Orthodox Discernment in a Time of Ecumenical Confusion

Bishop Klemes of Gardikion | July 30, 2017 (O.S.)

 

For decades now, the opinion has been seriously and, in many respects, substantially set forth, that our era is a forerunning time of the Antichrist in a particular manner. The grave symptom, as far as the faith is concerned, is related to the evident “apostasy” (2 Thess. 2:3), through the heresy of Ecumenism.

Ecumenism has completed more than a century of activity, and despite its manifest modernism, it succeeds in prevailing through justifications and means which are accepted by almost the entirety of our secularized society.

In an age of the relativization of truth, the overthrow of authorities and dogmatisms, the exaltation of rationalism, and the pursuit of proposals for the absolutization of the here and now, for the securing of a life in this present world that is as painless and comfortable as possible, Christianity is approached—when not outright rejected—in a utilitarian manner, for the improvement of the conditions of this present life. And secularized Christianity is flattered by this treatment from the world and does its utmost to play its role as best it can, in order to please the world, to be recognized and praised as a respectable spiritual tradition, which has some important things to say to modern man for the improvement of the quality of his life.

Whether this Christianity has any relation to the essence of its mission, to eternal salvation based on the true faith in the only true God, does not seem to particularly concern even the very representatives of this contemporary Christianity.

***

The Ecumenists from among the Orthodox boast, for example, concerning their leader Bartholomew of Constantinople, that he has grasped the ecumenical spirit of the times, so that the consciousness of his responsibility — just as that of his predecessors (Joachim III, [Meletios], Athenagoras, and Demetrios) — might “guide and shape the ecumenical discourse and the ecumenical mission thereof” (cf. Stylianos Ch. Tsobanidis, “The Ecumenical Discourse of Patriarch Bartholomew,” in the electronic Journal of the Theological School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: Synthesis, Vol. 5/No 1 [2016], pp. 162–182; the subsequent presentation of Ecumenist positions is based on this recent source).

The Ecumenists, through their patriarch-leader, emphasize the duty of “universal love” — far from fanaticism and intolerance — which is supposedly denied by “confessional egocentrism.” The confessional stance, Evangelical and Patristic, which considers Love inseparable from Truth, is labeled as a “fundamentalist version of Orthodoxy,” a “self-complacent and narrow-hearted isolation,” and “ecclesiastical provincialism.” The problematic “confessional egocentrists,” then, according to the Ecumenists, are incapable of suspecting that dialogue and openness to the world are supposedly inherent to the nature and mission of the Church.

While the broad-minded Ecumenists, those large-hearted cosmopolitans, present themselves on their part as champions of the so-called “dynamic ecclesiology” — that which supports and promotes cooperation with all kinds of heterodox for the resolution of issues concerning the relationship between Church and world, and that which seeks ways of renewing the life of Christians within the Church (which Church?!), and naturally favors common prayer and not only that.

These are, for the Ecumenists, the things aimed at avoiding the so-called “ecclesiological exclusivity,” which they appear to excessively dislike, so that the desired “inclusiveness” might be achieved according to them—that is, the arbitrary attribution to the heterodox of that ecclesial character which would allow them to participate jointly in the realization, activity, and fulfillment of their Ecumenist vision.

Yet this is precisely what took place with the Ecumenist Encyclical of the Patriarchate in 1920, which indeed constituted the resounding Ecumenist “call to assembly.”

 

 

In the postwar years, Ecumenism experienced great expansion and consolidation. After 1965, there were even inaugurated — especially in relation to the Papists — the theatrical Ecumenistic semi-concelebrations, which bear witness to the tragic corruption of the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox. And these are not merely actions without theoretical backing. The Joint Declarations at the highest level between Pope and Patriarch express/declare in the most official and explicit manner this heretical and apostatic “inclusive/dynamic” ecclesiology of non-exclusivity.

 

 

The Joint Declarations, for example, of Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew in 2014 in Jerusalem (May) and at the Phanar (November), speak of the attainment of full unity as mutual enrichment and exchange of gifts, with an immediate prospect of common witness — ministry — prayer by both parties, in full mutual recognition and joint journeying. They even affirm unequivocally that they no longer have “the luxury of acting separately”!

 

 

The same holds true for the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, which was co-signed in Havana, Cuba, in February 2016, so that there may be no illusion — whether deliberate or unwitting — among certain dreamers, that the Patriarchate of Moscow supposedly maintains an anti-ecumenist stance and position in contrast to Constantinople! Their difference does not lie in matters of Faith, but in matters of jurisdictional claims and geopolitics.

While these utterly subversive things concerning the Orthodox Faith — and especially Ecclesiology — are taking place, the Ecumenists affirm, in the most simplistic and provocative manner, that supposedly no proof is provided by those who react to their apostatic course that, in their contacts with the non-Orthodox, they have ever abandoned or denied the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church!

While it is utterly evident that Ecumenist involvement for decades now — both Inter-Christian and Interfaith — has produced a multitude of heresies, in both theory and practice, with a distortion even of the meaning of Love, with an accommodating and inclusive attitude toward heterodoxy/heresy, based on a nebulous humanistic vision, without any missionary dimension or call for the deluded to return in repentance to the truly Orthodox Church.

Nevertheless, the Ecumenists organized and finally convened their long-anticipated “Holy and Great Council” at Kolymbari, Chania, Crete, in June 2016, in order to secure “Pan-Orthodox” approval and cover, to the extent that this would be possible, for all the aforementioned heretical Ecumenist accomplishments—a goal which, of course, they indeed achieved, albeit somewhat covertly.

 

 

It is indeed at the very least paradoxical that, ever since, much has been said concerning the meaning of certain expressions of the pseudo-council of Kolymbari regarding the designation of the heterodox, at the very moment when the foundation of Ecumenism remains unmoved and fully in force — namely, the subversive and unorthodox Encyclical of 1920 and all that throughout a century has been committed, signed, and continues to this day to be spoken and done with undiminished intensity! What, then, was questioned, and what was condemned by their pseudo-council concerning Ecumenism and its established achievements, that we might move beyond terminology and enter into the substance of the matter?

The Ecumenists have indeed achieved great success in provoking confusion among the seemingly Orthodox of the so-called official churches. They incite strife among them concerning terminology, so that those individuals might be “vented” in mutual mockery while defending their Orthodoxy, whereas the Ecumenists themselves, undisturbed, continue their actual — and by no means theoretical or imaginary — destructive work of apostasy, dragging along with them their pitiful “protesting” communicants and fellow travelers...

***

Before this tragic situation, various tendencies have in the meantime taken shape. The supporters of the Ecumenists usually hasten, in the face of the uproar of reaction against them, to invoke as an alibi certain well-known Elders of previous decades, who were not themselves Ecumenists, nor did they approve of the Ecumenist decline, but unfortunately remained in communion with them and presented the leaders of the Ecumenists as the actual shepherds of the true Church. This invocation is evidently made in order to restrain those who react from engaging in what they mockingly call the “fad of walling off”!

But what value does the invocation of that blameworthy and inconsistent stance of those Elders have, in the face of the so manifest falling away of the Ecumenists from the Rule of Truth? The criterion in the Church is not comprised of certain Elders — however venerable they may be in other respects — who, nevertheless, paradoxically overlook and transgress the pure continuity of Ecclesiastical Tradition.

The Saints exhort us otherwise: “It is necessary for the hearers who are educated in the Scriptures to test the things spoken by the teachers; and to accept those that are in agreement with the Scriptures, but to reject the foreign ones; and to turn away even more fervently from those who persist in such doctrines” (St. Basil the Great, PG vol. 31, cols. 845D–848A).

We receive and follow those holy Elders who kept the above exhortation and turned away from the innovators, the Ecumenists, in order to preserve the Orthodox Ecclesiology of exclusivity, in Love and Truth, far from all fanaticism and intolerance — whatever this may have cost them. These God-inspired Elders did not fall into the snare of the heretics who preach “love,” who on the one hand promote “universal love” in order to deceive and achieve their goals, but on the other hand, toward those who dare to question them, display without restraint their harsh persecutory zeal!

***

Another tendency concerns those from the so-called official Orthodox churches, whether they participated or not in the pseudo-council of Kolymbari, who censure its abuses and its unorthodox points, and in essence demonstrate its heretical character, yet believe and propagate that this in no way hinders their communion with the heterodox, in the hope that another council will be convened in the future, which will correct the erroneous expressions of certain texts that have been approved!

The naivety — or even the cunning — of this position hardly needs to be emphasized. We know that the Ecumenists proceed methodically, and if it be necessary to satisfy some of their fellow communicants who have Orthodox sensitivities, they are quite capable of employing suitable maneuvers and manipulations in the formulation of texts, so as to partially appease them, without in any way altering the course and line they intend to follow, in word and in deed.

The problem is that those who support the aforementioned position of communion with the heterodox seem to regard their choice as the “royal path,” which is now being tested — possibly referring to the use of the term by the enlightened Hieromonk [St.] Seraphim Rose (+1982), a cleric of the Russian diaspora (cf. his text “The Royal Path: True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy,” in the periodical The Orthodox Word, No. 5 [70], September–October 1976, pp. 143–149), as another apparent version of the superficial theory of the “two extremes,” namely of Ecumenism and Zealotry.

 

 

Fr. Seraphim, however, used the term “royal path” in the 1970s, forty years ago, to denote the “golden mean” not between Ecumenism and Zealotry, but between Ecumenism/Reformism and a zeal “not according to knowledge,” for he himself followed the path of knowledgeable Zealotry and attributed the “royal path” to his own Church—the Russian Church Abroad under Saint Metropolitan Philaret (+1985) and the blessed Archbishop Averky of Jordanville (+1976). These men and those with them preserved the Orthodox Faith unaltered, courageously denounced Ecumenism while not maintaining communion with its adherents, supported and recognized the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, who were inhumanely persecuted by the Innovators of the New Calendar and brutally scorned. They strengthened them in the foundational Orthodoxy of their stance, despite their internal problems, some of which had been related to negative statements concerning the Mysteries of the Innovators — an issue on which the Russians avoided openly taking a position, at least with regard to the Sergianist and Ecumenist Patriarchate of Moscow. Let us simply recall that Fr. Seraphim Rose reposed one year before the 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism issued by the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad under Saint Metropolitan Philaret.

The “royal path,” then, is not the choice of the inconsistent — those who knowingly commune with manifest heretics in order supposedly to avoid the extreme of “zeal not according to knowledge”:

“Some have utterly made shipwreck concerning the faith; others, even if they are not submerged in their thoughts, are nevertheless destroyed through communion with heresy.” (St. Theodore the Studite, PG 99, col. 1164AB)

“For Chrysostom declared with a loud voice that not only the heretics, but also those who commune with such as these, are enemies of God.” (St. Theodore the Studite, PG 99, col. 1049AB)

“Those who pretend to confess the sound faith but commune with those of a different mind—if, after admonition, they do not separate themselves—such persons are not only to be excluded from communion, but not even to be called brothers.” “All the Teachers of the Church, all the Synods, and all the divine Scriptures exhort us to flee from those of a different mind and to separate from their communion.” (St. Mark of Ephesus, PG vol. 160, 101CD)

***

Another category is formed by those clergy who, though they have ceased commemorating their local bishop, nonetheless maintain communion with their church, awaiting — within a set time limit of a few years — whether the situation will be corrected through the convocation of a corrective synod, in which case, should this not occur, they intend to proceed to full separation.

At first glance, this step may be praised, but it is utterly evident that it constitutes a half-measure, which does not safeguard its practitioners from indirect communion with the heresy they denounce, does not represent a traditional response to heretical lawlessness, and does not inspire hope for a decisive change or reversal of the lamentable situation.

The infectious carriers of Ecumenism and those who commune with them are not effectively dealt with by half-measures, but only decisively — by complete separation, even unto death, from both direct and indirect communion with them. This we know from the Canonical and Patristic Tradition of our Orthodox Church.

***

Another category consists primarily of those clergy, as well as monastics and laypeople, who have proceeded to a canonical walling-off from the Innovators, invoking the 15th Holy Canon of the First-Second Council, whether recently or somewhat earlier. This category is at first to be commended, for it has fully avoided communion with heresy, denouncing and opposing it.

A problem for us Genuine Orthodox Christians, who uphold the Festal Order of the Church, is the evident hostility and unprovoked polemic on the part of these individuals (at least from some among their ranks) directed against us, even though certain deluded Ecumenists label them as a “Trojan horse of the G.O.C.” for the supposed destabilization of their church! It seems that the imagination of some has become utterly unbridled and has soared to dizzying heights!...

The walled-off brethren, who are engaged in a strong struggle against Ecumenism, would do well to be distinguished by a spirit of moderation and understanding toward those who have fought with blood-sacrificing effort since the very beginnings of the appearance and imposition of the heresy of Ecumenism. This is required by the most basic sense of humanity and Christian solidarity. It is not acceptable that yesterday’s and today’s late-coming confessors, known for their aggressiveness and lack of flexibility, should suddenly become judges and accuse us Old Calendarists in an unbrotherly, contentious, and condemnatory manner for excesses and deviations, when they do not even sufficiently know the very historical facts of our painful and tormented, yet at the same time glorious path and witness of confession.

We do not desire to be teachers of teachers. We do not love disputation, which does not edify, but devolves into mutual strife and fraternal conflict. We believe as our Fathers handed down to us: “We are not wiser than the Fathers; we are not more exact than the teachers” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, PG vol. 46, col. 1112).

For us, based on our God-bearing Fathers and Teachers, the Calendar Innovation stands in opposition to the Catholicity of the Church, both because it was implemented unilaterally and uncanonically in 1924 — disregarding the Pan-Orthodox decisions of the 16th century, as well as in defiance of the reaction of the majority of the local Orthodox Churches — and also because its purpose, as can be effortlessly concluded from the historical data by any serious and unbiased researcher, was not ecclesiastical, but ecumenistic/syncretistic: to achieve joint festal celebrations with the heterodox, in order to make visible the supposedly already existing invisible unity between them and the Ecumenists from among the Orthodox.

(More details, including on the relationship between the Paschal Canon and the Festal Calendar, are developed in Chapter II, “Ecumenism: Syncretistic Pan-Heresy,” of the Unifying Ecclesiological Text: “The Genuine Orthodox Church in the Face of the Heresy of Ecumenism – Dogmatic and Canonical Issues,” in the periodical The Voice of Orthodoxy, issue no. 979 / March–April 2014, pp. 10–12.)

The Calendar issue is inseparably linked with the practical implementation of the heresy of Ecumenism — it was conceived by it, for its sake, and it cannot be separated from it or considered non-essential at present, in order supposedly to be addressed at a later time.

May the walled-off brethren come to be inwardly illumined (since we consider that this is not a matter of intellectual comprehension) regarding the importance and significance of this issue, and may they crown their Struggle with that essential element which is currently lacking, by drawing near to our Genuine Orthodox Church, which preserves, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor, “the right and saving Confession of the Faith,” with ecclesiological fullness and catholicity.

***

As time goes on and the Ecumenist heresy gains ground and consciences are corroded, we who are truly Orthodox are in need of intensifying our Struggle. It would be most desirable to have the best possible unified and coordinated cooperation of the Confessors, for the activation of the Synodal conscience of the Church, in order to more effectively and efficiently confront the heresy, in relation to the forms it assumes and the spread of the signs of eschatological apostasy.

The rejection of the Calendar Innovation by our forebears was made on the basis of their Orthodox sensibility, with divine inspiration and with the strengthening of divine signs, so that they might endure the afflictions that befell them on account of their unwavering stance. If there were errors, such are inevitable in grievous and trying circumstances—and in any case, the moral perpetrators were and remain the Reformists/Ecumenists.

Our greater self-knowledge and repentance will draw down the Mercy of God, so that we may respond in a manner pleasing to Him to the challenges of our times, in the face of such great and unprecedented confusion, laboring for the Church and sacrificing ourselves on behalf of the Church.

The emphasis on the missionary dimension of the Witness of Genuine Orthodoxy on a global level, and the steadfast commitment — carefully and with discernment — to its inner quality, so that it may encompass, express, and transmit the Will of God in the Spirit, may this be our foremost concern, in full awareness of the Apostolic exhortation: “Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12), and with the prayer that the God of peace may be with us. Amen!

 

Greek source:

https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%E1%BC%80%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC/923-orthodoxi-diakrisi-se-kairo-oikoumenismou-2017

Saint John of Kronstadt: Do not let sorrow convince you that you are alone.

 

When the soul darkens, there are times when a person feels that everything around him has faded. The sky seems closed, people distant, and within him spreads a heavy silence, as if all light has been extinguished. At that moment, sorrow whispers in his ear: You are alone, no one understands you, not even God. This is the most dangerous moment of the soul, because sorrow, if it does not become prayer, turns into despair—and despair is the greatest lie of the enemy. Saint John of Kronstadt said that the devil tries to convince man that he is abandoned, while it is precisely then that God stands closer to him than ever. Sorrow, then, is not a sign that God has forgotten you—it is proof that He is instructing you. God does not send sorrow to crush you, but to soften your heart, to make it fertile, capable of receiving His grace. Just as hard soil must be broken for the seed to sprout, so too must the heart be cracked for life to enter into it.

God remains silent in order to teach us to listen to Him. Many say, “I pray, but God does not answer me.” And they forget that God's silence is also a word. It is not indifference, but a way for you to learn to hear Him not with your ears, but with your heart. Saint John of Kronstadt writes: “God answers the soul when it becomes still from its thoughts. When you stop expecting miracles, when you cease to demand explanations, then you will understand that He never departed.” Sorrow is often the tool God uses to purify the hearing of the soul. Only within the silence of tears is His voice heard. When everything around you collapses, that is when you learn who the foundation is. And that foundation is Christ. Do not think that He has abandoned you. God stands behind the curtain of trial and waits for you to call upon Him with a contrite heart—for contrition does not frighten Him; it draws Him near.

Loneliness is the delusion of the age. Today, more than ever, people feel alone. We live amid crowds, yet our soul is empty. The phone rings, social networks fill with faces, but no one touches our core. Saint John wrote: “Do not seek a comforter in the world. Neither man nor word can fill your heart as Christ does.” Loneliness is a spiritual illness that is healed only by grace. It does not go away because you filled your schedule, but because you opened your heart. When you feel alone, remember that Christ remained alone in the garden of Gethsemane. Yet He prayed for all. When you imitate Him in this, then loneliness is transformed into communion with God. True loneliness is not when you lack people, but when you lack an inner relationship with Christ—and when you find Him within you, then even in the desert you are not alone. For the desert becomes paradise.

God writes upon wounds. “No tear is ever wasted.” God forgets not even a single sigh.
Saint John said that the wound of the soul is the page upon which God writes His grace.
When you are in pain, do not merely try to forget the pain. Seek to find Him within it.
God writes His most sacred words not upon clean, flawless lives, but upon broken hearts—where tears become ink and repentance becomes paper. The wound of the soul is a holy place. If you offer it to God, He will make it a source of blessing. But if you keep it within you with grumbling, it will become poison. Saint Paisios said: “It is where we are wounded that God works for our salvation.” And this is the mystery of grace: when man is wounded, his prayer becomes true. It is no longer formal words, but a cry. Saint John said: “The sigh that comes from the heart of the one in pain rises like fragrant incense to heaven.” God loves sincerity more than rhetoric. When a person is wounded, and he says, “Lord, I cannot bear it,” God does not reject him—He embraces him, for He knows that this “I cannot bear it” is a deeper prayer than “a thousand thank-yous” said mechanically. Do not be afraid to weep before Him. Tears are the water that cleanses the soul, and many times God permits us to pass through afflictions solely in order to draw from within us the genuine cry that calls upon Him. When you have no words, simply say, “Lord, have mercy on me.” That is enough—for within that phrase is hidden all love, repentance, and faith. And when you say it with a contrite heart, then you are not alone. You have with you God Himself.

Strange, yet true. Joy is not found in the absence of pain, but in its transformation. God does not always take away sorrow—He sanctifies it. Just as the Cross did not vanish after the Resurrection, but shone. Saint John teaches us that each one’s cross becomes the bridge to heaven. Your cross—your illness, your loss, your disappointment—is not a curse, but a calling. God calls you to know Him through your pain. And then you see that sorrow was not punishment, but invitation—an invitation to love more deeply, to forgive, to trust. When you pass through the fire with faith, you come forth as gold. The joy of Christ is not a superficial feeling, but peace in the midst of the storm—like the heart of a child sleeping calmly in the arms of his father, even when it rains outside.

At some point, we will all feel abandonment—the friend who did not understand you, the family that did not support you, the society that forgot you. But at that moment you must remember: God never abandons. Christ said, “I am with you all the days.” He did not say only when all is well, but all the days—even the dark ones. Saint John emphasized that God is closest when all people have withdrawn. For only then do you leave space in your heart to feel Him. As long as we are filled with human comforts, we cannot perceive the Divine. God does not need crowds to support you; He needs only for you to say “Yes” to Him in your sorrow. And then you will discover that He was always beside you—He was simply waiting for you to see Him.

You may lose many things in life—money, health, people. But do not lose hope, for hope is the rope that keeps you tied to God. Saint John said that hope in God is the breath of the soul. As long as you hold on to it, you will not die spiritually. And hope is not a feeling—it is faith in His love. When you see no light, do not say it does not exist; say, “I do not see it yet,” for the light of God does not always come with brilliance, but with peace—and His peace can illuminate even the night of your sorrow. Do not let sorrow convince you that you are alone. Loneliness is an illusion.

God is always near to the one who calls upon Him. When you think that all have abandoned you, Saint John of Kronstadt himself—who deeply knew the power of pain and prayer—teaches us that sorrow is a path to grace, not a sign of absence. Learn, then, to see in trial the touch of God. To accept pain as an opportunity to know Him more personally. And then your soul, no matter how wounded, will become a place of Divine Writing. For where you have suffered, there God will sanctify you.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/10/blog-post_20.html

The martyrdom of Orthodox Christians by heretics is equal to or even greater than that of the ancient persecutions.

Monk Seraphim (Zisis) | October 21, 2025

 

 

Ecclesiastical current events compel us once again to seek spiritual support in the writings of our Saints, who passed through the same trials of the Church centuries ago and left us their all-wise writings, before they began to strengthen us also through their holy intercessions from Heaven to the Lord.

Unfortunately, the struggle against the internal heresies within the [visible boundaries of the] Church and the prospect of persecution and martyrdom at the hands of heretics for the sake of the Orthodox Faith (and in connection with this – even more so – all that concerns walling-off) are Orthodox “lessons” that are no longer taught except in a few, countable “islands” within the Church. They are not taught in Clergy Conferences, nor in Holy Monasteries, nor in circles and talks of Spiritual Fathers and Brotherhoods – save for a very few – nor, of course, in the Theological Schools, which are largely occupied by the successors of Masons (documented Masons), academic theologians (Louveris, Balanos, Alivizatos, Philippidis, etc.).

The related accounts in the Synaxaria, the Letters of the Holy Fathers (such as St. Basil the Great), and the writings of ecclesiastical history (such as St. Athanasius the Great), when (“whenever and if”) they happen to reach the ears of the faithful, indeed provoke feelings of admiration, doxology toward Christ, and even reverent tears for the titanic struggles of the Fathers—but only up to that point! Our demonic age, and we pitiable “eighth-day” people, are evidently unable to “bear” many burdens…

What are we to expect, when, for example, even the majority (not all, thanks be to God) of the disciples of the blessed Elders—Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes of Florina, and Archimandrite Theophilos Zisopoulos of the Brotherhood of “Saint Lydia”—including those of the Hellenic Orthodox Ecclesiastical Information Broadcast (4E), deemed it better to align themselves with the many apostates rather than to endure isolation with the few devoted Orthodox, and it seems that “they esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt”? [1] At times perhaps under the pressure of threats and the fear of isolation, at other times perhaps due to an inferiority complex toward the “networked” administrators (who scorn the “Kantiotiki”), they have ultimately, “in these last days,” reversed course and now proceed in a manner entirely contrary to the path of their Elders, even collaborating with the emboldened heresy and the heresiarchs of the Phanar and of Athens, and with the rest! [2]

In any case, the testimony of the Holy Fathers concerning the value of Martyrdom that arises from persecutions by heretics is absolutely clear! Let this too be a consolation (though with much humility) for those who inwardly suffer from the present fall of the Churches and who offer a commendable resistance, being fiercely warred against by heresy.

Saint Athanasius the Great, who like another Atlas bore the Church upon his shoulders when the Arian-minded heretics had prevailed everywhere—both in royal palaces and in the Church, in East and West—he who “became a pillar of Orthodoxy,” writes the following (in the 4th century):

“Therefore, I beseech you, having in your hands the Faith which was written down by the Fathers at Nicaea, and defending it with great zeal and confidence in the Lord, to become an example for all those who are in every place, showing that now before us lies a struggle against heresy and for the truth, and that the devices of the enemy are manifold. For it is not only the refusal to offer incense [to idols] that brings forth Martyrs; but also not denying the Faith makes glorious the martyrdom of conscience. And not only were those condemned as alienated who worshipped before idols, but also those who betrayed the truth. For Judas was not cast out from the apostolic rank because he offered sacrifice [to idols], but because he became a traitor. And Hymenaeus and Alexander did not fall away because they turned to idols, but because they made shipwreck concerning the Faith. [3] On the other hand, the Patriarch Abraham was not crowned because he was slain, but because he was faithful to God. And the other Saints, of whom Paul speaks [4]—Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and those with them—did not come to perfection through the shedding of their blood, but were justified through Faith and are admired even to this day, because they were ready to endure even death for the sake of godliness toward the Lord. And if I may add also what happened among us, you know in what manner the blessed Alexander [of Alexandria] struggled unto death against this heresy, and how many sorrows and how great labors he endured in his old age, though elderly, and ‘he was added also to his fathers.’ [5] And how many others have labored greatly, teaching against this impiety, and have the boast in Christ of their Confession!” [6]

Similar things are written by Saint Basil the Great, who also at that time played a significant coordinating and unifying role among the persecuted, yet mutually divided, Orthodox—beyond even the boundaries of his own diocese (“beyond the parish” …)—concerning the superiority of the martyrdom to which the Orthodox are subjected by heretical persecutors (the Arians in that case), in comparison to that which comes from pagan persecutors. Let us consider his inspired thought in what he writes to Monks who had suffered under the persecutions of the heretics:

“These things I said to myself when I heard about the trial that came upon you from the enemies of God, and these I deemed it good to communicate to you by letter; for in a time that is considered peaceful, you have obtained for yourselves the beatitude that belongs to those who are persecuted for the name of Christ. [7] For one should not suppose that these circumstances do not come from enemies, simply because those who devise the evils are cloaked with a noble and mild name. For I judge the war that comes from those of the same race to be more grievous; since it is easier to guard oneself against declared enemies, while one is inevitably exposed to every harm that comes from those who are mingled among us—such as you have suffered. For our fathers also endured persecutions, but at the hands of idolaters. Their possessions were plundered, their homes destroyed, and they themselves were driven into exile by those who openly warred against us for the name of Christ. But the persecutors who have now arisen, on the one hand do not hate us any less than those others did, yet on the other hand they parade the name of Christ [as their identity] in order to deceive the many, so that those who are persecuted may have no consolation from their Confession—since the many and unsuspecting indeed admit that we are being wronged, but do not credit our death for the truth as martyrdom. Therefore, I am convinced that a greater reward awaits you from the Righteous Judge than that which was granted to those who were martyred then, for they had both the confessed approval of men and awaited the reward from God, whereas in our case, for the same achievements, there are no honors from the people. Consequently, it is fitting that the recompense laid up in the future for the labors endured for piety will be manifold.”

“Therefore, we beseech you not to be disheartened by the afflictions, but to be renewed in love toward God and to increase day by day your diligence, [8] knowing that in you must be preserved the remnant of piety which the Lord shall find upon the earth when He comes. [9] And even if Bishops of the Churches have been cast out, let this not shake you; and if traitors have sprouted from among the very Clergy, let not even this weaken your confidence in God. For it is not names that save us, but dispositions and true love for Him Who created us. Remember that even in the conspiracy against our Lord, the plot was woven by chief priests and scribes and elders, and from among the people there were but few who genuinely accepted His word; and that it is not the multitude that is saved, but the elect of God. Therefore, let the great crowd of the people never daunt you—those who are tossed about like the sea by the winds. For even if only one is to be saved, as Lot was in Sodom, he must remain sound in judgment, having his hope firmly fixed upon Christ, for the Lord will not forsake His saints. [10] Greet the whole brotherhood in Christ on my behalf; pray sincerely for my wretched soul.” [11]

In another letter, addressed to exiled Orthodox Bishops, Saint Basil the Great refers to the spiritual harm caused by the heretical delusions of Apollinarius of Laodicea, who had initially distinguished himself as an Orthodox in the struggles against Arianism, but ended up in an opposing heresy, mutilating the human nature of the Lord in order to exalt His divine nature. Once again, he emphasizes how much more unbearable is the warfare that comes from former co-believers and fellow combatants.

“Greatly did the report of your zeal for the integrity of piety strengthen our desire to meet you, as the steadfastness of your heart was not swayed either by the multitude of writings or by the variety of sophistries; rather, you recognized those who innovate against the Apostolic Dogmas, and you did not deign—through your silence—to retain the harm they cause. And indeed, to all who are devoted to the peace of the Lord, we have found great sorrow because of the various innovations of Apollinarius of Laodicea, who grieved us all the more insofar as he appeared at first to belong to us. For to suffer something at the hands of an open enemy, though more painful, is still somewhat bearable to the one afflicted, for it is written: ‘For if an enemy had reproached me, I could have borne it.’ [12] But to suffer harm from one who is of the same mind and familiar is altogether unbearable and without any consolation. For the one whom we expected to have as a fellow defender of the truth, we now find in many matters to be a hindrance to those being saved, by distracting their mind and turning it aside from the uprightness of the dogmas.” [13]

May the Lord strengthen us all through His Saints!

 

ENDNOTES

[1] Cf. Hebrews 11:26 (which has the completely opposite meaning, praising the unwavering faith and the appropriation of “the reproach of Christ”).

[2] In a future post, with the presentation of material from the archive of Fr. Theodoros (Zisis), and specifically from the issues of the periodical Grigoreite twenty-four years ago, it will be shown with utmost clarity—by way of comparison—the deviation (that is, apostasy) of today’s 4E from the theological line of the blessed Elder Fr. Theophilos.

[3] 1 Timothy 1:19

[4] Hebrews 11:32–40

[5] An expression frequently found in the Old Testament to denote the repose (death) of a righteous man. Cf. Judges 2:10 & 1 Maccabees 2:69.

[6] Full excerpt: St. Athanasius the Great, Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya 21, PG 25, 588A–C, EPE 10, 76.78. I located this through the presentation of the Reverend Presbyter Fr. Dimos Serkelidis at the Conference “Orthodoxy in Walling Off: Eight Years Later” (28 June 2025), whom I thank.

[7] Matthew 5:11–12: “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

[8] Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:13 & Ephesians 4:23

[9] Luke 18:8

[10] Psalm 36:28

[11] Full excerpt: St. Basil the Great, Letter (257) To Monks Worn Down by the Arians, PG 32, 945A–948B, EPE 3, 54–58.

[12] Psalm 54:13

[13] St. Basil the Great, Letter (265) To Eulogios, Alexandros, and Harpokration, Exiled Bishops of Egypt 2, PG 32, 985A.B, EPE 3, 72.

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/to-martyrio-orthodoxon-apo-airetikoys-iso-i-kai-anotero-apo-ekeino-ton-archaion-diogmon/

A Prayer in Preparation for Confession

By An Athonite

 

 

Bless me, O Lord and my Saviour, to confess to Thee not only with words but with bitter tears as well. There is much to weep for…

My faith in Thee is shaken, O Lord! The thoughts of little faith and faithlessness crowd into my soul more often than not. Why? Of course, the spirit of the times is guilty, the people with whom I associate are at fault, but above all, I myself am guilty, in that I do not struggle with faithlessness and do not pray to Thee for help; I am incomparably more guilty if I become a scandal for others by deed, by word, or by a cold silence, whenever conversations concerned the faith. I am sinful in this, Lord, forgive and have mercy and grant me faith.

Love for my neighbor and even for my close relatives fails me. Their incessant requests for help, their forgetfulness of how much has been done for them already, arouse mutual discontent among us. But I am guilty above all in that I have the means to help them, but help them grudgingly. I am guilty in that I help them, not out of pure Christian motives, but out of self-love, out of a desire for thanks or praise. Forgive me, Lord, soften my heart and teach me to look not at how people act towards me but at how I act towards them. And if they act in a hostile way, remind me, O Lord, to pay them back with love and good, and to pray for them!

I am also sinful in that I seldom, very seldom, think about my sins. Not only during week days, but even when preparing for Confession I do not remember them, do not strive to bring them to mind for confession. General phrases come to mind: “I’m not guilty of anything in particular, like everyone else.” O Lord, it were as if I didn’t know what sin is before Thee – that every vain word and the very desire in the heart is an abomination before Thee. And how many words and desires come each day, not to mention in a year! Thou alone, Lord, knowest them; do Thou grant me to behold my sins and be compassionate and forgive!

Moreover, I realize that my constant sin is the virtual absence of any struggle with evil within me. As soon as any excuse or suggestion appears, I already dive headfirst into the abyss of sin, and only after my fall do I ask myself: what have I done? A fruitless question, because it does not help me grow better. And if I feel sorrow at the same time, it comes from the fact that my self-love is wounded, and not from the awareness that I have offended Thee, O Lord!

I do not struggle with obvious evil, nor even with the most trifling and harmful habits. I do not control myself and do not even try. I have sinned; forgive me!

Furthermore, there is the sin of having a short temper. This passion rules over me, does not leave me at all. When I hear a sharp word, I do not reply with silence, but act like a pagan: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. An enmity arises from something insignificant and continues for days and weeks, and I do not think of reconciliation, but rather try to be, as it were, stronger, to get revenge at the first chance. I have sinned beyond reckoning, O Lord, be compassionate, forgive me and put my heart at peace!

Apart from these major sins, my entire life is a chain of sins. I do not value the time which Thou hast granted for the acquisition of eternal salvation. I often stand irreverently, pray mechanically, judge others as to how they pray, and do not look after myself. At home I pray sometimes only with great effort and scattered thoughts, so that often I myself do not even hear my prayer, and I even omit my prayers sometimes. Such are my relations to Thee, O Lord, and I cannot say anything except: forgive and have mercy!

In my relations with others, I sin with all my feelings – I sin with my tongue, by pronouncing false, profane, provocative and scandalous words; I sin with my eyes; I sin with my mind and heart. I judge others and harbor enmity often and for long periods of time. I sin not only against the soul but also against the body, taking food and drink without restraint. Accept, O Lover of mankind, my repentance, that I may approach Thy holy and life-giving Mysteries with peace for the forgiveness of sins, for the setting-aright of temporary life and the inheritance of life eternal. Amen

“I am unworthy to ask forgiveness, O Lord,” Thus exclaimed once the great teacher of repentance, St. Ephraim the Syrian.

“How can one keep from falling into sin? How can one block the entrance to the passions?” St. Basil the Great asked St. Ephraim; and the answer was his tears alone.

Then what can I say before Thee, O Lord, I so great and habitual a sinner?

By the prayers of our holy Fathers Ephraim and Basil grant me, O Lord, repentance and tears! Help me to expel from myself, like deadly poison, my evil deeds, vain words, wicked thoughts. And if I forget to mention any sin, Thou knowest all, remind me, for I do not wish to hide anything. Thou commandest me: State your cause, that you may be justified (Is. 43:26), and I say: my sins are multiplied Lord, and multiply themselves without ceasing, and there is no limit to them. I know and I remember, that even an impure thought is an abomination before Thee; and at the same time, I not only think but even do that which grieves Thee. I know that I commit evil, and do not turn away from evil…

Thus, the beginning has not yet been made for my repentance, and the end is not in sight of my lack of concern over my sins. In truth, there is no end to the vile thoughts within me, the bursts of self-love, vanity, pride, judgments, bearing grudges and vengeance. I often argue, for no cause at all become angry, cruel, jealous, lazy, blindly stubborn. I myself am of very little significance, but I think a great deal of myself. I do not want to honor those who are worthy, but demand honor for myself without any basis. I constantly lie and am angry at liars. I condemn slanderers and thieves, but myself steal and slander. I corrupt myself with lustful thoughts and desires, but strictly judge others for lack of modesty. I do not endure jokes about myself, but myself like to tease others, considering neither the person nor the place – even in church. Whoever speaks the truth about me, I consider my enemy. I do not want to bother myself with serving others, but if I am not served, I grow angry. I coldly refuse my neighbor who is in need, but when I myself am in need, I make my requests of him without end. I do not like to visit the sick, but when I am sick, I expect someone to care for me without my even asking.

O Lord, send the light of Thy heavenly light into the depths of my soul, that I may see my sins! My confession almost always ends with the merely external recounting of certain sins. O my God, If Thou be not merciful, if Thou grant me not help, I perish! Innumerable are the times my conscience has given promises to Thee to begin a better life, but I violated my promises and live as before.

Without correcting myself, I am ashamed to show my face before another person, before whom I have not kept my word. How then can I stand before Thee, my God, without shame and self-abasement, when I have made promises so many times before Thy holy altar, before the angels and saints, and then did not keep my word? How low I am! How guilty I am! Thine, O Lord, is righteousness, and mine is a shameful presence (Dan.9:7). Only Thine infinite goodness can endure me. Thou didst not condemn me when I sinned; do not condemn me as I repent! Teach me how to call to mind and recount the sins of my former life, the careless sins of youth the sins of self-loving adulthood, the sins of day and night, sins against Thyself, O Lord my Saviour! How can I recount them in the few minutes when I stand in this holy place! I remember, Lord, that Thou didst attend to the brief words of the publican and the thief; I know that Thou wilt mercifully accept even the readiness to repent, and I pray Thee with all my soul, my Lord, accept my repentance, even in a daily confession of sins, according to the Prayer Book. I have far more sins than are mentioned in it, and have nothing with which to erase them.

I now offer only my striving towards Thee and the desire for good, but I myself do not have the strength to correct them myself. O Lord and Lover of mankind, Thou dost not drive away the sinner who comes to Thee, begging Thee for forgiveness. Even before he approaches the doors of Thy Mercy, Thou dost already open the way for him; even before he falls before Thee, Thou dost stretch forth Thy hand to him; even before he confesses his sins, Thou dost grant him forgiveness. Grant this to me, as I repent, grant this according to Thy great mercy; forgive all the evil that I have done, said and thought. And by granting forgiveness, send me, O Lord, the strength that henceforth I might live according to Thy will and not offend Thee. Help me, and I will be saved; help me by receiving Thy Holy Mysteries. And for the worthy reception of them, speak to me the grace of mercy and forgiveness through the lips of the servant of Thine altar, speak by Thy Holy Spirit not heard by the ear but heard in the contrite heart and peaceful conscience. Amen.

The Christian Faith: The Only Meaning of Life

Nikitas D. Alibrantis

Emeritus Professor at the University of Strasbourg, former Professor at D.U.Th.

 

 

Man is not content with merely being alive; he seeks the meaning of life, he is troubled by death; on the surface, he may at times come to terms with it, yet he fears it—just as he fears pain, misery, loneliness, emptiness—all that constitutes the tragic element of his existence. The ancient Greek tragedians were the first in human history to express the tragedy of man in their plays, and they had come to the realization that the resolution of the drama cannot come from man nor from the ancient gods. Thus, they employed as a device the “deus ex machina.” [1] It is no coincidence that in antiquity the people looked in large part “to the unknown God.”

The “revolution” of Christ is silent and gentle, yet unique. He revealed in historical reality God as Love—unbounded and unshakable toward all, “even toward the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35). He shared in the human condition, in the burdens, the suffering of mankind, and in death, through His voluntary crucifixion out of love for man. [2] “He died in the flesh… so that death might be overcome by His power” (St. Athanasius On the Incarnation, 26). Christ’s word expresses this symbolically: “If the grain of wheat does not fall into the ground and die, it remains alone; but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit” (John 12:24). [3] The liberating Resurrection of Christ, which follows the “descent into Hades,” puts an end to the tragedy of man and ultimately to the scandal of death. This unprecedented liberation is existential. Christ defined it by saying: “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). This fearsome phrase—“I have overcome the world”—could only be spoken by Christ as the God-man.

Christ, by putting an end to the tragic condition, gave the solution to the ultimate existential questions and problems of man. He liberates man from every existential fear and pursuit that leads him to fabricate imaginary deities or to deify natural forces, from every alienation or enslavement, from intellectual worldviews, and opens the path to a free communion of man with God—Who is Love. This communion gives meaning to his life. The Resurrection, an event that confirms the divinity of Christ, is described with simplicity in all the Gospels—no matter how great the astonishment it caused among the disciples, which experientially led to the fearless preaching of the faith and to martyrdom, among others, of the Protomartyr Stephen and of apostles such as Peter, Andrew, and others. The meaning of the Resurrection is powerfully expressed by John Chrysostom in the Catechetical Homily read during the Divine Liturgy of Pascha: “…enter ye all into the joy of your Lord… Let no one bewail transgressions; for forgiveness hath dawned forth from the tomb. Let no one fear death; for the death of the Savior hath set us free. He hath extinguished it, being held by it…”

In the Christian faith, the relationship between God and man changes radically; it is not legalistic or authoritarian, but a free relationship of love. God freely invites man to follow Him; He does not await his subjugation, nor fear of His judgment, but his free love, his free response to the divine call. [4] “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24)—a phrase which means: whoever wishes to follow Me, let him set aside his attachment to earthly things and take up his cross, that is, the tragic dimension of his existence. With discernment, Christ is depicted symbolically as standing at the door of each one’s soul and knocking: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me” (Revelation 3:20). The common “supper” of Christ with man, the communion of love with Him, simultaneously constitutes the universality of the Christian faith; it is also a “burning of the heart on behalf of all creation, on behalf of men and beasts, and… on behalf of every creature.” [5]

2. The Law, as a set of obligatory religious rules such as those found in the Old Testament, has been essentially surpassed. The word of Christ is clear: “The law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist); since that time the kingdom of God is preached” (Luke 16:16). This means that compulsory adherence to rules is abolished. The commandments (e.g., Thou shalt not kill...) are invitations addressed to man for the realization of the purpose of his existence—his salvation. This is the meaning of Christ’s phrase: “I came not to destroy (the law), but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). The word fulfill points to the fact that He came to transcend the Mosaic law, which for the Christian faith is a “worn-out wineskin.” The new wine—the invitation to love and free communion with God—must be placed in new wineskins, because if it is put into old wineskins, “the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed” (Matt. 9:17). That is, if the Christian faith is lived as law, as a set of obligatory rules entailing punishments for their transgression, then it is fundamentally distorted. The Law, as Saint Nektarios writes, was “powerless for salvation, because the law, as the punisher of sin, became a cause of condemnation; and in condemnation is death, not salvation. Salvation is given only by grace and truth, which came through Jesus Christ.” [6]

In general, the Orthodox Christian faith is characterized and experienced with a new content. Thus, sin is not a violation of “divine” obligations or prohibitions, but an act or omission that hinders or severs communion with God—through which man becomes subject to egotism, loses his freedom, and every orientation and meaning of life. Saint Basil the Great defines sin or evil as the misuse of God’s good gifts contrary to His commandment, [7] which shows that, ultimately, sin is not treated as a breach of rules—i.e., in a deontological sense—but ontologically, because, as Georgios Mantzaridis rightly observes, it severs man from the source of life, God. [8] The transcendence of the legalistic spirit, of every rule that imposes obligations and prohibitions, is proclaimed in a striking manner by the Apostle Paul: “All things are lawful unto me, but not all things are expedient; all things are lawful unto me, but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23). That is, legally all things are permitted to me, but not all things are spiritually beneficial, not all contribute to communion with God.

3. In the Gospels, there are expressions which at first glance not only belong to the legal spirit but also, more generally, are manifestations of justice as both idea and action. They are usually found in parables, which are rendered through images that, like every image, “both reveal and conceal at the same time.” [9]

Characteristic are the parables of the ungrateful servant (“His lord delivered him to the tormentors,” Matt. 18:34), of the royal wedding (“Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness...,” Matt. 22:13), or of the wicked husbandmen of the vineyard (“He will miserably destroy those wicked men...,” Matt. 21:41)—parables in which harsh retributions are symbolically emphasized for the ungrateful and the unscrupulous. There are also words or expressions with severe content (punishment, eternal fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth…).

For the transition to the age to come, Christ uses the image of a trial, though He does not judge or condemn anyone; rather, at that time—as the Fathers of the Church emphasize—“all our deeds will be revealed and will come forth on the great day,” [10] “we shall have no other accuser but only our sins,” [11] “at the coming of the Lord… the light which is now hidden will be revealed...” [12]

Already from the earliest centuries, the Fathers designated the parabolic meaning of harsh terms such as hell, which was understood not as a place, but as a state of non-communion—primarily with God, but also with other human beings. In the 4th century, Abba Macarius of Egypt wrote, with inspired insight, that hell is “not being able to behold anyone face to face...” [13] In the same spirit of non-communion, Saint John of Damascus defines hell as amethexia—that is, a condition of non-participation in communion with God. [14] According to Saint Isaac the Syrian, in hell, those who are tormented are afflicted by the love of God, [15] and Dostoevsky defines it as “the torment of not being able to love.” [16] Florovsky calls it “an internal state of isolation and estrangement.” [17]

“The language of the Gospels is a language adapted to the environment in which Christ lived and preached, to the traditional concepts with which that environment was associated. In the Gospels, the divine light is subjected to a kind of refraction as it sinks into the narrow—both in a local and temporal sense—human environment, and by this it undergoes an eclipse. A literal reading of the Gospel texts not only leads to contradictions, as revealed by biblical criticism, but also cannot correspond to a moral consciousness of a higher level than that of that era… and of a different nature. For this reason, there can be only one way—a spiritual, ‘inner’ way—to read the Gospel.” [18]

It is evident that it is of vital importance to understand the parabolic language of the Gospel and the messages that are very often expressed through the images used by Christ. If these are interpreted literally and taken as realities, the Christian faith is fundamentally misunderstood. Christ draws these images from the realities of His time—from the then prevailing practices of rulers and the manner of exercising authority, from Jewish legal conceptions. The parabolic language contains a large number of terms and expressions, which are found not only in the Gospels but have also been carried over into ecclesiastical language (see, among others, the phrase from the imagery of a “trial”: “Let us ask for a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ”). It is absolutely necessary that they be discerned as semantic metaphors, just as with the parables, it is critical to grasp their original meaning and to understand them as parabolic verbal reactions or symbolic punishments.

4. In the Orthodox Christian faith, not only the Law but also justice has been transcended—in both its forms: retributive and distributive. Retributive justice has two aspects: the positive, in which the keeping of rules is rewarded, and the negative, in which their violation is punished. In the first case, if the Christian keeps the commandments and expects some reward, he is far from the Christian faith. As St. Mark the Ascetic expresses it, Christ regards each person “not as a trader of goods.” [19] In Christian faith, the communion of love with God—which is the purpose and meaning of the Christian life—by definition abolishes any notion of an “external” reward within the framework of justice. In the parable of the prodigal son, the elder brother, who lived in communion with his father, was not content with that communion, but expected an additional return from him. The father’s response is revealing: “Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine” (Luke 15:31). In the case of disregarding the commandments, St. Isaac the Syrian restores the truth of the Christian faith by asking: “How can a man call God just when he comes upon the chapter about the prodigal son and sees that simply for his contrition, which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him all his riches?” [20]

As for distributive justice, it is ‘scandalously’ overturned by the philanthropy of God. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard speaks for itself and is a ‘scandal’ to human justice: the workers of the eleventh hour receive the same wage as those who labored from early morning and bore “the burden and heat of the day” (Matt. 20:1–16). Saint Isaac the Syrian again asks: “How can you call God just, when in the chapter about the wages of the laborers He says, ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong; I will give unto this last, even as unto thee’?” [21] God—Who is Love—“receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him of the eleventh hour as to him who labored from the first; and to the last He is merciful, and the first He heals” (Catechetical Homily of John Chrysostom).

For the complete transcendence of human justice, Saint Isaac the Syrian is unparalleled: “Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in His dealings with you.” [22] “Where is the justice of God, since we were sinners and Christ died for us?... Where is His recompense in accordance with our deeds?” [23] Saint Nicholas Cabasilas replies: “For all the good He has done for us, He asks only our love in return; in exchange, He releases us from every obligation.” [24] Saint Isaac continues: “Where is Gehenna...? And where is the hell that frightens us in so many ways...? O the wondrous mercy of God.” [25] “May we never fall into the sin of ever thinking to say that God is without mercy; for the property of God is unchanging... and whatever God has from the beginning, He will always have... Fear Him because of His love and not because of the dreadful name that has been attributed to Him.” [26] “The sins of all flesh are like a handful of sand that falls into a great sea, when compared to the providence and mercy of the Creator, which cannot be overcome by the evil of His creatures.” [27]

5. After the luminous words, I shall cite a passage from the work of a simple theologian:
“How does God deal with us? If He were to reckon our sins… He ought to condemn us to eternal punishment. But what does He do? Oh! who can describe the goodness of God and His loving-kindness? He continually forgets our sins and awaits our repentance in order to grant us pardon for countless faults, and He rejoices when we take refuge in His compassion… and He surrounds us with tenderness and love—such love, indeed, as the human mind is incapable of grasping.” [28]

It seems that simple theologians experience and express the wisdom of the Fathers, while well-known authors and professors completely overlook it and, although “Orthodox,” are “inspired” by medieval constructs of the Latins, considering that divine justice had been offended by human sin and was satisfied through the death of Christ! [29]

“In Christianity, Redemption is a work of love and not a work of justice; it is the sacrifice of infinite divine love and not a propitiatory sacrifice or a settling of accounts.” [30]

Responses to Deniers of the Christian Faith

a) Was Christ merely a man?

Superficially—especially when someone has not studied the Gospel—one may deny the dual nature of Christ and regard Him as merely a man. But if one delves deeper into the matter, one will be faced with serious difficulties, if not outright impasses. A first possibility is to consider Him a moral personality. The first contradiction: Is it possible for a man with an exceptionally high moral awareness, while calling others to repentance, to have no consciousness of sin, to feel that at no time, in no way, did he make any moral error? Christ has no such consciousness (John 8:46). A second alternative is to consider Him either insane or a deceiver. Only one suffering from a delusion of grandeur could claim: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Yet someone suffering from delusions of grandeur would be the last person to wash the feet of his disciples (!), to respond as Christ did to the three temptations in the wilderness, or—while being crucified—to say: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Finally, if Christ spoke falsely, then what moral personality can we be speaking of? The conclusion is that Christ cannot be confined within restrictive categories; there remains an aspect that goes beyond these—and this is the starting point of faith in His dual divine-human nature.

b) Atheism, Science, and Orthodox Christian Faith

The widespread rejection of Christian faith and the rise of atheism—especially since the Enlightenment (18th century)—is an “internal” matter of the West, because it was there, in Roman Catholicism, that the Christian faith was fundamentally distorted. It became a totalitarian regime (the Inquisition, massacres and persecutions of Jews and dissenters, feudal power even of the clergy), and a pseudo-scientific worldview. The reaction in the West against this inhumane, anti-Christian ideology and practice was entirely justified, and the development of atheism followed—though inevitably it brought with it permanent disorientation, lack of a compass in life, and existential emptiness. It is telling that in wealthy Switzerland today, assisted suicide has been legalized regardless of illness, and five organizations are engaged in this work for a fee! In the East, the Christian faith preserved its authenticity; it remained the liberating response to the ultimate existential quests of man. Therefore, from its side, it has no need to “defend” itself against atheism, since the “attack” does not, in essence, concern it. In the West, many Orthodox Christians—when, during meetings, intellectuals would declare themselves atheists—would respond: “I too am an atheist in the sense that I reject the idea of God that you also reject.”

Western intellectual thought, being unfamiliar with Orthodox Christian faith and knowing only Roman Catholicism and Protestantism—and possessing merely general knowledge about religions—views religion as a system of obligations and prohibitions, as well as punishments and rewards believed to come from some god. Thus, for example, according to Freud, religion has its roots in the insecurity of the child, in the prohibitions and obligations imposed by parents, and in punishments and rewards. More broadly, the central characteristic of religions is considered to be the subjugation of man to a supposed authority—namely, the loss of his freedom. This reveals a complete ignorance or disregard for the Orthodox Christian faith.

Natural scientists generally do not realize that man, in his existential search, experiences his own tragic condition and seeks its transcendence and the meaning of his life—elements to which no scientific knowledge can respond, nor even formulate any discourse. If this were not the case, then—as the French philosopher Régis Debray, professor of philosophy and former comrade-in-arms of Che Guevara, writes—all believers would be fools, and all the wise would be unbelievers. [31]

Characteristic is Richard Dawkins who, in his work The God Delusion, [32] claims that man believed (in some god) because he could not explain natural phenomena. With such reasoning, he entirely overlooks the fact that the source of religiosity is not the inability to explain nature, but the existential quest for meaning in life and the liberation of man from his tragic condition. Ultimately, many scientists not only completely ignore the existential freedom brought to man by the Christian faith of the “East as known to us,” but are themselves often victims of a scientism that abolishes human freedom. Notably, among others, the physicist Stephen Hawking maintains that “…we shall continue to progress toward the laws that govern the Universe. But if there is a complete unified theory…, it would also determine our actions.” [33] No worse abolition of human freedom can be conceived!

The general conclusion is that atheist scientists suffer—though generally without being aware of it—from existential poverty, or—as Miguel de Unamuno expresses it in his classic work The Tragic Sense of Life—they live a life of “spiritual parasitism.” [34]

 

NOTES

1. The distinguished Hellenist Jacqueline de Romilly rightly emphasizes that “tragedy is defined more by the nature of the problems it poses than by the answers it gives” (La tragédie grecque [1970], 6th ed., Paris, 1997, p. 173).

2. When shortly before His crucifixion He was troubled as man, He said: “but for this cause came I unto this hour” (John 12:24).

3. Dostoevsky characteristically places the phrase beneath the title of his work The Brothers Karamazov.

4. Nicolas Berdiaev, Esprit et Liberté, Paris, 1984, p. 131.

5. Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homily 81 (PA’), On the Distinction of Virtues and on the Perfection of Every Path, Ascetical Homilies (Homilies 62–86), Philokalia of the Neptic and Ascetic Fathers, vol. 8Γ, Thessaloniki, 1991, p. 174.

6 Saint Nektarios, Christology, Part A, ch. H, 4, Athens, 1992, p. 176. Cf. John 1:17.

7. Basil the Great, Longer Rules, Patrologia Graeca (PG), 31, 909B.

8. G. I. Mantzaridis, Person and Institutions, Thessaloniki, 1997, pp. 49–50.

9. D.M. Quenot, Du visible à l’invisible. Des images à l’icône, Paris, 2008, p. 97.

10. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, X, 3.

11. Basil of Caesarea, Commentary on Psalm 48, 2.

12. Symeon the New Theologian, Catecheses, XXVIII, 164–175. For references to other Fathers, see J. Cl. Larchet, La vie après la mort selon la Tradition orthodoxe, Paris, 2001, pp. 264–266.

13. Gerontikon, Asteros Publications, p. 70.

14. John of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manichaeans. See the edition by B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. IV, Liber de Haeresibus, Berlin–New York, 1981, no. 44, p. 376.

15. Cited by G. Florovsky in the work Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers, Thessaloniki, 1992, p. 393.

16. F. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Govostis Editions, vol. II, Athens, 1990, p. 258.

17. G. Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Thessaloniki, 1983, p. 304.

18. N. Berdiaeff, Vérité et Révélation, Neuchâtel, 1954, pp. 146–147 (my own [Greek] translation).

19. Mark the Ascetic, The 226 Chapters on Those Who Think They Are Justified by Works, Philokalia of the Sacred Neptic Fathers, vol. I, 2nd ed., Thessaloniki, 1986, nos. 18, 22.

20. Saint Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies (27–61), Homily 60 (Ξ), 9–11, Philokalia of the Neptic and Ascetic Fathers, vol. 8B, Thessaloniki, 1991, p. 402.

21. Ibid., p. 8

22. Ibid., p. 9

20. Saint Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies (27–61), Homily 60 (Ξ), 9–11, Philokalia of the Neptic and Ascetic Fathers, vol. 8B, Thessaloniki, 1991, p. 402.

21. Ibid., p. 8

22. Ibid., p. 9

23. Ibid., p. 10

24. N. Kabasilas, The Life in Christ (cited by P. Evdokimov, L’amour fou de Dieu, Paris, 1973, p. 31)

25. Ibid., p. 11, p. 404

26. Ibid., p. 10

27. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 58 (ΝΗ), ibid., p. 372

28. D. Kouimoutsopoulos, Homilies on the Sunday Gospels, 2nd ed., Athens, 1923, pp. 96–97.

29. P. Trembelas, Dogmatics, vol. II, Athens, 1959, p. 168: “And sin would cease to be sin… if divine justice ceased to demand its punishment…”; S. Papakostas, Repentance, Athens, 1953, p. 78; E. Matthopoulou, The Destiny of Man, Athens, 1966, p. 350.

30. N. Berdiaev, Spirit and Freedom (translated by Metropolitan Eirenaios of Samos), Athens, 1952, p. 194.

31. Régis Debray, Dieu, un itinéraire, Paris, 2001.

32. R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, Athens, 2007.

33. S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Athens, 1997.

34. M. de Unamuno, Le sentiment tragique de la vie (1916), Paris, 1937.

 

Greek source: Τιμητικός Τόμος Διονυσίου Μ. Μπατιστάτου, Athens, 2024, pp. 205-217.