just as had happened in the past when they were persecuted in the same manner. Both the Bishops and the laity asked me to come to Greece and judge them, with the latter even offering to send me travel tickets to Greece immediately. I declined, stating that perhaps at some point, I would come with Bishop Petros. The laity suggested that we come sooner and secretly ordain Archimandrite Chrysostomos [Kiousis] and others, to which I responded with the strongest arguments that this should not be done, that it was neither beneficial nor necessary. I further stated that their own Bishops could ordain Archimandrite Chrysostomos—and the others who were to be ordained as Bishops at that time —but, at the request of the late Bishop Akakios [of Talantion], this was temporarily postponed.

The anxiety and nervousness of the despot Auxentios can be explained by the fact that they are evidently so entangled in intrigues and arbitrary actions that they are mortally afraid of my arrival there. On the contrary, the multitude of laity, clergy, and many Athenians do not approve of their behavior, reprimand them, and many condemn their use of the police, which testifies against them and causes them embarrassment—such as recently in Athens at the Church of Saint Paraskevi.

They also became irritated by the fact that I advised them to be mindful of their personal lives, as well as by my request for an explanation of their use of the police. Subsequently, forgetting all my benefactions, they began to seek other means, and without abandoning their characteristic flattery, they reproach my stance and, forgetting everything, accuse me. Thus, they are incapable of anything else, and God will judge them.

You are right in your telegram—"forget them"—so I shall do, and they will hear nothing more from me, since they themselves, through their behavior and their profound ingratitude, have repaid me for all the good I have done for them. However, I do not believe that all of Orthodox Greece will praise them for this, nor will Mount Athos. And if they do praise them, then so be it. But I will no longer be their advisor—neither to the laity nor to the Bishops. Let them sort things out on their own and bear responsibility before God and men.

As for Bishop Petros, when the late Bishop Akakios [of Talantion] was an archimandrite and arrived in New York with a request for his ordination, Archimandrite Petros appealed to our Hierarchical Synod. These matters are known to Archbishop Seraphim [of Chicago], as well as to Bishop Petros, to whom Your Beatitude may personally refer for further details if desired. Therefore, the letter of His Eminence Auxentios has no basis. I must admit that human ingratitude is profoundly painful and sorrowful.

For my part, I would also advise our Hierarchical Synod to leave them to their own devices, letting them "stew in their own juice." The outcome, after all, will be the same. A pity for the flock—but what can we do?

This was their way of showing gratitude even to the departed leaders of their Church, and Archimandrite Nicholas Pekatoros from Washington can confirm this for you.

I ask for your forgiveness and your holy prayers.

Archbishop Leonty

P.S. Before your telegram, I sent them two letters within a week—one to the Bishops and a copy to the laity—urging them to make peace and not to let the enemy’s triumph. However, I made no mention of travel or ordinations.

 

Source:

https://o-d-o-c.blogspot.com/2025/02/archbishop-leonty-1971-and-greek-old.html

Is Baptism categorically invalid without three full immersions?

Nikolaos Mannis | April 28, 2025

 

"...of necessity, there takes place a change also of the law."

Hebrews 7:12

 

 

Many of the so-called G.O.C. have the notion that when in Baptism the three full immersions have not taken place (that is, it is a Baptism of necessity or "Clinical" as it is called, by affusion or sprinkling), then it is categorically invalid, because, they say, "to baptize" means "to immerse." Moreover, they transfer the positions of Saint Nikodemos and other Fathers, which refer to the Baptism of the Latins — heretics who have been outside the Church for centuries — and apply them arbitrarily to the Baptism of the indicted Orthodox of the official Churches.

We read indicatively from a text of the "Genuine Monastery of Esphigmenou" circulating on the internet: "if there are not three immersions, then there is NO Baptism and the sacrament is performed anew."

This view is also agreed upon by the authors of the "Confession of Faith" of the Romanian G.O.C.: "Holy Baptism can only be performed with a triple immersion, invoking one Person of the Holy Trinity at each (full) immersion. Any other manner of 'baptism' is not correct, and the 'baptism' is not valid" (https://www.manastireaslatioara.ro/stiri/marturisire-de-credinta).

This, of course, is not only the view of many G.O.C. (fortunately not all), but also of others, such as, for example, the old schismatics of Russia (even condemned by a Pan-Orthodox Council), the Raskolniks, known as Old Believers. We read indicatively on one of their websites: "If during the performance of the sacrament of Baptism a full triple immersion does not occur, then the very meaning of this sacrament is violated and it is not considered complete, that is, the person is considered unbaptized"

(https://nashavera.com/publikacii/pochemu-pravilnoe-kreschenie---eto-polnoe-pogruzhenie/)

But also the current Archbishop of the G.O.C., kyr Kallinikos, who considers himself a successor of the Saint Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina — who, however, rejected Rebaptism even of Papists (Letter to Fr. Akakios Pappas, June 28, 1946) — holds the same views, since he fully agrees (as I as an ear-witness have ascertained) with the following excerpt from a Circular of his predecessor: "The baptism of the New Calendarists is considered invalid, because apart from the ecumenistic mantle with which their Church has been clothed, neither is the form of the three immersions for the most part observed, being replaced by the affusion of the water of the font onto the one being baptized"

(https://iaathgoc.gr/index.php/94-aristera/ekklisiologika/811-enkyklios-2002)

The rejection of the validity of Baptism without the three full immersions can also lead to terrible absurdities, with the most characteristic being the case of Bishop Hermogenes Dunikov of the RTOC-Tikhon (one of the groups that split from the Russian Church Abroad). Hermogenes, baptized by affusion in the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1984, decided in 2009 (already being a bishop) to... self-rebaptize with three full immersions! This event (although it was covered up for three years by the Synods of RTOC-Tikhon and G.O.C.-Chrysostomos Kiousis) eventually became widely known and led to the public repentance of the self-rebaptized and the renunciation of his ludicrous act.

It is worth looking at in Hermogenes’ Declaration of Repentance the reasons that led him to this act: "It is already known that the G.O.C. maintain strict exactness regarding the form of Orthodox Baptism at entry into the Church and do not recognize as valid Baptism by affusion, even if it has been performed within the Church of Christ. I was seized by anxiety regarding whether the Chrysostomite Synod of the G.O.C. would consider it unacceptable to have communion with a cleric, much more a bishop, who had received ordination after Baptism by affusion, which he had once received in the Patriarchate of Moscow. I yielded to the temptation to think that, in order to resolve the confusion, only the form of immersion into water could be supplemented, without initially thinking of myself. I wanted, even before my very act, to propose the establishment of a form of reception with full immersion and the corresponding prayers during the sanctification of the baptismal water. It seemed to me that this would be much more acceptable for those joining the Church, compared to the requirement of a full baptism, in which the voluntary renunciations of Satan and the dedication to Christ are repeated, something that many did not want to do again. The Grace of my Baptism, which worked within me after my entry in 1993 into the ROCA, I did not question, accepting the teaching that participation in the mysteries of the True Church supplies for the formal aspect of mysteries performed outside the Church. Furthermore, I did not, and do not, consider Baptism by affusion to be dogmatically heretical."

(https://apologetika.eu/print.php?sid=2487)

+++

It is true, as Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite also states, that "two types of governance and correction are preserved in the Church of Christ. The one type is called Exactness (Akriveia), and the other is called Economy and Condescension, by which the stewards of the Spirit govern the salvation of souls, sometimes with the one, sometimes with the other" (footnote on the 46th Apostolic Canon).

It is also true that the Baptism according to Exactness (as to the manner) is that which is performed with three full immersions, while Baptism by other means according to Economy (e.g., affusion, sprinkling, etc.), within the Church, constitutes a Baptism of necessity, which nevertheless in no way falls short in validity, since the Holy Spirit supplies what is lacking.

In our time, the proponents of the two great ecclesiological heresies, namely the left-wing Ecumenism and the right-wing Extreme Zealotry, oppose and reject — the former Exactness, and the latter Economy. The former, by continually violating, on a permanent basis and without reasonable cause or necessity, the Baptism according to Exactness, incur the censures of the Canons for their illegality, while the Extreme Zealots, by rejecting the validity of the Baptism of necessity (that is, without the three full immersions) and committing the dreadful crime of Rebaptizing Orthodox (even if they are under indictment), oppose the teaching and practice of the Church (it should of course be noted that we are referring to the mass and systematic Rebaptism and not to those very special and rare cases where it is indeed required that the Sacrament of Baptism be performed as not having been done — in those cases there is essentially no "Rebaptism").

INDICATIVE CASES OF BAPTISM WITHOUT THE THREE FULL IMMERSIONS

1) The Baptism of the Good Thief by Sprinkling

The Holy Fathers teach that the water which flowed from the right side of our Lord on the Cross sprinkled the Good Thief and thus became the water of his Baptism. According to the Extreme Zealots, however, such a Baptism is not valid, and thus the Thief entered Paradise... unbaptized.

Let us look at the teaching of the Fathers:

a) Saint Ephraim the Syrian writes: "The Thief received the sprinkling of the remission of sins through the mystery of the water and the blood that gushed forth from the side of Christ" (https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Efrem_Sirin/tolkovanija-na-chetveroevangelie/20).

b) Saint John Chrysostom even more analytically:

"For blood and water flow from the side of Christ, so that the handwriting of our sins might be wiped away, and that we might be cleansed by His blood and receive Paradise. O great mystery! The thief repented; there was need of water so that he might be baptized; he was hanging on the cross, there was no other place for baptism, no spring, no lake, no rain, nor was there one performing the sacrament; for all the disciples had fled out of fear of the Jews; but Jesus was not at a loss for streams, but even while hanging upon the Cross He became the Creator of waters. For since it was not possible for the thief to enter the Kingdom without baptism, and it was necessary that the one who had repented should not be deprived of baptism, the Savior caused water and blood to flow from His pierced side, so that He might both free the thief from the evils hanging over him, and show that His blood had become the ransom for those placing their hopes in Him" (137 P.G. 50, 822-823). And elsewhere: "The Savior promised salvation; but the time was not appropriate, nor was it permitted for the thief to believe and be illuminated; for the Savior had declared: Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The thief found neither opportunity nor boldness, he had no time to be baptized; for he was hanging upon the cross. Therefore the Savior finds a way in a hopeless situation. Since the one worn out by sins believed in the Savior and needed to be cleansed, Christ arranged after His Passion for the soldier to pierce His side with a spear, and blood and water gushed forth; for from His side, says the Evangelist, there came forth blood and water, truly for the fallen one, as a type of the mysteries. And the blood and the water did not flow forth simply as a gentle stream, but with a gush, so that it might sprinkle the body of the thief; for that which is sent forth with a gush sprinkles, but that which flows gently merely runs, as it comes. But the blood and water came forth from the side with a gush, so that by sprinkling the thief it might baptize him, as the Apostle also says: We have come to Mount Zion and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel" (P.G. 59, 552-553).

2) Saints who were baptized by rain

Saint Gobdelaas (September 29):

 

 

Saint Philemon (December 14):

 

 

Saints Hypatos and Theodoulos (June 18):

 

 

3) Baptism by Affusion (the cases of Saint Lawrence and Saint Hermogenes)

In the life of Saint Lawrence we read:

"Hippolytos took Saint Laurence to his home, where he instructed and baptized the jailer and all his household, consisting of nineteen persons. Soon afterward, Hippolytos was ordered to bring the Archdeacon to Emperor Valerian. Seeing that the Saint had not agreed to offer sacrifice, he ordered that Saint Laurence be tortured. Still, the Archdeacon refused to sacrifice to the idols. As the Martyr endured these torments, a soldier named Romanus cried, 'Laurence, I see a radiant youth standing by you, and wiping your wounds. Entreat Christ, Who has sent His Angel to you, not to abandon me.' Then Valerian commanded Hippolytos to return the Saint to prison. Romanus brought a pitcher of water and asked the Martyr to baptize him. Immediately after the soldier was baptized, he was seized by other soldiers and taken to the Emperor. Before anyone could question him, Romanus shouted, 'I am a Christian.'"

(https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2022/08/10/102258-martyr-and-archdeacon-laurence-and-those-with-him-of-rome)

Thus, we see that while the Saint baptized normally when he was free, during his imprisonment he out of necessity baptized by affusion ("with the jug," as today's Rebaptizers would mockingly say). He applied exactly what the Didache of the Apostles prescribed (chapter 7): "But concerning baptism, thus baptize: having said all these things beforehand, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you do not have living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

And if anyone objects that all the above were special cases because it would not have been possible — due to the fact that they were in martyrdom or in prison — to perform Baptism with three full immersions, then this is exactly what we also are saying, and this is precisely sufficient to overturn the false argument that "ONLY Baptism with three full immersions is valid."

But let us also bear in mind the case of Saint Hermogenes the Prefect (December 10). He was baptized (not at the time of martyrdom or in prison, but freely) by affusion ("bowing his head," as the Synaxarists write), and afterward he was even ordained Bishop! Was this Saint also "unbaptized"?

 

 

SAINT CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE AND THE COUNCILS OF NEOCAESAREA AND LAODICEA ON BAPTISM WITHOUT THE THREE IMMERSIONS

Many Fathers have referred to the so-called Clinical Baptism, but Saint Cyprian of Carthage (indeed one of the favorite Saints of the Extreme Zealots) has analyzed the issue more than all others in the famous Letter to Magnus, from which we translate the relevant excerpt:

"You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right. As far as my poor understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case, where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts. For in the sacrament of salvation the contagion of sins is not in such wise washed away, as the filth of the skin and of the body is washed away in the carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances also, and a bath and a basin wherewith this vile body must be washed and purified. Otherwise is the breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith. In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you.' (Ezekiel 36:25-26) Also in Numbers: 'And the man that shall be unclean until the evening shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day shall be clean: but if he shall not be purified on the third day, on the seventh day he shall not be clean. And that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him.' And again: 'And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shall you do unto them, to cleanse them: you shall sprinkle them with the water of purification.' (Numbers 8:5-7) And again: 'The water of sprinkling is a purification.' (Numbers 19:9) Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation; and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of receiver and giver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and by the truth of faith."

(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm)

In contrast, however, to what Saint Cyprian writes so conclusively, some consider clinical Baptism as "incomplete," and to support their opinion they refer to the 12th Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, saying that it forbids the ordination of those who have been baptized without the three full immersions. Yet a simple reading of that Canon refutes their interpretation: "If someone is illuminated while being sick, he cannot be brought to the presbyterate, for his faith is not from choice but from necessity, unless perhaps afterward he shows zeal and faith and because of a scarcity of men." As we see, it does not forbid their ordination because the Baptism is supposedly incomplete, but because, by having delayed the time of their Baptism while they were healthy and rushing to be baptized when they became ill, there is the possibility that this act of theirs indicates that their faith was out of necessity and not from free choice; but to secure the opposite possibility, it allows for their ordination under two conditions: if afterward they have shown zeal and true faith, and if there is a shortage of priests. As we see, the validity of their Baptism is not at all questioned.

This is also agreed upon by the other Council that dealt with the matter — likewise vested with ecumenical authority — namely, that of Laodicea, which clearly states in its 47th Canon: "That those who receive illumination while sick, and afterward recover, must learn the faith thoroughly and recognize that they have been deemed worthy of a divine gift." Therefore, those who received the Baptism of necessity were deemed worthy of a divine gift, and not, supposedly, of an incomplete Baptism...

RECAPITULATION – CONCLUSIONS – OBSERVATIONS

1. The Canonical and according to Exactness (as to the manner) Baptism is that which is performed with three full immersions; this is the divine institution, and "things done out of necessity never invalidate the divine institutions" (Konstantinos Oikonomos, The Preserved Writings A', p. 414).

2. The validity of Baptism without the three full immersions for reasons of necessity (that is, either due to a lack of sufficient quantity of water, or danger of death of the one being baptized, or ignorance or negligence of the priests, or fear of the parents, etc.) is recognized by the Church, despite the fact that it is not recommended. The greatest dogmatic theologian of the Russian Church Abroad, Fr. Michael Pomazansky (+1988), characteristically states: "The Church recognizes Baptism by affusion, but does not approve of it, as it is not Canonical" (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, On Baptism).

3) The Church in various places, in mass cases of Baptism performed in such a manner, "did not force the annulment, employing in this not Exactness, but Economy and Condescension, so as not to bring the pious there into despair, schism, and division, by declaring that both they and their deceased fathers and ancestors are all unbaptized, although it herself knew that, during the performance of the sacrament, under the hand of the priest, within the font, even if it was done by triple affusion, the form of Baptism — that is, the invocations — was preserved" (from the Life and Writings of Patriarch Constantius I of Constantinople, formerly of Sinai [by Theodore Aristocles], Constantinople, 1866, p. 165).

4) But even the possible nonobservance of the canonical form of Baptism without necessity has consequences only for the cleric who performed the baptism, and not for the one being baptized (especially when years have already passed since it and the baptized person is already a communicant of the divine Mysteries of the Church), so as to affect the validity of the Baptism. It is not possible, therefore, for the irresponsibly baptized infants to be deprived of the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed by holy Baptism because of the absence of full immersions (due, for example, to the fear of their parents that "they might drown" or the negligence of the priest in properly performing the rite), since "the children shall not die for the fathers; each shall die for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16).

5) It must be understood how pagan and antichristian it is for someone to believe that the validity of Baptism depends on the amount of water that came into contact with the body... If it were true that the lack of contact of part of the body with the water renders the baptized person "unbaptized," then we are all "unbaptized," because the water of Baptism did not come into contact with our heart, our lungs, our liver, and generally with the entire interior of our body (organs, muscles, bones, veins, etc.), which is quantitatively much greater compared to our external covering. But behold how Saint Cyril Loukaris responds to the Water-worshipers: "Our Baptism cleanses the soul; for although the water touches the body, it is the acting Spirit, passing through even to the marrow and bones, that is the one which cleanses, my Christians" (MPT 427, f. 65).

6) Many individuals agreed to receive a second Baptism for various reasons. Some because they requested it, considering that their Christian life was defective, not because of their sins, but because they had been "baptized 'incorrectly.'" Others because their Rebaptizer Spiritual Fathers convinced them that they were "unbaptized," since they had not undergone the three full immersions.

I have recorded (also with the help of reliable witnesses) several cases of such persons who were rebaptized and afterward not only was their life not corrected in the slightest, but it was completely ruined with great falls, especially among the married with an enormous percentage of divorces, confirming that the second baptism does not beget sons of God, but sons of perdition, as Elder John Malinovsky (+1849) — a former Raskolnik who returned to the Church — pointed out, emphasizing even that the Schismatic Old Believers with the Rebaptism they perform (despite the full immersions) essentially "do not rebaptize, but unbaptize"!

(https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Malinovskij/oblichenie-zabluzhdenija-raskolnikov-perekreshhivantsev-chastyu-i-drugih-sekt-s-pokazaniem-istinnogo-kreshhenija-sovershaemogo-v-pravoslavnoj-vostochnoj-tserkvi-i-o-nepovtorjaemosti-sego-tainstva/)

 

 

Of course — glory be to God — there is Repentance, and only through it can redemption and healing come about. Thus, the Rebaptizer cleric can hope in the mercy of God if he resigns from the Priesthood, and the Rebaptized person if he has now repented for his action and has confessed it to an Orthodox Spiritual Father. However, there is yet another case where some, finding themselves in a desperate situation, were rebaptized because they were promised a "miracle"... I have in mind (and it is known to many) the case of the late sister in Christ A.S., who was suffering from cancer, whom the well-known Rebaptizer clerics A.K.S., Fr. M.P., Fr. N.D., and Fr. P.K. persuaded to be rebaptized, telling her that she would be healed from cancer. A. indeed was persuaded (and few would not have been in her situation), but instead of being healed, she reposed shortly thereafter, proving powerless and devoid of Divine Grace the Rebaptism of the Extreme Zealots...

7) To avoid misunderstanding, I declare once again that there also exist those very special and rare cases where there were actual reasons (not merely because there were not full immersions), which indeed required the proper performance of Baptism, essentially as if it had never truly taken place. It is understood that the condemnation of Rebaptism in the present publication does not concern such cases, in which moreover the benevolent and wondrous effects of Divine Grace upon the baptized are manifest.

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_28.html

The Dogma of the Church of Christ

Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) of Eastern America and Jersey City (+1960)

 

 

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. (Symbol of Faith)

Dogmas are called the fundamental truths of the Faith of Christ. They are set forth by the Ecumenical Councils in the “Symbol of Faith.” Whoever violates even one of the dogmas of the Faith thereby falls away from the Orthodox Church into heresy.

In each period of church life, the Providence of God sets before the church consciousness, for precise clarification, a particular dogma of the Faith. Thus in their time were assimilated by the church consciousness the dogmas about God the Creator and Provider, about the Holy Trinity, about the Incarnation of the Son of God, about Salvation, about the Holy Spirit, about the veneration of icons, and others. At the present time, by the Providence of God, the dogma of the Church of Christ is set in turn, and we do not have the right to pass this question over in silence in view of the position of our Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR and of the demands for loyalty now being presented to us by her present leaders.

In the “Symbol of Faith” this dogma is set forth in these words: “I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

What then is the Church? According to the Word of God, the Church is the Body of Christ (Rom. XII. 5; 1 Cor. XII. 27; Eph. I, 22–23; Col. II. 19).

The Church is a heavenly-earthly organism created by the Savior: in the heavens — the triumphant Church of the saved righteous; on earth — the militant Church of sinners, repenting and being perfected “unto the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph. IV, 13).

What is the purpose, aim, task of the Church? The Church was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ by His Precious Blood in order that through Her He might regenerate fallen men, from sinners recreate a “new creature,” destined for good works (2 Cor. V, 17; Gal. VI, 15; Eph. II, 10).

Here is how the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians depicts the Church of Christ: “You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together harmoniously, grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. II, 19–21).

And further: “He [Christ] gave some as Apostles, others prophets, others Evangelists, others pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ... that by true love all might grow up into Him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, being joined and knit together by every supporting bond, according to the working in its measure of each member, receives increase for the building up of itself in love” (Eph. IV, 11–16).

The structure of the Church and the means for attaining the task set before Her are visible from these same passages of Holy Scripture cited above: the divinely instituted succession from the Apostles, hierarchy, preaching, prayers, the sacraments, and the Christianization of the entire life of the flock. The closer the bond of the earthly Church with the heavenly, the nearer the Church is to the goal set for Her by the Lord.

All this pertains to the whole Church in general, to the One Universal (Catholic) Church. Of Her the Lord also said: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her” (Matt. XVI, 18).

But already from apostolic times, the One Universal Church was divided into local ones by cities, countries, states, or peoples. Thus, the Apostle Paul sends epistles to the Churches of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, etc. And now there exist the Greek, Russian, Serbian and other Churches. They are born, grow, flourish, or fall ill and even die, depending on how faithful they are to the task set for the Church by Her Founder-Christ — to regenerate people unto eternal life.

An example of this is in the evangelical parable of the husbandmen (Matt. XXI, 33–44). For the Old Testament Church and hierarchy were also established by God, and great before God were Moses, Aaron, Samuel, and other Old Testament hierarchs; but when at the time of Christ’s coming the hierarchy contemporary with Him and the leaders of the people betrayed the aim and purpose of the Old Testament church, then the Lord pronounced judgment upon them: “He will miserably destroy those wicked men.” And of the Old Testament chosen people: “The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth its fruits.” Likewise concerning the New Testament local churches, it is said in the Apocalypse: Thy leaders “call themselves Apostles… and they are liars… I will remove thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent” (Rev. II, 2–5).

The history of the Church of Christ testifies that local churches have often fallen ill and have been close to heresy. Most often this occurred through the fault of the ruling hierarchy. Let us take several examples of this from the history of the Russian Church. Thus, the head of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Isidore of Moscow, accepted at the Council of Florence (1439) the Union and, upon returning to Moscow, began to commemorate the pope, to commune under one kind without the chalice, and in the Symbol of Faith to add “proceeding from the Father and the Son.” But the tsar and the people did not accept such an innovation, and Isidore fled to Rome. Likewise in Western Rus’, the “Roman union” was introduced by the bishops Kirill Terlecki [+1607] and Hypatius Pociej [+1613], but the “church body” did not accept it and resisted it.

In recent times, state authority, taking into account that the church is a powerful force for influencing the people, strives to select a hierarchy devoted to it and through it to carry out its political plans. Thus it was in Poland before the war: certain Russian bishops who did not wish to hand the Church over into slavery to Polish authority were expelled from Poland by the Polish government (Archbishop Vladimir, Sergius, Metropolitan Eleftherius), while it selected corrupt ones (Metropolitan Dionysius, Georgii, Alexander, and others) and through them began to carry out the Polonization of the Orthodox Russian people, and only the war prevented the completion of this affair.

Now an even more grievous illness has come upon the Russian Orthodox Church. The communist godless authorities raised up a great persecution against the Church: hierarchs firm in the Faith it killed or exiled to hard labor, and it selected a new hierarchy which gave itself over to the fulfillment of the tasks of the godless authorities. The present patriarchate controlled by atheists demands the same of us.

How is a believer to be here?

They say: the patriarchate has not changed either in dogmas, or in services, or in rites.

No, we answer, the Patriarchate has violated the essential dogma of the Church of Christ, has rejected Her essential purpose — to serve the regeneration of people — and has replaced it with a service unnatural for the Church, the service of the godless aims of communism. This falling away is worse than all former Arianisms, Nestorianisms, iconoclasm, and others. And this is not the personal sin of one or another hierarch, but the root sin of the Moscow patriarchate, confirmed, proclaimed, bound by oath before the whole world, so to speak, a dogmatized apostasy.

We are within the bosom of the local Russian Orthodox Church and do not have the right to abandon the Mother Church in Her grievous illness. But neither can we obey Her present official leaders. We are in the same position as the Apostles before the Jerusalem high priests, and to the demand of the Moscow Patriarchate we cannot answer otherwise than with the words of the Apostles Peter and John: “Judge ye whether it be right before God to hearken unto you more than unto God” (Acts IV, 19).

We have no need for the convocation of a new Ecumenical Council to resolve this, our dispute with the present hierarchy of our Mother Church. This court has already taken place and the decision has already been rendered by the Universal Church.

This decision is recorded in the epistle of Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, to Rufinianus, accepted by the Ecumenical Councils. This epistle was written on the occasion of the cessation of the persecution by the Arians, supported by the secular authority, against the Orthodox. The Arianism-professing hierarchy, with the help of the secular authority, then likewise oppressed and committed violence against the Orthodox Bishops, just as now the Moscow patriarchate supported by the Bolsheviks does violence to us. Here is an excerpt from this rule:

“Know, my most beloved lord, that in the beginning, after the cessation of the violence that had taken place [from the Arians], there was a council of bishops who had assembled from foreign lands: there was also one among the fellow-ministers in Hellas, likewise also among those in Italy and in Gaul; and it was decreed both here and everywhere that to those fallen and who had been leaders of the impiety [of Arianism] there should be shown condescension if they repent, but that no place in the clergy should be given them; but to those who had not been voluntary agents of impiety, but had been carried away by necessity and violence, there should be given forgiveness, and they should have a place in the clergy, especially when they also had brought a justification worthy of belief, and this was done, it seems, with a certain good consideration. For such affirmed that they had not turned aside into impiety, but that lest certain, having become more impious, should disturb the churches, they judged it better to yield to violence and bear the burden than to destroy the people. Saying this, they also, in our opinion, spoke worthily of acceptance: for in justification of themselves they presented also Aaron the brother of Moses, who yielded in the wilderness to the lawless demand of the people, but had an excuse in his intention, that the people might not return to Egypt and remain in idolatry. For it seemed probable that, remaining in the wilderness, he might cease from impiety; but having entered into Egypt, he would strengthen and increase impiety in himself. For this reason, it was permitted to admit such into the clergy, since to those enslaved and who had suffered violence forgiveness is given.” (3rd Canon of Athanasius of Alexandria) [1]

 

Notes

1. Therefore, we also, being united in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia under the headship of our First Hierarch Metropolitan Anastasy, must judge differently concerning the former conduct of each bishop who was under the Bolsheviks.

 

Russian source: Догмат о церкви Христовой, Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) of Washington and Florida, supplement to the journal Православная Русь, No. 8, 1973, pp. 29-32.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Vitalij_Maksimenko/dogmat-o-tserkvi-hristovoj/


Friday, February 13, 2026

Conversation with the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly: “The Process of the Rebirth of Russia Has Begun” (1992)

Source: Православная Русь [Orthodox Rus’], No. 17, 1992.

 

Metropolitan Vitaly Jord

 

QUESTION: Your Eminence, the Free Russian Orthodox Church has already existed openly for 2 years. What gladdens you and what saddens you in its life?

ANSWER: We left Russia and live here, abroad, just as the Russian Church lived for 1000 years; we have changed nothing. One may personally judge us for sins, for weaknesses, but we stand completely unshakably on the entirely correct path of the canonical structure of the Church — on the Apostolic canons and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. We are not hurrying anywhere; we understand that after the 70-year terrible condition of Russia, one cannot immediately expect that everything will change.

What saddens us in particular is that sometimes certain individuals enter our ranks of the clergy who may be called “infiltrators.” Naturally, this is the simplest way of fighting against the truth. But we know that every infiltration is always outlived. It is impossible to deceive anyone when it concerns the truth — sooner or later everyone will sense whether there is truth in a person or falsehood. I repeat, we are not hurrying anywhere; we know that the process of the rebirth of Russia has begun. To extinguish it, all forces have been thrown in, headed by the Pope of Rome, the Uniates, all kinds of sectarians. If Russia does not succeed in overcoming this last, most terrible temptation, greater than Napoleon or Hitler’s invasion, then this will be the most dreadful — because it concerns the human soul. We are powerless to help with anything except sending literature, assisting with some of our clergymen and laity — the Russian people themselves must cope with this terrible temptation. And if not, then from where else can one expect any light of rebirth? From nowhere. Everything will go to the end, to the great end. But if the Russian people cope with this, then there will be a certain rebirth in Russia which will undoubtedly influence the whole world, and somehow people will begin to come to their senses and become somewhat more right-leaning. The West needs Russia as never before. Not as an economic unit, but as a spiritual word of truth — that is what the West and the whole world need.

Q: How does the process of the formation of the Russian Church take place, and what difficulties does it encounter?

A: The main reason is the 70-year captivity of the Russian People in communist pincers, and this left a certain film on the souls not of all, but of many Russian people, and this film must be removed. This is a painful process. A lack of understanding of the life of the Church, a lack of understanding of what the Church is — it is not an organization; the Church always remains a great mystery. The Church cannot be defined by any definitio as some formula of chemistry or physics. The Church is Christ. The true Church — it will always be God-man. Who realizes this God-manhood? — Christ in perfection, and we all, human beings, are called to be deified. This is our task. On the one hand, the difficulty is that the Russian people lived in terrible conditions, and a certain imprint remained on them; and on the other hand, we see the Russian people completely knowing nothing either about the Church or about the Mysteries. And this is even better — because it has no layers of scholasticism, influence of Catholicism or Protestantism, and incorrect thoughts; it is completely tabula rasa. And such a people, when it hears the truth and resorts to it, will indeed be a complete people.

So, there is no need to lament that the Russian people are completely emptied spiritually. When there is nothing in it, it will accept the truth in all its purity.

Q: That is, is it natural that our parishes encounter various internal difficulties, that those joining do not always understand what the hope of our Church consists in?

A: The entire structure of the Moscow Patriarchate is false, the entire life of the Moscow Patriarchate is false, completely incorrect. The first sin they constantly repeat is that they dispose of the episcopate as they wish — they drive bishops from see to see. They must know that a hierarch is crowned for life to his diocese, and no power on earth can remove him from this diocese — neither a patriarch, nor a council, nor a synod. He can be removed only if he voluntarily, because of ill health, wishes to retire, or if he has committed a crime, then he will be removed by trial, and they may even forbid him to serve and depose him from rank — this is the only way. All other decrees are lawlessness.

Priests are in the same position: if he is good, they will drive him into slums. Every day I speak by telephone with Moscow, Petrograd, with many Russian cities and see that this is the reality of our days.

Q: And all this is reflected in those who join us?

A: Of course. People think that a priest can be removed whenever one wishes. That is not true. Our episcopate in tsarist times always took into account the family situation of the priest, his abilities, his learning — all this was taken into consideration, and then all the priests were used to the maximum for the good of the Church. But in the patriarchate, it is not so; there they appoint real scoundrels. For example, Novonikolaevsk (Novosibirsk): there is some priest there who recognizes nothing except money, and they keep him there because opposite him a Catholic priest serves, who smiles at everyone, embraces and kisses everyone, receives everyone and even gives out money, and he looks like a benefactor. But the priest from the Moscow Patriarchate compromises the Church, and truly believing Russian Orthodox people have turned away from him. Yet the Moscow Patriarchate keeps him. There you have a clear example.

Q: Recently in Russia, documents became public property proving that the Moscow Patriarchate for decades was a collaborator of the KGB; however, we see that despite this irrefutable evidence, a mass exodus of “church people” from the patriarchate is not taking place. How can it be explained that these people, knowing of such a situation, do not strive toward the true Russian Church?

A: First of all, there are many people who are accustomed to the fact that the Bolsheviks constantly mocked the Church, and they think that this is a continuation of the work of those same communists. Such people are known who think so — that is, they slander our clergy. Another part of the faithful is so corrupted and is in such a terrible state of ignorance that they simply pay no attention — they have become used to it.

The Moscow Patriarchate — this is a “Living Church” [renovationist — editor’s note], this is a continuation of the Living Church members.

Among the bishops there are those living with mistresses, thieves, murderers, and almost all without exception informers. Well, what can be done with such an episcopate? I am not saying that all the clergy are like that; there are very good batiushki who groan from being in the Moscow Patriarchate, but they have nowhere to go: they are married, they have children, they will immediately be thrown out onto the street.

We have no means to support them. We are simply paupers in comparison with the patriarchate. We can only offer them our pure faith, our pure canonical order. The grace of God is a very subtle fragrance, and it requires great carefulness; it can very quickly depart completely.

The Patriarch often says: “We lack spirituality.” Say simply: “We have no grace.” What kind of word is this — “spirituality”? It is a very vague word; it can be understood in any way at all; but I will say that spirituality is the sensation of the grace of God — there you have spirituality. And if you do not feel the grace of God, then it is not there. That is what is terrifying. Poor Russian people!

Now there is such a movement that one must be married in church, one must be baptized — well, they go to be married, they go to be baptized. As if it were some duty that must absolutely be fulfilled. It must be a personal desire to become a Christian, to stand on the path of salvation, and not simply for some reason — well, everyone went, so I will go too; well, they will sprinkle his forehead three times with the sprinkler, and he is “baptized.” This is sacrilege. In the same way they are married, because one must be married, and couples stand by the dozens in line, and they are married in exactly the same manner.

If there are still any truly believing people who pray before icons, pray by the words that godless priests pronounce — they pray, and for them the words remain the same, the liturgical ones — then for their sake the Lord perhaps performs an incredible economia — that is, they partake of the holy gifts, these people. If the Lord could commune hermits in the deserts through His guardian angel, then the Lord can make such an exception for the sake of some little old woman who sincerely believes in Christ.

But I cannot imagine that a man who betrayed his fellow bishops, who was an informer (there it is called by some special words produced by the Soviet lexicon, which I simply do not want to use, for this is a pollution of the Russian language), and this informer, for his fellow clergy, for his flock, celebrates the liturgy, and it is celebrated — I simply cannot accept that in his Chalice there is the Body and Blood of Christ. Or a hierarch who is an adulterer — and in his Chalice there is the Body and Blood of Christ? This is simply impossible to accept — this is sacrilege.

A group of Soviet Russian Orthodox priests addressed me: “Is it not sacrilege to think that the entire Russian people are without the sacraments?” I answer them this: “And do you not think that it is sacrilege if a married hierarch celebrates the liturgy and other sacraments?”

And in what way then does the Russian people nevertheless commune? Only thus can I understand it — the Lord performs an incredible economia for the sake of a believing soul.

These hierarchs have nothing in common with Russian hierarchs. The same with certain batiushki — coarse, insolent, unmerciful. There are, of course, also remarkable priests; with some of them I correspond.

Q: Here, abroad, among our parishioners there exists the opinion that, they say, the leaders of the patriarchate are bad, but the simple parishioners — little old women — are good; that they preserve true Orthodoxy, despite the fact that they are pastored in the patriarchate. Can one agree with this?

A: The Church is one, and the laity are the same Church. How often it happens that a council of bishops issues some decree, and the Church does not accept it. There is no acceptio — there is no reception of this decree. And who does not accept it? — the laity; they are the same members of the Church. Such decrees often happen — it seems that a council of bishops has resolved it, but this decree is not carried out, the Church does not organically accept it, and that is all; and thus, this decree goes away, evaporates, and no one remembers it anymore. The Church is the Church, and every layman is just as much a member of the Church of Christ.

It often happens that some layman will say something such that a hierarch will reflect. In fact, what do we do, hierarchs? We spiritually listen to the Church — what it lives by, what it breathes — and we return this, but concretely, clearly, and precisely. But from whom do we take all this? From the whole Church; it is not that we invent something or other. The Church is completely one. Here is the process that takes place: we mysteriously receive from the people that by which they live, but they themselves do not even realize that they live by it, they do not concretize it. And a council of bishops declares to them a clear path — milestones — and the people are grateful for this. The same concerns our intelligentsia. The intelligentsia has been given the possibility to study grammar, syntax, to express itself correctly in Russian, and it must necessarily express the people, and not something foreign to the people. The greatest tragedy of Russia became the fact that the intelligentsia, the thinking class, completely departed from the people, and the people felt themselves abandoned, orphaned, and the intelligentsia itself lost its way and almost entirely perished. And the people remained without their expresser. The intelligentsia is neither more nor less than the expresser of the people — like root and flower. The root cannot live without the flower, the flower cannot live without the root. The root is the people, the flower is the thinking class.

The laity and the bishops who are in the patriarchate are bound by a vicious bond, a bond not of grace. Every hierarch — he is potentially a Sergianist in life, in thoughts, in his behavior. In this lies the tragedy. It is unknown what will happen further, but I think that they must leave or they will be “removed.”

Remember how the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov prayed and saw all this impious episcopate — and there are already more than a hundred of them — and how he prayed to Christ that the Lord would have mercy. — No, I will not have mercy, — the Lord answered… Seraphim of Sarov prayed still, and the Lord told him — I will not have mercy. And this is terrible. But we are not intending and cannot judge anyone — from whom are we to choose judges?

Q: It is not infrequent to hear from people coming from Russia that they felt grace more during the divine services and when visiting holy places in the homeland than in the Church Abroad, that there they saw special signs of grace, for example, elders, and here there are none. What can be said to this?

A: Eldership — this is the result of the piety of the whole Church. It is as it were the crown of piety, a certain spiritual aristocratism of the Church in the very best sense of this word. Elders in the Moscow Patriarchate simply cannot exist.

A believing Russian girl once wrote to me that she had been in Russia to one so-called elder.

I left him as from a snake, — she wrote.

One cannot enter a monastery and say: “I am an elder,” — that does not happen. Eldership is formed organically — it is the fruit of great piety, incredible obedience, sensible obedience. An elder gave birth to an elder; the disciple of an elder became an elder after the death of the elder; he lived closely with him, he breathed his atmosphere, his prayer, and he was imbued with his wisdom and especially with humility. Humility — this is the main effective cause of eldership — absolute humility, meekness. From where is this to be taken, when almost the entire episcopate of the Moscow Patriarchate is impious? From where can these “elders” be born, who must necessarily defend these hierarchs, and they are all defendants? They did not simply sin, let us say simply, they are in heresy, and their personal sins, as it seems to me, are the result of their standing in heresy. The Lord, for heresy, for wrong-mindedness, for false teaching, punishes with the most shameful sins, so as to humble to the ground. So let us not dwell on their personal sins — this is only a consequence.

The Moscow Patriarch has declared publicly that they will never renounce ecumenism. With Sergianism they have already merged so much that they no longer represent life outside Sergianism; in other words, they obey the powerful of this age, in this case the communists, who dictate to them the main line. Now, of course, the communists do not enter into details, such as the financial situation, this is too burdensome for them, but they indicate the main line. The communists feel that the rebirth of real Orthodoxy is deadly for them — they will in the end be sitting on a barrel of gunpowder, if only Orthodoxy truly spreads in reality.

Q: How can the essence of Sergianism be concisely formulated?

A: Simply. Into the Church entered NOT the will of God. That is all. Everything in the Church is directed by the will of God, by the Holy Spirit, but here, not the will of God entered, and it is obeyed, and in order to disguise this, they leave the entire external order — cense, please, preach sermons, keep the old style — do everything as is proper. But the will will not be yours. That is all in this. We call this Sergianism. When the will of God does not direct the Church, then the performance of rites gradually becomes empty, ritual-worship begins. The rites they leave — please, as many as you like, and the more splendid — the better. This is a terrible thing, this is a subtle thing, it goes far, far. Knowledge — please, know the history of the Church, know all schisms down to the finest details, know all philosophical systems, be theologians so that you are honored as doctors of theology — please. But the will will be ours. And in the will is everything; from it depends freedom or unfreedom. The Church needs nothing except freedom, and that is precisely what they do not have.

Q: In what does the particularity of monastic service consist of at the present time in comparison with past centuries? To what is contemporary monasticism called first of all?

A: We live in an interesting epoch — a search for essence in all areas, throughout the whole world. What is atomic energy? — It is a search for the essence of substance, of matter; great forces are directed to these developments and much has been discovered; technology in this field is very developed. A whole revolution has occurred, for example, in the typographical field, and in every other one, because of this technology. This entire electronic system — it is only “yes” and “no,” and that is all. On these two words all computers are based; in one second you can input colossal information, but the code: “yes” and “no” — plus, minus.

Thus, everywhere there is a search for essence; take, for example, music, literature — everyone searches, all idiots, charlatans, all search for some kind of essence, everyone is tired of forms. Writers want to break the doll in order to look inside, at her soul. And we, monks, must not dissipate ourselves on trifles; for with us there is much that is domestic, much that is worldly — from habits, much that is oily sentimental; monasticism is strongly infected by this, all these: “batiushka bless, batiushka bless, batiushka bless.” The essence in monasticism is simple, and it was expressed by the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov — the goal of the whole Church, of everything that is done in it, the single goal — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. And there is no other goal in anything, in all mitres, churches, chantings; the venerable ones have only one goal — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and if this goal is not there, then all this is nonsense, all this becomes habit. Prostrations are nothingness if there is no essence — the search for the Holy Spirit; they are necessary and fasting is necessary, but if the main thing is not there, then fasting will be starvation, prostrations tumbling — and so everything. Into everything one must dedicate oneself, one’s soul, for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. What is it to me that I believe in God, but I do not have Him in my heart. The first thing that the Venerable Seraphim indicated — the single goal of the Church of Christ, existing for 2000 years — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit and nothing more. The Church is rich, offers this and that, but the goal is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, and if this is not there, then everything is empty. And how to acquire the Holy Spirit? Humbly to ask God to cleanse one’s heart and to pray to God with this cleansed heart. There is for you the quintessence of the monastic essence: if this is not there — there is nothing.

After Seraphim of Sarov came the righteous John of Kronstadt, and he continued to speak of the same ancient truth which the Venerable Seraphim reminded us of — that all life on earth has one single, unique goal — the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. John of Kronstadt came and says: How to acquire the Holy Spirit? — Meekly to ask to cleanse one’s heart, and with this pure heart to pray to God. Here is the essence of monasticism, and above this there is nothing. All the rest are methods; this is good, this is necessary, but if this is not there, then there is nothing. I think present-day monasticism, first of all, must show true piety, true heartfelt Jesus Prayer, and then by this monasticism all people, all parishes will align themselves, because without monasticism there is no Church. Where there is no true monasticism, there is no Church. It does not matter if there are no hermits, stylites — what matters is that there be pious, sincere, honest monasticism. When it strives to be honest and pious, then there is monasticism. Always both the white clergy and the laity will align themselves by monasticism. From time to time, they will come to a monastery, because they sense that there is fullness there. Monasticism remains full-fledged to this day. If in the Church there is no monasticism, then undoubtedly something is not right in that Church.

Q: One hears that our Church awaits the restoration in Russia of a monarchical system, and until this exists, does not wish to have dealings with any government there. What can be said to this?

A: This is slander against us. We can live under any system, if this system does not encroach upon the Church, if this system does not persecute us, and even when it persecutes, we live. We will always live, we will defend ourselves, but we will live. We do not at all hold such a position — monarchy and nothing else. Under any regime we live. Of course, for us, for the Church of Christ, as Saint Gregory the Theologian says, monarchy is most dear. The divine is best reflected in Orthodox monarchy, but we will live also under a republic, if such a regime is not an open enemy of the Church. The communists declared themselves simply open enemies of the Church, and yet we lived under them and suffered; we had many martyrs, they constantly killed us all in Russia. But the martyrs nevertheless bore the Church, and carried it through, and there, in Russia, to this day there are pious people; they are not many, but they are there.

Q: Your Eminence, how do you relate to the calls coming from the Vatican to the Orthodox Church to begin a dialogue?

A: Between us there are already almost 10 centuries. So many differences have accumulated, so many trenches have been dug, and not by us, but precisely by Rome. These trenches must be filled in. This is not some personal quarrel, this is a difference of life, a difference of mysticism, a difference of faith, a difference of behavior, a difference of morality — in everything a difference. This is a serious matter; what are we going to do, merely enumerate that we believe in the Trinity, and they believe in the Trinity, they believe in the Mother of God and we believe in the Mother of God, they believe in the saints and we believe in the saints. Are we going to count on our fingers what they believe and what we believe? This is absurd. First of all, in the Trinity we already do not believe identically — where will you put the filioque, for this is a serious violation of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. And the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. What is this? This was never recognized during 10 centuries by the holy fathers. How so? The Mother of God, suddenly, the Holy Trinity singled her out, and she is completely not partaker of any original sin of Adam and Eve. And why did the Lord not do this for every person? It would have been simple for Him to do this. And this so-called supererogatory grace [merit — editor’s note] — what kind of supererogatory grace can there be, when our holy Sisoes is dying and crying, they say to him: “Father, you labored 85 years in fasting and prayer, lived in caves as a hermit, and you weep?” And he answered: “But I do not know whether all my labors were pleasing, whether they were acceptable to my Lord?” Where can there be some kind of supererogatory grace here? Do you know what supererogatory grace is? It means that a saint prays, and the Lord forgives him, and who can be the judge to decide whether the Lord has forgiven him? — The Pope of Rome. Thus, when this saint is already “forgiven” and begins to pray and fast, then the grace of God goes to him beyond what is due — he no longer needs it, and this grace goes as it were into the treasury of the Church, like into a bank. And from there the Pope of Rome draws and gives to others, to those who lack. And such things have accumulated so much. Enter a Catholic church — there is spiritual hunger there. And suddenly we will extend a hand to one another. And all these differences? These differences are moral. These are not fantasies, not some abstraction, this is life. They no longer fast; almost up to 2 hours before communion one may eat, drink. We will never accept such things, the holy fathers never accepted this. Let them remember their king Louis, what a saint he was; he was Orthodox, almost, and accepted everything as Orthodox. Now this is absolutely forgotten by them. Where are they even going? In churches rock musicians perform. And we will accept all this and kiss one another, that we are identical Christians? Permit me, one of us is a Christian, and someone perhaps can no longer even be called a Christian.

Q: What at the present time is the attitude of the Russian Church Abroad toward various groups located in the Russian catacombs outside her pastoral care?

A: We relate to them very benevolently. The only thing that concerns us is if doubtful episcopal consecrations are encountered. This we cannot accept; we need proof that the consecrations of these or those catacomb bishops are indeed canonical. And to prove this is very difficult. There things are intertwined that are simply incredible. With us everything is canonical; we know from where our episcopate came, which bishops ordained whom. If they were to come to us and say: “Since you consider the episcopate of doubtful consecration, then unofficially perform cheirothesia.” And then they will be canonical. But will they have sufficient humility and meekness for this? I do not know. Some representatives of these groups accuse us in advance, considering that we did not rightfully at one time notice bishops who have long existed in the catacombs. But why did they themselves not make themselves known? We are not detectives searching for them throughout all Russia. We ourselves live openly; one can always address us from any country, from any corner of Russia. We do not hide; we only want everything with us to be canonical, because upon this depends the reception of the grace of God — upon a correct bishop, upon a correct council. Thus, we relate to them benevolently; we know that among their flock there are very many pious people.

Q: If the former spiritual traditions of the Russian people have not passed into history, then in what way is the continuity of these traditions now taking place in Russia?

A: I think that this aspect has been preserved in an incredible way. I even know people who did not go to church during all the time of communist domination, but performed various rites of a domestic character, remembered certain things. And this has remained in the people. I cannot say how widely this has spread, but it has remained. These things cannot simply be extinguished; they somehow live in the very blood of the people. Thus this aspect of the old way of life lives. The Russian people nevertheless exist; they have memory of their past. Now there is a spontaneous return to the past; true, this has not yet found for itself one common channel — there are very many different rivers.

Q: In the present world, when everywhere there reigns apostasy from the truth, it is very easy for us, children of the Russian Church Abroad, to fall into a feeling of exaltation; how can this be avoided?

A: Monasticism is obliged to set as its goal unceasing prayer; this is the goal of monasticism, and this is attainable. The Jesus Prayer. Think for yourself — if you repeat hundreds of times: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner,” you ask only for mercy and ask for nothing more. Only mercy. You repeat it 20 times and as though you have repeated it only with words, but you nevertheless labor, you stand, you make at least waist bows, and suddenly for this at least one standing in prayer the Lord will send you once, and you will feel that you have said from your whole heart: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” There you have humility, because you ask only for mercy. Who asks for mercy? He who feels himself a sinner, a criminal, a nothing — he asks only for mercy. The word “have mercy” is a remarkable word, an astonishing word. Only it is not always given to us to feel this. Why do we give a novice the minimum: read the Jesus Prayer in the evening before sleep 100 times and try, saying it 100 times, at least once to wrest out a real “Lord have mercy.” When a person says this and feels that he has said it with his whole being, he will never forget it. Because the response was immediate — he felt himself almost blessed. He will want to return to this, and will begin a second hundred already from himself, and not by obedience, and perhaps he will succeed again in feeling this. From now on only those who labor will seize the Kingdom of Heaven, — said the Lord. From now on — that is, from the New Testament.

Q: Your Eminence, for what must we now pray especially?

A: I will answer you with the words of the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov. Save your soul and thousands of people will be saved around you. If you truly save your soul, you will never be alone; all will be drawn, all, because to save one’s soul is something great. It means to be passionless; this is holiness. What is holiness? The word holiness frightens us. Well, how could I attain holiness, we say. We imagine that they will paint an icon of us. No. There are more saints whom we do not know at all than those to whom we pray and whose lives we read. Thus in this is the service to the Church and to one’s people. Cleanse yourself of passions, and you will accomplish a worldwide deed, although we monks are accused that we are egoists, that we wish to save only ourselves. Not true! We never are saved in solitude. Never. If we pray to God and cleanse ourselves, then we will accomplish a world, a cosmic deed. Passionlessness — this is holiness. And when a person is passionless, everyone senses him, all go to him, like bees to honey. He cannot hide. He might wish to, but he cannot; he will go into the forest and they will find him there, he will bury himself in the ground and they will find him there. Because nothing is more important than this. They ask me: “What do you want, Vladyka?” — “One living saint in my diocese,” I say, “I want nothing more.” That is all. Because I know that in him everything will be.

Q: Your Eminence, in what must we, the children of the Russian Church Abroad, correct ourselves?

A: We must rid ourselves of the passions. We repent of sins, and we do well, but we can keep repenting of sins and fall into the same sins. And so all our life — but this is a sad picture. If only we would think that the source of sins is the passions, and we have not even touched them with a little finger. And one must pray thus: Lord, forgive my sins and deliver me from my passions. Why forgive? — Because sins are concrete acts of lawlessness. But a passion is not an act; it is the source of sins, our entire inner structure. The passions are a terrible thing. In almost every liturgical text there are prayers that the Lord deliver us from the passions. We are so inattentive to the liturgical texts; there is not a single service in the Menaion where this is not spoken of. The Church understands this, understands it deeply, but we think only about sins. Did Christ, the Son of God, come to earth only to tell us not to sin? No. Nicodemus did not in vain come to the Savior by night with a very important question: what is Thy goal, of all Thy teaching, all Thy miracles? What is the final goal? The Lord told him: to be born again, that is, to rid oneself of the passions, to become such as God created man — Adam without sin. Nicodemus was an intelligent man; he understood that this is impossible. He said: this is as impossible as to enter into the womb of one’s mother; and the Lord simply told him: yes, for man this is impossible.

The Lord revealed the whole fall of the human race so eloquently, so deeply, as only Christ could do. The apostles were horrified and exclaimed: “Who then can be saved?” And the answer: no one. “For man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Our chief sin is not that we are sinful, but that we do not ask God’s help; and if we do not ask His help, then we do not acknowledge His perfection, and we will fall into hell. He is the only One Who can save us, and therefore for the Orthodox world the Lord is not first of all a teacher, but a Savior. A Savior first of all saves, whereas a teacher can fill his head with all sorts of things, and there will be no profit. Protestants present the Savior as a teacher, and are very satisfied that they themselves are very clever. Now our most important task is the strengthening of our own Church, because now there is pressure from different sides, an iron ring is beginning slowly to compress us here. We must raise our piety, prayer especially.

Q: Your Eminence, what does the service appointed by God for our Church consist of?

A: Once Vladyka Metropolitan Anastasy said, and his words are now being fulfilled: “The time will come when the Church Abroad will become the most important unit in the whole world.” We see patriarchs who in one way or another immerse themselves in certain untruths, but our Church stands unshakably, like the woman fleeing into the wilderness, of whom it is spoken in the Apocalypse. This is our Church. Therefore we will never be rich — lest we become proud. We will never be splendid, full of health — lest we become proud. For the Apostle Paul, the greatest apostle, asked the Lord to deliver him from the thorn of the devil. We do not know to this day what it was. But the Lord said — My grace is sufficient for thee. So that he might not become proud. Even the Apostle Paul was in danger of becoming proud, and the Lord left him a “messenger of Satan.” If the archangel Satan in all his beauty became proud, then what of us?! Give us only a kopeck, and we already are proud as for a ruble.

Q: Is the service appointed by God for our Church being fulfilled?

A: It is being fulfilled apart from us. In this sense the Lord leads us. And when we invent something that is not right, it somehow evaporates and becomes nothing. A great responsibility lies upon the Church Abroad; the Lord Himself leads us, the Savior leads.

 

 

Russian source online:

https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/documents%20m%20Vitaly_1992_beseda.htm

Against Neo-Papism

Nikolaos Mannis   Source:  Τιμητικός Τόμος Διονυσίου Μ. Μπατιστάτου , Athens, 2024, pp. 247-255. “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Luc...