A bishop of the UOC requests a statement regarding the boundaries of Ecumenism (“following the example of the decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism.”)

 

Introduction

Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (UOC – Synod of [Metropolitan] Onufriy [of Kiev and All Ukraine]), at a conference organized in Belgrade under the auspices of the Center for Geostrategic Studies, called for a Pan-Orthodox Council with the aim of condemning “Eastern Papism” and the geopolitical interventions of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the life of Orthodoxy.

In his keynote address titled “The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar,” he analyzed in detail the mechanisms of external influence employed through Ecumenism, international media, financial support, and diplomatic activity. He emphasized the dangers to the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy, highlighting the need for unity and collective action among the Local Churches.

The conference gathered leading theologians, Church representatives, journalists, and international analysts from Greece, Italy, Serbia, Poland, Mount Athos, and the United States. The participants discussed critical issues such as the crisis in Orthodox ecclesiology, the consequences of Ecumenism, the protection of spiritual heritage, and strategies for safeguarding canonical unity.

The address of Metropolitan Luke clearly presents the necessity for a systematic response to ecclesiastical and geopolitical pressure, combining spiritual, theological, social, and pan-Orthodox measures.

The text adopts a clearly critical stance toward the Ecumenism of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It maintains that the ecumenical initiatives:

1. They exceed theological dialogue and are transformed into instruments of geopolitical influence, affecting the Church through media, financial resources, and diplomacy.

2. They create dangers for Orthodoxy, such as dogmatic distortion, polarization among the Local Churches, the instrumentalization of religion by states, and the loss of the faithful’s trust.

3. They present Ukraine as an example, where the OCU was portrayed by pro-Phanariot and Western media as “the only canonical Church,” thereby reinforcing its political dimension at the expense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

4. He analyzes the diplomatic and humanitarian activity of the Vatican, noting that humanitarian aid, international meetings, and participation in forums are used for political and ecclesiastical influence.

5. He proposes specific countermeasures.

Overall, the Metropolitan perceives Ecumenism as a threat to Orthodoxy, emphasizes its geopolitical and communicative dimensions, and highlights the need for a strategic response that combines spiritual, theological, social, and legal means.

…

Fr. D.A. [Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou, a walled-off clergyman in Greece – trans. note]

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/uoc.html

 

***

 

LUKE (Kovalenko),
Metropolitan of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol
Ukrainian Orthodox Church

 

The Ecumenical Offensive as an Instrument of Geopolitics: Media, Finances, and the Diplomacy of the Vatican and the Phanar

 

Introduction

Contemporary geopolitical struggle goes far beyond the limits of economics and military security, actively intruding into the spiritual sphere. It affects the life of the Church, distorts the understanding of canonical order and the true state of affairs. In this context, a special role is played by the ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (the Phanar), which are rapidly being transformed from platforms for inter-Christian dialogue into instruments of “soft power.” Through media channels, material support, and direct participation in diplomatic processes, these centers influence the sympathies of elites, legitimize new ecclesiastical (and quasi-ecclesiastical) structures, and alter the balance of power in entire regions, as clearly demonstrated by the example of Ukraine. [1]

The task of this report is to analyze how ecumenical projects shape the international agenda, which media resources and financial mechanisms are employed, and what consequences this leads to for the Orthodox world. On the basis of this analysis, specific steps are proposed for the protection of the spiritual and canonical integrity of Orthodoxy.

1. Ecumenical Projects as Instruments of Political Influence

1.1. The Change in the Nature of Ecumenism

Contemporary ecumenism, initiated by the Vatican and the Phanar, often goes beyond the bounds of theological dialogue, turning into a means for the formation of geopolitical alliances, the exertion of pressure on the Local Orthodox Churches, the introduction of a liberal social agenda, and the justification of the legitimacy of secular states’ interference in internal ecclesiastical processes. Thus, the form of “dialogue” is used as a diplomatic platform for the advancement of influence.

2. Media as an Instrument of Pressure and Legitimation

The Phanar actively uses a number of English-language and Greek-language information channels, such as Orthodox Times, Ecumenical Patriarchate News, Greek Reporter, and resources connected with the diaspora. [2] These media perform key functions in shaping an interpretation of events favorable to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, attempting to present and confer legal force and generally recognized significance upon its controversial canonical acts.

This can be traced very clearly in the media support of the “Ukrainian project — the OCU.” During the period 2018–2020, pro-Phanariot news resources disseminated a narrative in which the OCU was presented as “the only canonical Church of Ukraine,” and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a “Russian structure not connected with the Ukrainian people.” The decisions of the Phanar were presented as obligatory for the entire Orthodox world, [3] and informational pressure was exerted on those Local Churches that expressed doubts and disagreement with its actions.

This interpretation was synchronized with Western media, which presented the granting of the Tomos to the “OCU” as a “victory of democracy and sovereignty,” which demonstrates close media-political coordination. [4] Studies and publications show that the Phanar (as well as the Vatican) work carefully with society through their own information platforms and partner media, and this makes a religious initiative also an information operation within a broader political game.

3. Financing and the Role of External Actors

Open sources indicate systematic external financial and political support for the Phanar’s projects by structures of the Greek diaspora in the United States, American diplomatic foundations, and transnational non-governmental organizations oriented toward the promotion of “religious freedom.”

The Lantos Foundation included Patriarch Bartholomew in projects for the “promotion of freedom of conscience.” This narrative then returns in Church media as “international support for church reforms.” In the “Archons”—an organization connected with the Patriarchate of Constantinople—it was stated that at the International Religious Freedom Summit (IRF Summit) Patriarch Bartholomew was mentioned as a “bridge-builder.” [9]

4. The International Policy of the Vatican and Its Connection with Ecumenical Initiatives

4.1. The Vatican as a Diplomatic Power

The Vatican demonstrates considerable experience in constructing interconfessional dialogue, humanitarian initiatives, and political diplomacy, creating for itself the image of a “peacemaker.” [7] Ecumenical dialogue is used by it as a channel for forming special relations with influential states, exerting influence on religious processes in Eastern Europe, and promoting the social doctrine of Catholicism as a global norm.

4.2. Synergy of Instruments: Media, Finances, and Diplomacy

Media (official channels such as Vatican News), financing (through Caritas, Catholic Relief Services), and diplomacy operate in close coordination. [8] Public campaigns create a favorable background for political decisions, humanitarian assistance ensures a presence “on the ground,” and official diplomacy consolidates the results at the symbolic and formal levels. [9]

5. Concrete Examples and Illustrations

• The Tomos of autocephaly of the OCU (2019) — the ecclesiastical act of Constantinople was publicly and politically supported by Ukrainian state leaders, which strengthened its perception as an element of pro-Ukrainian diplomacy rather than an intra-ecclesiastical matter. [10]

• The participation of the Phanar in international summits on Ukraine (2024–2025) — speeches and the signing of final documents by Patriarch Bartholomew at diplomatic venues demonstrate the integration of the ecclesiastical institution into political processes and make it possible to transmit its position through international formats. [11]

• Vatican diplomacy around the “Russia–Ukraine” conflict — calls for peace and large-scale humanitarian assistance through Caritas were combined with formulations that critics regarded as neutral toward the Russian Federation, which was used in information wars. [12]

• The meeting of Pope Francis with [OCU “Metropolitan of Kyiv”] Epiphany Dumenko is a continuation of the process of recognizing the “OCU” in the religious world and a support of the non-canonical actions of the Phanar. [13]

• Humanitarian support through Catholic structures — large volumes of funds and projects of CRS / Caritas strengthen not only the social but also the socio-political influence of Catholic structures in the regions. [14]

6. The risks and consequences of this activity for Orthodoxy are seen in:

• Doctrinal dilution and institutional subordination to the Vatican.

• Polarization within the Orthodox world, since there exists a threat of division into supporters of different centers.

• The instrumentalization of religion by secular states through the support of particular ecclesiastical actors.

• Loss of trust among the faithful, who may begin to perceive the Church as a political project.

• Escalation of inter-Orthodox conflicts through the use of information campaigns and sanctions.

7. Our proposals for the protection of spiritual and canonical integrity

To counter these risks and threats, a systematic, multi-year strategy is necessary, which may include the following components, presented here for discussion:

1. Media counter-narrative and information security

o The launch of a multilingual media platform of Orthodox unity (an analogue of Orthodox Faith, but with a budget and a professional editorial team).

o The preparation and dissemination of short educational series (videos 3–5 minutes, infographics, podcasts) on the topics: “What is canonical territory,” “Why ecumenism contradicts Holy Patristic Tradition,” “How to distinguish humanitarian aid from an instrument of influence.”

2. Strengthening one’s own social and humanitarian programs

o The creation or significant expansion of existing charitable services, so that external assistance is not perceived as the sole source of support.

o The introduction of a system of “Orthodox crowdfunding” — a unified platform for raising funds for social projects within the Local Churches.

3. Education and catechesis of the new generation

o The introduction of a mandatory course “Contemporary Challenges to Orthodoxy: ecumenism, globalization, geopolitics,” both in theological seminaries and academies and for the laity.

o The holding of annual inter-Orthodox forums for clergy and laity.

4. Inter-Orthodox unity without the Phanar and external pressure

o Against the background of geopolitical upheavals and divisions in the Orthodox world, to consider the Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a potential center capable of uniting the Local Churches, since, unlike the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is deeply involved in provoking disagreements, the Church of Jerusalem actively works toward strengthening unity.

o The holding of regular meetings of the Primates and Synodal commissions of the Local Churches that preserve Eucharistic communion (the ROC, Serbian, Antiochian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech Lands and Slovakia, and others).

o The drafting and adoption of a joint document “On the boundaries of ecumenical dialogue and the preservation of canonical purity.”

o The establishment of a permanent Secretariat of Orthodox unity (as I have previously proposed, using the Amman model).

5. Legal and international protection

o Support for the existing international legal group of Orthodox hierarchs and lawyers to represent the interests of persecuted communities in the ECHR, the UN, the OSCE, and others.

o The submission of collective appeals to international organizations for each instance of discrimination against the canonical Church (seizure of a church, arrest of a priest, prohibitive laws).

o In the event that sanctions are imposed against any hierarch — within 72 hours, a joint statement by all participating Local Churches.

6. Spiritual and theological measures

o An increase in the number of conciliar anathemas and public condemnations of contemporary forms of ecumenism and “Eastern papism” (following the example of the [anathema] decisions of ROCOR in 1983 on ecumenism).

o The universal revival of the practice of the public reading of the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, with the addition of contemporary threats.

o Periodic services of supplication for the admonition of those who have fallen away (in the diocese entrusted to my administration, I commemorate “those who inflict afflictions upon us” at the Great Entrance during the transfer of the Gifts).

7. Monitoring and early warning

o The creation of an additional analytical center to track ecumenical and geopolitical threats (on the basis of existing structures—for example, at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade).

8. Transparency of financing and external ties

The introduction of mandatory annual publication of reports on foreign grants and donations. The establishment of an Inter-Orthodox Commission for monitoring financing under the aegis of canonically responsible Local Churches, which will publish “black lists” of donors found to be involved in anti-canonical activity.

9. Long-term strategy

o The preparation and convening of a Pan-Orthodox Council of the Local Churches (possibly without Constantinople) for the final condemnation of “Eastern papism,” contemporary ecumenical errors, and the formulation of clear canonical norms for the 21st century.

The establishment of a permanent Inter-Orthodox court for canonical violations.

Conclusion

The ecumenical initiatives of the Vatican and the Phanar in the 21st century have turned into a full-scale geopolitical project, using media, finances, and diplomacy to alter the canonical landscape of Orthodoxy. The response can only be firm standing in the Truth, reinforced by a mature strategy, systematic defense, inter-church solidarity, and one’s own informational agency. Possessing the Holy Patristic Tradition and the ability for its creative re-actualization, the Orthodox world has everything necessary to turn the current crisis into an opportunity for purification and strengthening. We have millions of faithful children. All that remains is to act decisively and in a coordinated manner. Then the present “ecumenical offensive” will become not a threat, but an occasion for a new flourishing of Orthodoxy.

 

Notes [numbering jumps from 4 to 7 in the original Russian – trans. note.]

1. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ (official RISU website; search by keywords “hybrid conflicts,” “religion and war,” etc.).

2. Orthodox Times — an information resource close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://orthodoxtimes.com/ (official website).

3. Official website of the Permanent Representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches (news and documents of the Patriarchate). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.ecupatria.org/ (previously the domain ecupatria.org was used as the Patriarchate’s news portal).

4. Reuters, 5 January 2019: “Ecumenical Patriarch signs decree granting Ukraine church independence.” [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/ (archival Reuters article; related materials on the topic are available at https://www.reuters.com/)

7. Vatican News — the official information portal of the Holy See (analysis of Vatican diplomacy). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

8. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — official website, section on projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

9. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate — official website (mentions of Patriarch Bartholomew as a “bridge-builder” at the IRF Summit and others). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/ (see also materials on the IRF Summit)

10. Reuters, 5 January 2019 (the same article as in note ⁴). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1OZ0AP/

11. Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (materials on international summits and the diplomacy of Patriarch Bartholomew). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://archons.org/

12. Vatican News — official portal (humanitarian initiatives of the Vatican in Ukraine). [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.vaticannews.va/

13. Religious Information Service of Ukraine (RISU) — a portal that regularly publishes analysis of the role of religious institutions in conflicts, including on the example of Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://risu.ua/ru/predstoyatel-pcu-epifanij-vstretilsya-s-papoj-franciskom_n152837

14. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) — projects in Ukraine. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/where-we-work/ukraine

 

Russian source:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHpdIrw7oOODrffCMtJwOtHPQnw6rMbN/view?usp=sharing

 

 

The War of the End Times against Christian Virtues

Bishop Sofronie of Suceava | October 28, 2025

 

 

Reading in the Acts of the Apostles, we can easily learn that those chosen from among men, the Disciples of the Lord, did everything in their power to spread the Word of the Gospel to the entire known world of that time: they visited countries, according to their lots, they established communities of Christians, they ordained priests and bishops, they wrote epistles, they endured torments, and, in the end, they also received martyrdom in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

All these things must resound even today, at least in our hearts, of us bishops, the successors of the Holy Apostles. I say “at least” because our deeds, of all Christians, should be like those of the Disciples of the Lord.

Among those deeds I have also enumerated “they wrote epistles.” If in their days it was quite difficult to write, as many people were unlearned, today, besides the fact that almost the entire civilized world knows how to read and write, the means of disseminating written materials are much easier and more complex. In another vein, a hierarch is bound to watch over “the entrusted flock,” this obligation stemming from the very name of bishop (Gr. ἐπίσκοπος – “overseer”). Accordingly, our duty is to oversee the flock, including through the writing of epistles, teachings, counsels, and spiritual advice, all with the purpose of guiding the flock on the path that leads to salvation. Moreover, a worthy example to follow is the exhortation of the Holy Apostle Paul to Timothy, his disciple, in which he instructs him on this path of episcopacy: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (II Timothy 4:2)

Therefore, having this list of worthy examples to follow, I will try to write you a few lines, in order to guide you, to exhort you, and perhaps also to rebuke you, doing all this because I desire that we may all be able to see each other beyond the gates of Paradise, unto the glory of God.

My beloved,

Nowadays, technology allows us to have almost unlimited access to information. It is a wonderful thing to receive an answer to nearly any question in a matter of seconds, to be able to simulate things before putting them into practice, to study any science, to operate vehicles remotely, and so on. We are all convinced that God has permitted these devices in our time to ease our lives and to benefit us in our daily activities.

Why do we write these lines?

The answer is simple: on various media platforms (Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, the X Network), all sorts of “priests,” monks, and other individuals who claim to be Orthodox appear, analyzing passages from Holy Scripture or from certain writings of the Holy Fathers. It makes no sense to name them individually, as these “influencer fathers” are quite viral on the aforementioned networks, having hundreds or thousands of followers—people from different parts of the world and, why not, from different religions. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of their “counsels,” these monks or priests plant seeds of sins against the three great virtues of Christianity: faith, hope, and love. Therefore, we will try to exhort you to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and not to lend your ear to interpretations coming from various characters who appear on the screens of your devices. We will thus divide this material into three main parts, each part corresponding to one of the three great theological virtues.

I. The Fight Against Faith

Regarding faith, we can say that it is the acceptance by us, as true, based on trust in God and on an inner spiritual vision, of all the truths we have through the Revelation that is above nature, for the purpose of our salvation. (Cf. The Teaching of the Orthodox Christian Faith, Ed. of the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1992, p. 47)

The devil never wanted man to remain in the truth, but continually drew him into falsehood and intrigue, making use, of course, of human beings as well. Thus, at the beginning of Christianity, the Jews led a fight against the faith, then came the pagan Roman emperors with persecutions, later the heresies, then the Muslims, and so on. Today, although Orthodoxy seems to be untroubled, another type of danger has appeared: ecumenism — the heresy of all heresies.

In this regard, a multitude of “fathers” preach through various media about how much faith must be united, how good it would be to celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord on the same Sunday (Orthodox and [Roman] Catholics), that it is necessary to abandon matters of dogma, that we should no longer be so strict, that we ought to think about the vacations of those working abroad, and so forth. Let us remember how the Holy Fathers defended the Christian faith against all internal and external dangers. Let us not forget the Canons of the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let us not forget that the “feast of feasts” — the Resurrection of the Lord — is regulated by strict rules, and whoever violates them is accursed. In a preliminary conclusion, let us not heed those who seek to draw us toward the West, toward the Catholic, heretical faith.

Faith is also being attacked through the online broadcasting of church services, a practice with which we do not agree. There are, however, a number of persons who live in areas isolated in terms of access to church services. For these individuals, indeed, listening to a service from the parish to which they belonged is a blessing. But for those who have a church just a few meters away and prefer to listen to the service on the radio or television, this online transmission is a trap. Moreover, some services are carried out merely as a formality, with nothing being done correctly from a spiritual point of view. In reality, some services are filmed for the sake of ratings, not to serve the Lord with all the heart.

Searching through the lives of the Saints, we revisited the life of Venerable Saint Pambo:

“The venerable Pambo once sent his disciple to sell his handiwork. Staying sixteen days in the city, at night he slept on the porch of the church of the Holy Apostle Mark; and, witnessing the church service and learning a few troparia, he returned to the elder. Then the elder said to him: ‘I see you, my son, troubled. Did some temptation befall you in the city?’ The brother replied: ‘Truly, father, we spend our days in this desert in idleness, and we do not sing canons nor troparia. Going to Alexandria, I saw those in the church singing, and I was saddened that we do not also sing canons and troparia.’ The elder said to him: ‘Woe to us, my son, for the days have come in which monks will abandon the solid food, that spoken by the Holy Spirit, and will follow after chants and voices. For what compunction and what tears are born from the troparia when one stands in a cell or in church and lifts up his voice like the weak? For if we stand before God, we are bound to do so with great humility and not with distraction; for monks did not go out into the desert to stand before God and become scattered, singing songs and arranging voices with art, but we are bound, with the fear of God and with trembling, with tears and sighs, with a pious, humble, measured, and lowly voice, to offer prayer to the Lord.’”

Behold, then, what is good and what is beautiful for the monastic life. To be photographed, filmed, recorded, and set forth as an example on the internet is contrary to the monastic rules and order. Unfortunately, many Christians who are less fervent in faith come to believe more in the words of these monks than in the authentic ecclesiastical order. And I will give you another example: a priest widely circulated on the internet said that a woman, in her forbidden days of entering the church, may do so with the priest's blessing. If we are to generalize, it would mean that the priest could override any canon and ordinance simply by granting a dispensation / blessing. Where then is the rule established by the Holy Fathers?

Continuing the reading from the life of Saint Pambo, we find the following:

“Behold, I say to you, my son, days will come when Christians will corrupt (distort) the books of the Holy Gospels, and of the Holy Apostles, and of the divine Prophets, erasing the Holy Scriptures and writing troparia and Hellenistic words. And the mind will be poured out upon these, and will turn away from the others. […]”

And the elder continued:

“In such times the love of many will grow cold and there will be much tribulation: invasions of the pagans and the uprisings of peoples, unrest among kings, the indulgence of priests, the sloth of monks. There will be abbots heedless of the salvation of themselves and their flocks, all zealous and eager for feasting and quarrelsome; slothful in prayer and diligent in slander, quick to condemn the lives of the elders and their words, neither following them nor listening to them, but rather reviling them and saying: ‘If we had lived in their days, we too would have struggled.’ And the bishops in those days will be ashamed before the faces of the powerful, rendering judgments for bribes, not defending the poor in judgment, afflicting widows, and not helping the destitute. Moreover, among the people there will be unbelief, heresy, fornication, abomination, strife, envy, provocations, thefts, and drunkenness.”

And the brother asked: “And what shall one do in those times and years?” The elder replied: “My son, in those days, he who saves his soul shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

May the Good God protect us from such things! Yet we see, little by little, that the prophecy of this Saint of the Lord is being fulfilled. Interpretations and reinterpretations of the Church’s canons appear, in accordance with ways of thinking such as: “the canons must be adapted to our present-day situation,” or “the Church canons are outdated.” Has God changed, then? Or have the Mysteries of the Church changed? Certainly not. Therefore, the hymns, the canons, and the order must remain unaltered.

“The right faith and pious works are the signs of the true Christian. The Christian is a true house of Christ, made up of good deeds and sound teachings. And true faith is revealed through deeds. Faith without works is dead, just as works without faith are also dead.” (Prologues)

The devil does not know whether or not the Lord Christ is in your mind. But if he sees you becoming angry, or quarreling, or speaking impure words, or swearing, or slandering, or hating someone, or being prideful, or laughing excessively, or jesting, or not praying often, nor remembering death—then he knows that the One who guards you is not in your soul. And so, like a thief, the cunning devil enters, because the light of God is not in your heart, and he steals the house of your soul.

II. The Fight Against Hope

Hope is “on the one hand a longing, the yearning of the soul in expectation of a promised good, and on the other hand, the unwavering trust in the fulfillment of the promise given to us by God.” (The Teaching of the Orthodox Christian Faith, op. cit.) And because persistent prayer is the most suitable means for strengthening and renewing hope, we bring forth some arguments from Holy Scripture and from the lives of the saints, in order to counter the teachings of these “new monks,” monks who think according to the modernism of this world.

The easiest subject to address in sermons is that of the coming of the Apocalypse—a frightening subject in itself, by the very notion of the end of man, the end of humanity. Indeed, given the spiritual decay of the world, we can speak of the beginning of the end. The greater problem arises from those who, in their sermons, proclaim an end in which the Christian appears helpless, bewildered, devoid of God's Providence. We hear all sorts of topics: vaccination, chips, nanoparticles, conspiracy theories, globalism, surveillance, etc. We are told to beware of bank cards, property, to flee from wars, and so forth. Little by little, these priests/monks/bishops paint a desolate picture, devoid of hope in God.

The Savior Jesus Christ says repeatedly in His Gospel that we must be courageous:

“Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in Me.” (John 14:1)

“Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (John 14:27)

“And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20)

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” (Matthew 24:6)

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

How beautifully does the true God speak to us. He has given us support from the very beginning, speaking to us about the things of the end. He has made us wise through the word of His Gospel. He foretold to us the things that are to come, so that we, following the Gospel, might be prepared. We do not know when it will come, but the end shall come. These ought to be the words of a priest or bishop, encouraging the people and telling them what they must do. I heard of a case, a teenager who, after listening to one of these frightful sermons, began to tremble, falling into despair. We must be, as shepherds of the flock, its protectors, healing every (spiritual) disease and every spiritual infirmity.

As a conclusion concerning hope: follow what the Church teaches you, through the very Savior Jesus Christ. Behold what we find in Luke:

“And He spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.” (Luke 18:1–8)

How beautifully the Lord Jesus Christ Himself teaches us: if we pray without ceasing, the help and justice of God will come upon us, in whatever affliction we may find ourselves and wherever we may be in this world.

III. The Fight Against Love

“And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16) This is how we ought to begin a paragraph about the greatest theological virtue that man can possess—love. Today, however, there are two great dangers that can cloud the mind of man: reckless love toward other religions (ecumenism); and a lack of love and compassion for one’s neighbor (hardness of heart.)

If we analyze these two separately, we discover many things that can guide us on our path toward salvation. First and foremost, love must be directed toward God, as the Savior teaches us in His Gospel: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matthew 22:37) This love should spring forth from our very being, and it is the greatest duty we owe to the Maker of heaven and earth. Further on in the Gospel, we read: “And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39)

This should be understood in the following way: if we desire salvation for ourselves, it is only natural to wish the same for our neighbor. But where is salvation to be found? Is it not, indeed, only in the Orthodox Church? Is it not written: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [and by implication, is not baptized] shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16)? Where is true baptism to be found? Certainly, in the Church founded at Pentecost through the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Disciples of the Lord, and which, through the Holy Fathers and the Holy Councils, has been defended from the scourge of heresies. Therefore, any other manner of accepting a “promised” salvation from other Christian denominations or other religions is a thought that does not conform to the Gospel of the Savior. Thus, if we desire salvation for our neighbor, we must first of all wish for him to become a part of the True Church, and we must make efforts to show him the correct path. Not the other way around.

The entire internet is, unfortunately, full of priests who trumpet ecumenism: that we should unite into one faith, that we must reach a common denominator. But here arises the question: what common denominator can there be between, for example, a [Roman] Catholic and a Buddhist? Or between a Muslim and a Hindu? Well, from this type of “shepherds” you must flee. Flee from them as from a serpent, lest in a moment of carelessness you slip into unbelief. We say once again—unfortunately—because this type of love is being forced through all kinds of “inter-confessional” gatherings, various services each more bizarre than the other, the appearance of Orthodox bishops at Protestant assemblies, the appearance of imams at services held in “Orthodox” cathedrals, and so on. Let us renounce this kind of teaching and strive, as we have already said, to bring such persons to the light of Christ—and not fall ourselves into the trap of the evil one.

In contrast with what has been mentioned above, we discover another misuse of love—or more precisely, the absence of love altogether: the hardening of the heart, which gives rise to another condition contrary to Christian teaching—fanaticism. To think that only you are righteous, and that others cannot be saved at all (even at the end of their lives); to correct everyone without the slightest compassion—these are things the Church does not teach. Even during the times of great heresies, the right-believing hierarchs first had love for God and for His Church, fulfilling the first commandment of the Savior. And only afterwards did they show love toward those who preached falsehood, trying—so far as it was given to them—to bring them back to the right path.

And here again, we see several fathers—some even from the Holy Mountain—preaching about all kinds of matters from this world, especially from the Orthodox world, labeling churches, speaking about Christians, yet all of this without a trace of compassion. Indeed, Orthodoxy is the path. But how does one bring others to Orthodoxy? By reviling them? By judging them? Look at what the Holy Apostle Paul did: “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, though I myself am not under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:20) In other words, the Apostle of the nations made use of the understanding of those nations in order to present to them the true faith in Christ. What if he had gone among the peoples cursing and insulting them? Would he have gained anyone? Certainly not!

These priests ought to promote love among people, because, as we can easily see, the love that existed some 15–20 years ago has begun to fade. Even brothers no longer speak with each other. We no longer call our parents. We no longer answer our children, and so on. Later, while reading in the Lives of the Saints, a passage from the life of the Venerable Saint Paisios caught my attention. The Savior appeared to this Saint and told him that the wilderness in which he lived would be filled with venerable ones. Asking the Lord from what those people would live and from where they would have what they needed, the Savior replied: “Believe Me, that if I find them having love among themselves—the mother of all good deeds—and if they keep My commandments, I will take care of them in all things, so that they will lack nothing of what is needful to them!”

How easy it is to be with Christ! Love, the greatest virtue, must always dwell in our hearts. Yet some of those online, regrettably, do not follow this virtue. For we hear them say: those ones are good, others are bad. These are heretics, those are schismatics. Some are “Old Calendarists,” others are deluded. And thus, judgment arises in people’s hearts instead of love.

Of course, it must be love directed toward correcting those who have fallen and restoring them to the foundations of the Holy Fathers—not that kind of love increasingly promoted in the ecumenist movement, the kind where, for the sake of love, heresy and dogmatic error are overlooked. The Savior says to His disciples: “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)

In this sense—meaning the manner in which we ought to work the deeds of love—we read the following in the account of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite about Saint Apostle Carpos:

The great Dionysius the Areopagite, writing a letter to the monk Demophilus, who had expelled a priest from the church for teaching the faithful meekness and kindness, reminded him of the following: While I was in Crete, I was received in his house by the blessed Carpos, disciple of the Holy Apostle Paul, a man of much kindness, who, because of the great illumination of his mind, was very easily granted divine visions. He would never begin the celebration of the most pure and life-giving Mysteries without first seeing some divine vision revealed from heaven.

This holy man (as he himself told me) was troubled by one of the unbelievers, and the cause of the trouble was this: that unbeliever turned a faithful man away from the Church and led him into his own paganism. Because of this, the blessed Carpos was greatly grieved. He was in need of being patient with those who had fallen from the faith and of teaching them constantly with profitable words, and of overcoming the unbelievers through his kindness. And for both of them he prayed with all zeal to God—that the one who had strayed from the true faith might be brought back again to His holy Church, and that the one blinded by unbelief might be enlightened with the light of faith. Yet, I do not know how, at that time (for before this he had never shown impatience), he became very bitter in his soul.

For late in the evening, as midnight approached, he rose to pray, for he had the habit of always rising at midnight to pray. Standing in prayer, he was deeply grieved for those two men mentioned above, and said within himself that it was not just for lawless men to live on the earth—men who rebel against the ways of the Lord, which are righteous—and he prayed to God that fire might fall from heaven upon them and consume the lives of them both.

As he prayed with great fervor, suddenly the house in which he stood trembled and split in two from the top, so that it seemed to him as if he were standing outside. And a luminous flame of fire descended from heaven before him, and, looking upward, he saw the heavens opened and Jesus sitting, and before Him stood an innumerable multitude of angels in human form. And the blessed Carpos marveled at these wonders which he saw in heaven. Then, lowering his gaze to the earth, he saw it split open and a deep, dark abyss opened before him, and at the mouth of that abyss stood the two men against whom he had been angry and for whose destruction he had prayed. And those men stood there in humility, with great fear and trembling, for they were now ready to fall into the abyss. And in the depths of the abyss there was a serpent who, waking, gnashed its teeth.

There were also some men there who were beating them, pushing them, and dragging the two toward that dreadful serpent. And Carpos, seeing those who had grieved him about to fall into the abyss and be devoured by the serpent, took comfort in it, and desired less to gaze at the opened heavens and at Jesus, who was seated there, and more to look upon the destruction of the two sinners. But again he was grieved and distressed that they had not yet fallen, and once more he prayed to God that they might fall and perish.

Then, barely lifting his eyes again toward heaven, as before, he saw Jesus rising from His heavenly throne and coming to those men who stood at the edge of the abyss, and He stretched forth His hand to help them. And the angels, taking those men, supported them on both sides and strengthened them, in order to lift them out of that abyss. And Jesus said to Carpos: “Strike Me instead, from now on, for I am ready to be crucified again for the salvation of men; for this is what I love—that men would but hate their sins. But tell Me, is it more pleasing to dwell with the dragon in the abyss than with God and His angels who love mankind?”

This account was included by Saint Dionysius in his letter to the aforementioned monk Demophilus, and it teaches not only him, but also us, that we should not show harshness toward those who sin, but rather desire their return, not their punishment. Then, we must instruct them with love and with patience, and wait for their repentance. We must pray with all fervor to God for such people, He who does not will the death of the sinner, that He, in His goodness, may turn and have mercy on them—for the Lord loves the righteous and has mercy on sinners. To Him be glory unto the ages. Amen.

Therefore, let us be attentive to this great virtue, heeding the beautiful teachings of the Savior, of the Holy Apostles, and of the Holy Fathers. We have everything we need for our salvation.

We may add here another word of instruction from Saint Basil the Great:

“The law of Christ and the commandments of His Apostles were not given only to monks, but also to laypeople. And the proof is that, when Paul says: ‘Watching with all perseverance and prayer, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof,’ it is clear that he wrote not to monks, nor to those living the hermit or quiet life, but especially to all those living in cities and villages, with wives and children. Should the layman then be granted greater license than the monk? Certainly not. The only concession the layman has is that he may live together with his wife. Other than that, he has no further allowance, but all that the monk is bound to do, so too is the layman required. And it will not be without great danger for the layman who transgresses the commandments.”

Keeping the commandments guarantees for us both what is necessary and also salvation, just as the Lord’s word shows us in His conversation with the rich young man: “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him: Why callest thou Me good? None is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother. And he said: All these have I kept from my youth up.” (Luke 18:18–21)

In conclusion, my beloved, you have every blessing to search the Scriptures, making use, of course, of what has been revealed by the Holy Fathers. Do not let yourselves be misled by those who, through various programs and televised appearances, seek to interpret the word of the Gospel according to the fashion of the times—so as to gain ratings, to gather followers, or to generate views, with the aim of filling their pockets or, why not, acquiring fame.

Follow instead what the Saints have left written—Saints who, through their authentic life in the Spirit of God, received the revelation of divine mysteries, Saints who lived in continual fasting, Saints who prayed unceasingly, often with tears in their eyes and their faces to the ground, Saints who were tortured and beaten because they gave their lives for the defense of the faith. Let us be followers of their teachings.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

 

Romanian source: https://manastireasfantulglicherie.ro/razboiul-vremurilor-de-pe-urma-contra-virtutilor-crestine/

 

 

Patriarch Kirill: Why he was called the "Tobacco Metropolitan"? (2009)

 

Many Westerners know little about the new Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Father Kirill. Many Russians know him as a great orator and a host of a weekly TV show “Pastor’s Word.” However, very few know that Kirill (Vladimir Gundyaev by passport), a billionaire and a former KGB operative, made his fortune in tobacco, alcohol, and oil sales. His activities were among the main reasons why not-for-profits in Russia lost tax-deductible status. The new Orthodox leader is fond of playing with stocks, car racing, downhill skiing, and breeding exclusive kinds of dogs. He owns villas in Switzerland and a penthouse with a view of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow.

Kirill graduated with honors from Leningrad Spiritual Academy in 1969. In 1970, he earned his master’s degree, and after several minor positions was appointed a personal secretary to Mitropolit Nikodim, chief of the external church relations. Since that moment, Kirill became the face of the Orthodox Church in all foreign trips to Western Europe. According to vlasti.net website, Kirill’s colleagues and competitors linked all his travels to his work for the Soviet KGB where he was known by [the] nickname “Mikhailov.” Starting in 1972, Kirill/Gundyaev/ Mikhailov became more involved with the countries of the Middle East. In 1975, at a forum in Nairobi, he defended the Soviet Union and downplayed dissidents’ letters by making historic claims that people of faith were not persecuted and there were no human rights abuses based on religion in the Soviet Union.

Kirill is progressive, speaks foreign languages, worked on the issues of unarming the USSR and the US, and advocated usage of the modern Russian language (instead of old Slavic) during the services. In 1991, the year the Soviet Union fell apart, he earned the title of Mitropolit. The new era of capitalism brought new achievements to Mitropolit Kirill’s life. In 1996, Kirill became a board member of bank “Peresvet” that is responsible for servicing the financial interests of the Russian Orthodox Church. The 1996 September issue (#34) of the Moscow News reports that Kirill, now for two years, had been organizing imports of highly taxable products, mostly tobacco, under the tax-exempt non-profit banner of the Orthodox Church. The claims were supported by other respectable news sources, including the Moskovsky Komsomolets.

The soon-to-be Patriarch confirmed the import of the highly unchristian products. By 1997, Kirill admitted the import of alcohol and tobacco, but claimed that the Russian Orthodox Church could not refuse the “humanitarian help.” The Russian Orthodox Church and Kirill’s private foundation “Nika” were not-for-profit organizations, and in 1996 alone they imported eight billion cigarettes to Russia. Kirill’s “church” business took off like a snowball, as the legal competitors could not compete with his low prices for tobacco and alcohol. The importers were naturally pushed off the market as they could not match Kirill’s prices after paying the necessary government dues.

 

Source: 

http://www.russiablog.org/2009/03/patriarch_kirill_leader_orthodox_tobacco_alcohol_oil.php (since deleted)

 

Open Letter of Esphigmenou Monastery to the Fathers of the Holy Community of Mount Athos

Protocol No. 17/2025

To the Fathers of the Holy Community of Mount Athos

December 14, 2025 (N.S.)

OPEN LETTER

 

Reverend Fathers,

As is known, on November 29 (new calendar), during the official visit of Pope Leo XIV to the Phanar, both the “ecumenical patriarch” Mr. Bartholomew and the Pope signed a Joint Declaration in the “Throne Room of the Patriarchal House” at the Phanar. Mr. Bartholomew, after recalling that according to the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, the cleric, before participating in the Divine Eucharist, reads a prayer known as the “Kairos,” said to the Pope that he had come to Nicaea to receive his own “Kairos” for strength and support, as he begins his ministry with a clear will to serve the Lord’s call for Christian unity, which is more necessary than ever. In the same spirit, the Pope stated: “We are encouraged in our effort to seek the restoration of full communion among all Christians.”

From the statements of the two men, it is evident that the “Ecumenical Patriarchate” regarded the Pope not as a heretic, not as a transgressor of the Holy Canons, but as a religious leader, as the head of a Christian “church” and bearer of the grace of the Apostles. Furthermore, given that the meeting took place in the context of joint prayer, official ecclesiastical doxology, courtesies, and priestly addresses toward the Pope as if he were an Orthodox primate, the above conclusion becomes even more certain. Thus, it is clearer than the sun that the purpose of the meeting between the two men was not merely the celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, but the strengthening and further advancement of the effort for the union of East and West within the framework of the global movement of Ecumenism.

Indeed, all these things demonstrate yet again the Phanariot ecclesiology as it has appeared since 1924, and it is not the first time in the history of our Church that “patriarchs” and “bishops” betray the confession of the faith and transgress the Holy Canons on matters of Faith. The question, dear Athonite fathers, is how you will respond and what you will do in light of all these developments.

With a sincere disposition of brotherly love, we will remind you that all of us left the world and came to the Holy Mountain for one reason: to save our soul. However, the fact that we have lived in coenobitic monasteries of the Athonite Peninsula, in the Ark of Orthodoxy, in the chosen Clergy of our Lady Theotokos, does not unconditionally guarantee our salvation. This, as you well know, is based on the fulfillment of our monastic duties and, moreover, on the preservation of our spotless holy faith, as we received it from our forefathers, without alterations or additions and subtractions.

Let us not forget, beloved fellow monks, that especially as Athonites—whether as simple monks or as hieromonks—we have the particular obligation to safeguard the Orthodox faith and to anathematize the heretical false doctrines, along with all those whom the Ecumenical Councils and our holy Fathers have anathematized. This obligation is imposed by the Second, the Fifth, and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils and by the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. We are bound to guard spiritual Thermopylae and not to deviate from the consensus of the God-bearing Fathers.

Anyone who deviates, innovates, or espouses false doctrine has already been clothed with a curse as with a garment, according to the decision of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East in 1848. Thus, our obligation to immediately break communion with those proclaiming heresy—whether they be superiors, abbots, bishops, or patriarchs—is simultaneously imposed.

At this point, it is necessary to cite the interpretation of Zonaras on the 15th Holy Canon of the First-Second Council, which states: “If by chance the patriarch, or the metropolitan, or the bishop is a heretic, and being a heretic publicly preaches the heresy, and with bare head, instead of teaching the truth, continually and shamelessly, with audacity, teaches heretical dogmas—those who separate themselves from him, whoever they may be, not only are not to be punished for this reason, but on the contrary are worthy of all honor, because they separate themselves from communion with heretics; this is what ‘walling-off’ means [for the wall is a separation of those within it from those outside it]; for indeed, they did not depart from a Bishop, but from a false bishop and false teacher; nor did they create a schism in the Church, but rather delivered the Church from schisms, as much as was possible from their side.”

The renowned Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite interprets the relevant passage in the Pedalion in the same manner: “If the aforementioned presidents [bishops] are heretics, and they publicly preach their heresy, and for this reason those subject to them separate from them—even before a synodal decision is made regarding this heresy—those who separate are not only not condemned for the separation, but are also worthy of appropriate honor as Orthodox, because by that separation they did not cause a schism in the Church, but rather freed the Church from the schism and heresy of those false bishops.”

Holy Fathers, we learn that next week you will convene in the Hall of the Holy Community in Karyes, to make critical decisions following the shameful meeting of Mr. Bartholomew and the Pope at the Phanar. The decisions you will make will be recorded in History. Do not forget that the holy Fathers and Teachers were emulated also by the Hagiorite Venerable Martyrs who suffered under Bekkos the Latin-minded, and who composed that renowned letter to Emperor Michael Palaiologos—a letter profoundly theological and full of Divine truths. In that letter, among other things, the following were included:

“It is also included in the 15th Canon of the holy and great Council called the First and Second, that not only are they without blame, but that they ought even to be praised—those who separate themselves from those who are manifestly heretical and publicly teach heretical doctrines, even before there is a synodal condemnation of them—precisely because the Orthodox Church of Christ has always considered the commemoration of the name of the hierarch during the celebration of the unbloody sacrifice as full communion with the commemorated hierarch and his mindset. For it has been written in the explanation of the Divine Liturgy that the celebrating priest also commemorates the name of the hierarch and that he is a partaker of him and of his faith, and a successor in the Divine Mysteries, and that there is defilement in the communion solely through the commemoration of him, even if the one making the mention is Orthodox.”

(Historical Essay on the Schism of the Western Church from the Orthodox Eastern Church and on the Treacheries and Coercions Committed against the Orthodox at the Council of Florence, written by the Hagiorite Monk Kallistos Vlastos, Mount Athos 1895, reprint 1991, pp. 106–107).

The Athonites, who suffered martyrdom under Bekkos, proclaim that those who, prior to a synodal verdict, separate themselves from those who are manifestly heretical and publicly teach heretical doctrines, are to be praised—even before there is a synodal condemnation of them. The Venerable Martyrs cut off the commemoration of the Latin-minded before any synodal verdict. No synod had yet condemned the Latin-minded. Of course, the Latin-minded were deposed and anathematized according to the Holy Canons, as well as according to Canons 1 and 2 of the Third Ecumenical Council, where such persons fall from the priesthood (see also Canon 1 of the Seventh). Naturally, they paid for the cessation of the commemoration of the heretics with their lives...

Therefore, according to the consistent teaching and practice of the Holy Fathers and the teachings of the Orthodox Church of Christ, every Orthodox Christian is obliged to cease commemorating the heretical bishop and all those who are in communion with him—especially when these bishops do not follow the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and even more so when they are in manifest opposition to the teaching of the Church and openly, with bare head, preach heresy from within the Church.

It is not possible for Mr. Bartholomew to pray together not only with heterodox heretics but even with those of other religions, and for the innovators to tell us that we are leaving the “church” when we cease communion with them and with those who are in communion with them.

Does not also Saint Theodore the Studite say that enemies of God are not only the heretics but also those who commune with them, referring to the related teaching of Saint John Chrysostom? Is Mr. Bartholomew a bearer of Apostolic Tradition when he prays together even with priestesses of Satan—Protestant female pastors—in Canberra, Australia, in America, in Assisi, and in Greenland? Does he express the Orthodox Church when he communicates the Mysteries to heretics in Ravenna? Is Mr. Bartholomew an Orthodox patriarch when he participated in the demon-worship of Canberra or in the pandemonic events of joint worship and prayers with Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and the entire conglomerate of the devil, the World Council of Churches? What does Church History teach about heretics and those approaching the Church? All the Councils always considered heretics to be outside the Church.

Listen, beloved fathers, if you care for your salvation, to what the Luminary of Ephesus, Saint Mark of Ephesus, teaches: “For I am firmly convinced that the more I distance myself from him and those like him, the closer I draw to God and to all the saints; and just as I separate from them, so also I unite myself to the truth and to the holy fathers, the theologians of the Church.” (Apologia of the Most Holy Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, spoken extemporaneously at his repose).

Turn to the ecclesiastical books and see how the priests and abbots of the historic Great Monasteries in Palestine defended the dogma and the Orthodox Faith, such as Saint Sabbas the Sanctified and Theodosius the Cenobiarch. But why go so far? Recall here, on the Holy Mountain, our Lady the Theotokos, who helped the Zographou monks by appearing to the ascetic Elder who lived outside the monastery, saying to him: “Go quickly to the Monastery, and announce to the brethren and the Abbot that the enemies of Me and of My Son have drawn near,” referring to the Latin-minded under the “patriarchate” of John Beccus—the like-minded of today’s “patriarch” Bartholomew—who were approaching the Monastery in order to later make 26 Zographou monks into Venerable Martyrs.

We have so many Athonite holy fathers who were martyred for refusing to venerate Papism—such as the Venerable Martyr Kosmas the First (1279), the 12 Koutloumousian Venerable Martyrs (1280), the 14 Iviron Venerable Martyrs (1279), the 13 Vatopedi Venerable Martyrs (1279), and many others, who did not bow down to Latin-minded and unionist “patriarchs.”

All that we have mentioned, venerable Athonite fathers, we have mentioned with anguish of soul and not with the intent of becoming your teachers. The teachers of us all are the holy fathers, whose commandments, sayings, and Holy Canons we are bound to uphold unwaveringly—even at the risk of sacrificing our lives. This is what our forefathers taught us, this is what the previous monastic brotherhoods practiced, and for these things many of our fellow monks laid down their lives.

Let us take heed, beloved, to our salvation. The legacy of the holy fathers we are obligated to hand down undefiled to the generations to come. The decisions you, as the Holy Community, will make in the coming days will be recorded in History. We will all render account to the Lord God and to our Lady Theotokos as to whether we allowed the wolves to invade the chosen flock of Christ.

We pray for enlightenment from on high and for the good confession of the faith.

Supplicant before the Lord,

The Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou

 

 

Greek original:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11LHAgVr9qMb1nTBsMus5SiiustmipIk9/view?usp=sharing

Nicaea – Phanar: What exactly happened?

Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon

November 30 / December 13, 2025

 

A great commotion was recently caused regarding the celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea of Bithynia, and subsequently of the Thronal feast of the Holy Apostle Andrew in Constantinople (November 28–30).

Pope Leo XIV of Rome and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, along with their entourages, Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria, as well as many representatives of the wider Christian world, were at the center of attention.

The event was promoted and praised as being of historical significance in a particularly positive manner. Words concerning unity and love, images and scenes of embraces, kisses, as well as joint ceremonies, prayers, signatures, blessings, messages, and benevolent gestures made the rounds across the world and transmitted strong impressions from a worldly and emotional standpoint.

However, from a purely spiritual perspective, what impression did all these events leave? On the basis of the Orthodox Christian criterion, as we know it from our theology, our history, our tradition, and the experience of our Saints, where can we place these celebrations, and how are we to evaluate and characterize them?

Already some have undertaken this task from an Orthodox perspective and have reminded that the same things were observed, as happened during the visits of Popes to the Phanar in the previous two decades (2006, 2014), with the uncanonical joint prayers and joint declarations, as well as the incomplete concelebrations. And that these constitute unequivocally a great theological falsehood. For these were syncretistic manifestations to be seen by men, with one and only purpose: that of the promotion and establishment of the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism.

Papists and Ecumenists from among the Orthodox, as well as representatives of Ecumenical Organizations and other heresies, once again expressed in the most official manner their identification with their Ecumenistic vision. According to them, there is love, an overemphasis on love, yet without Truth. They speak of and express their unity without Truth—something unnatural from an Orthodox standpoint.

A. Nicaea – Anniversary Celebration

There, precisely where the Arian heresy was put to shame—in Nicaea—there a joint celebration took place with the Pope of Rome, who, with his Primacy and especially with his Infallibility, constitutes and represents a grievous Neo-Arianism, according to the Confessor Father Justin Popović. This is something tragic and disgraceful!

The Ecumenists, for the past century, through the novel doctrines they proclaim, practice, and promote, essentially tear apart the seamless robe of the Faith and abolish the Holy Patristic order and decorum of holy Orthodoxy.

These grievous observations are not exaggerated. The commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council, which defined and confirmed the Orthodox dogmatic truth in the Holy Spirit, is being used by the Ecumenists “as a pretext for the blurring of dogmatic boundaries” (Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye, “Romfea,” 6-12-2025).

And this becomes even more tragic with the realization that unity is being pursued with the Papists and other heterodox—despite the absence of Truth—without there being, first and foremost, any essential concern for the healing and remedy of dreadful divisions that occurred in the past and more recently, precisely due to the decisions and actions of Ecumenists from among the Orthodox. Let us recall the Calendar issue, which concerns the matter of Ecumenism, as well as the Ukrainian issue.

It is an important observation that where there is no repentance and correction of faults, only spiritual confusion is caused and intensified. This is what we are facing, unfortunately, without any solution appearing on the horizon.

In this regard, it is rightly noted that “the event that took place in Nicaea is not simply a cultural occurrence; it is a sign of direction. And the direction points not toward Orthodox conciliarity, but toward a new form of Unia” (Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye).

In the face of this reality, the Ecumenists are celebrating the “message of unity, reconciliation, truth, and love” that was supposedly sent forth from Nicaea (Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia, blog “Panorthodox Synod,” 29-11-2025).

Of course, the Ecumenists acknowledge that there are “theological differences” which cannot be bypassed, yet they emphasize that this does not constitute an obstacle “for the Christian Churches to express their unity through a constructive discourse in contemporary society and to provide answers to the problems of man” (Chrysostomos of Messinia).

In other words, they admit that they are doing the exact opposite of what the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council and all subsequent ones did. Those proclaimed and secured their unity on the basis of dogmatic agreement and the resolution even of administrative matters of Canonical order. But the present-day ones believe that they can feel united with the heterodox and express a common constructive discourse as a response to problems, without first confessing a unity of faith and truth!

Bartholomew of Constantinople spoke in Nicaea of a “historic common pilgrimage,” of “common reverence and a shared sense of hope,” and of offering a “living testimony of the same faith which the Fathers of Nicaea expressed”!

Pope Leo, for his part—being by position an expression of Vatican-centered Roman Ecumenism and bearing the sense of a “universal shepherd”—spoke of the need for “global reconciliation and fraternity,” and wished that “the anniversary milestone may serve as a starting point for new fruits of unity, reconciliation, and peace for all humanity”…

It becomes clear that the Ecumenists, in reality, have no connection with the Truth of Nicaea, and that their joint celebratory and commemorative ceremonies constitute uncanonical and impious acts, which diminish the true Faith.

B. “Joint Declaration” of the Pope and the Patriarch

The Pope and the Patriarch co-signed a “Joint Declaration” at the Phanar on Saturday, November 29, according to the established custom in such instances.

In it, they consider that they possess a common faith and confession with that which was expressed in Nicaea. This position has been articulated for decades by Ecumenists from among the Orthodox, as particularly useful to their objectives. For example, the then Myron Chrysostomos declared at the Phanar that “all Churches and Confessions coincide and meet upon the same faith, which is expressed by the Symbol of Faith” (periodical Episkepseis, 15-6-1981, p. 6).

This, however, is disputed, since the theological presuppositions of each side are different, even if they are able, verbally, to recite together the Symbol of Faith in the original Greek without any alteration. Yet, there is no common Trinitarian theology with the Papists and the other heterodox, nor is there a common Christology, Ecclesiology, or Soteriology—especially in light of the other Ecumenical Councils, which are interconnected, interdependent, and mutually complementary.

A central point of the “Joint Declaration” is also the following: “It is our common desire that the process of exploring a possible solution for a joint celebration of the Feast of Feasts each year continue. We hope and pray that all Christians, ‘in all wisdom and spiritual understanding’ (Col. 1:9), will commit themselves to the process of achieving a common celebration of the glorious Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The joint celebration of Pascha, as has been commented, can “inspire new and courageous steps” toward the direction of unity (Voria.gr, 10-12-2025).

The Ecumenists, also in this matter, maintain the same erroneous reasoning. Despite the differences in faith, they consider that they are able not only to express their unity by offering a “common witness,” but also to celebrate the feasts together—something which occurred precisely with the Calendar Reform of 1924, based on the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920, and indeed with Pascha itself.

The Ecumenists from among the Orthodox clearly expressed at the 2nd Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambésy, Geneva, in 1982, their desire for the so-called “new Orthodox calendar” to be implemented by all, as more accurate both for the fixed feasts and for the Paschalion (see analysis in our book: 100 Years of Calendar Reform…, Larissa 2024, pp. 80–88).

This is what Bartholomew of Constantinople is promoting as the common date “according to the Paschalion of our Orthodox Church.” This would also complete the full implementation of the Calendar Reform, which was decided by Meletios Metaxakis at the so-called “Pan-Orthodox Congress” of 1923 in Constantinople, and which Bartholomew appears to have as a lifelong dream to bring to completion—if, of course, the Lord permits it.

Even commentators from secular newspapers perceive in the statement concerning a “Common Pascha” an “indication of unity,” namely that “the common date will constitute a visible sign of convergence between the Churches,” and that this constitutes “a fundamental central axis with immediate global significance” (see newspaper Dimokratia, 4-12-2025).

Nevertheless, since nothing specific was determined in the “Joint Declaration” on this matter, beyond the remark and the wishes expressed, it means that the issue has not yet undergone any particular joint elaboration. Apparently, they will attempt within 2026 to proceed to a common agreement, since it has already been stated that they hope to establish a “Common Pascha” beginning from the year 2027 onward.

In the “Joint Declaration” there is also laudatory mention of the 60th anniversary of the “historic joint Declaration” of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of 1965, which “eliminated the exchange of anathemas of 1054.” This event is described as a “prophetic gesture.”

From an Orthodox perspective, the so-called “lifting of the anathemas” is placed within the context of the Uniatizing tendency of the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox, as we describe in the aforementioned work (see 100 Years of Calendar Reform…, pp. 73–75).

Also, in the “Joint Declaration” of the Phanar (November 29, 2025), it is written that “those who hesitate in any form of dialogue should listen carefully to what the Spirit says to the Churches (Rev. 2:29), which in the current circumstances of our history urges us to offer the world a renewed witness of peace, reconciliation, and unity.”

Thus the Ecumenists, being certain that what they are doing is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are unfortunately attempting to weaken the resistance of those who are still hesitant. Yet in the case of a true Dialogue of Truth according to the Patristic model, no genuinely Orthodox person would have the slightest hesitation. The objection lies both in the framework in which it has been conducted (since 1980), and above all in its entire Ecumenistic presupposition and objective.

The signatories of the “Joint Declaration,” the Pope and the Patriarch, acknowledge that a theological dialogue is also being conducted “in the process of rapprochement between our Churches,” yet they also admit that the process includes other “necessary elements,” such as “fraternal contacts, prayerful and joint work in all those areas where cooperation is already possible.”

This is the problem: they prioritize what should follow, without resolving what precedes!

However, we remind that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Holy Councils, the Holy Canons, and the Holy Fathers regarding the determination of ecclesiastical matters under dispute, and it is not possible for it now to give a “renewed” directive concerning these, by urging and permitting things which until now were and still are unacceptable, impermissible, and condemnable!

It is evident that the unfortunate Ecumenists are being deluded by the evil spirit and are taking its promptings—those contrary to the All-Holy Spirit of Truth—as supposedly divine, true, and necessary instructions! Thus, they themselves are grievously deceived, but they also drag into destruction those who happen to trust them and regard them as truthful and reliable.

C. Thronal Feast of Constantinople

Before the signing of the “Joint Declaration,” in the early afternoon of Saturday, November 29, Pope Leo was received by Patriarch Bartholomew at the Patriarchal Church of Saint George in the Phanar, where a Doxology was chanted and messages were exchanged.

Pope Leo was formally commemorated as Bishop of Rome by a Patriarchal Deacon, prior to the commemoration of the Latin-minded Patriarch himself. Moreover, the choir chanted the Polychronion for him, as if he were a canonical and communicant Bishop and Primate. A kiss of peace was exchanged, and a joint blessing of those present in the church space was performed—this space having been transformed into a venue of worldly spectacle, since it had once again been defiled. Everyone—men and women—with professional or amateur photographic or video devices, in a frenzy and jostling with one another in a state of ecstasy, sought to capture what were, in their view, “unique” moments. No sense of sanctity, no trace of awareness. All the lights were on the “idols,” on the “protagonists of the drama,” with no room left for worship and honor to be rendered to the One who, in every sense, was the Great Absent One: the God-man Lord Jesus Christ!

Yet this is something that has become established, an Ecumenical ethos. For sixty years now, there has been a continuous liturgical mingling on many levels and in many forms.

For the Uniated Ecumenists, this is an entirely natural consequence of their professed faith. Orthodoxy and Papism, for Patriarch Bartholomew and those with him, together constitute “the one Body of Christ” (Orthodoxia journal, July–September 1994, p. 444). Together with the Anglicans as well, they share—according to Bartholomew—a common responsibility “in the whole Church” (Episkepseis journal, 499/31-12-1993, p. 6). Let us also recall that sacramental mutual recognition officially took place within the context of their dialogue at Balamand, Lebanon, in 1993, without, of course, the issues of faith—supposedly dividing them—having been resolved.

Let us once again recall that according to the Orthodox Canonical and Patristic Tradition, this is inconceivable and unacceptable. The Holy Fathers Basil the Great and Theodore the Studite, for example, who faced similar situations, consider such communion to be “destructive” and “soul-corrupting.”

The Holy Confessor Athonite Fathers of the 13th century, in a letter to the Latin-minded Emperor Michael Palaiologos, emphasize that “communion is defiled merely by the commemoration of him [the name of a heretical bishop in the Divine Liturgy], even if the one mentioning it is otherwise Orthodox.” If the Latin-minded are not commemorated, yet the mere mention of them defiles the one who mentions them—even if he is otherwise Orthodox—can the very Leader of the Latins and Latin-minded, the Pope of Rome, himself be commemorated?!

That is to say, 650 years after the above-mentioned letter—when Papism has dogmatized so many other false doctrines and heresies, and even its condemned Calendar Reform of the 16th century—can it now be commemorated in the person of its Leader without any consequence? Without causing any longer defilement and without any spiritual cost?

We hold that whoever, even through guilty silence, swallows the bitter truths that arise self-evidently from all this, renders himself complicit in the Latinism of his Patriarch and of those with him. The defilement of this new Unia has thoroughly tainted the spiritual atmosphere. Those who are unable to perceive this obvious reality—those who, despite everything, think they are sailing in seas of spiritual well-being and uplift—are in a pitiable state of spiritual anesthetization, from which may the Lord preserve us!

***

Returning to the matters of the Thronal Feast, we say that after the signing of the “Joint Declaration,” Patriarch Bartholomew officially attended, vested in a mantle, late in the afternoon, a liturgy celebrated by Pope Leo for the Papists living in Turkey, held in a stadium of the City.

Earlier, on Saturday morning, there had taken place an “Ecumenical Meeting of primates and representatives of churches, which was held in the newly built Syro‑Jacobite Church of Saint Ephraim, in the suburb of Agios Stefanos.”

On the morning of Sunday, November 30, a patriarchal concelebration was held in the Church of Saint George at the Phanar, with Pope Leo present at the Synthronon in a prominent position. A liturgical kiss of peace was exchanged at the “Let us love one another” between the Patriarch and the Pope, as well as between the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Pope. The Pope recited the Lord’s Prayer (“Our Father”) in Latin.

 

At the end, messages were exchanged, the Polychronia for the Pope and the Patriarch were chanted once again, and kisses of peace and joint blessings were given to their congregation. Finally, from the balcony of the Patriarchate, they blessed those in attendance. An official meal at the patriarchal table followed.

The Ecumenists, feasting together, proceed unimpeded in the practical implementation of their objectives, since no serious resistance exists...

D. Pretexts for Deception

While a strong reaction ought to be raised in the face of this storm of anti-Orthodox reality, nevertheless, such a thing does not appear to be happening. When the Truth of the faith is so crudely trampled upon and scorned, when it is obscured and lost, resistance according to God is the only path. It is a critical matter of spiritual survival, witness, and responsibility.

However, both clergy and laity in Greece and more broadly—who, of course, are fully aware of all that has taken place in every detail—exhibit the following main tendencies:

a. That of shameful silence, at least publicly, an utter ostrich-like denial, which, as we have emphasized, constitutes complicity. There prevails a deafening pretense that nothing has happened and nothing is happening that concerns them. As if there exists another reality, a parallel universe, where all is well and proceeding safely!…

b. There are also those who, either out of pangs of conscience or due to pressure from their surroundings, unfortunately attempt to justify the unjustifiable, making themselves publicly pitiable and ridiculous.

Thus, some claim that the Pope went to Nicaea and the Phanar as a head of state—since he also holds that monstrous title—and was therefore received by Patriarch Bartholomew not as a Primate of a Church and especially not of a “Sister” Church!

Others argue that it is merely a matter of dialogue or of actions and statements “out of love,” even regarding the matter of a Common Pascha, yet without any actual consequence in reality.

Others insist that a full concelebration did not take place, since they did not reach a common chalice, and therefore there is no need for disturbance or concern. That is to say, as if we had an unwed couple engaging in everything—even beyond “cohabitation”—but since they do not “fully consummate,” then we cannot accuse them nor attribute to them any serious responsibility! They are simply engaging playfully, out of love! What would the Spiritual Fathers say? Is this something innocent and beyond reproach? Truly, is there any trace of seriousness left in some people?! We ask forgiveness for the comparison, but how else can one portray such a perversion?

Others emphasize that the Church of the Symbol of Faith is One—the Orthodox Church—and therefore there is no place for the Papists, who are obliged to return in repentance in order to be united to her. We agree that this is the Orthodox position; however, those who, in light of what is taking place, naively repeat this theory of theirs must open their eyes and face the grim reality concerning the state in which they find themselves.

Others assert that it is enough for them to pray and to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, without, however, concerning themselves with the commemoration of the “uncommemorable.” In their opinion, this does not matter, nor does it bear any serious negative consequence. And yet, we have seen that holy Orthodoxy proclaims and confesses otherwise.

Accordingly, others say that prayer is needed for the Patriarch and the Ecumenists—of course, in unity with them—in case they might come to their senses. Prayer for their repentance, yes; but prayer together with them and in communion with them not only does not bring them back to the Truth, but on the contrary, defiles the Orthodox in their mindset, who mistakenly think that they can combine the incompatible and participate harmlessly in things that are contrary and mutually exclusive.

Others invoke the stance of renowned Elders from past decades, supposedly for their tolerance of those inclined toward heresy, even though they know well their anti-ecumenist position, as well as the significant worsening of the Ecumenists’ stance over the last three decades. Such selective invocation is not a sufficient excuse, and is made deliberately for the purpose of extinguishing, not of strengthening, the zealous struggle for the faith. No serious struggle for salvation is being undertaken in such a glaring spiritual degradation.

Others again invoke the Lord’s saying, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” as if they are unaware of the Patristic teaching, which clarifies that this does not apply to matters of the faith.

All these and similar arguments are evasions and lack any Orthodox foundation or serious Patristic and Canonical support.

There are, of course, also the few who react (only one from among the Hierarchy of the New Calendar as far as bishops are concerned!), who for the time being content themselves with the familiar “paper warfare,” considering that by this means their duty is fulfilled. This shows a certain sensitivity, but at the same time it disappoints, since it exhausts the struggle in a written objection, without further continuation—something not particularly disturbing or decisive for the transgressors of the faith.

We will not omit to point out that there certainly also exist those souls—known to the Lord—who in silence, without sorrowful excuses and much talk, truly suffer and sincerely pray concerning what ought to be done. May the Lord hear them and grant salvific enlightenment!

***

We, without any intention of self-exalting superiority or harsh condemnation of others, remind that the major problem of Faith arising from the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism is the cultivation of Dogmatic Syncretism and the abolition of the preaching of Repentance.

Ecumenism is content with peaceful mutual recognition, mutual acceptance, and undisturbed COEXISTENCE, and not necessarily with unifying amalgamation.

However, this constitutes a deviation from Orthodox Ecclesiology, resulting in the adulteration of the Theanthropic Truth of the Church and the danger of spiritual perdition.

These are not merely “dialogues” that have failed or are stagnating, but rather a falling away from Orthodoxy. The constant slogans about peace, unity, love, and brotherhood simply demonstrate the worldly orientation of the present heresy. They are nothing more than empty embellishments and florid expressions—surface-level terms of goodwill—without the seal of the Holy Spirit.

Those who deceive themselves and others with excuses lacking divine confirmation are clearly placed outside of the Orthodoxy that struggles against heresy, as deniers of the divine contest of God-pleasing Confession in deed and word—something of primary importance today.

We pray that divine Grace may strengthen those who struggle well and in a God-pleasing manner in the contest of the faith until the end. May it call to the right path those who are undecided and troubled, and may it utterly defeat this heresy of the last times, which clearly constitutes the Apostasy—from which may the Lord preserve us and save us in His Kingdom! Amen.

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2025/12/13/%ce%bd%ce%af%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%b1-%cf%86%ce%b1%ce%bd%ce%ac%cf%81%ce%b9-%cf%84%ce%af-%e1%bc%80%ce%ba%cf%81%ce%b9%ce%b2%e1%bf%b6%cf%82-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%ad%ce%b2%ce%b7/