An Attempt toward union – a global tragedy!

Orthodoxos Typos | November 15, 2025

 

 

A gesture of high symbolism in the course toward the union of the churches is constituted by the signing of the renewed Charta Oecumenica (Ecumenical Charter) by the Joint Committee of the Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE – Papist church) and the Conference of European Churches (CEC – Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants), during the recent meeting in Rome, by the Presidents of the two organizations, His Eminence Archbishop Nikitas of Thyateira, and Archbishop Gintaras Grušas of Vilnius. Everything confirms that events are rapidly developing toward the union of the churches. Orthodox hierarchs are playing a leading role in this deviation and are provoking. At the same time, they are drafting and signing texts in which the Holy Canons are trampled underfoot — and all this under the supervision of the Phanar and the silence of all the local Orthodox Churches as well as of the people of God. The political unification of Europe passes through the union of the churches, so that the people may gradually internalize the unification.

According to a publication of the World Council of Churches’ blog dated November 6:

“The Conference of European Churches and the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences published an Updated Ecumenical Charter on November 5 in Rome. This joint document renews the commitment of the European churches to walk together in dialogue, mutual understanding, and common witness, responding to the challenges of our time. The updated Charter was officially signed by His Eminence Archbishop Nikitas of Thyateira and Great Britain, President of the Conference of European Churches, and Archbishop Gintaras Grušas of Vilnius, President of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences. They affirmed the renewed commitment to continue building bridges between the churches in Europe.”

“This Ecumenical Charter is a call to conscience and cooperation,” stated Archbishop Nikitas. “Our commitment to one another as churches is not abstract – it is founded upon the common faith, which is lived in the midst of pain, division, and hope. In a fragmented and secular Europe, the Charter urges us to rediscover the power of our community and the urgent character of our mission. We must proclaim the Gospel together, defend human dignity, and work side by side for justice, peace, and care for creation. This is our ecumenical calling – not only to speak of unity, but to live it.”

 

Greek source:

https://orthodoxostypos.gr/%e1%bc%80%cf%80%cf%8c%cf%80%ce%b5%ce%b9%cf%81%ce%b1-%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-%cf%84%e1%bd%b4%ce%bd-%e1%bc%95%ce%bd%cf%89%cf%83%ce%b9%ce%bd-%ce%bc%ce%af%ce%b1-%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%ba%cf%8c%cf%83/

 

Text of the 2025 Charta Oecumenica in English:

https://www.ccee.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/Charta-oecumenica-PDF-con-guideline-A4-final2.pdf

Concerning walling-off: How is it possible that Saint Gregory Palamas teaches one thing, and we today, who supposedly honor him, do another?

The striking similarities between the words and deeds of Kalekas and the anti-Hesychasts with Bartholomew and the Ecumenists.

Adamantios Tsakiroglou, historian

It is known that the struggles of St. Gregory Palamas were not directed only against Barlaam and Akindynos, but also against their supporter, Patriarch John XIV, surnamed Kalekas. St. Gregory, on account of the heretical mindsets and positions of Kalekas, had cut off his commemoration before the synodical condemnation of the Patriarch. Kalekas, after the Synod of 1341, which vindicated the positions of St. Gregory and condemned the heretical positions of Barlaam, moved against St. Gregory, whom—with the help of the state—he shut up in prison.

Indeed, he issued an encyclical letter anathematizing St. Gregory and his like-minded ones, that is, the Orthodox. Reading it, one could say that it was written today by the hands of some Ecumenist (or unfortunately even of a cleric in the style of Fr. Evangelos Papanikolaou, etc.). This said, among other things, the following:

“Palamas and his like-minded ones, …having dared unlawfully and without judgment to cut off my commemoration, we subject to the bond from the life-originating and holy Trinity, and we consign to the anathema. The signature: John, by the mercy of God archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and ecumenical patriarch.” (P.G. 150, 863D).

Other bishops also signed the anathema of the Saint, but the Saint did not obey; rather, he continued to serve privately. (P.G. 150, 880D).

We present excerpts from the teaching of the Saint (not our own, as some accuse us) concerning the cutting off of communion with heretical false shepherds. The accusations of the Saint could very well be mentioned also today, since the Ecumenists are the same as Kalekas and worse:

“Since, therefore, in this way and so many times all the fullness of the Orthodox has been cut off from him, it remains impossible for the one who has not been separated from him [i.e., it is impossible for the one who has not been cut off from Kalekas to be counted among the ranks of the pious], and for him to be of the list of Christians in truth and united to God according to pious faith, whoever for these reasons has been separated from him.” (EPE 3, 692, Refutation of the Explanation of the Tome of Kalekas).

“What share, what portion, what genuineness toward the Church of Christ can there be for the advocate of falsehood—toward the Church which, according to Paul, is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ which also remains by the grace of Christ continually safe and unshaken, being firmly established upon those things upon which the truth itself has been established? For those who belong to the Church of Christ belong to the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ, and all the more so insofar as they themselves falsely claim, calling themselves sacred shepherds and arch-shepherds and being so called by one another—for we have been taught that Christianity is characterized not by persons but by the truth and exactness of the faith.” (Refutation of the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch, EPE 3, 606).

“For thus he also thinks fit to call us insubordinate and strangers to the Church, on the ground that we utterly refuse to be impious, he himself saying this… Such a one then, how would he not readily say that he alone and that greatest council suffice, since whatever is concocted and written against us as from that council is unquestionable?” (EPE 3, Refutation of Kalekas’ Letter, p. 590).

And the disciple of the Saint, Joseph Kalothetos, in his homily which is entitled “Against John Kalekas,” writes:

“This so-called good shepherd says, to be sure, that the Church has made us cast out, as not having been willing to give a written confession. Which Church does he claim has made us cast out? That of the Apostles? Indeed, we are entirely in agreement with that one, and its zealous students, and we have chosen to suffer everything on behalf of it… Thus he does not claim that that one has cast us out—how could he?—but that which he himself has set up as a newly-appeared Church and newly-appeared dogmas… From where are you a Church of the pious? From your teaching? From your manner? From your deeds? From your sound doctrines? Having become, then, a workshop of every falsehood, of every slander, of everything whatsoever base, of every seditious mindset, of all injustice, covetousness, sacrilege, robbery, profiteering, then you even ordain yourself—O what audacity!—a Church, not knowing that even Nestorius and Macedonius might well have claimed this, which you yourself claim. For they too had the same throne as you.

“From where are you a Church? From taking bribes? From selling off judgments? From not distinguishing between profane and holy things? From allowing the sanctuary to all impure and profane persons? From having persuaded people to be filled with bloodshed of those of the same lineage? From selling the grace of the Spirit? From filling the Church with every heresy—and I shall go to the very summit of evils—or from having sold for money your piety and that of your bishops and of those following you, whom you also boast of as being your Church? Such is the Church according to you, which you set up when shortly before, having defected from ours, you established it.”

If, therefore, the Church of Kalekas, of Bartholomew, is not the Church of Christ, St. Gregory Palamas advises us the following: “Let us flee, then, those who do not accept the patristic interpretations, but attempt to introduce from themselves the things contrary, and who pretend to preserve the words in their letter, yet drive away the pious meaning; and let us flee them more than one flees from a serpent (note: the agreement of the Saint with St. Photios the Great and with all the Fathers is clear).” (EPE 10, 356).

Extreme, the Saint? Schismatic, the Saint? Indiscriminate, the Saint? Does the Saint exert pressure with his writings?

 

Greek source: https://eugenikos.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_54.html

Vezýreas and the… viziers!

Nikolaos Mannis, educator

November 14, 2025

[Written in response to the recent arrest of a pseudo-old calendarist and pseudo-bishop in Greece (https://spzh.eu/en/news/88987-fake-priests-running-a-drug-lab-uncovered-in-athens) and the attempts by some to associate him with the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece, and our own responsibility in the matter by deviating from the vision and intent of St. Chrysostomos the New Confessor.]

 

As is known, when in 1924 the Synod of the Church of Greece introduced the new calendar, some people reacted to this introduction and were contemptuously called “Old Calendarists.” These people, unfortunately, were from the very beginning persecuted by ecclesiastical and political authorities, [1] a persecution that lasted for decades; and the schism that ensued (which has now surpassed a century) has still not been addressed by a competent Synod, as provided for by Canon Law. When in 1935 Hierarchs joined the Old Calendarist Movement (specifically Germanos Mavrommatis of Demetrias, Chrysostomos Kavouridis, formerly of Florina, and Chrysostomos Dimitriou of Zakynthos), episcopal ordinations were performed, and this Movement acquired an ecclesiastical leadership with undisputed Apostolic Succession. That most Old Calendarists placed special importance on Apostolic Succession, as much as on Apostolic Faith, is also demonstrated by their refusal to recognize the pseudo-bishops who were “ordained” solely (in violation of the Canons) by Bishop Matthew of Vresthena in 1948, the founder of a new “Old Calendarist” “Church” (known for the scandals of the Monastery of Keratea). But even later, when in 1960 and 1962 Bishops were ordained by Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA), there were many who reacted out of fear that there might not be canonicity (since the ordinations were carried out quietly due to the then-existing persecution), until these ordinations were ultimately recognized in 1969 by the Synod of ROCOR, so that no informed person could henceforth doubt the validity of these ordinations—not even those of the official Church (those, of course, who are not malicious)—as is also demonstrated by the case of the late Fr. Dimitrios Kotsikonas, regarding which I append the petition of then Metropolitan of Demetrias (and later Archbishop) Christodoulos for his reception as a canonically ordained cleric, as well as the positive response of the Synod through its then Chief Secretary (and current Archbishop) Mr. Ieronymos.

 

Unfortunately, however, when the persecutions against the Old Calendarists ceased and the free exercise of their religious duties and the recognition of their Mysteries by the State were legislated, the sorrowful phenomenon was observed whereby former clergymen of the official Church, who had been deposed by it for issues unrelated to the Faith—that is, for moral or other serious canonical offenses—continued to act as “clergymen,” now posing as “Old Calendarists,” so that, by exploiting legal protection, they might evade prosecution for the offense of “impersonating a minister of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ.”

One of these pseudo–Old Calendarists was also Dorotheos Tsakos, a New Calendarist Archimandrite (of the Metropolis of Sidirokastro), who, after being convicted and deposed for sodomy in 1968, was “ordained” “bishop” by Nikolaos Katsounakis of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, who had been “ordained” a pseudo-bishop of “Venezuela” by self-ordained Ukrainians! A few years later, Tsakos was “ordained” a second time as “bishop” with the title “of Monemvasia and Sparta” [2] by the self-proclaimed …“Ecumenical Patriarch” Theokletos Kantaris, also a New Calendarist Archimandrite (and former protosyncellus of Metropolitan Alexander Dilanás of Veria [3]), who, Theokletos, had been deposed in 1957 because he hastened to be “ordained” a pseudo-bishop by one of the bishops “ordained” by the Matthewite group. [4] In 1984, Dorotheos Tsakos was “ordained” again, as the supposed “Metropolitan of Patras,” by the Old Calendarist Bishops (with Succession from ROCOR) of Maximos Vallianatos of Cephalonia and Gerasimos Vrakas of Thebes, secretly from their Synod, which deposed Bishops Maximos and Gerasimos for this pseudo-ordination and declared the “ordination” as “non-existent and never having taken place.” [5] Gerasimos, together with Tsakos, before departing from this vain world, [6] managed to “ordain” new pseudo-bishops (thus creating a Lernaean Hydra), among whom was Seraphim Michas, a New Calendarist Hieromonk (of the Metropolis of Kythira), who had been deposed in 1981 for self-defrocking, as shown in the deposition document:

As, therefore, not only an expert canonist but even the most simple-minded believer can easily ascertain, the self-styled “Metropolitan of Elefsina and Salamina” and “Archbishop of Athens” Seraphim Michas (now deceased) was a pseudo–Old Calendarist pseudo-bishop, without Apostolic Succession, just like Dorotheos Tsakos, from whom he received the so-called “ordination.” The same holds for Parthenios Vezýreas, who is likewise a pseudo–Old Calendarist pseudo-bishop, since, as we read in his official biography, [7] on the one hand, he was raised not within the Old Calendarist sphere, but in that of the New Calendar (as a catechist under Chrysostomos Themelis of Messinia, deacon and great-schema monk under Chrysostomos Papadopoulos of Carthage), and on the other hand, after his deposition by the official Church, he was “ordained” by Seraphim Michas as “presbyter” and pseudo-bishop “of Karyoupolis, Oitylon and all Mani,” with the participation of other pseudo-bishops, who later, having split among themselves, half of them “deposed” him, [8] while the other half “proclaimed” him “Archbishop of Athens” before ultimately abandoning him! Therefore, Vezýreas is neither an ideological Old Calendarist nor a true Bishop, since he possesses neither the Apostolic Faith nor the Apostolic Succession, while all the Old Calendarists of Greece consider him (as they hastened unanimously to declare) a foreign body and do not recognize him, except only as a deposed deacon of the official Church, just as Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus himself had called him, very aptly comparing his case to that of the Ukrainian Schismatics [9].

Therefore, the recent attempt by a canonist clergyman [10], who, on the occasion of the Vezýreas case, issued a verdict like a …vizier, against the validity of the Mysteries and the Apostolic Succession of all Old Calendarists without exception, is not only arbitrary and uncanonical (since he clearly usurps the role of a Pan-Orthodox Synod, whose judgment he seizes), but also laughable, since, on the other hand, he recognizes as “Canonical” every Vezýreas of the “autocephalous” pseudo-church of Ukraine, the country in which he is active. Certainly, however, the great spiritual responsibility of the Old Calendarists of Greece for the Vezýreas phenomenon must also be mentioned here, since once again the spiritual law has operated. I explain: If the Old Calendarists had remained faithful to the ecclesiological legacy of Chrysostomos of Florina (+1955), who was never proclaimed “Archbishop” and only sought the lawful resolution of the matter by a Pan-Orthodox Synod, there would not be today so many “Archbishops”… As is known (from the Holy Canons and Ecclesiastical History), every Hierarch who falls into an offense must be judged by a Synod, and only if he is deposed is another placed in his position [11]. The first among the Old Calendarists who trampled this principle was Matthew of Vresthena, who, after “ordaining” “Hierarchs” by himself, was then proclaimed by them as the supposed “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece.” Unfortunately, even in the faction of the former Florina, after his repose, this illegality was followed when Auxentios of Gardikion (elected in 1963 uncanonically — with two votes out of four! — as “President of the Synod”) gradually adopted the above-mentioned unlawful title of “Archbishop of Athens and All Greece.” Thereafter, at every schism among the Old Calendarists, new “Archbishops” would appear, since many wanted to become vizier in place of the viziers… The result? God’s punishment falling upon their heads, having become the laughingstock of all, with the existence of so many “Archbishops of Athens,” even of the level of Vezýreas, and constantly striving so anxiously to prove that they bear no responsibility.

May all, therefore, assume the responsibilities that befit them with a spirit of humility and justice.

 

NOTES

[1] https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2016/04/09/20160409eDiogmoi.pdf

[2] See Orthodoxos Typos, 16-1-1981.

[3] Fr. Timotheos Chalkias, The Beginnings of Old Calendarism in the Region of Imathia (https://www.academia.edu/6005116/ΟΙ_ΑΠΑΡΧΕΣ_ΤΟΥ_ΠΑΛΑΙΟΗΜΕΡΟΛΟΓΙΤΙΣΜΟΥ_ΣΤΗΝ_ΠΕΡΙΟΧΗ_ΤΗΣ_ΗΜΑΘΙΑΣ).

[4] Christodoulos Paraskevaïdis (Archbishop), Historical and Canonical Consideration of the Old Calendarist Issue (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/books/book1/kef5_per3_fas2_meros5.htm).

[5] See The Voice of Orthodoxy, November–December 1985.

[6] Dorotheos Tsakos was murdered a few years later, in a disreputable area of Athens.

[7] http://arxiepiskop-palaio.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_49.html

[8] http://ieramitropolixiou-pe.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4560.html

[9] https://www.ethnos.gr/ekklisia/ekklisia-tis-elladas/66520_mitropolitis-peiraios-xekatharizei-ti-thesi-toy-gia-oykraniko

[10] https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/73027-i-ekklisia-tis-ellados-kai-oi-palaioimerologites

[11] The 16th Canon of the First-Second Council is revealing: “Because of the rivalries and disturbances that occur in the Church of God, it is necessary also to establish this: that by no means should a bishop be appointed in a church whose presiding bishop is still alive and retains his own rank, unless he voluntarily resigns from the episcopacy. For it is necessary first that the cause of the one about to leave the episcopacy be removed, having been canonically examined and brought to completion; and only then, after his deposition, should another be advanced to the episcopacy in his place.”

 

Greek source: https://exapsalmos.gr/o-vezyreas-kai-oi-vezyrides/

 

 

In Ukraine, the Odessa Diocese of the ROCOR(A) will be inspected for connections with banned organizations.

November 13, 2025

 

The State Service of Ukraine for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (SSUEFC) has announced the beginning of an investigation into the possible affiliation of the Diocesan Administration of the Odessa Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (the Synod of Metropolitan Agafangel) with foreign religious organizations whose activities are banned in Ukraine. The inspection is officially set to begin on November 14, 2025

As reported on the official Telegram channel of the SSUEFC, the investigation will be conducted by a specially established working group. The purpose of the inspection is to determine or refute the existence of connections between the Diocesan Administration of the Odessa Diocese of the ROCOR (Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine code 25126096) and entities whose activities are prohibited within the country.

The procedure is governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,” as well as by the Procedure for Conducting the Corresponding Investigation, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 543 dated May 9, 2025. The agency promised that the results of the investigation will be reported additionally after its completion in accordance with the established procedure.

 

Russian source:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/novosti/rptsz/v-ukraine-proveryat-odesskuyu-eparkhiyu-rptsz-a-na-predmet-svyazej-s-zapreshchennymi-organizatsiyami

Resistance Is in Our Blood: A Personal History of Ukraine

By Iryna Vushko

 

“Lenin created Ukraine,” declared Putin in one of his speeches on February 23rd, 2022 causing outrage among intellectuals and historians in Ukraine and abroad. Putin is being humble here. He might as well have stated that he, personally, invented Ukraine. As he denies Ukraine’s existence, he emboldens true Ukrainians who are more conscious of the trauma and resistance from the past. Putin’s statements about artificial Ukraine, moreover, are not new. Nor is the history of Russian intervention into Ukrainian affairs. Even today, Russian liberals oppose the war with references to the history of Russian-Ukrainian friendship and the Russian legacy in Ukraine. But for many of us Ukrainians, this legacy has a very precarious meaning: the ruthless shelling of civilians, the destruction of hospitals, maternity wards, neonatal care units, daycare, and schools. We have paid an enormous human price for Russia’s claims of shared culture and legacy. And we want none of it.

This is, of course, not the first time we are left to deal with this “legacy.” Over the past century, it has manifested itself in immense tragedies that cost us millions of Ukrainian lives. Between three and five million people died in Ukraine between 1932 and 1933 as the result of an artificial famine, a lot of them spending the last months or weeks of their lives in sheer agony, feeding on grass, soil, and frogs. In utter desperation, some turned to cannibalism. Many who died were young children. This tragedy remains largely unknown in the Western political and intellectual discourse, which has focused mainly on Hitler and his crimes.

The famine was a by-product of Russian-Soviet inheritance in Eastern Ukraine. Most of Eastern Ukraine had been part of the Russian Empire before 1918—what Putin, and many others in Russian intellectual and political circles claimed as belonging to the larger Russian speaking space. While the history of this belonging has always been complicated, the 20th century was particularly tragic for the Ukrainians who after 1922 found themselves under Soviet rule.

“It is important to study Russian imperial history so that we understand that what came next was so much worse”—one professor at Yale insisted during my graduate student years. The Soviet Union was, indeed, much worse than its imperial predecessor. The most severe consequences affected not ethnic Russians but other nationalities—primarily, the Soviet West, and Ukraine, in particular. Repressions against national minorities in the Soviet Union were more brutal than against ethnic Russians. Cross border ties between Ukrainians in the Soviet Union and Poland were a concern for Stalin, who suspected Soviet Ukrainians of disloyalty. These suspicions, confirmed by recent research, were well-founded. With the assistance of its European counterparts, Poland’s intelligence services targeted Ukrainians inside the Soviet Union in an attempt to destroy the Soviet Union from within. When Stalin struck back, he did so with unprecedented brutality that resulted in the death of millions of Ukrainian civilians.

The year 1929 marked a new beginning in Stalinist policies at home and abroad. As part of the so-called “Great Turn,” Stalin ordered the complete collectivization of agriculture and set up quotas for grain requisition. The grain, ironically, would later be sold to the West for profit. Ukraine was the Soviet and European granary, and it was affected most by the new policies. The bad weather and the drought in 1932 resulted in poor agricultural performance, and grain requisitions were well below the targeted quotas. Stalin blamed nationalist resistance. It was the nationalists, he believed, who brainwashed the peasants, forcing them into acts of defiance. He dispatched security forces to Ukraine to “facilitate” requisitions. By the early spring of 1933, Soviet security forces went house to house in Ukrainian villages removing any traces of agricultural produce as well as stock they could find to the point that nothing was left. The inhuman horrors of the famine in Soviet Ukraine never quite made into 20th-century European historical narratives. We would later learn about Russian losses and Russian sufferings during WWII, even though that war also severely affected life in Ukraine as well as Belarus. As Timothy Snyder has brought to our attention, over and over again, Ukraine was part of the Bloodlands—a territory in which millions upon millions of non-combatants were mass-murdered during WWII by both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russian forces.

I generally dislike the narrative of victimhood and suffering—even though my and many of my friends’ parents in Ukraine enforced it on us from an early age. But numbers matter, and history might help us understand the present. As Ukrainians died of starvation and later perished in the war, ethnic Russians moved in to take their space.

Eastern Ukraine had been subjected to Russification since the pre-1918 imperial period, but it took new forms under the Soviet Union. These included the massive loss of Ukrainian populations in the 1930s and the 1940s as a result of the famine and repressions during the war, all while Russification grew stronger. Russian became the language of the elites, while Ukrainian persisted largely in the countryside. Over the decades, however, the boundaries between Russians and Ukrainians in the East became looser.

The traumas of the 1930s and the 1940s may seem to be in the distant past, irrelevant to the present. But Putin and the war that started in Ukraine in 2014 shook this balance. At that time, a lot of those who grew up speaking Russian started switching to Ukrainian and identifying themselves in sharp opposition to everything Russian.

I myself grew up in Western Ukraine, which joined the Soviet sphere of influence only in 1939. My father, who was born in Poland in 1938 but raised in Soviet Ukraine—as a result of the forceful population resettlement between Poland and Soviet Union in 1944—used to walk five miles to school each way through what was essentially an active war zone. He was born in Eastern Poland, a year before the beginning of the war. In September of 1939, as a result of the Soviet-Germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop) pact, Germany occupied Western Poland, and later the same month, the Soviet Union took the East. The war took a turn in 1941, the Nazi advancing into Soviet occupied Poland and later into the Soviet Union proper, via Belarus. By 1944, the Soviets had cleared most of Poland (and Eastern Europe) of the German forces. My father’s family found themselves on the Polish side of what would now become the new Polish-Soviet border. In 1944, their house was set on fire. My grandparents and their three young children, having lost everything but their lives, were forced to move East. Ethnic Poles from what now became Western Ukraine would move to Poland. And ethnic Ukrainians from Eastern Poland would now find themselves in Western Ukraine, part of the Soviet Union. This forceful population exchange, one of many taking place in Europe post-war, defined the history of the Soviet Union not just during the immediate post-1945 years but into the 1990s.

Western Ukraine became Soviet as a result of the Soviet-Germany non-aggression treaty in 1939 and Soviet aggression into Eastern Poland. The war for my family thus started in 1939, much earlier than it did for most Europeans, and it came to an end only in 1949, much later than it did for most Europeans. When the Soviets were finalizing their control of Western Ukraine, the Ukrainians refused to give up fighting over the territories that they considered as their own. In Western Ukraine, the partisan warfare between Ukrainians and the regular Soviets continued intermittently through to 1949. This is a story of defiance against all odds that is largely unknown in Western political and intellectual discourses. I was raised on memories of tragedy and resistance. Just like nearly everyone else around me, I learned Russian not because I wanted to but because I had no choice. I became a Soviet pioneer not because I wanted to but because I had no choice. My and my peers’ parents, in the meantime, offered us many other choices at home. My father’s sizable library at home had a large collection of Ukrainian classics—all of them in Ukrainian. The only Russian titles I remember from childhood are university-level textbooks in chemistry and civil engineering—my parent’s specialties.  

This story should help us understand what a lot of people in the West now perceive as almost inconceivable: the brutality of Soviet (now Russian) tactics, and Ukrainian resistance against the enormous odds. Several days before the beginning of the war Putin is now waging, when the peace option had still been on the table, an Israeli colleague of mine asked if Ukrainians would resist. I was surprised that he would even ask. “Of course,” I responded, then thinking to myself: what other options do we have? Nolan Peterson, an American war veteran and journalist who has been living in Ukraine for the past several years, emphasized repeatedly that Ukraine was not going to be another Afghanistan. After American withdrawal, Afghanistan fell back under the Taliban’s control. Peterson’s claims about Ukraine not becoming another Afghanistan were also somewhat surprising for me to hear. Why would we need to state the obvious? But what is obvious for many Ukrainians might not have been obvious for Western observers. I knew we would resist, with or without Western support or intervention.

My father, who is now almost 84 and has spent most of his life in L’viv in Western Ukraine, is refusing to leave home for shelters. He remembers war from his childhood. He has seen worse, and, objectively, things are not too bad in Western Ukraine. Occasional air sirens—but no shelling. The overcrowded L’viv quickly became a safe haven for many of those fleeing the Russian army from the east. Just over a week into the war, it is crystal clear that Ukraine, indeed, will not become Afghanistan. And the fighting will go on. We all grew up during peacetime, but trauma and resistance is part of our genetic code.

 

Iryna Vushko is a Ukrainian Professor of History at Princeton University, where she focuses on modern Eastern Europe. Her first book, The Politics of Cultural Retreat, won the 2016 Kulczycki Prize.

 

Source: https://quillette.com/2022/03/08/resistance-is-in-our-blood-a-personal-history-of-ukraine/

Self-sufficiency and frugality

Metropolitan Kyprianos [II] of Oropos and Phyle | October 26, 2025 (O.S.)

 

The concern of every Christian must be the securing of the necessary material goods for his life and, at the same time, the securing of free time, in order to devote it to the acquisition of spiritual goods, which have great value in the present life and naturally greater in the life to come.

For this to become a reality, a person needs to be self-sufficient, that is, to be able to cover his needs on his own and to be content with what he has. He must not seek abundance and, above all, must not be greedy.

Work is the blessed task that ensures self-sufficiency and at the same time protects the dignity of man.

***

The Apostle Paul was the working preacher of the word of the Lord, so as not to burden the faithful. He often said this and asked his disciples to do the same. His words to the Thessalonians are clear:

“You will remember, brothers, our toil and hardship. While we preached to you the Gospel of God, we were also working day and night, so as not to burden any of you with our sustenance. You and God are witnesses of how holy, just, and blameless our behavior was toward you who believed. You well know that we behaved toward each one of you as a father toward his children” (1 Thess. 2:9–11).

And he encouraged them to have love among themselves and to consider it “an honor to live without disturbances, to concern themselves only with their own affairs and to work in order to earn their bread with their own hands, just as he had instructed them. In this way, they would have the respect of non-Christians and would not be financially dependent on anyone” (1 Thess. 4:11–12).

Noteworthy also is the reference of the Apostle Paul to his personal life. He writes to the Philippians: “I have learned to be content with what I have. I know how to live with deprivation and with abundance; I have learned to face any circumstance. Both to be full and to be hungry. Both to have excess and to be in want. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:11–13).

***

Christians are not confined to themselves; their heart is also turned toward their neighbor. They do not remain apathetic and indifferent to his needs, his pain, and his misery. They know that “he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6), as well as that “God is able to provide you abundantly with every gift, so that you may be completely self-sufficient” (2 Cor. 9:8).

The divine Chrysostom emphasizes that self-sufficiency is a source of freedom and many goods. Self-sufficiency means a pleasant life, release from many sloth-bearing cares, bodily vigor, good health, wakefulness of soul, spiritual vigilance.

On the contrary, in a luxurious and meddlesome life there is disgust, bodily weakness, sickness, lack of freedom, waste, fear of change (Chrysostom, vol. I, p. 728).

Self-sufficiency is directly connected with piety. Wealth hinders piety, and those who desire to become rich through it are mistaken.

● “Piety is great gain, but only for the one who is content with what he has” (1 Tim. 6:6).

 

Greek source: https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2025/11/08/20251108aAytarkeia-oligarkeia.pdf

A Reply to an Anti-Old Calendarist Article in Greece

Concerning the Old Calendarists (the alternative view)...

Nikolaos Mannis, educator | October 10, 2019| Romfea.gr

 

Honorable Mr. Poligenis, greetings in the Lord.

I read on your Agency the contribution of the, unknown to me, beloved Fr. Elias Makos titled “Concerning the Old Calendarists,” [1] [translated below -- tr. note] and since I know that Romfea.gr is not afraid to host all views, provided of course that they are written with sobriety and contain reasoned arguments, I am sending you another view on this subject, and let each reader form their own opinion.

The first and great error that is made, not only by Fr. Elias, but also by most who engage with this issue,  is that they treat the so-called “Old Calendarists” as a single body.

This, of course, is the easy solution; “we throw them all into one sack,” as the saying goes, and be done with them once and for all. But often the truth is not so simple, nor can everything be dealt with according to the logic of “black-and-white.”

The so-called “Old Calendarists” of Greece, therefore, do not constitute a single body, but a distinction must always be made as to whom exactly we are referring.

There are Old Calendarists with valid Apostolic Succession (from the Russian Church Abroad during the time of Saints John Maximovitch and Philaret—both of whom have incorrupt relics), who, although they have broken communion with the Ruling Hierarchy (that is, with the persons, and not with the concept of the Church of Greece, within which they are found), have been seeking the resolution of the calendar issue and the matters related to it since 1924. Unfortunately, not only has the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (which overflows with love only when it concerns heterodox or those of other religions) persecuted (and continues to persecute in other ways today) these people, but the other Local Churches have also turned a deaf ear (even the calendar issue was removed from the agenda of the so-called “Council of Crete”), sadly showing indifference toward the resolution of this thorny issue.

There are also “Old Calendarists,” truly schismatics, without Apostolic Succession, with Donatist views and a “Purist” ecclesiology, who have renounced the entire Church and do not accept either Mysteries or Saints outside of their sect. But even for them, should there not be concern, so that they may be enlightened and return to the Right Confession of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Lastly, there are also a very few clerics of the official Church who, after being deposed for matters unrelated to the Faith (mainly of a moral nature), now pretend to be “Old Calendarists” in order to attract followers and for legal cover. These clearly have no relation to Old Calendarism, but rather to charlatanism and imposture.

Is it not, then, unjust to lump together, for example, the late Petros of Astoria [2] (ordained by the Hierarchs of the Russian Diaspora—Leonty of Chile, a close friend of Saint John Maximovitch, and Seraphim of Venezuela) with the pseudo-Old Calendarists [“Archbishop” Parthenios] Vezyreas, [“Archbishop” Iakovos III] Giannakis, and the rest of the deposed clergy of the official Church?

 

From left: Leonty of Chile, St. John Maximovitch, and Petros of Astoria, outside the Old Calendarist church of Saint Markella, N.Y.

 

Fr. Elias concludes his article by proposing a way for the issue to be mitigated. What is that?

“Love on the part of the Old Calendarists, both as a disposition and as an action,” he writes. I agree with him, but I also disagree. For love, in order to work wonders, requires two; and no matter how much love the Old Calendarists may show, if there is no love from the other side (which, unfortunately, treated them from the very beginning with terrible violence, as has been proven with irrefutable evidence), [3] then there will be no positive result. Therefore, it is good to seek love, but also the other virtues, first from ourselves, and then from others.

 

The Old Calendarist Bishop Petros of Astoria with [Official Church] Metropolitan Dionysios Bairaktaris of Chios.

 

However, before I conclude my intervention, I must emphasize one more thing, extremely important, in view of ecclesiastical developments.

As everything indicates (and as is confirmed by the actions of American diplomats and politicians in our country—e.g., Geoffrey Pyatt, Mike Pompeo), the Church of Greece will the day after tomorrow recognize the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Schismatics, resulting in the declaration of non-communion with it on the part of the Russian Church, and, consequently, the expansion of the Schism.

The day before yesterday, His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk [4] hypothetically asked: “How would the Church of Greece react if the Russian Church were to recognize one of the Old Calendarist factions?”

This, I must tell you, knowing persons and matters, is not at all a hypothetical scenario.

If the Russian Church objectively studies the history of the Old Calendarists of Greece, then it will surely identify that “faction” which meets the criteria for recognition. And then many things will change...

And not only that. The thousands of faithful (clergy and laity) of this “faction” are ready to align themselves with the Russian Church, provided, of course, that it also takes a clear stance regarding the issues over which the former separated themselves from the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (namely, the calendar issue and the heresy of Ecumenism).

In any case, things are certainly not as simple as some would like to present them, and for this reason we must be careful and work for the will of God to be done, and not that of deceitful men.

 

NOTES

[1] https://www.romfea.gr/diafora/32187-peri-palaioimerologiton

[2] See attached photographs.

[3] https://www.hsir.org/pdfs/2016/04/09/20160409eDiogmoi.pdf

[4] https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/32184-bolokolamsk-ilarionas-opoios-anagnorisei-tous-sxismatikous-tis-oukranias-tha-apomonothei

 

Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/32203-peri-palaioimerologiton-i-alli-apopsi

***

Concerning the Old Calendarists...

Fr. Elias Makos | October 9, 2019 | Romfea.gr

 

Faithful ask to learn who the Old Calendarists are and whether or not they are outside the Orthodox line. Clearly, in our estimation, through their actions, they violate basic elements of Orthodoxy.

From the outset, it should be clarified that this is no longer a matter of the difference between the old or new calendar, as the issue had initially begun.

This is not a primary issue, since the old calendar is followed also by Churches and Patriarchates, as well as by the Holy Mountain.

But it is a matter of the great and insurmountable problem concerning whether their priesthood is true or not, a fact which is related to the salvation or the loss of souls.

Old Calendarist groups operate with priests and hierarchs of unknown origin and of doubtful and “inauthentic” priesthood, who present themselves as “super Orthodox.”

Furthermore, obsessions and extremes and fanaticisms and incomprehensible claims of the type “the official Church is schismatic and heretical” or “in the churches of the New Calendarists there is no grace of God” or “their Mysteries are invalid” or the denial and slander of saints, such as Nektarios [of Aegina] and Paisios [the Athonite], show in practice that the boundaries of ecclesiastical legitimacy have been greatly exceeded on the part of the Old Calendarists.

As for the individuals who follow the many (almost countless by now) mutually denouncing and at times mutually destructive Old Calendarist Churches, we do not doubt that they are people of piety and zeal.

From that point on, however, they are led astray by persons who either ignore the depth and breadth of Orthodoxy or possibly have self-serving motives.

Thus, for decades now, they have not maintained an attitude of respect, acceptance, and acknowledgment of the official Orthodox Church, undermining the climate and the corresponding atmosphere that are necessary for the attainment of communion and dialogue.

The respect they owe to the official Church leaves them no room for comparison, judgment, and condemnation. The acceptance of canonicity means that it is not permissible to deny or distort canons and dogmas.

The acknowledgment of deviation will lead them, through repentance, to the realization of catholicity and unity as a dynamic system of attitudes and needs, toward their proper orientation.

What is the way for the issue to be mitigated?

Love on the part of the Old Calendarists, both as a disposition and as an action. Love is active, and its actions are known to us in an experiential manner.

All the characteristic features of love, gathered together, are summarized in two verbs, each of which inaugurates a program of life: love “is kind,” love “does not behave unseemly.”

That is, it does everything that is good and avoids everything that is disgraceful.

 

Greek source: https://www.romfea.gr/diafora/32187-peri-palaioimerologiton

 

The Reasons That Made Me Return to the Patristic Calendar

Archimandrite Paisios Papadopoulos,

 [now Former] Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory Palamas, Filotas

August 24, 2018

[This text provides a sound rationale for anti-Ecumenist New Calendarists to reconsider the implications and gravity of the calendar innovation. However, the translation of this text does not constitute an endorsement of the author’s subsequent actions or opinions. – Translator’s note]

 

In our various decisions and actions, especially in our spiritual life, the criterion is not each person’s opinion, nor what pleases us. Since we do not even know our true benefit, it is clearly not what seems to serve our current daily life with its many and varied problems that must be solved, but exclusively and only the will of God. In our prayer, when we say the “Our Father,” the well-known Lord’s Prayer, we ask: “Thy will be done.” But do we truly mean it when we say it?

What is the will of God “according to His good pleasure” and the first or prior will, as it is called? It is that which God desired for us from the beginning—our salvation. Therefore, everything is judged by the conditions that are created so that we may not lose salvation. And since the only Savior who saves us is Jesus Christ, we must be in constant communion, united with Him, which grants us the Grace of adoption. This Grace, of course, we receive in Holy Baptism, but it is rekindled through repentance and the Mystery of Holy Confession, as well as through Holy Communion, prayer, the keeping of Christ’s commandments, and our life within the Tradition of the Church. “If ye love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever—even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (That is, He will give you the Holy Spirit, who is pure and absolute truth and reveals the truth to those of good will. But the sinful world cannot receive Him, for it has not opened the eyes of the soul, and therefore does not see Him nor know Him. But you know Him, because I have revealed Him to you, and He remains near you; and after His descent, He shall dwell within your souls.)

Before everything else, however, the confession of our faith precedes! “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10). Because we have believed in the God-man and we apply His commandments with whatever works we do, for the reason that He Himself requires them of us according to His Gospel—that is, we do them in the Name of Christ and not in the name of some abstract moral code. Confession does not precede only once, at the time before Holy Baptism, but confession precedes every time before the sanctification during the holy Anaphora as we celebrate the Divine Liturgy. Yet it does not precede only then—it precedes our entire life in Christ. “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32–33). And if confession precedes everything in our spiritual life, it likewise precedes our ecclesiastical actions, so that the possibility is excluded that we have ceased to hold fast to the good and holy confession of our Orthodox Faith. “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (Heb. 4:14). The same also is advised by the Apostle Jude: “Beloved… I exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints” (Jude 1:3). Let us hold fast the confession which we received unadulterated from such great men, turning away from every innovation as a prompting of the Devil. (Pan-Orthodox Council, 1848) We consider it a given that this our confession must be connected with the unfortunate ecclesiastical events—concerning which, if we do not take a stand, we will bear exceedingly great responsibility!

Because an uproar was caused by our return to the Patristic Calendar, I must point out a few things:

1. First of all, we all know that a difficult struggle is taking place, which bears a cost on every level—spiritual, of course, included.

2. In this struggle, our holy monastery, by necessity—just like Saint Gregory Palamas during his earthly life—is at the forefront, which means that it at least opens the way.

3. However, we do not act according to human desires and wills, but seek the will of God.

4. For this reason, for two whole years we have prayed very intensely and fasted in our synaxis, all together, each according to his strength. Therefore, we neither acted hastily, nor did we wall ourselves off without effort!

5. Our actions until now have neither been mistaken nor inconsistent, nor have we deviated from what we initially declared.

6. There were individuals who left our synaxis because they knew that we would ultimately return to the Patristic Calendar. We did not hide it—we stated it openly and published it many times. Others left because we exercised oversight over the situation and did not allow anyone to act on their own initiative and teach about invalid Mysteries, or to prevent us from communing those who had no knowledge of ecclesiastical matters. Likewise now, we did not allow certain petty-minded women to lead us around by the nose like little bears and drag us wherever they wished, simply because they were possessed by cowardice and fears.

7. Personally, although there was a need for me to confess, I never bound myself to any spiritual father on the occasions I had to confess, solely so that we would not end up following the line of whatever group (faction) each one belonged to.

8. However, it was not possible to continue on without a spiritual guide and confession. Our spiritual children, perceiving the difficulty of the current problematic ecclesiastical situation, urged us to seek out a spiritual father for confession, strengthening, and guidance.

9. The choices were specific: either we would return to the Ecumenists—God forbid such a denial of our Faith—or we would go to the Economists, or the Trikaminists, or the Old Calendarists.

10. I chose the Old Calendarists because I consider them to stand apart from all the others, and because their walling-off has a purpose and a direction.

11. A walling-off that leaves the faithful in the middle of the sea and does not lead them to the opposite, safe shore of the “land,” I consider to be suicide.

12. After all, a walling-off must also meet the pastoral needs of the faithful and not create problems.

13. Precisely because of these problems, certain of our brethren were forced to resort to an economia to the detriment of the Faith.

14. Let us not forget that walling-off is a temporary state until ecclesiastical order is restored.

15. Moreover, the common and simple people who hear of walling-off do not understand, and think that it means leaving the Church. This was exploited by the cunning and ill-intentioned metropolitans, who made the faithful believe that we supposedly left the Church like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

16. In this walling-off, our aim clearly was not to scatter. However, since due to the envy of the devil and with the cooperation of certain groups it was not possible to achieve understanding, we now lead the walling-off one step forward—not so that it may fall apart, but that it may bring about the expected result.

17. In any case, we all ought to have returned to the Tradition of our Church concerning the calendar, which—let us not forget—is followed by the entire Orthodox Church.

18. How much longer will the schism between the old and new calendar persist, and why must we unite with all kinds of heretics and not with the Orthodox Old Calendarists?

19. Will there be another opportunity and conditions for the schism to cease, especially with the prospect of a joint condemnation of Ecumenism?

20. Until now, the matter of the calendar, although not a matter of Faith but of ecclesiastical Tradition, precisely because the Faith had not yet been adulterated—even though the change of the calendar was a serious transgression (all the more so since it was done with deliberate intent)—did not deprive us of salvation simply because we had not remained with the Patristic calendar. Now, however, the Faith is changing—because, in reality, through their decision at the pseudo-council of Kolymbari to accept many Churches while the Symbol of Faith declares: “In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church...”—the holy Faith which sanctifies the faithful no longer exists synodally, and they are now defiled by the hidden heresy which they introduced through their participation in synodally recognized Ecumenism. Thus, the secondary issue of the calendar has now become a criterion of Orthodoxy, since the deliberate change—then seemingly “indifferent”—has now confirmed the intention by which, in essence, the Faith through which we are saved was overthrown. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS SALVIFIC! That is, after the change regarding the Faith in the 9th article of the Symbol of Faith—even if they do not acknowledge it—it is now obligatory that we return to the Patristic Calendar in order that the heresy be examined synodally, condemned together with those responsible for it, and that ecclesiastical order be restored!

Each person, of course, as a human being, is free to make his own choices; however, as a believer, each one who is a member of the Church is obligated to uphold the Tradition of the Church.

Those of my spiritual children who, at this critical hour of confession, do not hold their position—if in the future they should wish to return—they will need repentance like that of the fallen, with a penance. We do not play with the matters of the Church. Those who wish to follow the metropolitans, or the ecumenists, or groups with unclear or unstable direction, will bear the responsibility themselves. The struggle requires courage and noble souls. Great prostrations and whining are not marks of bravery. I will leave some room for waiting and adjustment—but within certain timeframes and with a specific approach. Whoever wishes may follow.

 

 

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2018/08/blog-post_24.html

 

St. Justin Popović of Ćelije: A Response to the Holy Synod - "On Common Prayer for Unity"

Submitted to Bishop Jovan Velimirović of Šabac and Valjevo

And to the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church

Belgrade, November 13/26, 1974

 

 

Most Reverend Fathers,

The stance of the Church of Christ in relation to heretics – to all who are not Orthodox – was established once and for all time by the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, by Holy Divine-Human Tradition, uniform and unchangeable.

In accordance with this stance, Orthodox are forbidden to participate in any form of common prayer or liturgical services with heretics. For, “What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has he who believes with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14–15).

The Forty-fifth Canon of the Holy Apostles decrees: “Let a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, who has merely prayed with heretics be excommunicated; but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical function, let him be deposed.”

This sacred Canon of the Holy Apostles does not specify precisely what kind of prayer or service is prohibited, but it does prohibit any common prayer with heretics, even in private (“has prayed with...”). In the case of ecumenical joint prayers, do things not occur that are both more explicit and on a broader scale than these?

The Thirty-second Canon of the Council of Laodicea decrees: “It is unlawful to receive the blessings of heretics, for they are absurdities rather than blessings.” And do heretics not give blessings at those ecumenical gatherings and joint services? – Roman Catholic bishops and priests, Protestant ministers, and even female clergy!

These and all of the other pertinent Canons of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers were not valid only in the ancient period, but continue to be completely valid today, as well, for all of us contemporary Orthodox Christians.

They are unconditionally binding in our stance toward Roman Catholics and Protestants. For Roman Catholicism is a many-sided heresy and the heresies of Protestantism are too many to mention.

Did not Saint Sava – already in his time, seven and half centuries ago – call Roman Catholicism “the Latin heresy”? And how many new dogmas has the pope invented since then and made them dogma with his “infallibility”?! It is absolutely certain that, through the dogma of papal infallibility, Roman Catholicism has become a pan-heresy. Even the much-celebrated Second Vatican Council did not change anything concerning this monstrous heresy, but, on the contrary, it made it even firmer.

Therefore, if we Orthodox wish to remain Orthodox, it is our duty to maintain the stance of Saint Sava, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Cosmas of Aitolia, Saint John of Kronstadt, and the other Holy Confessors, Martyrs, and New Martyrs of the Orthodox Church toward Roman Catholics and Protestants, absolutely none of whom believe correctly and in an Orthodox manner in the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity: in the Holy Trinity and in the Church.

Your Eminence and Holy Fathers of the Synod,

How long will we continue desecrating our Holy Orthodox Church of Saint Sava by our pitiful and horrifying stance, which directly opposes Holy Tradition, towards ecumenism and the World Council of Churches?

Every true Orthodox Christian, who is instructed under the guidance of the Holy Fathers, is overcome with shame when he reads that the Orthodox members of the Fifth Pan-Orthodox Consultation in Geneva (July 8–16, 1968), with regard to the participation of Orthodox in the work of the World Council of Churches, decided, at that time, “to express the common recognition of the Orthodox Church that she is an organic member of the World Council of Churches” (see Glasnik S. P. Crkve [Belgrade], no. 8 [1968]: 168).

This decision is apocalyptically horrifying in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy. Was it necessary for the Orthodox Church, the most pure Divine-Human Body and organism of the God-Man Christ, to be so debased to such a pitiful degree that its theological representatives, some of whom were Serbian bishops, should seek after “organic” participation and membership in the World Council of Churches, which will supposedly become a new “body” and a new “Church” above all the churches, in which the Orthodox Church and the non-Orthodox churches will appear only as parts – “organically” joined to each other? God forbid! Never before has there been such a betrayal and abandonment of our holy Faith!

By this, we are renouncing the Orthodox Divine-Human Faith, this organic bond with the Lord Jesus, the God-Man, and His most pure Body – we are repudiating the Orthodox Church of the Holy Apostles, Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils – and we wish to become “organic members” of a heretical, humanistic, man-made and man-worshipping assembly, which is composed of 263 heresies, each one of which is spiritual death.

As Orthodox, we are “members of Christ.” “Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid!” (1 Corinthians 6:15). We are doing this by our “organic” union with the World Council of Churches, which is nothing other than the revival of atheistic man-worship and idolatry.

Most Reverend Fathers, our Orthodox Church of the Holy Fathers and Saint Sava, the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, of the Holy Confessors, Martyrs, and New Martyrs, must now, at the eleventh hour, cease ecclesiastical, Hierarchical, and liturgical involvement with the so-called World Council of Churches and renounce for good any participation whatsoever in joint prayers and worship (for worship, in the Orthodox Church, is organically linked together in a totality and is consummated in the Divine Eucharist) and, in general, [renounce for good] participation in any ecclesiastical endeavors which are not self-contained and do not express the unique and unchangeable character of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church, forever one and unique.

If the Orthodox Church, faithful as she is in every respect to the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, were to avoid ecclesiastical involvement with heretics, be they those of Geneva or those of Rome, she would not thereby be renouncing her Christian mission or her evangelical obligation: that she should humbly, but boldly, bear witness before the contemporary world, both non-Orthodox and non-Christian, to the Truth, to the All-Truth, to the living and true God-Man, and to the all-saving and all-transfiguring power of Orthodoxy.

Guided by Christ, our Church, through the Patristic spirit and character of her theologians, will always be ready “to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason for the hope that is in us” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).

And our Hope, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, and unto all eternity, is single and unique: the God-Man Jesus Christ in His Divine-Human Body, the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Fathers.

Orthodox theologians should participate not in “ecumenical joint prayers,” but in theological dialogues in the Truth and about the Truth, as the Holy and God-bearing Fathers have done throughout the ages.

The Truth of Orthodoxy and the right Faith is the “portion” only “of those who are being saved” (cf. the Seventh Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council).

Wholly-true is the proclamation of the Holy Apostle: “salvation through sanctification ... and belief in the Truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Belief in the God-Man is “belief in the Truth.” The essence of this belief is the Truth, the only Whole-Truth, that is, the God-Man Christ. Love for the God-Man is “love of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The essence of this love is the Whole-Truth, that is, the God-Man Christ. And this belief and this love are the heart and conscience of the Orthodox Church.

All of these things have been preserved intact and undistorted only in martyric, Patristic Orthodoxy, to which Orthodox Christians are called to witness fearlessly before the West and its false faith and false love.

Commemoration of Saint John Chrysostom

November 13/26, 1974

Holy Ćelije Monastery

 

The unworthy Archimandrite Justin

commends himself to the holy Apostolic

prayers of Your Eminence

and the holy Fathers and Hierarchs

of the Holy Synod