The Royal Path to Salvation

Schema-Archimandrite Elder Kirik (Maksimov) of Mount Athos (+1938)

 

 

A Brief Rule for an Orthodox Person on How to Conduct Life in a God-pleasing and Salvific Manner

Remember God by prayerful invocation of His name, and do His commandments, which are not burdensome.

Many in the modern world desire to be saved, but not many know where to begin salvation. One must begin with the last, that is, with remembrance of death.

For the Lord said: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return!” (Gen. 3:19).

For an Orthodox person who fulfills the rules established by the Holy Church, in addition to dogmatic truths—the belief in the Triune God, prayer to Him, and the doing of good works—it is required to love and remember his Creator, to cleave to Him with his spirit, and to fulfill His commandments, which concern even the smallest matters.

It is about these small matters that our word will be. Without observing these small things, it is impossible to observe the great salvific commandments. These small things are contained in four points: how to begin a work or occupation; how to turn our deeds to the glory of God; how to offer to God repentance for inattention to the transgressions committed during the course of the day—against God, against one’s neighbor, and against one’s conscience; and the last—about remembrance of death, that is, about departure from this life into eternal life.

On Beginning Every Work

Do not begin any work, even the smallest and most insignificant, before you call upon God, that He may help you. For the Lord said: “Without Me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5), that is, neither to speak nor to think.

In other words: without Me you have no right to do any good work!

Therefore, it is necessary to call upon the gracious help of God, either in words or mentally: Lord, bless! Lord, help! Without God’s help we can do nothing useful and salvific; and if we do something without asking God for gracious help for our work, then by this we only reveal our spiritual pride and oppose God. By calling upon the name of God, we receive a blessing from the Lord, Who will say on that day: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mt. 25:34). But to those who will not have upon themselves the seal of God’s blessing, He will say: “Depart from Me, I do not know you” (Lk. 13:27).

Thus, this is how important for us is the invocation of the name of God and the receiving of blessing from Him for all our works and undertakings (and especially before reading Holy Scripture, and even more so before prayer!).

Therefore, in every smallest matter and in every beginning of a work—whether we go along a level place or along a rough road (by this are meant all kinds of our labors  and occupations in every form and type)—always cry out to the Lord for help; otherwise there will be no prosperity, not only in ordinary everyday occupations, but even in a holy work, and its end will be sorrowful and even sinful, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom.

Our forgetfulness of God does not allow us to remember God and to call upon His gracious help for our weakness, not only in important and salvific works, but even in the very smallest deed and word and thought.

What a fearful judgment awaits us who forget God!... But those who remember and invoke the name of God, the Lord consoles through the prophet Jeremiah, saying: “With remembrance I will remember those who remember My name”! Remembrance of God means prayerful invocation, and not a simple recollection of the name of Jesus.

Our negligence and forgetfulness are assisted by demons; they are everywhere: they dwell on the earth, and in the air, and in the heavens, and in hell, and they watch every person, in order to lead him astray from the true path.

Because of our forgetfulness of God, demons are close to us, like the air surrounding us; they touch our body and even our thoughts by God’s permission; but by faith in the cruciform power of Christ and by the sign of the cross we can extinguish all the arrows of the evil one.

How to Direct Our Works to the Glory of God

The Holy Apostle Paul said: “Pray without ceasing,” and “Do all things to the glory of God,” “for this is good and pleasing before our Savior God” (1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Tim. 2:3). To pray without ceasing does not mean to stand before holy icons and pray all day, although one must pray at appointed times. One can and must pray during every work, as St. John Chrysostom says: “One can pray even while sitting at the spinning wheel and raise the mind to the God of minds, Who looks upon our mind and heart.” Thus, while engaging in everyday work (without which no one can manage), one can and must pray, and from the visible, perceptible, material world transfer one’s thought to the invisible name of God.

For example: looking at fire, whether in a stove, or in a primus, or in a lamp, or anywhere, say to yourself mentally: Lord, deliver me from eternal fire! And by this you will humble your thought, and imperceptibly a sigh will appear in your breast, and by this you will draw to yourself the grace of the Holy Spirit, Who at the moment of that sigh, in an imperceptible manner, builds your salvation in your soul.

For Holy Scripture also says: “When you sigh, then you shall be saved” (Isa. 30:15). And again: “By the Holy Spirit every soul is enlivened and is raised by purity,” that is, by purity of heart, and this purity is from purity of thought.

Thus, how important it is for us to watch attentively over our thoughts and imagination, for from this come “the issues of life and death,” that is, either eternal life or eternal torment!..

One must pass from the visible object to the invisible name of God in all cases and in all our occupations without exception: whether you are washing clothes, or something else, or cleaning some object—say to yourself (mentally): Lord, cleanse the filth of my soul! Also, when you begin to drink or eat, after the usual prayer, think of how our Lord God tasted gall and vinegar for our salvation, while He offers us every good thing! In this way you will humble your proud thought, and you will sigh and give thanks to the Lord Who suffered for us!

When lying down to sleep, say to yourself mentally: Our Lord and God had nowhere to lay His head, yet He granted us every comfort.

Upon awakening, cross yourself, and when you rise from sleep, say to yourself: Glory to Thee, who hast shown us the light!

When you begin to put on your shoes, say mentally: Lord, bless! Lord, help!

When you dress, say to yourself (mentally): Lord, enlighten the garment of my soul and save me!

When you begin to wash yourself, be sure to make the sign of the cross for the driving away of hostile activity that comes through the nature of water.

When you begin to comb your hair, remember how the Roman soldiers tormented our Savior by His most pure hair when they were leading Him to crucifixion, and then say: “Glory to Thy Passion, O Lord!”

If you see a beautiful object, worthy of our Creator and Provider for His creation—glorify the Creator of all!

Before leaving your room, read mentally: “It Is Truly Meet…” to the end, and also when you return, read this same prayer.

When, upon leaving the room (or cell), you take hold of the door handle, read mentally the prayer: “Open to me the doors of mercy…” to the end.

Thus, always, with every visible object, pass (mentally) to the invisible name of God.

Here only examples are given; but whoever zealously undertakes to fulfill this, him the grace of the Holy Spirit will teach how one ought to relate to every (without exception) object and do everything to the glory of God, with corresponding thoughts and feelings, that is, movements of the soul: either glorifying, or thankful, or penitential, or self-abasing. Such movements of the soul are already prayer, as St. Basil the Great said.

Acting in this way, a person will be in a state of unceasing prayer, according to the word of the holy Apostle Paul, and consequently in union with God, Who said: “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30).

Therefore, always, in all undertakings and beginnings without exception, accustom yourself to remembrance of God; and in order to become accustomed, one must ask the Lord for gracious help and for blessing to strengthen our will, so as to pass mentally from the visible object to the invisible name of God, which brings down upon us gracious help in the work of saving the soul and in all our works and undertakings.

Acting in this way, you will do everything to the glory of God according to the teaching of the holy Apostle, and at the same time you will have God-pleasing and salvific prayer, to which, so to speak, every object before our eyes impels us.

And when despondency or hardness of heart attacks us and does not allow us to pray, then, in order to drive away such demonic temptation, one must say to oneself: “Lord, I have neither compunction, nor zeal, nor contrition, to pray to Thee as is fitting!”

After such heartfelt contrition, God will grant God-pleasing and salvific prayer, for a heart that is contrite and humble God will not despise, that is, He will not leave it without help.

With such care on our part for the glory of God and with awareness of the weakness of our nature, the gracious power of God will dwell in you, and you will be among those of whom the Apostle of Christ said: “My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you” (Gal. 4:19)!

The Kingdom of God is not opened to one in whom Christ has not yet dwelt here on earth (according to his faith); and where Christ is, there is unsetting light and no darkness; and there will be in your soul peace and joy because of the abiding in your heart of the grace of the Holy Spirit as a pledge of our salvation and eternal joy, which are in heaven.

On Repentance Before God

Without God’s help, or without the grace of the Holy Spirit, we cannot do anything good and salvific; we do not even have the right to think about good, but of necessity we must ask God for gracious help in all our works and undertakings.

However, in carrying out every work and in beginning it, because of the weakness of his nature, a person will of necessity fall, being pursued by the enemies of our salvation… Then one must rise and correct oneself. But how? Through repentance before God.

For example: as soon as you notice in yourself (in the light of conscience and the law of God) a sin of mind, word, thought, or some sinful passion or habit that struggles against you at every time and place—at that very moment repent before God (even if only mentally): Lord, forgive and help! (that is: forgive that I have offended You, and help me not to offend Your majesty). These words—Lord, forgive and help—must be pronounced slowly and several times, or rather, until you sigh; a sigh signifies the coming of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which has forgiven us the sin for which we are at that moment repenting before God. Then every demonic action in our thoughts, and especially in our imagination, falls away from us.

If demonic action comes again, then again perform a prayer of repentance; only by this means will a person attain purity of heart and peace of soul. With such repentance, no passion (that is, a disordered thought) or sinful habit can stand, but it will constantly diminish and finally completely disappear according to the measure of purity of heart. For the Lord said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8)—and first of all in their own heart, filled with peace of soul, for Holy Scripture says: “His place is in peace (in peaceful disposition of heart), and His dwelling is in Zion” (Ps. 75:3).

But in order to acquire the habit of repentance before God, one must desire firm resolve and ask God to strengthen our will for this work; and begin it at the time when the day inclines toward evening and night approaches, and then, before going to sleep, one must think: how was the day spent?

Remember—where you were, what you saw, what you said, and what evil you did: against God, against your neighbor, and against your conscience.

And if you notice anything sinful, then repent before God for the whole day; and if you notice nothing, remember nothing, this does not mean that nothing happened, but means that through distraction of thoughts everything was forgotten; then one must repent before God even for the very forgetfulness of God, saying to oneself: I forgot Thee, O Lord! Woe is me! Do not forget me, O Lord, who has forgotten Thee! And these words must be expressed (even if only mentally) several times in a prolonged tone, for with such a tone, and not with hurried speech, the heart becomes contrite and humble; then a sigh will come, as a sign of the coming to us of the grace of the Holy Spirit, without Whom man by himself is nothing! “Unless the Lord builds the house of the soul, we labor in vain” (Ps. 126:1), sings the Holy Church.

The evening habit of repentance before God will lead further to the middle of the day, and then you will catch yourself at the very place of sinful falling (in small things). Such repentance before God will lead to full perfection (or holiness)—without special feats! Thus taught the ancient holy Fathers.

God does not require extraordinary feats from us, but small ones, only constant ones, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom.

On Remembrance of Death

Death is the end of everything. Every person must remember it.

Remembrance of death is not the imagining of a coffin, a grave, a funeral, and so on, but the knowledge that today or tomorrow we will no longer be here, and we will be transferred into eternity, which, according to the words of St. John Chrysostom, is more fearsome than hell itself!

There is no stronger means of incitement to virtue than remembrance of death. From the very morning one must attune oneself to thoughts of eternity, for whatever the morning disposition is, such it will remain for the whole day.

On the importance and benefit of remembrance of death (in the morning, and also in the evening before going to sleep), St. Anthony the Great, when dying, left, as it were, a testament, saying to the monks gathered around his bed: “Children, do not forget the departure from this life into eternal life!” He knew that nothing so moves one to virtue as remembrance of death!

And St. Dmitry of Rostov said: “He who does not remember the torment, the torment will not pass him by.”

It is not without reason that Holy Scripture also says: “Remember your last things, and you will never sin” (Sirach 7:39).

And St. John Climacus said: just as it is impossible for a hungry man not to remember bread, so it is impossible to be saved for one who does not remember death and the Last Judgment and eternity!

Thus, the beginning of the salvation of the soul arises from thought about eternity, or, what is the same, from the immersion of the mind in eternity and the wounding of the heart with the fear of God.

From this is born a spirit of contrition; and by a contrite heart and a humble spirit the grace of the Holy Spirit is attracted, which builds our salvation in our soul in an imperceptible manner, to the glory of our Savior God.

The enemy of our salvation—Satan—struggles with us especially in order to take away from us remembrance of death. He is ready (according to the words of the holy Fathers) to give us the treasures of the whole world, if only to take away from us thoughts of death, for he knows, the accursed one, that such thought leads us to the salvation of the soul, an immortal thing, and to blessedness, from which he fell; on this basis of envy, he even in paradise turned Eve away from remembrance of death, saying to her: “You will not die by death, but will be like gods”… So now also the enemy of our salvation approaches our soul in every way and with every lure and plausible pretext, vain and always occupied with cares, and distracts us from the salvific remembrance of death and eternity!

And in concluding this moral instruction, we beseech the God of minds, that He, as infinitely Good, may grant us understanding in all things and send down to us the grace of the Holy Spirit, or the salvific power of God, to help the weakness of our nature, for the pleasing of our Creator and His Most Pure Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary—for the salvation of our soul, an immortal thing!

Instruction to All Who Desire the Salvation of the Soul

Holy Scripture points out to us one of the primary virtues—it is called “prudent silence.”

The holy Fathers said: every virtue must begin with the tongue; if someone does not restrain his tongue, then do not look for virtue in him, for his soul is desolated, all the spirit of piety has evaporated. It is better to fall from a height than from the tongue… Not without reason does the Holy Church make us repeat daily throughout the whole year, and in Great Lent even sing in the middle of the church: “Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth, and a door of enclosure over my lips.” Why? First, because in nothing do we sin so often and so much as with the tongue; second, because extreme moderation and caution in words is not only a high Christian virtue, but also the best means to a wise and happy peaceful life, both in society and especially in monastic life.

“If anyone does not sin in word,” says the holy Apostle James, “he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body” (Jas. 3:2).

The tongue is a fire, as the same holy Apostle calls it—it is instantly kindled, and before you have time to come to your senses, it scorches someone—either by reproach, or by slander, or by judgment and insult. The tongue is an unrestrainable evil: with it we bless God the Father, and with it we curse man. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. But the word of God thunders against such people: “For every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the Day of Judgment. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Mt. 12:36; 24:35), says the Lord.

Restrain your tongue at the time when strong distress has agitated you—and you will prevent a quarrel, perhaps cruel and dangerous—you will extinguish enmity, perhaps long-lasting and endless.

Will one accustomed to idle talk have any desire to pray? From where will a good word of prayer come to him, when his tongue is accustomed to pouring out only empty and idle words? Restrain your tongue when neither time nor place allows idle speech, for example, in the church of God, and you will not reveal, at least before others, your extreme frivolity and foolishness; you will protect yourself from a grave sin—the offense against the Sanctity and the majesty of God—and you will not give harmful temptation to the soul of a brother or sister.

Thus, “is there a man who desires… to see good days” in his life?—“Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit” (Ps. 33:13–14).

And first and above all, raise your mind to God and sigh to Him with your heart: that He may guard your hearing from empty and soul-destroying conversations; that He may protect your soul from evil imaginings and thoughts; that He may preserve your heart in the fear of God; that He may grant you to see your own sins and not judge your brother or sister; that He may restrain your tongue from every idle word, for which men will give account in the Day of Judgment.

“Set a guard, O Lord, over my mouth, and a door of enclosure over my lips” (Ps. 140:3)!

Thus, along with care for this virtue, one must also have reverent fear of God, that is, to have constant concern lest one offend the majesty of God, neither in thought, nor in word, nor in deed anger His goodness, ever present with us, and lest one depart from the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. And if we remove the Holy Spirit from ourselves, then of necessity we shall fall into the hands of the enemy of our salvation, who drags us to where he himself dwells, that is, into the infernal hell.

But may the Lord God deliver all of us from such misfortune, for which we must also flee to Him for help in the work of salvation, remembering His words: “For without Me you can do nothing” good and salvific.

Amen.

 

Source: Царский путь ко спасению: Как жить по-православному в соврем [The Royal Path to Salvation: How to Live in an Orthodox Manner in the Modern World], Schema-Archimandrite Kirik (Maksimov) of Mount Athos, Moscow Metochion of the Holy Trinity Lavra, Publishing House “Novaya Kniga,” Moscow, 1996.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Kirik_Afonskij/tsarskij-put-ko-spaseniju/

A Talk on Love for One’s Neighbor and Non-Resistance to an Evil Person

Hieromartyr Neophyte Lyubimov (+1918)

Russian source: Ufa Diocesan Gazette, 1895, no. 5, pp. 156–165.

 

 

Beloved, if God has so loved us, we also ought to love one another. (1 John 4:11)

 

By the words of the Apostle John, we are commanded to love one another. The commandment of love for another, that is, for our neighbor, was given by God in the Old Testament Church to the people of Israel chosen by Him. The Savior repeated it in His gracious Kingdom, calling the teaching about love for one’s neighbor a new commandment, since it concerned not only the chosen people of God, as it was among the Jews, but all people without distinction of confessions and nationalities, social conditions, levels of education, of one sex or another, and of age. In Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

According to the Lord’s commandment, embracing in our soul all people living in the world as our neighbors, and sincerely wishing them every good, we can and must love the neighbors who surround us, especially those close to us and who have in view to receive from us some benefactions and services. These include first of all the members of one family and household: parents and children, brothers and sisters, and other relatives; further, those who serve and work with us in the same institution and strive toward the same goal for the good of society and the state; finally, all the sons and daughters of our beloved fatherland and those of the same faith, as branches of one vine, which is Christ, the Savior of the world.

Meanwhile, do we not constantly encounter in life, as though an inevitable phenomenon, that people are at enmity with one another, strive to do harm and evil, inflict personal insults, slander in absence, defame an honest name, humiliate and ridicule it, bring one to poverty, and so forth? Must we really endure with complete cold-bloodedness and Christian patience everything that is done by our neighbors to the detriment of our material condition and that unfavorably affects our mental and moral state—consequently every lie, falsehood, slander, every offense, illness, misfortune, and the like—without expressing by word or deed any opposition to the evil spreading among people, our neighbors, with whom we live and with whom we most often have to deal?

True, Christ the Savior commanded His followers not to resist evil; but His teaching cannot be understood unconditionally. Christ did not require of people complete non-resistance to an evil person in all cases of life, for such a teaching stands in contradiction to moral feeling, righteousness and truth, and to divine and human laws.

Indeed, if all good people, without any struggle, were to yield the field of action to evil people for the sake of their vile and base deeds, then the words of the Apostle Paul, “Put away the wicked person from among yourselves, put to death… evil desire” (1 Cor. 5:13; Col. 3:5), would lose all significance for Christian society. And meanwhile, on the basis of these sayings of the Word of God, everything that hinders us on the path of striving for truth and for doing good deeds, that opposes the fulfillment of divine commandments, we must remove both from ourselves and from others as something evil and displeasing to God, even if this evil is constituted by our neighbors.

The feeling of self-preservation of every person—as a law of nature—urgently requires of us not to subject ourselves voluntarily to reproach and humiliation by evil people who strive to do only what is harmful to our physical well-being and moral perfection. It likewise lays upon us the duty of guarding the health, honor, and dignity of our neighbor, since, according to the Lord’s commandment, we must love him as ourselves and assist him by all measures dependent on us in the fulfillment of divine and human laws, good deeds, and pure aspirations.

If all the evil inflicted upon us by our neighbors were borne by us unquestioningly, without showing any resistance to the enemy, then evil would spread on earth to such an extent that the good would be completely suppressed and destroyed; then everything base, greedy, and savage, all evildoers and moral monsters, all filthy dregs of human society would rise to the surface and lay on earth the foundation of a new life, the goal of which would be the perfection of evil in all its manifestations. There are people in whom, figuratively speaking, the appetite grows the more they eat; their malice becomes stronger the more nourishment they find in human compliance, and the less they encounter resistance to their inhuman instincts. Not to resist such people means to develop nobility in a bloodthirsty wolf by entrusting to his supervision a defenseless lamb.

Can one rely on the honesty of such people, when in them there is seen neither fear of God nor manifestation of a pure conscience? Not being able to understand your Christian meekness, they will extract from your non-resistance all possible benefit for themselves, will make you their slaves, will turn you into unanswerable animals, will force you to forget your human rights, dignity, and higher calling. Non-resistance to the enemy is possible only on the part of a person who has become so morally impoverished that for him good and evil are indifferent, and the will of a coarse and insolent oppressor has replaced the entire height of the moral law.

Only a personality with clouded consciousness and extinguished moral feelings can indifferently look upon how an evil person dishonors him and those dear to him, and remain calm at the sight of what human malice, greed, shamelessness, and bestial bloodthirstiness are capable of. The purpose of our life is by no means that we should be crushed by evil people, but that we should resist them, struggle with them, overcome them, and thereby destroy falsehood, injustice, malice, and deceit, and in their place establish truth, justice, love, and peace.

Therefore, on the basis of the Word of God, rejection of all vicious deeds of man, of his impure designs and evil intentions, is possible. One must not show kindness to an evil person, cordiality and goodwill for his rude and dishonest deeds against us, because everything bad deserves not praise, but rejection. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5), teaches the Wise One; and this means: openly and boldly proclaim holy truth before the ungodly, do not allow them arrogantly to raise their head high; rebuke, shame, and uproot the evil nesting in them; do not fear their malice and cunning. Fight for truth—God is your helper, your conscience will give you peace, and honest and truthful people will treat you with full respect and gratitude.

If we recall certain deeds from the life of Christ the Savior, in which His greatest moral image was reflected, we shall see in them confirmation of the thoughts we express. He, the Divine Teacher, zealous for the glory of God, manifested toward people such extraordinary authority in word that by its power He brought all into fear and trembling; His enemies heard from Him formidable rebukes that shook them to the depths of their souls; by them He punished the leaders and rulers of the Jewish people. When He saw them hardened in mortal sins over the course of several centuries, spreading evil over a wide space like a brood of vipers, He threatened them with severe punishment in this and the future life for violation of the law and corruption of the people.

And once, when the Savior entered the Temple of Jerusalem and found there not a house of prayer but a den of robbers, who were defiling and disgracing the most holy place of prayer by unseemly deeds, He was stirred in spirit, took a whip, and drove all the sellers and buyers out of the temple, overturned the tables of the money-changers and the benches of those selling doves, and sternly and authoritatively forbade anyone to carry anything through the Divine dwelling. Such was the zeal shown by the Lord in destroying evil in the human world and in establishing righteousness and truth on earth.

And when the Savior was before the high priest Annas at trial and a servant struck Him on the cheek, the Savior did not, in the name of meekness, turn to him the other cheek, but remarked: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike Me?” (John 18:23). The Son of God here demands the manifestation of truth from His enemy and defends Himself against the one who is offending Him. If the God-Man had turned the other cheek to His enemy, He would have become an instigator of great evil, and thereby would have strengthened both his malice and his guilt.

The Apostle of Christ, Paul, when the high priest Ananias ordered him to be struck on the mouth at trial before the Sanhedrin, was so stirred in spirit at such lawless action that in righteous indignation he exclaimed: “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall” (Acts 23:3). Thus, it is impossible for us to allow evil people to mock us as much as they wish and in whatever way they can; then we would be contributing to the corruption of our enemy, and not to his upbringing in morally good deeds and intentions.

A sacred duty lies upon us to block evil deeds by all means and not to spare the criminal under the guise of a desire to show him love, relying on the fact that a Christian must be distinguished by meekness and harmlessness. We do not show love to the evildoer when we spare him; on the contrary, we ruin him by allowing him to perfect himself more and more in evil, and thus distance himself from the Kingdom of God. Nor should our behavior be called Christian meekness when we pay no attention to the wrongs inflicted upon us, but rather it is selfish evasiveness or blameworthy indifference to them.

Human patience can have limits, and it lasts only so long as we see that the attitude of our neighbor toward us is not accompanied by harm to us. Manifestations of Christian harmlessness can have application and be accompanied by moral benefit only when the offender possesses a more or less developed moral sense. And therein lies the misfortune, that this is not always so.

But on the other hand, Christ the Savior, being just toward the sinful person, rebuking and punishing in him vicious deeds, designs, and intentions, never pushed him away from Himself, never treated him with contempt, was always indulgent and compassionate toward one wandering on the path of evil and falsehood, striving by His divine meekness and all-forgiving love to draw him to Himself.

And we, following the example of the Lord, must not respond to the offense of our enemy with revenge and repayment for the evil directed or already committed against us, but, in fulfillment of the Lord’s commandments, must overcome him with meekness and harmlessness, with love, forgiveness, mercy, and readiness to serve. The absence of revenge will most likely restrain or disarm our enemy, dull the most fierce hatred—love will become for him a heavy trial, like a trial with burning coals, will awaken in his heart a consciousness of guilt before you; you will more quickly be reconciled with him and will find in him not an ill-wisher, but a faithful friend.

Even where righteous anger takes place because of human injustice, meekness must wholly prevail, not allowing anger to degenerate into sinful anger, into an impure passion that knows neither measure nor aim. The Apostle Paul says concerning this: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God, for it is written: Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19).

We have other grounds as well for living in peace with people who are vicious, who hate and offend us. They are creations of God, bearing the image and likeness of the Creator and Providence, endowed with the same nature as we, which is manifested on earth in the splendor of God-likeness. A reflection of divine glory is displayed in every human being, even in the most humiliated one of the human race. Whatever the weaknesses or shortcomings of our neighbor may be, they do not conceal from us and do not destroy in him those human dignities which require from us every attention, respect, and caution.

He belongs to that race whose representative is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; he is one of those whom the Head of humanity calls His lesser brother, a child of God, for whom His blood was shed and His soul laid down, for whose sanctification the Holy Spirit was sent down, by whom he was sealed on the day of his redemption. He, our enemy, may be grafted, like a branch, onto the divine vine—our Redeemer—and may become a holy member of the body of Christ.

Rejection of the person, even though vicious, is all the more impermissible and unlawful because alongside vice there is in every person a spark of good. God therefore loves him also—as His creation—and by His mercy preserves his life for many days for repentance and preparation for the future life, and, as a good Father, gives him—His child—all that he needs. For him also the Lord commands the sun to rise and sends rain.

How then, after this, are we not to respect our neighbor, even if he is a vicious person? One must not forget the words of Paul: “God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4); “love believes all things, hopes all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). And this means that with God’s help he can become a good and holy person, while you, because of your malice, will fall deeply, will appear as a great sinner, and will receive punishment from God and from people.

Let us therefore, beloved listeners, respect those who are hostile to us, nurture toward them a brotherly disposition, have compassion for them in their ruin, pray for their conversion to God, forgive them offenses, harbor no malice against them, and willingly help them in their needs. If they are hungry—feed them; if they are thirsty—give them something to drink; by doing this, we heap burning coals upon their heads. “Do not be overcome by evil,” it is said in the Word of God, “but overcome evil with good.” Forgiveness of enemies is a sign of a lofty and truly Christian soul. Non-Christian peoples knew how to love only those who loved them and to do good only to those who did good to them. If we now act in the same way, we will be no different from pagans. Let us love our evildoers with Christian love; through this we shall draw nearer to God and make ourselves like Him, who is good and merciful not only to good people, but also to evil ones.

 

Online:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Neofit-Lyubimov/beseda-o-lyubvi-k-blizhnemu-i-nesoprotivlenii-zlomu-cheloveku/

The First-Second (Protodeutera) Council of Constantinople: A Brief History

Professor Alexey Petrovich Lebedev (+1908),

Moscow Theological Academy

Source: History of the Councils of Constantinople of the Ninth Century (861–880) [in Russian], University Printing House, Moscow, 1888.

The Council of Constantinople of 861, [207] which took place in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, serves as an expression of the significance enjoyed by [St.] Photius in his time and of the power possessed by the Photians’ party.

Unfortunately, the acts of this council have not been preserved; they were destroyed when the Ignatians again came, for a time, to the helm of ecclesiastical authority, and took care to erase the traces of the former triumph of the opposing party. [208]

In view of this, the history of the Council of 861 has to be reconstructed on the basis of secondary documents. But here, too, disappointment awaits the historian. The principal documents that help to clarify the history of the council were written by obvious enemies of Photius, who were incapable of recounting the course of the conciliar proceedings impartially. We refer to the biography of [St.] Ignatius, composed by Niketas of Paphlagonia, and to the memorandum of Theognostus. The authors of these works are already known to us: their names appeared on previous pages. On the basis of the reports of Niketas and Theognostus, it is impossible to sketch a complete picture of the activity of the Council of 861; one can indicate only certain outlines that give an idea of the general course of conciliar activity.

The purpose of the council was, on the one hand, to demonstrate the authority and significance of the Photians’ party, since the Ignatians, having been deprived of power, began to arm themselves against the ecclesiastical authority and significance of this party and sought to disturb the Church, and on the other hand, to confine and pacify the Ignatian party.

Everything favored the successful fulfillment of these tasks. Emperor Michael III, despite the fact that he took little part in governmental affairs, was interested in raising the authority of Photius, for he was greatly dissatisfied with the former patriarch Ignatius; Caesar Bardas—the right hand of Michael—being an enlightened man, held the learned Photius in high esteem and was ready to do everything for the exaltation of the new patriarch; the bishops of the Byzantine state were for the most part on the side of Photius and gathered at the council in the number of 318 fathers (a number equal to that of the fathers of the First Council of Nicaea—a number which, it must be supposed, was accidental and not calculated for effect, as Catholic writers assert following Pope Nicholas); at the sessions of the council there participated two legates of Pope Nicholas, the bishops Rodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, who openly took the side of Photius at the council and thereby angered the Roman pontiff, [209] and when he realized this, he began to claim that his legates had not acted as they should, as a result of tyranny in Byzantium. And as for Theognostus, his dissatisfaction with the legates is understandable even without explanation. The Ignatians hoped that the legates would be on the side of Ignatius, but were mistaken in their calculations. Besides many hierarchs, both Emperor Michael and Caesar Bardas were present at the council together with the highest state dignitaries, which lends this council a particular external splendor.

The council opened in May 861. The emperor arrived for the opening with a splendid retinue. The entire city was set in motion; the streets were filled with the curious; [210] probably many wished to see the procession of the deposed patriarch to the council.

Under what more particular circumstances the opening of the council took place is unknown. But, in all probability, matters proceeded in the same way as at other councils, that is, various documents relating to the convocation of the council itself were read; perhaps speeches were delivered on behalf of the emperor and by some of the leading bishops. Apparently, at the very first session of the council it was decided to summon here the deposed Patriarch Ignatius, no doubt in order to prove his guilt in giving rise to disturbances in the Byzantine Church. For the purpose of inviting Patriarch Ignatius to the council, the praepositus Vaanis and several lower officials were sent to him. Ignatius at first refused to come to the council on the pretext that he demanded to be judged by the pope; but no significance was attached to his declaration. Summoned to the council a second time, Ignatius finally resolved to go. But before setting out, he wished to know in what attire he should come to the council, in episcopal vestments or in monastic clothing, that is, as one still under trial or already condemned. But those who invited him were unable to resolve the question. [211]

Further actions took place on the following day, when those who invited Ignatius to the council (for the third time) announced to him on behalf of the papal legates that he might come to the council in such attire as he himself would find most appropriate. Making use of this permission, Ignatius went to the council in full patriarchal vestments, accompanied by some bishops, priests, and a crowd of people. But on the road, near the Church of Gregory the Theologian, where in the middle of the street a cross had been set up on a marble pillar, Ignatius was met by the patrician Ioannis Kox, who, on behalf of the emperor, announced to him that he should come to the council in simple monastic clothing. Ignatius changed his clothes and, accompanied by Kox, went to the council; Ignatius’ retinue was forced to leave him. Upon Ignatius’ entrance into the session of the council, several clergymen and one layman, who until then had shown themselves to be adherents of Ignatius, showered him with reproaches for having, though deposed from his office, nevertheless dared to put on episcopal vestments. Finally, Ignatius appeared before the council in poor monastic clothing. [212]

As soon as Emperor Michael saw Ignatius, he showered him with abuse—so, at least, the Ignatian describers of the council assert. [213] To this abuse Ignatius is said to have boldly remarked that insults are, in any case, easier to endure than tortures, thereby alluding to the harsh measures which the government had taken against him after his deposition. The emperor ordered him to sit on a simple wooden bench. Then, after some negotiations, Ignatius was granted the right to address a few words to the papal legates. Ignatius asked the legates for what purpose they had come and were sitting at the council. Having received in reply that they had come to investigate his case and would proceed in accordance with ecclesiastical rules, Ignatius remarked to them: “If so, then first of all you ought to remove from here the adulterer [that is, Photius, who is called an adulterer in the sense that he became shepherd of the Church during the lifetime of his predecessor.—A. L.]; and if you do not do this, then you cannot be considered valid judges.” The legates supposedly found nothing to reply to this, but only pointed to the emperor and said: “Let this be according to the will of the sovereign.” [214]

Then, according to the accounts of the describers of the history of the council, some metropolitans dared to demand at the council that Ignatius be restored to the patriarchal throne. But to this they were told by the dignitaries present at the council: “Why, then, did you agree to the deposition of Ignatius?” The metropolitans gave an evasive answer. After this, according to the narrators, the dignitaries repeatedly addressed Ignatius with the demand that he declare his renunciation of the patriarchal throne; [215] but it is difficult to imagine for what purpose such a renunciation could have served, when in fact he had not been patriarch for four years already, and moreover, as was noted earlier, Ignatius in his time had given consent to the election of a new patriarch, and therefore had ceased to consider himself the legitimate patriarch.

Judging by the information in our documents, a certain interruption in the sessions of the council occurred, and they were resumed only after several days. The next session of the council opened with the decision to summon Ignatius again to the council. It is not entirely clear, or rather, not clarified in the sources, why exactly Ignatius was invited to the council. Did they not desire from Ignatius that he himself condemn his conduct after being deprived of the see, which was expressed in opposition to the governance of the Church by Photius, which, of course, threatened schism? In any case, at the council the question could in no way be raised: whether Photius should be patriarch or whether Ignatius should be restored to patriarchal dignity. But we continue the narrative, guided by our poor sources.

To the new demand to appear at the council, Ignatius replied with refusal, because, according to his words, the council and the legates were not observing ecclesiastical rules, since the legates not only had not broken communion with the usurper, that is, Photius, but ate and drank with him and even accepted gifts from him during their journey to Constantinople; such bribed judges, Ignatius remarked, he did not recognize; he would appeal to the pope and was ready to submit only to his judgment. The clerics surrounding Ignatius and devoted to him reasoned in the same way; here, for the encouragement of Ignatius, the activity of Pope Innocent I in defense of Chrysostom, unjustly deposed from his see, was recalled, as well as the fourth canon of the Council of Sardica, which required that a see not be considered vacant if its bishop appealed to the pope before his case had been examined in Rome. [216]

However, Ignatius did not dare to respond with refusal to further invitations to come to the council. He only considered it his duty to remark that the fathers of the council did not know ecclesiastical rules, since a bishop should be invited to a council through the mediation of two bishops, whereas they had sent for him one subdeacon and one mere layman. When he learned at the same time that witnesses were to be produced against him who were ready to swear that he, Ignatius, had been unlawfully elected and ordained, he began to say: “What kind of witnesses are these? Who will believe them? What canon commands that the emperor create witnesses? If I am not a bishop, then Michael is not an emperor either; there are no true bishops here [in the capital.—A. L.], and Photius himself is not a bishop [how Photius is involved here, whom Ignatius did not ordain, is unclear.—A. L.].” To this Ignatius allegedly added that Photius was not only not a shepherd, but was even outside communion with the Church. In the elevation of Photius to the patriarchate he found the important defect that Photius had become a bishop directly from the laity.

Without doubt, all these censures of the council, the bishops, and the emperor Ignatius could have expressed not at the council itself, where such insults would not have been tolerated, but before those persons who came from the council to invite Ignatius, as well as before the people who formed his retinue. When Ignatius arrived at the council, then, according to the accounts of the describers of the council, he was again compelled to give a renunciation of the patriarchal throne [217] (which, however, as we said above, could hardly have had any significance or meaning). Between this conciliar session, whose actual activity remains undefined because of the one-sidedness of the sources, and the subsequent session, ten days passed.

Then came the final session in the case of Ignatius. He was summoned to the council, and seventy-two witnesses were presented against him. Such a number of witnesses had, in its basis, certain canonical grounds. [218] The witnesses belonged to persons of different estates; among them were people of the lower class—artisans, fishmongers, and the like—but there were also senators and court officials. At the head of the witnesses from the higher estate were the patricians Leo the Critic and Theodotakios. All these witnesses swore and confirmed their oath by signature that Ignatius had been elevated to the patriarchate in an uncanonical manner. [219] The meaning of this accusation was that Ignatius had been elevated to the patriarchate by the will of Empress Theodora without the participation of a council, to which, according to the rules, belongs the right of electing bishops. [220]

On the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, the thirtieth Apostolic Canon was applied to Ignatius, according to which a bishop introduced into possession of a Church by secular authority is deposed and excommunicated. [221] The details are unknown. After this, Ignatius was declared condemned and deprived of patriarchal dignity. According to our sources, at the council itself there allegedly took place an act of defrocking Ignatius. Torn and dirty episcopal vestments, including the omophorion, were supposedly put on Ignatius; then a subdeacon named Procopius removed the episcopal vestment from him and afterwards exclaimed: “Axios!” (“Worthy”). The papal legates Rodoald and Zacharias and the members of the council supposedly repeated this word. [222] Thus occurred the condemnation of Ignatius according to the account of the Ignatian describers. [223]

At the beginning of the ninth century, as is known, the iconoclastic movement began again; at this time, we encounter several emperors who manifested themselves by iconoclasm, such as Leo the Armenian and Theophilus, as well as several patriarchs of Constantinople who expressed great sympathy for the iconoclastic emperors, such as Theodotus Kassiteras, Anthony, and John VII. As a result of this, even after the restoration of icon veneration under St. Theodora (842), there were in the Byzantine Church people who adhered to iconoclasm. The Council of 861 had to struggle with the remnants of iconoclasm; [224] but in what this activity of the council consisted in this case is unknown.

It is worthy of regret that the acts of the Council of 861 have not been preserved for us. [225]

By this council, seventeen canons were composed, which have canonical and guiding significance in the Greek Church and in our [Russian] Church. Let us make a brief survey of the more notable of these canons. [226] They may serve to supplement our scant information about the Council of 861, since most of them were prompted by the circumstances of the struggle between the two ecclesiastical parties—the Ignatians and the Photians. The majority of the canons have in view the proper ordering of monasteries and monastic life. This is explained by the fact that monasteries and monastic life in the Byzantine Church during the weak administration of Ignatius had become disordered and manifested striking deficiencies, which, moreover, had begun even before the patriarchate of Ignatius.

In view of this, Photius, according to the judgment of Fr. Gerasimus, “strove to limit the excessively great influence of monasticism, to cleanse this estate of the abuses that had crept into its way of life, and thus to place monastic life at a level corresponding to Orthodox conceptions of monasticism and its significance.” [227] Indeed, the canons composed at the Council of 861, without doubt under the special influence of Photius, contain many complaints about the decline and disorder of monastic life and set as their aim the healing of these evils.

The canons state that “so lofty a work as monasticism was found to be in neglect” (Canon 1); it is pointed out that “some assume the outward form of monastic life not in order to serve God in purity, but in order, by visible purity and blamelessness, to acquire for themselves the reputation of pious men and thereby obtain unhindered satisfaction of their desires” (Canon 2); it is observed that among monks there have appeared many who do not remain in one place but love to wander. “The evil one has devised many ways,” it is written in Canon 4, “to bring as much reproach as possible upon the monastic way of life; the time of the former heresy (iconoclasm) greatly assisted him in this, because monks oppressed by the heresy left their monasteries and moved to others, and some even to the dwellings of laymen. But what monastics then did for the sake of piety, having passed into an unreasonable custom, shows them worthy of mockery; for even now some of them leave their monasteries and, like an uncontrollable stream, moving and flowing now here, now there, deprive the monasteries of good order, introduce into them great disorder, disturb and destroy the beauty of obedience.”

Among the shortcomings requiring correction, the canons also indicate the excessively great but self-interested inclination of some bishops toward the establishment of new monasteries. Thus, in Canon 7 it is said: “We see that many episcopal estates [that is, episcopal residences with their financial and economic administration.—A. L.] fall into decline and are exposed to the danger of complete desolation, because their heads turn their care and concern, instead of toward the old ones, to the building of new monasteries, and, contriving to undermine the episcopal estates, they appropriate to themselves the revenues from these monasteries and concern themselves with the increase of the latter.” The council takes appropriate measures against the indicated disorders.

Among the canons concerning monastic life, Canon 4 especially attracts attention. By it, as we have seen, monks are forbidden to change their place of residence at will. Perhaps by this canon the council wished to prevent in the future the journeys to Rome of those monks who, being supporters of Ignatius, went to the Roman bishop to complain against Photius. Journeys of this kind undoubtedly occurred. [228] Such monks are apparently also alluded to in one of Photius’ letters, where mention is made of people who, “under the pretext of pilgrimage,” go to Rome, reach even the pope himself, but have “malicious intentions.”

But even more significant for clarifying the struggle of the Photians with the Ignatians are Canons 13, 14, and 15. They are directed against the “madness of schismatics” (mania ton shismaticon). In Canon 13 it is said: “Having sown in the Church of Christ the seeds of heretical tares and seeing that they are cut down at the root by the sword of the Spirit, the evil one has entered upon another path of intrigue and attempts to cleave the body of Christ by means of the madness of schismatics.” It is clear that the council here has in view those clerical persons who did not wish to recognize Photius as patriarch. The council determines the punishments to which presbyters, bishops, and metropolitans guilty of schismatic tendencies, who do not recognize and do not commemorate their spiritual superiors in divine services, will be subjected.

That the purpose of these canons is precisely as we have just indicated is evident from the same letter of Photius to which we have just referred. It is said there that besides the iconoclasts in Byzantium, “foxes have appeared, coming out of their dens to catch little birds—that is, schismatics, more dangerous than open enemies”; and Photius adds that they “have been pacified by the canons” composed at the Council of 861. [229]

Also noteworthy is Canon 17 of this council, which forbade henceforth the elevation of anyone directly from the lay state to episcopal dignity. “We have determined that henceforth no layman or monk is to be elevated to the height of the episcopate, but that each ordination to the episcopate is to take place only after prior testing in the performance of [lower.—A. L.] ecclesiastical offices.” As is known, Photius was ordained bishop directly from the laity. In six days, he passed through all the ecclesiastical offices preparatory to the episcopate. This, among other things, also displeased Pope Nicholas, as he expressed during Byzantium’s dealings with him over the deposition of Ignatius.

But Photius, as we know, upon ascending the Byzantine throne, wished to be guided by a conciliatory ecclesiastical policy, and therefore the Council of 861 enacted a canon that was meant to testify to the readiness of the East to remove occasions for scandal. [230] There is no need to dwell on the other canons of the council. Let us note one thing: all the canons are composed thoroughly and characteristically—this gives new reason to regret the loss of the acts of the council, upon which, as upon the canons, there undoubtedly lay the imprint of the mind of the principal figure at the council—Photius.

Pope Nicholas called the Council of 861 “robber-like,” that is, similar to the council of Dioscorus of Alexandria at Ephesus, [231] while the canonist Patriarch of Antioch, Balsamon, calls it an “Ecumenical Council.” [232] The first designation indicates that the council was in the highest degree displeasing to Pope Nicholas: it did not satisfy his ambitious desires. The second designation indicates the significance which Photius, who triumphed over his opponents at the Council of 861, subsequently enjoyed in the East.

 

NOTES

207. Why is this council called the First-Second, or Double, Council? One must think that this designation was formed after the model of the name of one of the earlier councils, which is known as the “Fifth-Sixth.” The ancients, however, did not clearly understand for what exact reason the Council of 861 received the above-mentioned name. Thus, the interpreter of ecclesiastical canons Zonaras says: “Those who read this title (double) are perplexed as to why the present council, being one, is called double. It is related that when the council assembled in the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Orthodox entered into discussions with the heterodox (!), the former proved stronger and wished to commit to writing what had been discussed; but the heretics did not allow the decisions to be written down, so as not to appear defeated and cut off from communion with the faithful, wherefore they caused such disorder and disturbance that they even drew swords and committed murder. Thus ended this first assembly, without receiving visible completion. Then, after some time, a second assembly again took place in the same church, and discussions on the same subjects began again; then what had been said concerning the dogmas was written down. For this reason, they say, the present council is called double.” The same opinion is repeated by Balsamon (Canons of Local Councils with Commentaries, Moscow, 1878, pp. 1688–1689, Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment).

But nothing of this sort is known from the history of the Council of 861; therefore, the reasoning of Zonaras and Balsamon must be признано unfounded. Obviously, these writers confused the circumstances of the activity of the Council of 861 with the circumstances under which the Seventh Ecumenical Council took place (what Zonaras says about the Double Council did, in fact, occur with the council just named). The learned canonist Hefele thinks that the council was so called because it was divided into two sections: one was devoted to deliberations about Ignatius, and the other about the iconoclasts, for which reason the acts of this council sent to Rome were contained in two separate volumes (Hefele, Op. cit., IV, pp. 230, 233–234). But this explanation is difficult to accept, because divisions of a council’s activity cannot themselves constitute separate councils, as is expressed by the designation “First-Second.”

More probable is the explanation of Hergenröther, who supposes that since before 861 there had been another council in Constantinople in 858, also in the Church of the Holy Apostles, to deliberate on the actions of Ignatius, who, having been deprived of his see, began to oppose the new patriarch Photius, the subsequent council (861) came to be regarded as a secondary council on the same matter, and from this arose its very name: First-Second, or Double (Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 438).

208. These acts were burned at the Council of Constantinople in 869, where, on the ecclesiastical side, the Ignatians were the leaders.

209. Pope Nicholas later asserted that his envoys had inclined to the side of Photius and acted against Ignatius because they had been removed and oppressed by the authorities in Byzantium (Nicolai, Epistola ad Photium // Mansi, vol. XV, p. 177). And Theognostus, a supporter of Ignatius, maintained that the legates had been bribed by Photius and had betrayed the righteous cause, that is, had acted in favor of Photius (Theognosti Libellus Ignatii ad Nicolaum Papam, vol. 105, col. 860). But this is evidently slander by dissatisfied people. The pope, thanks to the disturbances in Byzantium, hoped to obtain an expansion of his patriarchal jurisdiction (Hefele, Op. cit., vol. IV, p. 230).

210. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 517. Ibid.

211. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 517; Theognostus, Op. cit., col. 857.

212. Ibid. The action, however, was in keeping with the character of Michael.

213. Ibid. It turns out strangely that the Photians, according to the meaning of the writers on the council, are all silent, as though they could not open their mouths in their own defense. Obviously, the describers sought to obscure the activity of the Photian party at the council.

214. Theognostus, Op. cit., cols. 857, 860.

215. Theognostus, Op. cit., col. 860.

216. Theognostus, Op. cit., cols. 860–861.

217. According to the researches of Hergenröther, both in the East and in the West, there was sometimes practiced a custom according to which, in a trial against a bishop, it was considered necessary to have up to seventy-two witnesses. Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 426.

218. That indeed seventy-two witnesses from the lay estate were produced against Ignatius can hardly be doubted, since some of these witnesses later, at the Council of 869, were required to bring public repentance for the deed they had committed.

219. It must be said that, in fact, even the supporters of Ignatius, when speaking of his elevation to the patriarchate, emphasize in particular the will of Empress Theodora and the counsel of the monk Ioannikios (see: Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 501).

220. It is doubtful that the council made use of this canon against Ignatius; the canon had little relevance to the case. In general, it is evident that the accusation against Ignatius was brought by the secular authority, and that the witnesses, too, were obviously produced by the government. Probably the government itself, in order to establish peace in the state, demanded from the council the condemnation of Ignatius, which the council carried out in view of the insistent demands of secular authority—exclusively in the name of the common good.

221. The custom of defrocking existed in Byzantium; but whether on this occasion it took place so solemnly is very doubtful.

222. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., cols. 517, 520.—We have extracted from the accounts of Theognostus and Nicetas features that depict the activity of the council, but by no means can one guarantee that these are the actual features of the council. Events may have occurred in this way, but not entirely in this way. The acts of the Council of 861 were sent by the government to Pope Nicholas (Hefele, Op. cit., vol. IV, p. 234), but they would have been an indictment against Photius and the Byzantine Church if they had contained the same material as in Theognostus and Nicetas.

223. Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., col. 516; Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 428.

224. Nicetas of Paphlagonia relates that when Photius was deprived of the patriarchate for the first time, Emperor Basil ordered that his books be confiscated, and seven sacks were filled with them. Among the manuscripts, incidentally, were the acts against Ignatius (861) with the following illustrations, which were allegedly made by Gregory Asvestos. In the first picture (a caricature), Ignatius was depicted being dragged and struck, with the inscription above him: “devil.” In the second, he is shown being spat upon in the face, and the inscription reads: “beginning of sin.” In the third, he appears cast down from the throne, and the inscription read: “son of perdition.” The fourth depicted him in chains and being driven out, with the inscription: “the avarice of Simon Magus.” The fifth portrayed him with an iron collar, and the inscription read: “one who exalted himself above God.” The sixth represented his condemnation, and the inscription was: “abomination of desolation.” The seventh, depicting Ignatius beheaded, bore the inscription: “antichrist” (Nicetas of Paphlagonia, Op. cit., cols. 540–541).

The question arises: does Nicetas really speak the truth, or does he amuse himself and his readers with the inventions of his imagination? It is impossible to suppose that such caricatures were drawn by Asvestos, that “man of God,” as Photius called him. But it seems possible to suppose something else, namely, that some lover of painting zealously undertook to paint caricatures of Ignatius and presented his work to Photius, wishing to please him. And Photius could have accepted the gift of his overly zealous, but perhaps sincere, admirer. One must remember that Byzantine miniature painting with an ecclesiastical character had its beginnings in the time of iconoclasm and often, with the aim of ridiculing the iconoclasts, chose them as the subject of its caricatural representations. For the same purpose, miniature painting could have served in the hands of some zealous artist of the Photian party.

225. These canons were published in Greek and Slavonic texts by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment (Canons with Commentaries); in the Slavonic text by John, Bishop of Smolensk (Course of Jurisprudence); and in one Russian translation by the Kazan Academy (Acts of Nine Local Councils).

226. Gerasimus (Yared), hieromonk, Op. cit., p. 137.

227. Hergenröther, Op. cit., vol. I, p. 396.

228. Photius, Epistola ad Nicolaum Papam, PG, vol. 102, col. 617.

229. Photius, Epistola ad Nicolaum Papam, PG, vol. 102, col. 612.

230. As Photius expresses it regarding this canon in the above-cited letter to Nicholas. Ibid., col. 609.

231. Pope Nicholas, Epistola ad Clerum Constantinopolitanum // Mansi, vol. XV, p. 245.

232. Canons with Commentaries, p. 1689.

“Diversity” in the Body of Christ and the Patristic Understanding of the Unity of the Church

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | February 7, 2026

 

 

On January 29, 2026, an ecumenical prayer service took place at the Greek Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity in New York, within the framework of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, with the participation of representatives of various Christian denominations. Among them were Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, Roman Catholic, Armenian, Anglican, and Lutheran hierarchs. In his address, the Archbishop referred to the “diversity” that exists, as he said, in the Body of Christ, urging the overcoming of ecclesiastical isolation.

This formulation raises theological questions, especially in relation to the traditional patristic teaching on the nature and unity of the Church. For the Holy Fathers, the Body of Christ does not constitute an abstract concept nor a broad spiritual category that includes different and contradictory confessions. On the contrary, it is identified with the concrete, visible, and sacramental reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Holy Scripture lays the foundation of this understanding. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that “one body and one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4), underscoring the unity of ecclesiastical life. The Fathers interpreted this passage not as a symbolic or invisible unity, but as a real communion of faith, mysteries, and hierarchical continuity. Saint John Chrysostom points out that the Body is one and indivisible, and that separation from it entails distancing oneself from Christ Himself.

In patristic thought, doctrinal differences and schisms are not treated as expressions of “diversity,” but as a rupture of unity. Saint Ignatius of Antioch warns that distancing oneself from the truth of the Church means the loss of full communion with the Passion and the life of Christ. Similarly, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons directly links the presence of the Holy Spirit with the Church, presenting it as the place where man partakes of divine grace.

Unity, according to the patristic tradition, is not merely emotional or social. It is deeply ecclesiological and is based on common faith and the continuity of apostolic tradition. Saint Cyprian of Carthage emphasizes that one cannot have God as Father if one does not have the Church as Mother, while Saint Augustine of Hippo underscores that the external elements of Christian life are not sufficient without full incorporation into the body of the Church.

Within this theological framework, the contemporary use of the term “diversity” to describe the differences among Christian denominations takes on particular significance. For the patristic consciousness, the unity of the Church does not arise from the coexistence of different doctrines, but from the common truth of the faith. Love toward all people does not negate the need to preserve unity in the faith and in the life of the Church.

Thus, the question of Christian unity remains a profound theological issue. Patristic teaching emphasizes that the Body of Christ is one and indivisible, and that true unity is not achieved through the smoothing over of differences, but through the journey toward common faith and full ecclesiastical communion.

 

Greek source:

https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_7.html

 

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite – Faith is not diplomacy; it is the Cross!

  

 

The Church of Christ is not founded on agreements, consensuses, and negotiations. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, with incomparable patristic clarity, emphasizes that faith is not offered for compromises, is not altered for the sake of human peace, nor is it adapted to the demands of the world. The only diplomacy of the Church is the Cross of the Lord. There, man, nature, the passions, and truth are united. Not by negotiation, but by sacrifice. Christ made no joint statement with Pilate. He did not smile diplomatically at authority. He was silent, He endured, He was sacrificed. This is what we too are called to confess, when the Church is struck by compromises that wound the truth.

Saint Nikodemos teaches us that the greatest danger for the Church is not always external. Often, the wounds come from its own members, when they lose their spiritual vigilance and contaminate the truth with human diplomacy. When a bishop, presbyter, or monk signs agreements with heresy or alters the faith in order to preserve unity, he does not make peace; he abandons the Cross. Judas kissed Christ; he did not scourge Him. The spiritual betrayals to which the Saint indirectly refers are not only situations of violence or blatant heresies. They are the smiling theological retreats under the pretext of love and mutual understanding.

Orthodoxy is not an ideology or a cultural tradition. It is life, cruciform and resurrectional. The believer is not called to express anger or fanaticism, but steadfastness. As Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite teaches, faith is tested in the temptation to remain silent, to adapt, to smooth things over so as not to displease. Endurance is a spiritual achievement. It is the exercise of the heart that stands praying and discerning. It does not mean to attack with anger, but not to compromise even in the slightest, neither with ourselves nor with the smallest alteration of doctrine. If the Church ceases to bear witness to the truth, it ceases to be the Church, and this responsibility weighs upon each one of us.

One of the strongest criteria of our time is the invocation of love without spiritual discernment: not to divide, not to be strict, to embrace everyone. Yet Saint Nikodemos cries out to us: love without truth is not love; it is a lie. The devil does not always fight with persecutions; many times, he fights with false peace. If the Saints had remained silent about the faith in order not to displease heretics or politicians, there would be no Church today. They chose the Cross, not diplomacy.

When the believer sees spiritual leaders going astray, remaining silent, or agreeing with heretical practices and false unities, his soul is in pain. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite does not teach us either revolution or isolation, but spiritual awakening. Do not be scandalized, but pray with tears, as though you were praying for your father who has fallen. Keep your own faith pure, without judging with malice, but without pretending that you do not see. Find support in true spiritual fathers, who do not alter the Gospel, even if they are few. Strengthen your brothers with discernment and meekness, not with fanaticism, but with confession. Saint Nikodemos lived in times of spiritual darkness and worldly delusion. He did not make revolutions, nor did he dissolve institutions, but he wrote, fasted, prayed, and raised up a spiritual stature that cannot be measured by worldly criteria.

The power of true faith is not shown in agreements, but in patient witness that remains in the truth, without concessions. When the Church becomes an organism of political management, it loses its voice. But when it lives the Cross and sacrifice, then the truth shines without shouting. This is the path of Christ, and this is the path of every believer who loves the Church, not because it expresses him, but because it saves him. Christ did not propose alternative solutions to the Pharisees, nor did He offer them common points; He revealed the light to them, even if they did not accept it. Thus, the Church is called not to agree with the darkness, but to shine within it. When we compromise in order not to displease, we lose divine blessing. And when we lose this, then every success is hollow.

Faith is not diplomacy; it is the Cross. It is not a technique of survival within the world; it is the manifestation of Christ in the world. The believer who sees scandals and remains steadfast in the faith does not remain silent out of fear, but speaks with humility. And with this silent voice of Christ within him, he endures and is saved.

 

Greek source:

https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2026/02/blog-post_51.html

“The primary mission of the First Bishop of Christianity (the Pope): to be the visible and paternal sign of unity…”

Address of Orthodox Representative at [Roman Catholic] Synod

 

 

"Our Society Demands of Us Christians a Unified Voice"

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org) - Here is a translation of the address given Saturday to the synod of bishops by Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis, fraternal delegate from the Orthodox Church of Greece.

[Ed. note: Ignatios Sotiriadis was elected Bishop of Salona in 2023.]

* * *

The Orthodox Church of Greece, Church of apostolic origin, fruit of the preaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles in Europe, and daughter of the Mother Church of Constantinople, cordially greets the synod of Catholic bishops on the Word of God and wishes it every success in its deliberations.

Your Holiness [Pope Benedict XVI],

Into the profound darkness and desperation of the philosophical thought of the ancient world, the "Unknown God" sent humanity his only-begotten Son, who "by the power of the Holy Spirit became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary and became man ... for our salvation." From that moment history was divided into before Christ and after Christ, the world changed and it was transformed into Church[.] [The] "Magistra" in the path of the Church, sacred Scripture, the Word of God, enlivens in "omni tempore," genuinely interprets according to Sacred Tradition, every faithful and leads him to the Eucharist, that is to say the personal union with God the Logos.

However, the history of Christianity is full of crimes, sins and errors; the problem of the authentic interpretation of the Word of God always presents itself. The pious intention of leading the people of God to the promised kingdom is not enough! There is a need for the "metanoia" and the "metamorphosis" of our weak hearts.

The Church lives from the font of life that is sacred Scripture. It teaches a secularized Europe and a de-christianized world love for the Creation, which is being threatened, forgiveness and reconciliation for those who begin a new life, respect for every human person made in the image of God, and, further, peace, justice, equality between man and woman, Jew or Greek...

Your Holiness,

Our society is tired and sick! It seeks but does not find! It drinks but its thirst is not quenched! Our society demands of us Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans -- a common witness, a unified voice! Here lies our responsibility as pastors of the Churches in the 21st Century! Here is the primary mission of the First Bishop of Christianity, of him who presides in charity, and, above all, of a Pope who is Magister Theologiae: to be the visible and paternal sign of unity and to lead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and according to Sacred Tradition, with wisdom, humility and dynamism, together with all the bishops of the world, fellow successors of the apostles, all humanity to Christ the Redeemer!

This is the profound desire of those who have the painful longing in their heart for the undivided Church, "Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica!" But it is also the desire of those who, again today, in a world without Christ, fervently, but also with filial trust and faith, repeat the words of the apostles: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!"

 

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090605122711/https://zenit.org/article-23892?l=english