Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Is it beneficial for a newly initiated Christian to reflect on lofty spiritual matters?

Is it beneficial for a newly initiated Christian to reflect on lofty spiritual matters?

 

A beginner on the path of faith faces a certain danger: instead of studying the simple and necessary rules and foundations of an active Christian life, they may deviate into pridefulness, begin studying complex spiritual subjects, striving with their feeble intellect to comprehend that which cannot be grasped by reason; they may dare to delve deeply into the Holy Scriptures, interpreting mysterious prophecies. Our mind is so sick and damaged that it must not be given freedom to decide spiritual matters; it is with a simple, almost childlike eye of faith that one must accept the already prepared and thoroughly explained spiritual teachings, as presented by the Church and the holy fathers. It is very dangerous for one to dare, with an unpurified mind and without yet understanding the very foundations of faith, to grasp the roots of subtle and profound truths.

"Faith is not blind, but it is not the one that reasons about matters of faith; rather, it is the one that sincerely and unwaveringly believes, based on the conviction that this is how God has commanded us to believe, just as a child believes the words of their father and mother without reasoning... In essence, reasoning adds nothing to the strength and significance of faith. On the contrary, whoever begins to give more weight to their own reasoning and deliberation in matters of faith thereby diminishes the value of their faith before God, just as one dilutes the strength of wine by adding water. Whoever places great weight on their own reasoning trusts in their mind rather than in God. And, in truth, there is no longer faith there..." says Bishop [St.] Theophan [the Recluse]. [118]

"When the mind, still unpurified by repentance, still wandering in the realm and darkness of the Fall, still unenlightened and unguided by the Holy Spirit, dares on its own, by its own words, from the darkness of pride, to reason about God, it inevitably falls into error. Such error is blasphemy. Concerning God, we can know only that which He, in His great mercy, has revealed to us," says Bishop [St.] Ignatius [Brianchaninov]. [119]

"Do not be wise and highly knowledgeable. To God, the childlike babbling of a soul humbled, so to speak, by the sight of its many weaknesses is more pleasing than the eloquent oratory of a soul puffed up with self-conceit." [120]

"One who occupies themselves with reflections on lofty subjects cannot avoid error, and while considering themselves to be leading a spiritual life, will be far removed from the path of salvation. It is less beneficial to know heaven and earth in detail than to know one’s own shortcomings and sins." [121]

"The devil often implants lofty, subtle, and astonishing thoughts, especially in those who are sharp-witted and quick to intellectual pride. And they, drawn by the pleasure of having and contemplating such elevated thoughts, forget to keep the purity of their heart and to attend to humble self-perception and true self-mortification; thus, being ensnared by the bonds of pride and self-conceit, they make an idol of their mind. Consequently, little by little, without realizing it, they fall into the thought that they no longer need the counsel and guidance of others, since they have become accustomed in every need to turn to the idol of their own understanding and judgment." [122]

But we constantly fall into intellectual pride. What is remarkable is that the minds of modern people are in no way willing to be satisfied with the explanations of spiritual truths provided by Orthodox teaching; to many, they seem excessively strange and impossible, yet they readily accept such fabrications and inventions, foreign to Christian teaching, which strike with their fantastical absurdity and complete lack of common sense.

The nature of the fallen mind is such that it often regards foolishness as the highest wisdom, while mocking true wisdom. Therefore, it is very important for a Christian to retrain their mind toward simplicity and humble-mindedness. Spiritual books should be studied solely with the aim of benefiting one's own soul, to warm the heart and bring it to a feeling of contrition, not for the purpose of displaying oneself as learned before others.

It is very dangerous to interpret Holy Scripture on one's own, to probe with the mind into the understanding of obscure thoughts in the books of the holy fathers—in such cases, demons often whisper distorted concepts to us, and we may suffer great harm and even harm others. Everything unclear should be learned from those who have thoroughly studied the holy fathers, or by reading the commentaries of the saints. It should be noted that almost all heresies began precisely with the incorrect interpretation of Holy Scripture. A beginner in Christianity does not need to understand many questions in all their subtleties.

It is also important to understand that spiritual wisdom is revealed only through the experience of an active Christian life, known in proportion to spiritual growth, as the mind and heart are purified, and not through intellectual effort, as in earthly sciences and speculations. Therefore, one must often turn to the holy fathers for instruction, who have traveled this path in life and have personally tested all this mysterious spiritual knowledge.

 

REFERENCES

118. [St.] Theophan the Recluse. Letters to Various People on Various Matters of Faith and Life. Letter 2, p. 22.

119. Bishop [St.] Ignatius Brianchaninov. Vol. 1, p. 495.

120. Bishop [St.] Ignatius Brianchaninov. Letters to Various People. Letter 3.

121. "Moral and Ascetic Views of Bishop Ignatius" by Leonid Sokolov – Letters in the Appendix, Letter 84.

122. The Invisible Warfare, ch. 9.

 

Source: О тайных недугах души [On the Hidden Illnesses of the Soul], by Archimandrite Lazar (Abashidze) (Moscow: Sretensky Monastery: Publishing House of the Moscow Representation of the Holy Dormition Pskov-Caves Monastery, 1998). Translation from the online Russian edition: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lazar_Abashidze/o-tajnyh-nedugah-dushi/

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

St. Nektarios of Aegina: Concerning the Persons Administering the Holy Mysteries

 

Does the Personal Faith of a Bishop or Priest Affect the Validity of the Holy Mysteries?

Source: St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, "On the Divine Mysteries of the Holy Church of Christ: Part A—On the Mysteries in General," in Collected Works, Vol. VI, ed. Holy Metropolis of Hydra, Spetses, and Aegina, Holy Monastery of the Holy Trinity (St. Nektarios), Aegina, Athens, 2012, pp. 155-158.

 

1. For the divine Mysteries to be performed and completed mystically, the following are required:

(a) A priest, who must be canonically ordained by the Church and commissioned by the Church of Christ, which is the only entrusted authority, having received the command from the Greatest High Priest, Christ, who is the sole celebrant of the Mysteries. For it is not the persons who perform the Mysteries and transmit Grace, but Christ, the Great High Priest Himself, who both offers the mystery of the Eucharist and is offered, and both gives and is given, and sanctifies those who partake.

(b) They must be performed according to the tradition of the Church, which was handed down to the Church by the holy Apostles.

2. The Catholic (Orthodox) Church permits only those who are canonically sealed, called, and ordained, as required by ecclesiastical tradition, and who do not hold any pernicious heresy, to celebrate the liturgy.

Concerning the moral perfection of those who perform the Mysteries

3. The moral perfection of the priest performing the Mysteries, or the degree of his faith, does not contribute at all to the performance of the Mysteries, even if these are lacking in him, because he is an instrument of the Church and acts on behalf of the Church, and God gives the Grace on behalf of the Church. If he is unworthy, he will give account for his boldness, but the Mysteries are still performed and completed.

4. The Church, as a divine institution, has the Spirit; and since the Spirit remains in the Church of Christ forever, the Church, regardless of the moral character and faith of individuals, possesses the Spirit within itself forever. The Church is Christ, because it is His Body, and He is its Head.

Concerning the completion of the Mysteries

5. The completion and sanctification of the Mysteries, as independent acts, are not only separate from the priest who performs the mystery, but they are also independent of the moral perfection and faith of the one receiving the mystery. The mystery was performed, the sun rose, grace was poured out, the word was spoken, those with eyes saw, the sensitive ones felt, those who hear listened, and those with minds to understand understood; however, the blind, the deaf, the insensitive, and the slow of mind slept and showed no interest. On the day of judgment, they will be without excuse, for due to their willful negligence, they deprived themselves of saving Grace. This applies to the members of the Church, for the Mysteries are performed only on behalf of the faithful.

 

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

Translations of the 2014 Common Ecclesiological Statement of the Churches of the G.O.C.

Official translations of the 2014 Common Ecclesiological Statement, The True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism • Dogmatic and Canonical Issues, signed by representatives of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

 

Greek: https://drive.google.com/file/d/167masKXebn_O0rB-Ni1A3iwMlAV9ma1s/view?usp=sharing

English: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1kmphsNVFP5dVJrdW4xSnU4cmc/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-JkHL-v86f3WZiAYYWlBEVQ

Russian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K6gWPDMJXK78A8x_Z7d0IdIkxNI5nOnz/view?usp=sharing

Romanian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DBg_2L6siNiTfrKQEpqqyYquaye1Uk2n/view?usp=sharing

Bulgarian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P2FW66la7_07_9iQYRcW2bV9-nPehYZD/view?usp=sharing

Serbian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/154TtcG7OvwEIaugibdE7Ypff2cvHOepL/view?usp=sharing

Arabic: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vZ3Yt-vc_8Nx_FjU_TyeTDU4IP8k_z-O/view?usp=sharing

Polish: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16gZ0gF5EI50rZSyD1vXoIz2SiIDmsnMh/view?usp=sharing

Italian: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13hAAiLyaZkqO5AdRSF_CkTcayr3V5mNb/view?usp=sharing

The Evil Communion

 The Evil Communion


Source: Orthodox Christian Witness, August 25, 1980.



Sulpitius Severus (363-420), long famous for his Life of St. Martin of Tours, has recorded in his Sacred History an interesting and revealing episode in church history. In his second book, chapter 46, he writes that a certain Priscillian (4th century) was converted to the teachings of a Gnostic-Manichaean sect first introduced into Spain by Marcus, an Egyptian from Memphis. Severus tells us that Priscillian was


a man of noble birth, of great riches, bold, restless, eloquent, learned through much reading, very ready at debate and discussion – in fact, altogether a happy man, if he had not ruined an excellent intellect by wicked studies. Undoubtedly, there were to be seen in him many admirable qualities both of mind and body. He was able to spend much time in watchfulness, and to endure both hunger and thirst; he had little desire for amassing wealth, he was most economical in the use of it.


This man was the author of Priscillianism, a heresy which shook Spain and parts of Gaul till the middle of the fifth century. He was able at the start to convert two bishops in Southern Spain to his cause, Instantius and Salvianus. The movement then spread rapidly and attracted many of the clergy and laity – men and women, both wealthy and influential.


Hyginus, the bishop of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising sect. He reported the matter to Ydacius, bishop of Emerita, and took counsel with him. Their conference led to an organized movement against the new errors. Ydacius seems to have been a rough and violent man. By intolerant severity he promoted rather than prevented the spread of the sect. Hyginus became dissatisfied and alarmed by Ydacius' measures, and from an accuser became a protector of the Priscillianists. At length a synod was held at Saragossa (Caesar-Augusta) which excommunicated the four leaders of the sect, Instantius and Salvianus the bishops with Helpidius and Priscillian the laymen. Hyginus, bishop of Cordova, also incurred the wrath and reproach of the synod as protector of the excommunicated, although he had been the first to accuse them. All who shared or connived at the new errors of faith and practice were anathematized. The task of promulgating the decrees and executing the ecclesiastical sanctions was given to Ithacius, bishop of Sossuba, a lamentable fact, for he too was a man harsh and given over to violence.


The reaction of the opposition was to ordain Priscillian bishop of Arles (Avila). Persecutions began; accusations and counter accusations were hurled. At this point both parties appealed to the secular authorities and by means of influential people and bribes, used them against each other. In the beginning the opponents of Priscillian won over the emperor Gratianus (Gratian) and an edict was given excluding all heretics from the use of the churches and ordering them to be driven into exile. In time the Priscillianists won over Macedonius, the master of the offices (magister officiorus). As one historian puts it, "The wealth of Priscillian and his followers was liberally employed. The 'silver spears' were now in the hands of the partisans on both sides." Through the powerful influence of Macedonius the Priscillianists were restored to their churches and sees. Ydacius and Ithacius were charged with causing divisions and disturbing the peace of the Church. Ithacius was even compelled to flee. The Priscillianists now had the upper hand and with friends at court powerful enough to ward off any moves of the opposition, all things seemed turned to their favor.


But an unlooked-for political upheaval changed everything. In Paris the unpopular Gratian was overthrown and assassinated and Clemens Maximus usurped the purple. His soldiers proclaimed him emperor in Britain and marched triumphantly into Gaul. This destroyed all the bright hopes of the Priscillianists. The fortunes of their adversaries revived. On the arrival of Maximus at Treves in 384, Ithacius brought a formal accusation with heavy charges against Priscillian and his followers. Maximus, a Spaniard by birth, reversed the vacillating policy of Gratian. Both parties were summoned to a synod at Bordeaux in 385 which had no results. In due course both parties appeared before Maximus at Treves. At Treves there was one in the midst of all this confusion whose prophetic insight saw the real significance of the issue at stake. This was Saint Martin of Tours, whose influence was then at its height.


This is how Sulpitius Severus records the event:


Thus, then, all whom the process embraced were brought before the king. The bishops Ydacius and Ithacius followed as accusers; and I would by no means blame their zeal in overthrowing heretics, if they had not contended for victory with greater keenness than was fitting. And my feeling indeed is that the accusers were as distasteful to me as the accused. I certainly hold that Ithacius had no worth or holiness about him. For he was a bold, loquacious, impudent, and extravagant man; excessively devoted to the pleasures of sensuality. He proceeded even to such a pitch of folly as to charge all those men, however holy, who either took delight in reading, or made it their object to vie with each other in the practice of fasting, with being friends or disciples of Priscillian. The miserable wretch even ventured publicly to bring forward a disgraceful charge of heresy against Martin, who was at that time a bishop, and a man clearly worthy of being compared to the Apostles. For Martin, being then settled at Treves, did not cease to importune Ithacius that he should give up his accusations or to implore Maximus that he should not shed the blood of the unhappy persons in question. He maintained that it was quite sufficient punishment that, having been declared heretics by a sentence of the bishops, they should have been expelled from the churches; and that it was, besides, a foul and unheard-of indignity, that a secular ruler should be judge in an ecclesiastical cause. (Sacred History, 2.50)

 

And indeed, as long as Saint Martin was present, the trial of Priscillian was delayed; Maximus even consented to promise the holy one that no life should be sacrificed. But as soon as Saint Martin was obliged by the call of pressing matters to withdraw from Treves (the whole matter was being drawn out), the emperor was surrounded by the unyielding Ydacius and Ithacius, ably supported by two bishops of a like mind and character, Magnus and Rufus, who were powerful at court. All these unremittingly urged Maximus to take severe measures.


The verdict was not long in coming. Priscillian and his chief followers were condemned to death by the imperial consistory at Treves. Some, after confiscation of their goods, were banished to the Scilly Isles, others into Gaul. Priscillian is recorded as the first of those who suffered death (gladio perempti). With him died two presbyters, lately become disciples, Felicissimus and Armenius, and Latronianus a poet, and Euchrocia the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. Instantius, deposed from his bishopric by the synod of Bordeaux, and Tiberianus, were banished to the desolate Scilly Isles. Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons, were executed. Tertullus, Potamius, and Johannes, as meaner followers who turned king's evidence, were temporarily banished within Gaul. This was the first instance of capital punishment for heresy in the history of the Church. It should not pass unnoticed that it was at the instigation of Spanish bishops. Centuries later it would be repeated on a grand scale during the Inquisition.


The immediate consequences of the sentence were not reassuring to the persecuting party. At Treves a violent strife arose between the bishops present concerning Priscillian's execution. Theognitus, a bishop of independent mind, boldly led the non-contents, refusing church communion to Ithacius and the others guilty of the judicial bloodshed. In Spain the Priscillianist enthusiasm was for a while intensified. The number of followers grew. The bodies of those who had suffered at Treves were brought to Spain and honored as relics of martyrs. The opposition became terrified. Additional severities were proposed. Maximus resolved to send military tribunes to Spain with unlimited powers. They were to investigate charges of heresy, examine heretics, and take life and property from the guilty. They were men little likely to temper justice with mercy.


But let us hear Sulpitius Severus in his own words describe what followed.


I will now come to an event which he always concealed, owing to the character of the times, but which he could not conceal from us. In the matter referred to, there is this of a miraculous nature that an angel conversed, face to face, with him. The Emperor Maximus, while in other respects doubtless a good man, was led astray by the advices of some priests after Priscillian had been put to death. He, therefore, protected by his royal power Ithacius the bishop, who had been the accuser of Priscillian, and others of his confederates, whom it is not necessary to name. The emperor thus prevented every one from bringing it as a charge against Ithacius that, by his instrumentality, a man of any sort had been condemned to death. Now Martin, constrained to go to the court by many serious causes of people involved in suffering, incurred the whole force of the storm which was there raging. The bishops who had assembled at Treves were retained in that city, and daily communicating with Ithacius, they had made common cause with him. When it was announced to them, expecting no such information, that Martin was coming, completely losing courage, they began to mutter and tremble among themselves. And it so happened that already, under their influence, the emperor had determined to send some tribunes armed with absolute power into the two Spains, to search out heretics, and, when found, to deprive them of their life or goods. Now there was no doubt that that tempest would also make havoc of multitudes of the real saints, little distinction being made between the various classes of individuals. For in such circumstances a judgment was formed simply by appearances, so that one was deemed a heretic rather on his turning pale from fear, or wearing a particular garment, than by the faith which he professed. And the bishops were well aware that such proceedings would by no means please Martin; but, conscious of evil as they were, this was a subject of deep anxiety to them, lest when he came, he should keep from communion with them; knowing well as they did, that others would not be wanting who, with his example to guide them, would follow the bold course adopted by so great a man. They therefore form a plan with the emperor, to this effect, that, officials of the court being sent on to meet him, Martin should be forbidden to come any nearer to that city, unless he should declare that he would maintain peace with the bishops who were living there. But he skillfully frustrated their object, by declaring that he would come among them with the peace of Christ. And at last, having entered during the night, he went to the church, simply for the purpose of prayer. On the following day he betakes himself to the palace. Besides many other petitions which he had to present, and which it would be tedious to describe, the following were the principal: entreaties in behalf of the courtier Narses, and the president Leucadius, both of whom had belonged to the party of Gratian, and that, with more than ordinary zeal, upon which this is not the time to dilate, and who had thus incurred the anger of the conqueror; but his chief request was, that tribunes, with the power of life and death, should not be sent into the Spains. For Martin felt a pious solicitude not only to save from danger the true Christians in these regions, who were to be persecuted in connection with that expedition, but to protect even heretics themselves. But on the first and second day the wily emperor kept the holy man in suspense, whether that he might impress on him the importance of the affair, or because, being obnoxious to the bishops, he could not be reconciled to them, or because, as most people thought at the time the emperor opposed his wishes from avarice, having cast a longing eye on the property of the persons in question. For we are told that he was really a man distinguished by many excellent actions, but that he was not successful in contending against avarice. This may, however, have been due to the necessities of the empire at the time, for the treasury of the state had been exhausted by former rulers; and, he, being almost constantly in the expectation of civil wars, or in a state of preparation for them, may easily be excused for having, by all sorts of expedients, sought resources for the defense of the empire.


In the meantime, those bishops with whom Martin would not hold communion went in terror to the king, complaining that they had been condemned beforehand; that it was all over with them as respected the status of every one of them if the authority of Martin was now to uphold the pertinacity of Theognitus, who alone had as yet condemned them by a sentence publicly pronounced; that the man ought not to have been received within the walls; that he was now not merely the defender of heretics, but their vindicator; and that nothing had really been accomplished by the death of Priscillian, if Martin were to act the part of his avenger. Finally, prostrating themselves with weeping and lamentation, they implored the emperor to put forth his power against this one man. And the emperor was not far from being compelled to assign to Martin, too, the doom of heretics. But after all, although he was disposed to look upon the bishops with too great favor, he was not ignorant that Martin excelled all other mortals in faith, sanctity, and excellence; he therefore tries another way of getting the better of the holy man. And first he sends for him privately, and addresses him in the kindest fashion, assuring him that the heretics were condemned in the regular course of public trials, rather than by the persecutions of the priests; and that there was no reason why he should think that communion with Ithacius and the rest of that party was a thing to be condemned. He added that Theognitus had created disunion, rather by personal hatred, than by the cause he supported; and that, in fact, he was the only person who, in the meantime, had separated himself from communion; while no innovation had been made by the rest. He remarked further that a synod, held a few days previously, had decreed that Ithacius was not chargeable with any fault. When Martin was but little impressed by these statements, the king then became inflamed with anger, and hurled him out of his presence; while, without delay, executioners are appointed for those in whose behalf Martin had made supplication.


When this became known to Martin, he rushed to the palace, though it was not night. He pledges himself that, if these people were spared, he would communicate; only let the tribunes, who had already been sent to the Spains for the destruction of the churches, be recalled. There is no delay: Maximus grants all his requests. On the following day, the ordination of Felix as bishop was being arranged. He was a man undoubtedly of great sanctity, and truly worthy of being made a priest in happier times. Martin took part in the communion of that day, judging it better to yield for the moment, than to disregard the safety of those over whose heads a sword was hanging. Nevertheless, although the bishops strove to the uttermost to get him to confirm the fact of his communicating by signing his name, he could not be induced to do so. On the following day, hurrying away from that place, as he was on the way returning, he was filled with mourning and lamentation that he had even for an hour been mixed up with the evil communion, and, not far from a village named Andethanna, where remote woods stretch far and wide with profound solitude, he sat down while his companions went on a little before him. There he became involved in deep thought, alternately accusing and defending the cause of his grief and conduct. Suddenly, an angel stood by him and said, 'Justly, O Martin, do you feel compunction, but you could not otherwise get out of your difficulty. Renew your virtue; resume your courage, lest you not only now expose your fame, but your very salvation, to danger.' Therefore, from that time forward, he carefully guarded against being mixed up in communion with the party of Ithacius. But when it happened that he cured some of the possessed more slowly and with less grace than usual, he at once confessed to us with tears that he felt a diminution of his power on account of the evil of that communion in which he had taken part for a moment, through necessity and not with a cordial spirit. He lived sixteen years after this, but never again did he attend a synod, and kept carefully aloof from all assemblies of bishop (Dialogues, 3.11-12).


From this incident we see how the God-bearing Martin of Tours refused to have communion with Ithacius and those with him for the sole reason that they had instigated bloodshed, even though the condemned were heretics. Rightly did he maintain "that it was quite sufficient punishment that, having been declared heretics by a sentence of` bishops, they should have been expelled from the churches, and that it was, besides, a foul and unheard-of indignity, that a secular ruler should be judge in an ecclesiastical cause." Although bloodshed is a great crime, yet Ithacius and the bishops with him were not heretics that Saint Martin should refuse to have communion with them as Maximus the emperor had argued, "no innovation had been made" by them. True, one could argue that manslaughter or even killing as a soldier in war is an impediment to ordination, according to the canons; therefore if a clergyman after ordination should be guilty of the shedding of blood either by his own hand or by having instigated it, he should be deposed. Yet in this instance "a synod held a few days previously had decreed that Ithacius was not chargeable with any fault." But Saint Martin was "little impressed," as it is recorded, by any and every argument brought in defense of Ithacius and those with him guilty of bloodshed. If he finally relented and agreed to concelebrate with them, it was solely to prevent the further bloodshed of hundreds if not thousands of others similarly accused.


Yet the angel informed him in a revelation that "justly" did he feel remorse for having concelebrated, even though "otherwise" he could not have gotten out of his difficulty, and rebuked him "lest you not only now expose your fame, but your very salvation, to danger." In verification of this warning "it happened that he cured some of the possessed more slowly and with less grace than usual" and felt a "diminution of his power on account of the evil of that communion in which he had taken part for a moment, through necessity, and not with a cordial spirit," How awesome indeed are the things one encounters in the Scripture and in the lives of the saints concerning the judgments of God. Yet who heeds!


The other day, leafing through an issue of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, we saw a panoramic color photograph of "world Orthodoxy" gathered together on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Restoration of the Moscow Patriarchate, which took place in May of 1978, in Moscow, and the above incident of the Priscillians in the fourth century came to mind. Here were the representatives of virtually all the official Orthodox churches with the Soviet patriarch and his bishops (there were a few Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc., just to make sure that all the "branches of the church" were represented), and in the midst of all these venerable hierarchs, pastors, and ministers, a non-clergyman (we would not call him a layman for that would presuppose that he was a member of the Church). Who might this esteemed gentleman be, so honored to be photographed with all these hierarchs? None other than the Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs of the USSR Council of Ministers, Vladimir A. Kuroedov, the real head of the Soviet Church, an avowed atheist and enemy of the Church. And there was not found one hierarch of any rank and origin to step out of the group and refuse to be photographed with this sinister enemy of our Faith. The same thing was repeated at the official banquet and other gatherings. Mr. Kuroedov was always seated at the head table in a central place of honor. He even gave an address (which is beyond description) to the whole assembly. One should read the full text in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, no. 8 (1978), page 32, to appreciate his erudition. The man should have been a comedian on television. And there was not found one person in that whole pious assembly to get up and leave.


Mayhaps today it would be too much to expect to find a God-bearer in the strength of Saint Martin of Tours among the bishops of "world Orthodoxy," yet not even a Theognitus was found to refuse to sit in the "seat of the pestilent" or to be found in the "counsel of the ungodly." But why speak of the atheist Kuroedov and not speak of the Soviet Patriarch Pimen and those with him. Since the days of the lamentable Metropolitan Sergei, (the later Soviet Patriarch Sergei), who in 1927 betrayed the Church and his fellow bishops and signed over the Church in Russia to the God-haters, have not the Soviet patriarchs and bishops of the Soviet Church the blood of the confessing bishops and new martyrs on their hands? Have not all these confessors and new martyrs been charged with disobedience and insubordination to their "canonical head," the Soviet patriarch and his holy synod? Have they not been persecuted, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and murdered because they refused to follow the example of the-Soviet churchmen, remaining faithful rather to the confession of Patriarch Tikhon and the martyred bishops with him? Is not the recognition of and cooperation with the Soviet authority of Sergei and those of like mind with him the legal basis by which all who disagree are arrested and liquidated by one means or another?


Ithacius the bishop in Spain of the fourth century and those with him had the blood of the sectarian bishop Priscillian and a half dozen of his followers on their hands. How much more so have the Soviet Patriarchs Sergei, Alexei, and Pimen, and those with them, the blood of tens of thousands of Orthodox believers, hierarchs, priests, deacons, monastics, laity – who were specifically tortured and put to death because they censured and uncovered their betrayal of the Church? (The victims of the Soviet terror run into the millions as do the number of new martyrs also. Here we are speaking specifically of those clergy and laity who were arrested and liquidated precisely because they refused to accept the betrayal of Sergei; we are speaking of the bishops in his day: Peter, Cyril, Agathangelos, Joseph, etc., and those who later uncovered and protested against this betrayal, such as Boris Talantov, who exposed the lamentable Archbishop Nikodim of Leningrad of sorry memory, and the Soviet patriarchate, and who was for this reason arrested and liquidated while in prison.)


The blood of these countless innocents and confessors "cries out of the ground" unto the living God, and yet there is not found one bishop of "world Orthodoxy" to refuse communion with the Soviet bishops on this account. Not one imitator of Saint Martin of Tours, yet many of Judas. No one feels remorse. No one fears lest he expose his "very salvation to danger," to use the words of the angel to Saint Martin. No one fears a "diminution of grace on account of the evil of that communion," to use again a phrase from that account. Even if the Soviet Church had not espoused the heresy of Ecumenism, no conscientious Orthodox Christian should have communion with it precisely because of the blood of the righteous which it has denounced and betrayed. Until such a day as the Soviet Church ceases being a Soviet Church and becomes again the Church of Christ by denouncing its allegiance to the Soviet state, protesting the persecution of religion in the Soviet state and asking forgiveness for its two-fold sin, of betrayal of that which is God's to Caesar for the last fifty years, and of the heresy of Ecumenism – which is a sin against the unity and uniqueness of the Church – for the last twenty years, no Orthodox can recognize it as a canonical Orthodox Church. As for all those who have communion with it, they only partake in "the blood of all the righteous shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood" of all them that are slain even unto this very day for righteousness' sake.


They tell us that we are out of the mainstream of "world Orthodoxy." We thank God for this, for we would never wish to be found in the photograph of "world Orthodoxy" of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, with the enemies of our Saviour, partaking of that "evil communion."


Conclusions from the former Matthewite, Stavros Markou

Post on 3 Aug 2022 on the “Church of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece and America GOC-K” Facebook discussion group: 

Stavros: I have a copy of the original GOC archive containing all documents from 1926 to 1948. I wish to make it public one day. The truth is that [Metropolitan] Chrysostom, [and Bishops] Germanos and Matthew all had their faults, but the most vile and nasty and careless one of all was Germanos of Cyclades. But all three of them could have been better and it would have allowed the spiritual struggle to succeed. But the archives proved to me that Chrysostom was right and Matthew was wrong regarding ecclesiology. It prompted me to leave the Matthewites and eventually join the Synod in Resistance who were the continuers of Chrysostom's ecclesiology. But then the entire SiR merged with GOC-K. I wish all the factions would reunite, but with Chrysostom of Florina's ecclesiology, not Matthew's. Then without a doubt all the conservatives within the Orthodox Church of Greece would switch to it, and eventually the Patriarchates themselves will call that true Pan-Orthodox Council that Chrysostom always spoke about, which would restore order in the Orthodox Church.


“... THE TIME OF OUR COMPLETE ISOLATION HAS COME.”

We must make a decisive break with ecumenism, and we must not have anything in communion with its co-travelers. Our path is not theirs. We must say this decisively and show it in our deeds. A time of genuine confession is coming for us, a time when perhaps we will remain alone and will be in the position of being persecuted. Insofar as all the Orthodox Local Churches have now entered into the ranks of the “World Council of Churches” and have thereby betrayed Orthodoxy and bowed down to satan, the time of our complete isolation has come. We cannot and we must not have any communion with apostates from True Orthodoxy, and we must be ready, if required, to depart into the catacombs, like the True Orthodox Christians in our homeland.

Our position as fighters and confessors of the pure and undefiled truth of Christ places us under great obligation, more than at any time in the past.

We must always remember that a true pastor of the true Church of Christ can never and must never have any other interests besides pure zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of the souls of his flock – to this and this alone must all his thoughts, all his feelings and all his activity be always directed.

- Archbishop Averky of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery, 1969.

Extremism out of necessity...

 Extremism Out of Necessity…


The Old Calendar movement in Greece was from its inception, it is true, a reaction of the simple Faithful to the calendar innovation and ecumenism. But its clerical and lay leaders included some of the best theologians and scholars of the Greek Church. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, who subsequently became the “Father” of the movement, was, for example, a refined man of tremendous erudition. Many of the Athonite Fathers who served the movement early on, though not educated in secular institutions, were virtual “professors” of the spiritual life, trained in that authentic theology which only the monastic state properly provides… It is an unfortunate fact that, largely out of necessity, the Old Calendarist movement eventually veered away from the influence of more moderate and circumspect leaders – as evidenced by the “Matthewite” schism – and fell into the hands of perhaps sincere, but less gifted leaders. The result of this lapse is, today, the atmosphere of confusion and inconsistency that one sees in the Old Calendar movement and its retreat into the tactics of the street in resolving ecclesiastical disputes: pettiness, character assassination, lies, distortions of historical fact, and a vengeful misuse of the Church’s legal system, resulting in false depositions and the like.


- Letter of Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna to Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan, Deputy Secretary of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR, dated August 20, 1994 (O.S.). Emphasis added.


Saturday, October 19, 2024

"We are not sot bold..."

INTERVIEWER [Tatiana Matchkovska]: There is in Bulgaria a group of Old Calendarists who consider the Mysteries of the "official" Church, which follows the new liturgical calendar, to be thereby wholly deprived of Grace.

ANSWER [Bishop Photii of Triaditsa]: This is an extreme position which is not ours. We are well aware that, to the extent apostasy progresses, Grace disappears. But we are not so bold as to decide this matter in a decisive manner. Only a council can do such a thing. Our task is to separate ourselves, but without assuming the role of judges.


Source: Труд, No. 20. English Translation: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 10 (1993), No. 3, pp. 9-10.

Fr. Lev Lebedeff (+1998): Thoughts on the Church, Grace, and Schism


Protopriest Lev Lebedeff | February 17, 1998


Dear N!

Let us still determine the essence of the disputes and the methodology of approaching them.

It has been as clear as day since the time of the Ecumenical Councils that gnosis is not an instrument for the knowledge of divine things. Before refuting Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria and some others called for the complete abandonment of intellectual reasoning and views regarding the mystery of the Incarnation and for accepting it solely by faith. For from the beginning, this was how it was in the Church: they did not theologize or philosophize about it; they saw it.

How? With the eyes of faith. "Enlighten the eyes of my mind," or—"the spiritual eyes of the heart." You are, of course, aware that in addition to the external mind, sometimes defined as ratio, there is also a spiritual mind in a person. Its distinction from the external mind is that it is capable of seeing the essence of things in God, without logical reasoning, comparisons, or proofs, but directly and immediately. This mind is often synonymous with faith, which the Savior places above empirical, external knowledge ("blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"). It seems to me that it was precisely during the era of the Arian and Nestorian disputes (inspired in some way by the Gnostics) that the well-known saying was born: non intellegere ut credas, sed credere ut intelligas (not from reason to faith, but from faith to reason). Without even realizing it, we, in all our "disputes about grace," have followed the Gnostic path. I am ready to accuse myself of this first of all. For we have attempted, with our external mind (though with references to the Holy Fathers), to define the boundaries of the Church, the workings of grace, and so on. And the result: we have arrived at nothing! Both opposing viewpoints within the Orthodox community still have the right to exist; neither has been shaken, nor established with sufficient strength (I mean the judgments: "the ecumenical churches, and the MP, are graceless," and—"they have grace, but with the caveat that for many, grace leads to condemnation"). What then should be done? Even the Holy Fathers, though perhaps against their will, had to labor over the precise verbal expression of truths that were previously perceived by faith, that is, by the spiritual-mind of the heart. But they were not simply and not only "fathers" and "teachers"; they were holy fathers and teachers! It was the Lord Himself, in connection with the particular purity and height of their spiritual lives, who enlightened and taught them what and how to say or write. In general, the appearance of a host of holy fathers is a special work of God's providence! If only such would appear in our days to resolve this relatively new dispute for the Church—the dispute about the Church itself! For only with a clear and correct vision of the essence of the question by the spiritual-mind of the heart (with the pure eyes of faith) can, with God's help, everything be expressed infallibly in words accessible to the understanding of the external mind.

Knowing our church life, it seems difficult to imagine that people in the spirit and power of the Holy Fathers will appear within it. But for some reason, I believe (or perhaps only hope) that in some council of truly Orthodox hierarchs, this issue could be rightly resolved. Here, it must be said, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos has managed to incline me to the idea that a Great Orthodox Council of representatives from all the Churches faithful to Orthodoxy is needed. However, he thinks too broadly about such a council. For now, I am inclined to limit myself to the idea of a council consisting only of those faithful to Orthodoxy, that is, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Synod in Resistance, other Old Calendarist groups in Greece, the Old Calendarist Church of Romania, and Bulgaria (possibly Serbia as well, if it leaves the World Council of Churches). Let both the moderates and radicals be heard there, as in the old days, and may the Holy Spirit resolve this most important issue.

Preliminarily, as merely my weak reasoning, I can say the following. The discussion is not about the actions of God's grace in general (it is manifold, its actions are varied, and it manifests not only in relation to people of all faiths, but also to animals, plants, stones, etc.); the discussion is about the actions of grace in the Church, as the Body of Christ, primarily in the sacraments of the Church. This should immediately lead us to the question of what is the Church and what is not? In the Apostle Paul's many reflections on the Church as the Body of Christ, whose head is Christ Himself and people are the members, there are two concepts or representations of the body: 1) as the body of a single person, and 2) as the "body of two in common" in the union of marriage. The second representation is more complex and mystical ("this mystery is great!"), but it more accurately corresponds to spiritual reality. It presupposes the existence of two free hypostases—Christ (the "Bridegroom") and the Church, consisting of people (as the "Bride of the Lamb"). In this case, their union into "one flesh" is not a complete merging, not an identity, but something similar (although not identical) to the union of the two natures—Divine and human—in the person of Jesus Christ, long defined as unconfused yet undivided. Then, according to V. Lossky, the hypostasis of the Church, or at least the minor hypostasis, is the soul of each person, each individual, united with Christ in the union of love ("marriage"); this person’s soul, the human person, is the "bride" of the Heavenly Bridegroom, loving Him and loved by Him. But the whole point is that in this mysterious union of "one flesh," the "bride" must be, and is, a free person! There is no mechanical subjugation, enslavement, or absorption of the "bride" by the "Bridegroom." In the Kingdom of Heaven, their mysterious "marriage" will remain unbreakable forever, but still on the basis of freedom, that is, the finally tested free desire of the "bride" to be with the "Bridegroom" forever. However, in the earthly conditions of existence, where this freedom is still being tested, "betrayals" are possible, separations from love and union on the part of some "brides." In Holy Scripture, this is often described by the image of "fornication," and the fallen "unfaithful" Church is called a "harlot" or "adulteress." The Apocalypse presents us with the image of the "great harlot," as the church of those who have freely and eternally renounced love and union with Christ. Some are wrong to assert that God can do everything. God cannot do everything—He cannot force those who do not want to love Him to love Him. This is how He Himself willed to create man (in His image and likeness, that is, in particular, absolutely free).

"Fornication" can take different forms or types. Essentially, every time we sin, we break the bond of love with Christ, as if we commit adultery against Him with something or someone. But in one case, it is not forever, because as soon as we come to repentance and turn to the sacrament (confession), called the "second baptism," the filth of sin is washed away again and again, and the bond of love with Christ is restored. In another case, that is, if repentance does not occur and the person (or community of persons) voluntarily descends deeper into the abyss of "fornication," this "fornication" severs the person from Christ eternally, forever. From this, it becomes clear that persistence in errors (the root of the word "fornication") undoubtedly separates all heretics, who refuse and do not want to renounce their errors and fully accept the pure teaching of Orthodoxy, from Christ and from the Church as His Body.

Let us try to imagine what happens when a wife betrays her husband. In this case, according to the word of Christ, the husband is free to "let her go," that is, to dissolve the marriage forever. He is free, but not obligated! For if she repents and he forgives, the marriage is restored and preserved. What does this mean ontologically? Marriage is a union of two into one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. By betraying her husband, the wife becomes the flesh of another, without ceasing to be the flesh of the first! A terrifying reality! A rupture of the unbreakable! If this is not severed or healed through repentance and she departs into eternity in this state, the person will be eternally torn into as many parts as there were adulterous relationships, without complete rupture, meaning without relief! It becomes understandable why Christ always places the sin of fornication alongside the sin of murder, and sometimes even ahead of murder. However, for our discussion, it is important to note that the unfaithful wife continues to be, to some extent, the flesh of her lawful husband. Until when? Until a legal (church) divorce occurs.

The same thing happens with church communities, churches that deviate into heretical errors. For a time, they continue to be "members" of the Body of Christ—the Universal Church. During this time, efforts are made to admonish them, call them to repentance, rebuke them, persuade them, and so on. This is roughly what happened with the Roman Church over several centuries (!) due to its teachings on the primacy of the Pope and the "Filioque." But it did not repent, did not turn back. And then came the "divorce"—1054. But even "divorce," separation, cutting off—this is still not complete death. If a branch is cut off from a tree, or a hand from a person, or even if the soul is separated from the body, life continues in the branch, in the hand, in the body for a certain time, although it is very brief. Still, if during this brief moment the branch is grafted back, the hand reattached, the soul returned to the body—everything can come back to life again!

Therefore, I have always told our "zealots": the process of separating a heretical community from the Church is precisely a process, that is, a phenomenon that unfolds over time and is characterized by the fact that, on the one hand, "death" has already set in, while on the other hand, "life" (i.e., grace in the Sacraments) still continues. Hence, there is no need to rush to categorical judgments... Who should and has the right to determine the degree of repentance, the timing, and the extent of the cutting off? In the deeper sense, and ultimately, Christ Himself determines. But in reality, this happens only through a conciliar decision (definition) of the Church. For the Lord has arranged His Church in such a way that it is not He directly, but the Church, which has received from Him the authority to "bind and loose," that must decide whether to cut off or not yet cut off a given erring community from itself. "And whatsoever is bound (by the Church) on earth shall be bound in Heaven."

You are right that no "self-respecting" (a good expression) heresy simply repeats verbatim any previous condemned heresy, but instead tries to present its false teaching in some "new" verbal expressions or coverings that essentially hide elements of already existing, old heresies. Therefore, it is not enough to merely identify the "new" heresy as a rehash (echo) of the "old" one, although this must, of course, be done! But it is also necessary to fight for the souls of the misguided people, again and again explaining everything to them... And then, a new Council of Churches is needed for the "new" heresy! More precisely—a Conciliar trial (!!), which, based on identification, would not only condemn the false teaching itself but also personally condemn the persistent heresiarchs, and abstractly condemn all who follow their teaching or remain in church communion with them...

When objections are raised, saying that since new heretics or apostates have already, by their teachings, fallen under the anathemas of the ancient councils of the Church, there is no need for a new trial against them, because they have already fallen away (through heresy) from the Church and thus are already without grace, this is only half true or even entirely false. It is entirely true only in relation to those who have consciously separated themselves from the Church, forming their own distinct "new church." But if we are dealing with those who have fallen into apostasy and heresy, yet claim that they have not fallen into anything of the sort, but continue to be Orthodox and consider themselves part of the Church, it is not enough for someone from the Orthodox to merely expose them as heretics; a conciliar trial is needed. Only such a council has the authority to cut off those who stubbornly persist in error from the Body of Christ (just as in the case of a legal ecclesiastical divorce between husband and wife). 

There is also this objection: if one of the local churches has identified a new heretical community as such and anathematized their "new" heresy, then it expresses the voice of the entire Orthodox fullness and is, therefore, a sufficient judgment. Often, people point to the 1983 anathema of ecumenism and ecumenists by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Yes, it is true that in this case, the Russian Church Abroad expresses the opinion of Orthodoxy. But one local Church does not have the authority to cut off another local Church from the Universal Orthodox Fullness; a judgment and sentence by the Fullness, i.e., a Council of Churches, is needed. However, until such a Council and judgment have taken place, the famous 15th canon of the First-Second Council comes into effect, which allows those who understand and perceive the heretical nature of the new teachings of certain bishops to separate from them, ceasing Eucharistic and prayerful communion with them even before a conciliar judgment and sentence, without waiting for such. This is a very painful state of affairs, giving rise to many "vacillations" and scandals in the churches, which we are witnessing.

How can this be understood or described from the perspective of the concept of the Church as a "body," that is, a certain unified organism? In the case of the representation of a single body for two in the union of marriage, this state of affairs corresponds to the condition of a "divorce process," where marital relations have been practically severed, but the spouses are still husband and wife, and it is not yet clear whether they will be granted a divorce or perhaps the marriage will be restored. In the case of the body as the body of a single person, this might correspond, for example, to the onset of gangrene in a person's leg. The gangrenous limb is still a part of the body, it still lives at the expense of the body, but it already threatens the entire body with death unless it is amputated or a miracle of healing occurs.

I once encountered a case where, as a result of the sacraments I performed (in the Moscow Patriarchate) — confession, unction, and communion — a miracle occurred: the right leg of a person, fully affected by severe gangrene up to and above the thigh, was healed overnight (!), while the doctors, observing the rapid development of gas gangrene, were convinced that the person had 45 hours to live...

Let us take another image of the Church, offered by Christ, for clarity — the image of the tree (or vine). If we imagine a branch that has just been cut from the tree, life still continues in it for a while, and its leaves remain as alive and fresh as the leaves of the branches still on the tree. The question is: is this branch still a branch of the tree? On the one hand, yes, it is a branch of this tree, and the living sap of the tree is still acting within it. But, on the other hand, it no longer truly belongs to the tree because it has been cut off, and the replenishment of life-giving sap is no longer there. If it is not immediately grafted back onto the tree, it is doomed to die and will wither completely.

Who, in this case, decides whether to graft it back or leave it to wither? Ultimately, in the deeper sense, it is the Lord (the "Vinedresser"), but not directly — only through His Church, through its judgment, which, on the surface of existence, appears as the free conciliar decision of a certain assembly of bishops (with the participation, in one form or another, of the people).

All the above ontological considerations and reflections allow for certain conclusions, among which it should be noted that, overall, the current period of church life can be defined as transitional. In this period, the apostate Churches mentioned have already separated themselves from the unity of the Body of Christ, but it is still unclear whether they will turn to repentance or be finally cut off by anathema. The Body of Christ is mysterious, and unlike the material body of a person, when hopelessly diseased members are cut off, it immediately regains its wholeness and former fullness in the remaining faithful members. Thus, the unity of the Church is preserved and will be preserved until the Second Glorious Coming of Christ.


This article is one of the last letters by Protopriest Lev Lebedev [d. April 29, 1998]. Father Lev responds to his correspondent, a priest of the Russian Church, regarding the question of the boundaries of the Church. The title was provided by the editors.

Source: Русский Пастырь [Russian Pastor], issue No. 30, 1998. Translation via ChatGPT-4o.



Source: Русский Пастырь [Russian Pastor], issue No. 30, 1998.

The Pseudo-Walling Off of Fr. Theodoros Zisis

Ioannis Rizos | March 27, 2018   Two years after the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, a preaching novel and foreign to Orthodox Tradition co...