Elder Germanos of Stavrovouni (+1982): “You complain that they do not treat you well…”

 

You complain that those with whom you associate do not treat you well. Listen to my advice: 

If someone does not treat you well, you treat him with kindness. The whole matter requires humility. Let us give an example: Someone tells you that your work is not good. Say to him: “Thank you for advising me. Help me to become better. Tell me my mistakes so I can correct them.” Accept advice from everyone, but out of humility and not out of cowardice. In this way, you will preserve in your soul the heavenly joy and peace.

Your brother said that you are deceitful! Take it as a joke and do not be offended! But even if he meant it, I ask you: Are we not in reality all deceitful? Who can claim that he is straightforward and sincere everywhere and always? Say that your brother told you this by God’s allowance, so that you may be humbled and corrected. And you should feel not aversion, but love and gratitude toward your brother who, even in this manner, helps you to be corrected and saved!

When you are grieved or when you are insulted, then remember the Passion of our Lord: When He was reviled, He did not revile; when He was mocked, He did not mock; when He was struck, He did not strike; when He was slandered, He did not slander, but in all these things He responded with calmness: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil” (John 18:23). And He prayed for His crucifiers. Let us live as Christ lived, that is, with humility, with obedience, with absence of resentment. Let us strive to imitate Him, as much as possible, in everything. Let us walk with joy on the narrow and afflicted path, and hate the broad and thoughtless life.

Take care not to be offended when you are spoken to with a harsh word. Harsh words, revilements, and scorn free a person from evil thoughts, especially shameful ones. They free him from all passions, provided he endures all these without grumbling. When you reach the point of being glad when you are despised, reviled, and slandered, then know for certain that you will receive an unfading crown in the heavens.

If they mock you, you should make good thoughts—take it, for example, as a joke—and thus misunderstanding and scandal easily go away. Let me tell you an example: In the obedience of agriculture, I had two lay helpers, hired by the Monastery. One was experienced in farming, while the other had previously worked as a barber and had only recently begun to engage in agriculture as well. The experienced one was younger in age than the other. And yet he teased him, calling him “bread-eater,” implying that he wasn’t competent in his work, but only fit to eat bread. However, the other was meek and free of resentment, even though he was older and had ten children. He would think to himself: “Why should I be offended if he called me a ‘bread-eater’? Let him say what he wants. It doesn’t matter!” That is, he humbled himself voluntarily, took the insult as a joke, was not saddened, and thus gained the most precious thing: the Grace of God!

The Lord blesses the meek. He says that “they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). He who is truly meek not only does not become angry outwardly, but not even inwardly in his soul. At the moment of provocation, prefer silence, prayer, and withdrawal, and you will never regret it.

Many become angry not only against people, but even against inanimate things, and begin to break objects and strike animals, thinking that they are to blame. But the truly meek and free of resentment does not become angry at anything and is always peaceful. The Holy Spirit dwells within his soul.

Meekness, when it is according to God, is neither cowardice nor weakness, but spiritual strength and true faith in God.

The meek person remains unaffected in his mind and in his heart. He is not disturbed, whether he is accused or praised, whether he is regarded or ignored, whether he is exalted or humiliated. Yet this virtue is the fruit of great faith in God, deep humility, and pure prayer.

The meek person also influences those around him. He brings peace to those who are quarreling, he calms those who are troubled and confused.

The meek person, even by his mere presence, radiates peace and grace…

 

Translated from the original Greek.

The GOC Response to Mr. Seraphim of Piraeus

Response to the article “Who is responsible for the degradation of the priestly rank in the case of Mr. Vezyreas?”, by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus of the official Church of Greece.

 

 

The revelations concerning the one reputed as “archbishop of the Old Calendarists,” Parthenios Vezyreas, have triggered, as was to be expected, a multitude of biting comments against all without exception who follow the traditional ecclesiastical calendar, without any distinction being made between conscientious Christians and frauds. This tactic, favored by aspiring journalists and enemies of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (G.O.C.), has been known for decades and does not honor those who employ it. This, despite the worldly sorrow it causes us, becomes mysteriously also a cause for joy, according to the assurance of the Author of our Faith, the Savior Christ: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” [1]

One of the related articles that circulated recently was that of the Metropolitan of the official Church of Greece, His Eminence Seraphim of Piraeus. Bearing the title “Who is responsible for the degradation of the priestly rank in the case of Mr. Vezyreas?”, the said article is deemed worthy of investigation and response. Obviously, with our reply we do not aim to defend cases similar to that of Mr. Vezyreas, but rather ourselves, since we consider that the case of Mr. Vezyreas provided a convenient pretext for His Eminence to attack—indirectly yet clearly—our Holy Synod.

Mr. Seraphim expresses, at the outset, his sorrow that no one refers to what he considers the primary party responsible for phenomena such as that of Mr. Vezyreas: the Hellenic State. He explains that the responsibility of the State lies in the registration of “parasynagogues of the Orthodox Church” in the relevant registry of the Court of First Instance, under the pretext of “the lawlessness of religious conscience, the unbearable rights-based mentality, and the unchecked self-identification,” while the current Constitution recognizes as the official religion the Orthodox Church, which is dogmatically united with that of Constantinople.

Mr. Seraphim, as a distinguished jurist, surely knows better than we do that the article of the Constitution which designates the Church of Greece as the official religion of the state also states the following concerning her: “she maintains unalterably […] the holy apostolic and synodical canons and the sacred traditions.” [2] But to what extent is this actually the case? To use the apt words written by Metropolitan Seraphim himself on September 16, 2015, is it truly an unalterable observance of the holy canons when there is “dialogue [with heterodox] on equal terms, the signing and adoption of common anti-Orthodox documents, uncanonical joint prayers and lay Ecumenism, the signing of Common Declarations with the heresiarch Pope of Rome, uncanonical joint prayers and semi-concelebrations with heretics and non-Christians”? [3] Is the entire stance toward the calendar issue part of the tradition of the Church? Mr. Seraphim himself wrote on May 20, 2016: “I shall not participate in the ‘unholy game’ of the so-called Holy and Great Council.” [4] He further explains that “If indeed it were truly intended for this Pan-Orthodox Council to be Holy and Great […] it ought to have aligned with the spirit and the letter of the Holy and God-bearing Fathers […] e) to resolve the major calendrical and festal issue, which unavoidably divides the liturgical unity of the Orthodox Catholic Church and which, in an uncanonical manner, was instituted in the Church—this unacceptable liturgical schism—through the well-known Congress of 1923, under the late Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletios Metaxakis.” Is it, perhaps, observance of the holy Canons when there is a universally acknowledged lack of conciliarity, the informal abolition of fasting, the novel form of Baptism without triple immersion (when the very word “Baptism” means complete immersion in water), the celebration of Marriages on Fridays? But even in more simple matters: is it the tradition of the Church for an auxiliary Bishop to concelebrate with his Metropolitan while bearing a mitre and staff?

When the unalterable observance even of the simplest canons and traditions is absent—a fact that signifies a lack of respect for the Constitution—how does Mr. Seraphim demand that the Constitution protect the official Church?

As for the claim that there exists “lawlessness of religious conscience, unbearable rights-based mentality, and unchecked self-identification,” we agree with Mr. Seraphim. All these, however, constitute a problem that primarily afflicts our own Holy Synod, because when the hidden and secret deeds of every Mr. Vezyreas come to light publicly, no one censures the Church of Greece, but all the “Old Calendarists” collectively. It is for this reason that our Church lacks the necessary legal protection we desire—protection such as that which shields the Church of Greece from the tragic phenomenon of fragmentation.

In another part of his text, the learned Hierarch refers to the issue of the usurpation of authority in which the Old Calendarists allegedly fall with respect to the official Church. This matter requires a more careful examination.

When on March 10/23, 1924, the Church of Greece adopted the new calendar, as is well known, a considerable number of devout Christians, harboring reservations regarding the calendar reform—both because of the uncanonical manner in which it was imposed and because of its grievous underlying motives—remained steadfast in the traditions handed down. This by no means negligible multitude was composed of laypeople and lower clergy, who with purity and zeal continued to fulfill their religious duties according to the Patristic calendar. Their ecclesiastical authority, the official Church, did not treat them as the good shepherd treats the “lost sheep.” Not only did it keep its distance, as if these Christians were a foreign body, but it also persecuted them in a manner unprecedented in ecclesiastical history. “Our holy and immaculate Faith,” as Mr. Seraphim rightly emphasizes in one of his writings (Dec. 1, 2008), is “purpled by rivers of blood” in the sense that the blood flows from her own body, not from people she persecutes. The then Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, however, was purpled not by its own blood, but by the blood of its once faithful children, whom it itself mistreated—even unto killing them!

Since, then, this was the stance of the official Church—fighting against the Old Calendarists and treating them as criminals (though, of course, there were also notable exceptions)—it is evident that when Hierarchs undertook the administration of the Church of the G.O.C., they did not commit usurpation of authority, but rather placed themselves in the service of a flock with which the Church of Greece itself had long since severed all friendly ties. Moreover, they did not act as the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece,” which is the official title of the Autocephalous Church according to the Patriarchal and Synodal Tome of June 29, 1850, but made clear their distinction from the Church of Greece. Whether the terms “genuine” and “spurious,” to which Mr. Seraphim refers, are correct or mistaken, is a question that must be examined by a Pan-Orthodox Council, which will also definitively resolve the issue of the Calendar—a Council whose convocation was ardently desired by our holy First Hierarch, former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos.

Therefore, since those who have been deposed by the prevailing Church, as well as those who wish to act without accountability in pursuit of their own interests, self-identify as “Old Calendarists” or “G.O.C.,” the usurpation of authority does not operate to the detriment of the Church of Greece, but to the detriment of our Holy Synod.

Subsequently, His Eminence states that, having served for twenty years in ecclesiastical justice, he possesses “sufficient knowledge of persons and situations operating on the margins of Orthodox Christian life.” Surely, he must also be aware of the persons and situations within the domain to which he himself belongs. It would be preferable for him to focus on those, in accordance with the evangelical command: “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” [5] That the public, as various polls attest, is losing its trust in the Church, that it is being scandalized and turning away from it, does not, of course, occur because of the Old Calendarists. When the official Church itself does not protect itself from those who are devouring it from within, why should the State be concerned with protecting it?

Furthermore, His Eminence, from his service in ecclesiastical justice, likely knows that certain unfit clergymen of the official Church had timely (internal) information about impending or ongoing canonical prosecution against them, and thus suddenly presented themselves as “Old Calendarists,” so that they might be deposed “for Old Calendarism.” Was the State also responsible for this?

One phrase of Mr. Seraphim is particularly characteristic: “The Hellenic State is responsible for all this degeneration [the emergence of phenomena such as that of Mr. Vezyreas] and no one else.” However, within his brief text he refers to four individuals who, before assuming the guise of Old Calendarists, were within the Church of Greece, from which they were deposed—one of whom was Mr. Vezyreas. Deposition, however, is something that comes afterward. What precedes it is ordination. It is truly perplexing: was it the Hellenic State that ordained them as clergy? Were they perhaps individuals who had a conscious awareness of their mission, but later fell away? Or were they unfit from the beginning, yet acted with the tolerance of their Hierarchs? Perhaps, in the end, the Hellenic State is not solely responsible.

In order to examine whether and to what extent the Hellenic State is exclusively responsible, we return to the issue of the calendar change, which Mr. Seraphim refers to as a “ridiculousness.” In fact, he emphasizes that “there is no ‘patristic’ and ‘innovative’ Festal Calendar, because the Festal Calendar is one.”

Since the festal calendar “is one,” should not all Orthodox Christians celebrate the immovable feasts together? Yet such is not the case. The 1920 encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, through the calendar change, aimed not at astronomical precision—as His Eminence emphasizes—but at the “simultaneous celebration of the great Christian feasts by all the Churches.” [6] But were not the Churches of Christ already celebrating simultaneously? Certainly. However, by the term “Churches of Christ,” the encyclical also referred to the heterodox. What happened in the end? A common celebration with the heterodox was preferred, and the simultaneous celebration among the Orthodox was disrupted. [7] The Church of Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Alexandria, and other local Churches now celebrate separately from Mount Athos, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, and other Churches. And even within the Church of Greece itself, the common festal observance has been broken.

When the simple pious faithful see such hypocrisy, it is reasonable for them to maintain their reservations. And when they see the very administration of the Church persecuting them for their choice not to change the calendar that they had observed for twenty centuries, it is only natural that they should distance themselves—even, unfortunately, become fanatical. Metropolitan Polykarpos Liosis of Sisani and Siatista, whom His Eminence Seraphim surely honors as a great benefactor of his Metropolis, when he was still a Bishop of the Church of the G.O.C., had recorded numerous incidents from the fierce persecutions waged by the official Church against the Old Calendarists. It was the Hierarchy itself at that time that consolidated the Church of the G.O.C. through its indiscriminate behavior. Therefore, the Hellenic State is not solely responsible for cases such as that of Mr. Vezyreas. The greater responsibility lies primarily with former Hierarchs of the Church of Greece and secondarily with former Hierarchs of the Church of the G.O.C., who allowed their weaknesses to stain the righteous struggle of the movement of piety.

It is encouraging that many contemporary Hierarchs and clergy of all ranks are inspired by a spirit of understanding and conciliation. Indeed, in these past days we admired an excellent article by the Protosyngellos of the Holy Metropolis of Ioannina. [8] In contrast to these, Mr. Seraphim, as is evident from his text, supports—in the year 2025—the revival of a policy of persecutions, even in connection with a zealot Monastery of the Holy Mountain, a policy which has already been tested and not only failed, but produced entirely opposite results. At the very least, from His Eminence—so exceedingly intelligent and deeply theological as he is—we would have expected an approach inspired by discernment and evangelical love.

In concluding the topic of the calendar, the article states the following: “What changed was the calendrical determination of the Festal Calendar, which was erroneous, and now with the current calendar one day will be lost every 3,000 years.” We respect this significant achievement of science. However, when we stand before the Impartial Judge, the one thing He will not ask us is whether we gained one or a thousand days. Perhaps what He will ask us (though He will not be unaware of it) is how we struggled for the restoration of true Unity—for which He prayed with tears before His Passion.

In a certain section of the article, reference is made to the origin of the “ordination” of Mr. Vezyreas. We consider this reference to serve no other purpose than the attempt to associate his name with our Holy Synod, so that it may be slandered at all costs. From the very first moment of the scandalous revelations—as well as already for the past twenty years—we have made it clear that this man has no connection whatsoever, nor ever had, with our Holy Synod or with the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece in general.

Toward the end of the article, mention is made of a certain Uniate. His Eminence expresses his displeasure in a forceful tone—and rightly so, for Uniatism is a deceitful scheme of Papism aimed at seducing our Orthodox people. But is his fear that the people might be mistakenly misled by Uniates, while prominent clergymen are openly giving legitimacy to them?

In conclusion, the times are perilous. Criminality is rising alarmingly, families are separating at a dramatic rate, our children are growing up without principles and desperately seeking deliverance through deadly paths—including illicit profit and narcotic substances—through the trafficking of which individuals like Mr. Vezyreas build their own mansions, based on the destruction of our fellow human beings; “Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head.” [9] Those of us who think soundly and serve purely the sacred and holy things of our Faith and Nation have a sacred duty—united, by the grace of God—to raise up our fallen society, transmitting to it the life-giving Light of the Triune Divinity: of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Contentions lead nowhere, whereas arrows are useful only when aimed against the ancient and evil enemy.

In Athens, November 8/21, 2025

From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod

 

 

[1] Matt. 5:11

[2] Constitution of Greece, Article 3, §1.

[3] http://romfea.gr/ieres-mitropoleis/3112-peiraios-o-oikoumenismos-exei-diabrosei-tou-pantes-kai-ta-panta

[4] https://www.romfea.gr/ieres-mitropoleis/8402-8075

[5] Matt. 7:5

[6] Synodical Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople to all the Churches of Christ throughout the world, 1920

[7] And indeed, for ecumenistic purposes.

[8] https://exapsalmos.gr/mia-chrysi-efkairia-gia-ksekatharisma/ [English translation: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/11/on-vezyreas-affair-official-church.html]

[9] Ps. 140:5

 

Greek source: https://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/2412-apantisi-ston-pirews-serafim

 

On the Vezyreas affair: An Official Church Protosyngellos responds

Archimandrite Thomas Andreou

 

In an era where the confusion surrounding the Old and New Calendar fuels misunderstandings, tensions, and parasynagogues, the voice of sobriety becomes more necessary than ever. The text by Archimandrite Thomas Andreou, Protosyngellos of the [official] Holy Metropolis of Ioannina, does not seek to rekindle divisions, but to illuminate the real problem with clear speech: the need for a meaningful clarification, a dialogue, and a sincere ecclesiastical approach. With clarity, composure, and spiritual discernment, he lays the foundations for a new beginning—through a dialogue that can lead not to new ruptures, but to healing, unity, and truth.

***

The recent events that have dominated the “news” regarding a certain cassocked individual who self-styles himself as “Archbishop” of the Old Calendar [Church] have once again highlighted the urgent need for a clearing-up within the Church of Greece.

And by saying Church of Greece, we do not mean only the Church of the New Calendar, which constitutes the official Church as a Legal Entity of Public Law, but also the Church of the Old Calendar — that which is composed of an organized Synod, with clergy and hierarchs who were born and raised within the tradition of the Old Calendar.

All the others who abusively use the title of G.O.C. (Genuine Orthodox Christian) are usually former clergymen who were ordained under the New Calendar, deposed by the Church for canonical offenses, and subsequently found “shelter” in an abstract notion of a “church” that merely celebrates the immovable feasts thirteen days later.

This is the general framework within which the issue of the Old Calendar moves today in Greece—a matter that began a hundred years ago, yet remains an open wound in the Body of the Church.

For when in 1924 the calendar change was decided, there was one Church — the Autocephalous Church of Greece. One hundred years later, the Church remains the same, undivided and unified; however, around it have sprouted dozens of groups that call themselves “G.O.C.,” most of which possess neither legal nor canonical standing and lack a unified ecclesiology. Each group operates autonomously, without recognizing the others, though supposedly all are “united” by the Old Calendar.

The process of “recognition” of such formations is simple: a court decision that recognizes an association, behind which a “church” is concealed. This entity may perform sacraments that are recognized by the civil registry as legally valid, but spiritually they may be invalid, since they are perhaps performed by deposed former clergymen.

Essentially, the Church of the Old Calendar is unable to protect itself, and thus the rift continues. The greatest problem is that it is incapable of setting its own house in order. In my humble opinion, this is due to the fact that, despite occasional efforts at communication with the official Church of Greece, the undeniable rigidities on both sides have not allowed for the necessary dialogue that could lead to a meaningful clarification. A clarification that could serve as the starting point for a common path in these difficult times — so that the Church may be able to speak with one voice to all who desire to hear Her.

The Old Calendar [Church] itself must take the initiative for this clarification to take place. And for this to happen, a dialogue of love is needed between the Old and the New Calendar.

How can this be achieved? Primarily through prayer, and then through a sincere willingness for communication. Within the Old Calendar there are young, educated hierarchs — at least in the most well-known, organized, and populous faction — who were born and raised within this tradition, yet who respect the Church of Greece without renouncing their struggles and positions.

Perhaps, then, now is the golden opportunity for a true clarification—not on the basis of court rulings or administrative acts, but on the basis of ecclesiastical conscience and brotherly love.

Instead of adding new wounds to the Body of Christ, let us seek its healing through sincerity, prayer, and humility.

Unity will not arise through imposition, but through repentance and dialogue in Christ.
And then, truly, the Church — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic — will be able to shine once more with a pure light, without shadows and without falsely named “churches” obscuring Her truth.

Fr. Thomas Andreou

 

Greek source: https://exapsalmos.gr/mia-chrysi-efkairia-gia-ksekatharisma/

 

A Walled-Off Priest on the Issue of the Mysteries of Unjudged Heretics

Noteworthy questions about walling off and the mysteries of the Ecumenists

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | November 23, 2025

The following questions were posed by a brother in Christ who is walled-off.

In a talk by Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios (Fr. A.M.), published at the web address

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafg3jXj3tU

the blessed elder says the following:

“…the Holy Spirit performs the rites, places the seal on the mysteries (Baptism, Priesthood, Holy Communion, Confession), and consequently, the priest, when he is ‘wicked,’ does not have a valid mystery, but for the sake of the faithful, the mystery is operative”???

So, if I understand correctly, today the “wicked” Ecumenist bishops and priests do not have valid mysteries and priesthood, and the people rightly follow them! And we who have walled ourselves off have caused a schism? And the same applies to the believer when he too is “wicked”—condemnation—he does not have baptism even if he was baptized!

Then are the things concerning the defilement of the mysteries not correct?

Response to the above questions.

In order to answer your questions, we must first examine when a mystery is VALID.

When is a Mystery valid?

Apostolic Tradition and the Fathers of the Church have taught us that, for a Mystery to be valid and “canonical,” the following conditions must be met:

a. The officiant must be “canonically” ordained (priest or bishop), and must not be under any penalty that prohibits them from performing sanctifying acts—that is, they must not be deprived of part or all of their priestly authority.

b. The sensible signs must be present, the material of the Mystery, which differs for each Mystery (e.g., flour for Holy Unction, prosphoron for the Divine Liturgy, etc.).

c. The specific Hierology must be observed—that is, the “specific” words for each Mystery, as handed down to us by the Fathers throughout Church history and Divine Worship. In this third condition, only under normal circumstances (and not, for example, in time of war), the “canonicity” regarding the use of sacred vestments by the officiant must also be observed, always in accordance with his degree of priesthood.

***

There is a contradiction in the words of Fr. A.M. On the one hand, we have the AUTOMATIC LOSS OF GRACE DUE TO HERESY; on the other hand, Grace (??) operates for the sake of the faithful. This, of course, is not substantiated anywhere.

Every heretic who distorts the DEFINED DOGMAS of the Church is condemned, in the sense that he condemns himself—he has lost Divine Grace for himself, but not the authority to perform mysteries on behalf of the people, until that authority is taken from him by the Synod which granted it to him, through the hands of the bishops who ordained him.

The position of the Fathers is clear. They tell us to separate from heretics when we come to understand their heretical teaching. They do not tell us that we have the authority to strip them ourselves of the right to celebrate the sacred rites—although they do urge us to anathematize them, whether we are laypeople or clergy. Deposition is carried out by a Synod. And of course, the Saints who established the Holy Canons do not consider our separation from those heretics who have already been condemned synodally (such as today’s Papists, Anti-Chalcedonians, Copts, etc.) as “walling off,” because it is self-evident that we have no communion with them, since they already belong to another false “church.” Walling off takes place from our own celebrants—those false bishops and false teachers—who, through heresy, cease to be ours! When they are deposed, we no longer speak of walling off. We don’t say, for example, “wall yourselves off from the Papists!” These are not ours; they already constitute another “church”!

As to whether he himself possesses Divine Grace, whether he is condemned for adding hypocrisy to heresy, the Fathers indeed teach that yes, he is personally condemned, since he is a false bishop and a false shepherd. At the same time, however, they accept that he has canonical priesthood, the mysteries he performs remain valid as long as he has not been deposed, and this is on account of the ordination he received from God through the bishops who ordained him, and for the benefit of the judgment of the faithful—since the Mysteries are performed by God Himself.

At the appearance of every heretical teaching, we observe that, in the first stage, certain faithful (whether clergy or laity—it makes no difference) react and point out the heresy. They distance themselves, they give warning about the fire that has been kindled and is burning, and about the serpent that roams freely in the Church and spreads its poison by biting the faithful. These individuals simultaneously urge the other faithful (not merely as a form of protest, as some claim) to also distance themselves, so that they too are not infected by the contagious heretical ideas, so that they do not consciously become participants and accomplices in the heresy through their tolerance; and subsequently, the right-believing, Orthodox Synod condemns the heretical positions and removes the Grace that had been given. At that point, the mysteries are invalid, since they are performed by one who has now been condemned as a heretic and no longer possesses the liturgical Grace.

And furthermore, those who are aware of their atheism–heresy and yet receive Communion from them, it is—in each case—questionable whether they receive Divine Grace and illumination, or whether, precisely because the Mysteries are valid, they become for them judgment and condemnation, since they are aware. It is, in other words, a matter of intention—whether it is good and confessing, or of evil intent.

CONCLUSION. Fr. A.M. does not address the entire issue also from the perspective of the DEFILEMENT OF THE FAITH, one form of SPIRITUAL DEFILEMENT being the COMMEMORATION OF HERETICAL FALSE BISHOPS. He accepts the automatic loss of the Grace of Priesthood, whereas this only occurs THROUGH A SYNOD OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS.

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council speaks of FALSE BISHOPS AND FALSE TEACHERS, but not of pseudo-hierarchs [i.e., fraudulent or deposed  pretenders to episcopal thrones - tr.]. That is, it removes from heretical bishops the right to SHEPHERD and to TEACH ONLY.

This results in the mysteries being indeed VALID AND CANONICAL (until condemnation), yet DUE TO THE DEFILEMENT OF THE FAITH they become JUDGMENT AND CONDEMNATION.

The reason for the counsel and teaching of the Saints regarding separation from heretics who have not been condemned is their different faith, which DEFILES—not supposedly because the mysteries they perform are invalid. For ultimately, no one is harmed by invalid mysteries; invalid mysteries, in and of themselves, as invalid, do not defile—but communion with those who perform them does defile, with heretics, enemies of God!

The criterion for an ecclesiastical situation to be characterized as a SCHISM is the EXISTENCE OF A SYNOD OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS. Does such a synod exist today??

WALLING OFF IS NOT SCHISM, because WE SEPARATE FROM HERETICAL AND NOT FROM ORTHODOX BISHOPS AND SYNODS.

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_23.html

Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis: Recommendations for the Spiritual Life

 

I recommend that you have discernment and prudence in all things. Avoid extremes. Rigor must correspond to the measure of virtue. He who does not possess great virtues and competes with the perfect, desiring to live strictly like the holy ascetics, is in danger of falling into pride and falling. Therefore, walk with discernment and do not exhaust the body with excessive labors. Remember that bodily asceticism merely helps the soul to attain perfection; perfection is achieved primarily through the struggle of the soul.

Do not stretch the string beyond its limit. Know that God is not forced in His gifts. He gives when He wills. Whatever we receive, we receive freely from divine mercy.

Do not seek to rise high through great ascetic practices without possessing virtues, for you are in danger of falling into delusion through your presumption and audacity. Whoever desires divine gifts and lofty visions while still burdened with passions is, like a foolish and proud man, deceived. First and foremost, he must strive for his purification. Divine Grace sends its gifts as a reward to those who have been cleansed from the passions. It visits them without noise and at an hour they do not know.

***

Temptations are permitted in order for hidden passions to be revealed, to be combated, and thus for the soul to be healed. They too are a sign of divine mercy. Therefore, entrust yourself with confidence into the hands of God and ask for His help, so that He may strengthen you in your struggle.

Hope in God never leads to despair. Temptations bring humility. God knows the endurance of each of us and permits temptations according to the measure of our strength. Yet we must also take care to be watchful and cautious, so that we do not place ourselves in temptation.

Trust in God—the Good, the Mighty, the Living—and He will lead you to rest. After trials comes spiritual joy. The Lord watches over those who endure trials and afflictions for His love. Therefore, do not lose heart and do not be afraid.

I do not want you to be saddened or troubled by things that happen contrary to your will, no matter how just that will may be. Such sorrow reveals the presence of egoism. Beware of the pride that hides beneath the guise of a right. Also beware of untimely sorrow that arises after a just rebuke.

Excessive sorrow over all these things is from the Tempter. There is only one true sorrow: that which is born when we come to know well the wretched condition of our soul. All other sorrows have no relation to the Grace of God.

Take care to guard in your heart the joy of the Holy Spirit, and do not allow the Evil One to pour in his poison. Be watchful! Be watchful, lest the paradise that exists within you be transformed into hell.

***

Let your spiritual work be the examination of your heart. Does pride dwell in it like a venomous serpent—the passion that begets many evils, that deadens every virtue, that poisons everything? Against this diabolic wickedness your entire care must be directed. Day and night, let the investigation of it become your unceasing labor.

It would be true, I think, to say that our entire spiritual concern consists in the search for and extermination of pride and its offspring. If we rid ourselves of it and enthrone humility in our heart, then we possess everything. For where true humility in Christ is found, there also are gathered all the other virtues that raise us up to God.

 

Greek source: https://www.imaik.gr/?page_id=11213

Concerning the saying of the Apostle Paul: “and let the wife fear her husband.” (Ephesians 5:33)

St. Nektarios of Pentapolis | November 7, 1902

Source: Ανάπλασις, No. 255 / November 14, 1902.

 

After the Apostle Paul made known to the Ephesians the mystical character of marriage and taught them that Marriage is a great mystery, and showed the analogy of the bond of marriage to the union of Christ with the Church, and appointed the man, according to Holy Scripture, to be the head of the woman, in the same way that Christ is the head of the Church, and taught that both the man and the woman, according to Holy Scripture, are one body and one spirit as members of the body of the Church, which is the body of Christ, who loved us as His own flesh, he recommends that each man likewise should love his own wife as Christ loved the Church.

A more perfect love than this love it was impossible for the Apostle to recommend to the man. Through this exhortation, he not only elevated love to its highest eminence, but also ennobled it, spiritualized it, and sanctified it. After this exhortation to the men and the definition of the relation of the man to the woman and of the degree and quality of the love toward her, and after the elevation of marriage to a purely sacred and spiritual eminence, and the expression of the duties of the man toward the woman, he proceeds to the expression and definition of the duties of the woman toward her own husband. All these he expresses through this saying: “and let the wife fear her husband.”

This saying, after what has been stated by Paul concerning the love of the husband toward his own wife and concerning the degree and quality of that love, the fear of which he speaks cannot at all express anything terrifying or intimidating for the woman. The Church, as the body of Christ, loves and at the same time fears our Lord Jesus Christ as her Savior and Head. This fear of the Church toward Jesus Christ is born from the great love toward Him who loved her, and it is expressed and manifested as utmost reverence toward Him, as reverence for His commandments, as complete submission to Him, and as eagerness to be pleasing to Him. This love of the Church toward the Savior is manifested as fear—lest she fall short in anything and be cast out of His love, being shown unworthy of it. Such is the fear of the Church toward the Savior Christ. In precisely the same sense and meaning, the Apostle writes that the wife should fear her husband.

Through this saying, the Apostle Paul sought the strengthening of the bonds of conjugal love; for just as the love and fear of the Church toward the Savior Christ make her more beloved as a bride to the Bridegroom Christ, so also the love and fear of the wife toward her own husband make her more beloved to him. That this fear has nothing in common with the fear implied by certain gentlemen who smirk at the time of the reading of this passage during the sacrament of marriage, and that this fear is sacred, pure, and just, and that it is enjoined upon women as a divine commandment for their own happiness and eternal blessedness and for the unbreakable bond of mutual love—we desire to demonstrate.

Concerning Fear

Fear is an innate feeling in man. This feeling is manifested as timidity, as awe, as terror in circumstances in which life is threatened with danger. Likewise, this feeling is manifested as agitation and anxiety in circumstances in which the honor or property of a person is threatened, whether justly or unjustly.

The degree of greater or lesser manifestation of fear or of agitation and anxiety is proportional either to the magnitude of the actual danger or to the magnitude of the aroused imagination. The feeling of fear is sometimes also manifested in circumstances in which nothing is actually threatened or endangered at the moment when a person is possessed by this feeling; it arises, however, from a possible danger in the future, which may result from our negligence concerning something dear to us. This feeling is manifested either as intense love toward something, or as profound reverence, or as extreme care, or as unceasing concern. Thus, fear, being manifested in various ways according to different circumstances and generated by various causes, must also be characterized in different ways. Hence, the fear manifested as awe or timidity or terror may be called natural, while the fear manifested as agitation and anxiety, as well as that which is manifested as love and reverence, may be called moral. Therefore, natural fear differs from moral fear in regard to the causes that arouse it.

Natural fear is always blameless and is classified among the blameless passions, having as its sole cause the danger of the loss of life. Moral fear is not always blameless; for it is twofold, as it arises from different moral causes according to quality—those of love and hatred. And just as the causes that generate it are opposed, so also are their respective characters. The fear that is born of love is sacred, pure, and just, and is manifested as sensitivity of soul for the beloved person, as care, as forethought, and as concern for them. This sacred fear is defined by Theophylact as an intensification of reverence, saying: “Fear (the sacred kind) is an intensification of reverence, just as reverence is a restrained fear.” And again: “Fear is modesty and reverence and intensified honor.” Oecumenius says the following about this fear: “Perfect fear is free from dread, and for this reason it is called pure and remains unto the ages of ages.” And in Holy Scripture the word fear is often used in the sense of modesty and reverence, and through it is expressed the longing for perfect knowledge and intimacy with the Divine. The fear arising from hatred is a polluted fear and is manifested as aversion and repulsion toward someone, as indifference, and as hostility. Regarding this type of fear, Clement of Alexandria says: “The other kind of fear arises along with hatred, such as that with which slaves regard harsh masters.”

Sacred fear is the fear toward God, the fear toward one’s parents, the fear toward one’s spouse, and the fear toward divine and human laws, and it springs from love.

Polluted fear is the fear of punishment. This is the fear felt by transgressors of divine and human laws. It springs from an evil conscience. The Church recommends to her own children the sacred, pure, and holy fear. This fear she also recommends to the woman entering into the union of marriage, who is placed under a new moral law; and she seeks this for the woman’s own happiness.

Sacred fear is dispassionate, for it threatens nothing dreadful. This fear, as a feeling, is identified with love, instilling reverent awe in the soul, lest, through the boldness that love brings, she should fall into contempt of her husband, as a certain Father says. Moral and pure fear is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Holy Scripture calls the fear of God. In Holy Scripture, the utmost righteousness is characterized as the fear of God: “A just man fears the Lord.” The fear of God in the Decalogue is the first and great commandment. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Saint Gregory the Theologian says: “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, as it were a first swaddling cloth; and wisdom, having transcended fear and raised it up to love, makes us friends and sons of God instead of slaves.” And Sirach says: “The crown of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, flourishing with peace and health of healing” (Sirach 1:15). The holy Fathers call the fear of God love toward God: “The fear of God is love toward Him; and love is like a cord, of which the one end depends on the heart of man, while the other touches the hand of God, who ever draws him toward His fear.” And Saint Basil the Great says: “Fear is saving and productive of sanctification.”

This sacred fear in Holy Scripture is identified with reverence and love toward someone. Thus did the interpreters and translators of the New Testament understand and interpret it. In the Greek translation of the Holy Scriptures published at Oxford, the verse in Ephesians 5:33 was rendered as follows: “Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife respect her husband.” In the Latin translation, it appears thus: “uxor autem videat ut timeat virum.” The timeo here, as is evident from the translation in other European languages, has the meaning of “to revere.” In the French translation of the Paris edition it is rendered: “que la femme respecte son mari.” In the Italian: “che altresì la moglie riverisca il marito.” In this sense, all European languages have translated this verse. And in the ancient Hebrew language, the fear toward God is interpreted by the interpreters as a fear arising from reverence, from piety. For example, the verse in Leviticus 19:3, “You shall fear every man, his mother and his father,” is interpreted as “you shall respect and reverence them.” Likewise, in the passage Joshua 4:14, “and they feared him (Joshua) as they had feared Moses all the days of his life,” it is interpreted by the lexicographers of the Hebrew-Greek dictionary M. N. Ph. Sauder and M. I. Trenel as: “comme ils avaient respecté Moïse” (“as they had respected Moses”). The same meaning is found in other passages of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. In this sense the Apostle Paul also used the word, against whom ladies unfairly direct their reproach, even though he exalts them to a most honored and elevated place. Therefore, the causes of divorces do not arise from this fear taught by Paul, but must be sought elsewhere—perhaps in the lack of this sacred fear.

 

Online: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post.html

Why must we forgive even when they do not ask us for forgiveness? – Saint Seraphim of Sarov

 

Forgiveness in Orthodox life is not a simple act of magnanimity, nor an emotional impulse that depends on whether the other person acknowledges their fault. It is, above all, a mystery of the heart. An invitation from God to man to pass from darkness into light, from the prison of thoughts into the freedom of the spirit. Saint Seraphim of Sarov emphasized that the peace of the soul is an invaluable treasure, and that every movement that unites us with grace has the power to bring light not only within us, but also to the world around us. Forgiveness is not the liberation of the other, it is our own liberation. It is not the justification of injustice; it is the healing of the wound. It is not a denial of pain; it is a confession that pain is not the final word. The soul that forgives, even when the other remains unrepentant, becomes a vessel of divine peace. Where it was struck and bled, there precisely a space opens for grace.

Why, then, should one forgive when not even a word of apology is heard? Why offer something the other does not ask for? The answer is not found in the other, but within us. Man has been created in the image of God, and God causes His sun to rise upon the evil and the good; He does not wait for us to ask forgiveness in order to grant us life. His love precedes our repentance. Forgiveness, therefore, is not imitation of man—it is imitation of God. When the soul holds on to resentment, it freezes, it hardens. It shuts the pores of the heart, which are made to breathe grace. It is like a man holding a burning coal to throw it at another, but in the meantime the coal burns his own hands. Saint Seraphim, with the gentleness that characterized him, used to say that anger drives away the presence of the Holy Spirit from the heart. And without that presence, there is no joy, no light, no consolation.

Forgiveness, as understood by the Church, is not a feeling—it is a decision and an ascetic practice. It is the conscious movement of the heart to abandon the thought of self-justification and to place humility in its stead. It does not mean that we forget, it does not mean that we excuse, it does not mean that we allow injustice to continue. It means that we remove the sin of the other from our heart so that it does not become our own burden. Saint Seraphim taught that a person’s peace is a candle that gives light. If the candle is extinguished by anger, jealousy, or injustice, then not only do we remain in darkness, but also those around us lose a source of light that God has given them. Forgiveness, then, is a ministry both to ourselves and to the world.

But there is a deeper dimension. Many times, the other person does not ask for forgiveness—not because they do not want to, but because they cannot. Their heart is wounded, confused, darkened. They have not yet reached the point where they can clearly see their fault. The fall saturates one’s vision with confusion. They may have grown up in such a way that they never learned what repentance means. They may be bound by passions, pride, fear. When this becomes a way of life, it leaves no room for self-reproach. This is why Christ on the Cross did not wait for those who crucified Him to ask for forgiveness. He prayed for them, saying that they did not know what they were doing. Ignorance does not justify the act, but it explains the depth of their delusion. When we forgive someone who does not ask for forgiveness, we often imitate this stance. We see behind the sin the person who is ignorant, who is unable, who is struggling in darkness. Forgiveness then becomes a prayer for enlightenment and healing.

Forgiveness does not concern only others; it also concerns how we see ourselves. Many times, we struggle to forgive not because we desire justice, but because pride dominates within us. He offended me, he wronged me, he belittled me. The ego becomes the center of our existence. The ego demands rebellion. Saint Nektarios said that the most subtle form of pride is our wounded speech—pretending to seek justice, while in truth we seek vindication. When we allow ourselves to be saturated with such thoughts, we become enslaved. But humility breaks the chains. It moves us from demand to freedom, from bitterness to peace, from pain to light. Forgiveness does not oppose the justice of God—it opposes our own hardness of heart. The heart that forgives becomes a place where the Holy Spirit finds rest. Saint Seraphim taught that the Christian must strive to acquire the Holy Spirit, because then everything within him is transformed. And forgiveness is among the first gifts that spring up where grace dwells. The heart cannot be full of light and at the same time hold a dark corner for any person. Light does not compromise with resentment. When we hand over the injustice to God, when we give space to divine justice and do not demand punishment or validation for ourselves, then the soul is set free. It is no longer hooked onto the past. Memory no longer devours its own flesh. Man becomes light, agile, full of peace—and then he can pray with a clear mind and goodness for all, even for those who caused him pain. Yet there is something more. Forgiveness opens the path for the miracles of the heart. How many times has change occurred in people's lives simply because someone forgave them even though they did not deserve it? How many times has a person who remained hardened been moved by another’s magnanimity and repented? God works through these silent movements of love. Forgiveness often becomes the first step for someone to encounter the light. Even if we never see any result, forgiveness is never wasted. It is not an act of social courtesy—it is a spiritual act, and every such act is inscribed in the heart of the one who receives it, even if they do not realize it at the time. When we do not forgive, we are, in fact, dependent on the other. We carry their existence within us in a negative way. We become slaves to the memory of the injustice. Forgiveness is the rupture of this bondage. It is the declaration that our heart is not ruled by the words of men, but by the peace of God. Saint Seraphim, with his radiant gentleness, often said that whoever keeps peace within becomes like a still lake in which the heavens are clearly reflected. If the lake is disturbed by winds of anger, resentment, and bitterness, then one can see nothing in its depths, and on its surface, there is only murkiness and darkness. Forgiveness restores serenity. To forgive without being asked for forgiveness is perhaps the most silent form of love. It has no cries, no triumphs, no explanations. It is a secret act seen only by God. And yet, this act has the power to change the world within us and around us.

The person who forgives becomes a bearer of peace. His heart becomes prayer. His life becomes testimony. When we forgive, we enter into an inner state that surpasses the limits of human reasoning. We no longer calculate who was right and who was wrong. We consider what the will of God is—and His will is clear: to love, to show mercy, to be peacemakers. What Saint Seraphim of Sarov saw and lived is neither small nor simple. It is the transcendence of the ego, the experience of divine peace, the path of healing and rebirth.

Whoever forgives becomes a partaker in the grace of God, because forgiveness is not a human invention—it is a divine gift. And when we offer it, even if the other does not have the strength to ask for forgiveness, then we too become light in a world that is in pain. We become a witness of love that knows no bounds. We become those who open paths of peace where everything seems closed.

Forgiveness is the way by which the heart keeps heaven open. And where heaven remains open, there grace descends, there God finds rest, there the soul breathes.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/11/blog-post_21.html

The Garden of the Panagia — a crumbling orchard-keeper hut of Orthodoxy

Ioannis Kornarakis

Emeritus Professor of the School of Theology, University of Athens

Greek source: Ιερά Παρακαταθήκη, August 2009.

 

 

“O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance, they have defiled Thy holy temple; they have made Jerusalem as it were the hut of an orchard-keeper.” (Psalm 78:1 [LXX])

The incursion of the papal heresy, in November of 2006, into the Ecumenical Patriarchate transformed Mount Athos—or rather its spiritual leadership, the abbots of its twenty Holy Monasteries—into an abandoned and desolate orchard-keeper hut of Orthodoxy!

The people of God, the fullness of the Church, were expecting the immediate and dynamic intervention of the Holy Mountain regarding the events that took place in the Phanar with the Pope’s visit and concelebration, as a self-evident manifestation of Orthodox reaction and witness—just as had occurred in the past under Patriarch Athenagoras, at the lifting of the anathemas, when the entirety of Mount Athos, its spiritual leadership, ceased the commemoration of his name!

But the spiritual leadership of today’s Mount Athos did not do the same!

It did not proclaim the Orthodox witness militantly with the well-known authority of the Athonite voice, as a corrective intervention against the arbitrary and flagrant patriarchal violations of the holy Canons of the Church.

On the contrary, it rewarded these unorthodox patriarchal actions by declaring its reverence for Mr. Bartholomew!

Thus, the guardians of Orthodox Tradition, the gatekeepers of the protection and safeguarding of the authority of the holy Canons of the Church, abandoned their post!

They denied themselves.

They left the vineyard of the Lord unfenced and unprotected and conformed to the present age of Ecumenism, of heterodox Christian syncretism.

They aligned themselves with the New Age minds of clergy and lay theologians, deniers of the truth of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, the Church of the holy Apostolic and Synodal Canons, of the Patristic Tradition!

This stance of the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos deprives the Orthodox Church today of the guardian and protector of the handed-down truths of her faith and teaching.

Today, Mount Athos has ceased to be a guarantee and support of Orthodoxy, a bastion of the rank of martyrs and confessors of Orthodoxy.

Today, Mount Athos resembles an orchard-keeper’s hut crumbled by ecumenism and heresy, now a monument of Athonite abandonment of the Garden of the Panagia!

This sorrowful fact is taking place today, at an hour and moment of advanced weakening of Orthodoxy by vital and vigilant forces of witness and confession, given that today bishops and archbishops and patriarchs, as well as clergy and lay theologians, arrogantly transfiguring themselves into a kind of ecclesiastical ecumenical council, utter unspeakable sayings of heresy “for the good” of Orthodoxy!

Heretical Christian communities are today recognized as churches; concelebrations with all kinds of heretics and common prayers are baptized as relationships of love; and every Orthodox truth is relegated to the bin of ecumenism, to be reinterpreted according to the new data of postmodernity, which demands the redefinition of everything in theology and, generally, in the life of the Church!

At this critical hour of the ecumenist tempest, the Athonite abbots did not hasten to show themselves as “a divine encampment and God-speaking warriors of the Lord’s host”!

They surrendered to cowardice and the fear of bearing witness, under the… heretical pretext of pious obedience to the person of the Patriarch!

Thus, they transformed their spiritual leadership into a crumbled orchard-keeper hut of the Garden of the Panagia!

They turned their backs on the shelter and protection of the Lady Abbess of Mount Athos.

They made their choice!

They chose to walk alongside the patriarchal ecumenist mindset!

 

Online: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2016/05/blog-post_52.html

Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios: “If someone should speak out and protest about things he ought to, but does not, well then, he is … spineless.”

(Excerpt from a transcribed homily on the Acts of the Apostles, delivered at the Church of Saint Charalambos of Larissa on March 10, 1991.)

 

 

[…] Furthermore, as Paul and Barnabas engaged in a lively discussion with these Jewish Christians [i.e., Judaizers], they were undoubtedly speaking in a high tone. It was not out of a disposition to speak loudly. But I only have to remind you of Paul in Paphos, before Sergius Paulus, when he spoke vehemently to that magician, Elymas. And he spoke harshly. Let me just tell you that Paul called those Jewish Christians “false brethren.” He even called them “dogs,” hounds. He also called them “evil workers,” and so on—those who continually created problems for the work of the evangelization of souls.

So, we might say: but shouldn’t a person be meek, calm? Does not the Apostle himself write, after all: “The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men”? In the Second Epistle to Timothy? That “the servant of the Lord,” he says, “must not strive but be gentle, mild, gentle, his behavior toward all in mild tones.” Is this not contradictory when it comes to speaking about matters of the faith? Of course, we should not discard politeness, but neither should we take away liveliness. It is not a matter of the manner in which a worldly man fights, one who is far from God. Certainly, in such situations one must be gentle. But here we are speaking of persistence and lively demonstrations for the understanding of the truth. Then how shall we speak? Shall we speak gently-gently, when the other is creating issues and problems? We shall speak with liveliness. And we shall cry out! This does not damage, does not destroy our gentleness.

Let me give you some examples. Moses is considered a meek man. The meek Moses. And yet, how many times did Moses not become angry against the people! What shall I remind you of? Shall I remind you of when he broke the tablets of the Law, saying in anger that such a people, who so readily fall into idolatry, do not deserve a God-written Law? What shall I tell you? When he struck the rock twice with his staff and said: “What do you want at last, for me to bring water out of this rock for you?” And this indeed became the cause—because Moses crossed a certain limit here—that he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land? And many other such instances. And yet Moses is the meek, the gentle one. Of course, his overall behavior was one of gentleness. But there were moments when he had to cry out.

Or shall I tell you about Saint Nicholas, who is called “a rule of faith and an icon of meekness,” when at the First Ecumenical Council he raises his hand and slaps Arius—a slap that Arius still remembers… We have a wall painting in the chapel of the so-called “Saint Demetrios” in our Catholicon, which perhaps is the chapel of Saint Nicholas, because all the scenes are from the life of Saint Nicholas, from the time he went to school and was learning his letters. It even has that image, wall paintings high up. And it also includes the First Ecumenical Council in one corner. Saint Nicholas raises his hand and slaps Arius. And yet, he is called a rule of meekness.

I want you to understand, my beloved, that meekness is one thing, and lively discussion—or even raising one’s voice—is another thing. It does not offend gentleness, meekness. In fact, if someone ought to speak out and protest and speak out again about things he ought to, but does not speak out, well then, he is… spineless. Then he is spineless. Without a doubt. In such a way that he creates a bad image, a bad impression. And do not forget, my beloved, that the nerve of anger was placed within us by God, as Saint Basil the Great says, precisely so that we may become angry against evil.

The Lord said to Satan: “Get behind Me, Satan,” with anger. The Lord took a whip, overturned the tables of the moneychangers. He opened the cages of the doves so they could come out. Did He do all this gently-gently, perhaps? How do you imagine it? Does the sacred text, as it narrates it to us, give us that kind of image? And Saint Basil the Great says: God placed within us the nerve of anger—but for good things. Not against our brother in the sense… because we want, out of egotism, to have our own way. If even the first-created had said to the devil exactly what Christ said: “Get away”—forgive me—“Get away, get lost from before our eyes,” that “Get behind Me” in modern Greek means exactly this: “Get lost. Be gone!” Why? When the Lord says to the devil “Go behind Me,” it means “I don’t want to see you.” Because someone who is behind us is not visible to us. In modern Greek, then, this is how it should be rendered: “Get lost.” If the first-created had said it like this, they would still be in Paradise… You see then how exactly we must act.

There are other cases in which we must speak with meekness to someone who is opposed, when we see that he is of good disposition, is ignorant, and is ready to listen to us. For this very reason, the Apostle himself writes in 2 Timothy 2:24 the following: “…but be gentle” (he says—meaning that the one who preaches the word of God must be gentle) “unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” (Explanation: “in meekness to instruct those who resist, who react,” in case “God might grant them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth,” and that they may “recover themselves from the devil’s snare,”—that is, be freed, come out of the devil’s trap—“being taken captive by him at his will,” meaning they are entangled, caught, that is, they have fallen into the net of the devil, so that they might be able to be delivered.)

Thus, of course, we shall raise our voice if needed—I return to this—but we shall not beat, we shall not kill those who oppose. Why do I say this? You’ll tell me it’s “an exaggeration.” If you read Church History, you will see this. That even murders occurred. Or, so as not to go too far back, how many times did the Jews, in the name of the Law, have feet swift to shed blood. I remind you of those forty men, zealots, who swore not to eat unless they killed Paul within 24 hours. God does not will such things. And just as the Lord spoke of this perversion of spiritual zeal—it is indeed a perversion—He said: “The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” That they offer worship to God by killing you. This is a perversion.

 

Greek source: https://enromiosini.gr/arthrografia/p-athanasios-mytilinaios-an/

Our Struggle Against the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

Are We in Alignment with the Church’s Tradition regarding Heresy and the Defense of the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints? [1]

Bishop Sergios of Loch Lomond (later G.O.C. Bishop of Portland)

 

 

As a result of the unprecedented abandoning of the Church’s historic view of Herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, [2] which began to be implemented after the First World War in Constantinople, a faithful and continuing Orthodox Church emerged after 1924 in Greece among laymen and clergy and, by 1935, this faithful Church had recruited Hierarchs to its ranks. [3]

It cannot be overemphasized that while the event that triggered such a serious reaction as the cessation of Eucharistic communion was indeed the violent introduction of the contemporary Gregorian calendar in Greece in 1924, the calendar as such is not the sole source of our dismay.

At the heart of our dismay is the introduction of a radically-altered doctrine of the Church by the historic Patriarchates, which effectively replaced the historic creedal belief concerning a one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church with a radically different doctrine, rooted in the religious syncretism of the heretical western confessions. This extremist syncretist doctrine is particularly troubling in its attempt to equate the Orthodox Church with heretical western confessions who bear little, if any, resemblance to the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] I repeat: the calendar change is an issue because it served as a vehicle for a radical, extremist shift in the doctrine of the Church. The calendar was changed so that the Church might be changed. The calendar was changed in order to forward an agenda hostile to the Church. [5] The calendar was used as a Trojan horse by syncretists within the Greek government working with like-minded men within a Church led by bishops whom the government had itself put in place.

Brooding over the entire Post-World War One ecclesiastical crisis is the unstable figure of Meletios Metaxakis, [6] successively Bishop of Kition (Cyprus), Archbishop of Athens, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Patriarch of Alexandria, a life-long Freemason, impatient to be rid of what he saw as the dead hand of Orthodox Tradition, and of its base in the Patristic Consensus. [7]

The sudden, violent destruction of the Church of Russia by Marxist atheists after 1917 removed the largest body of theologically conservative hierarchs from the international counsels of the Church, and eased the way for the uncritical acceptance of syncretist ideas from the West.

Above all, the syncretist notions of worldwide Freemasonry seem to have exerted a disproportionate influence over more than a few hierarchs in the Mediterranean world. This would have a destabilizing effect on the life and work of the Church in the region, paving the way for the warm reception of syncretism by some Orthodox hierarchs, whose openness to syncretism converged with the new political reality brought about by Greek Prime Minister Emmanuel Venizelos. [8]

At the same time as the compromising of Orthodoxy in Constantinople, which spread to Greece in 1924, and then to large sections of the Orthodox world, there emerged a movement amongst Protestants, designed to implement syncretist ideas within their own denominations, based on their own theological assumptions. This movement will become the ecumenical movement, whose chief institutional expressions are the World Council of Churches (est. 1948) and its regional affiliates.

By today, all but two of the historic Orthodox Patriarchates are members of one or the other of these Protestant-based institutions, or of both. [9]

In addition to its role among the West’s various religious bodies, the term Ecumenism now plays a role in secular culture as well. What seems to be the common element between religious Ecumenism and secular Ecumenism are such common ideals as tolerance and inclusivism. The familiar secular rainbow coalitions in North America are expressions of this secular Ecumenism, and the popularity of these coalitions with syncretist-Ecumenists reflects the easy interface between the “two Ecumenisms”.

You and I are probably aware that the so-called “ideals” of syncretist Ecumenism are bogus as such: the tolerance they adore is highly selective, as is their inclusiveness, since they sharply reject anything that smacks of traditional Christianity.

I don’t have to rehearse the list of contemporary causes that deeply motivate these people, covering contemporary sexual, social and political issues. If anyone wants to verify the bogus quality of their ideals, just question these causes, citing normative Judaeo-Christian values, and note how quickly all talk of tolerance and inclusiveness disappears, to be replaced with dogmatic, hardline secularism.

The Church’s insistence on living in a manner consistent with normative Orthodox Tradition, instead of paying lip-service to Tradition while acting in a manner that contradicts it, clearly puts the Church in an adversarial position with the vast majority of those who today call themselves Orthodox Christians - but who paradoxically continue to live under the jurisdiction of Ecumenist hierarchs. And among these people, none seems to take issue with us more vehemently than the self-styled traditionalists who remain loyal to their syncretist-Ecumenist bishops despite the inconsistency this involves. [10]

In connection with this issue, we have to acknowledge a principle of the canonical order of the Church, which goes against the grain of contemporary secular values.

This principle has to do with the fact that in the Church, our faith is not defined by our subjective, personal views. The fact is that the individual Orthodox Christian is defined by the faith of his Bishop. As my Bishop believes and teaches, so believe I. This principle is inconsistent with dominant secular values, especially in the individualistic English-speaking world. But it is a fact of the Church’s basic constitution, nonetheless. [11] One of the primary problems created by syncretist-Ecumenism is that it dismantles the Church’s understanding of the place of bishops in her life.

Nothing proves this fact better than Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council (861 and 869 A.D.), which decrees that if a Christian hears his bishop preaching heresy with a “bared head” in the churches, he must flee then and there. [12] No provision is made for staying and fighting from within. That very idea is political, and is as inappropriate as it has proved to be ineffective, in matters of faith and conscience.

Obviously, if the bishop’s faith had nothing to do with me, why would I be told to flee his jurisdiction when he publicly brandishes his faith in heresy?

The Church’s concern to correct mistaken views about herself has been with us from the beginning. Before the “Peace of the Church” initiated by St Constantine the Great in the 4th century, an entire group collectively known as the “Apologists” [13] undertook the work of correcting what were, at times, scandalously mistaken charges against Christianity. Our task today - drawing attention to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism - and breaking communion with the Ecumenist Patriarchates, although triggering aggressive and irresponsible charges against ourselves, constitutes a contemporary Apologetics consistent with the practice of the Church from the earliest era.

Unlike the primary English use of the term apology, which has something to do with being sorry, apology and apologetics as technical Christian terms, from the Greek, mean defense: the defense of Christianity against Judaism or paganism, for example, or of Orthodoxy against heresy.

In order to assess whether our contemporary practice regarding heresy is consistent with the Church’s traditional approach, I thought it might be helpful for all of us who are concerned with these issues to review the matter as encountered in the New Testament.

Our first text [14] will be very familiar to all of you:

“He [Jesus] asked His disciples, saying, ‘Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?’ And they said, ‘Some say that Thou art John the Baptist, some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.’ He saith unto them, ‘But Whom say ye that I am?’ And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Which is in heaven.’”

Clearly this is a defining moment in our Saviour’s doctrinal relationship with His Disciples.

I would suggest that it may be helpful to see this interrogation as an instance of the issue of Orthodoxy vs heresy. Christ’s concern is that His Disciples understand His true identity, as opposed to inauthentic identities. We need the real Christ, not a substitute. Substitute Christs don’t save.

What I want to emphasize is that the initiative in raising this doctrinal issue and the Saviour’s insistence that the Apostles get it right - the initiative in all this is with our Saviour. The issue of true vs false has been with us from the beginning. This point is critical, as we deal with attacks against us, above all, by traditionalists in the Ecumenist jurisdictions.

The current, essentially secular, dismissal of all religious differences with the irenic, inclusive phrase “Well, it’s all the same God” looks pretty shallow, in view of the intensity with which our Lord Jesus Christ takes the matter of doctrinal truth!

Since I’ve mentioned these attacks by self-described traditionalists who paradoxically remain under the jurisdiction of ecumenist bishops, this might be a good place to look at some recent attacks, posted to a popular blog called Monomakhos. [15]

Writing on September 29 of this year [2012], Peter Papoutsis says that the “old-calendarists” are “fundamentalists and schismatics and NOT traditional,” and that “fundamentalism” has “nothing to do with traditional Orthodoxy,” that it is a “heresy” and has “no place in our [meaning, his Ecumenist] Church.”

The same day, Archpriest John W. Morris, a priest of the Antiochian Archdiocese, writes - referring to us - “Unfortunately, there are those who are obsessed with externals and make them the measure of Orthodoxy… People who make a dogma out of using the Julian Calendar.” He agrees with Peter Papoutsis: “You are right, most of these people are schismatics.”

The same day, a Father Ambrose posted that he “would make a distinction between what I call the Greek Old Calendarist mentality, which is schismatic.”

The matter that for us is central, namely, syncretist Ecumenism, is not mentioned in these criticisms, (chosen because so typical). It is as if someone had reviewed Moby Dick, and forgot to mention the whale! We are routinely dismissed as schismatic, as obsessed with externals and as having dogmatized an outdated calendar; we are fundamentalists (one of the most damning words in the Ecumenist vocabulary). But the actual issue that does motivate us - syncretist Ecumenism - is rarely referred to. This tactic does not indicate any great desire on our critics’ part to engage in real conversation.

Since the charge of schism is so routinely leveled against us, this is a good place to recall the words of our Saviour, found in St. Matthew’s Gospel: “Not every one that saith unto me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter into the kingdom. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? And in Thy name done many wonderful works?’ And then I will profess unto them, ‘I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.’” [16]

I think it is clear enough that the schism that we really do need to avoid is being in schism from Jesus Christ. The question that I would direct to these self-styled traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions is: How can you be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, while acknowledging the canonical oversight of heretical bishops, who are members of Synods that are embodied members of the World Council of Churches, and/or of one of its regional affiliates - or who are in communion with the Ecumenist Oecumenical Patriarchate?

Moving on, a recent formal statement by the Synod of the Ecumenist Patriarchate of Constantinople goes even further in attacking traditionalists, and what is particularly curious is that their Synod directed its attack against traditionalists within its own ranks, with whom it is in communion! [17] Patriarch Bartholomew and his Synod describe their own traditionalist spiritual children as “fanatics” and “bigots”! Well, I suppose it’s always nice to know where you stand with your Bishop!

The Church is the Body of Christ [18] and therefore, the questions raised by Christ Himself concerning doctrine, and aimed at his Apostles, engage the Apostolic Church directly. There is no other way than this to read the New Testament. This not only allows us, but obligates us to deal with questions of Who Christ is, what His identity means - and, having grasped this, we have every obligation to defend what we know, that is, to defend the fundamental doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is this not what we find the Apostles and their associates doing in the New Testament? Yes, it is what we find, undeniably!

It is my conviction that our contemporary apologetics in this age of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism does not make us fanatics, or bigots, nor does it point to some sort of schismatic personality disorder. It does place us in direct, organic continuity with the Church’s practice from the New Testament forward, both in the work of defense, or apologetics, and in the task of identifying, evaluating, quarantining and rejecting heresy, as we affirm the Truth. [19]

My second example of the treatment of heresy in the New Testament comes from St. Paul. In 2 Corinthians, he wrote the following accusation:

“If he that cometh [to you in Corinth] preacheth another Jesus Whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, Which ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him [that is, you might agree with him].” [20]

Please note St. Paul’s words in the context of our examination of heresy, and of the kind of problems heresy creates for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Please note St. Paul’s point in bringing up the problem of false teaching from false teachers, and of the bitter fruit of these falsehoods, the problem of ending up with another Jesus, another Spirit, another Gospel. Why bring it up - unless accepting some other Jesus, some other Spirit, some other Gospel affects salvation.

Is our concern today for these matters pharisaical, revealing some unhealthy need to prove that we are more correct than others, better than others, “holier than thou”? Does our concern mean that we are fanatics obsessed with externals, or that we have some kind of schismatic personality disorder - that we are bigots?

I reject these accusations. I do not understand how anyone, clothed and in his right mind, [21] can level these accusations. Can it be that all those self-styled traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions are not asking questions about Truth?

In fact, I would insist that the canonical order of the Church, and its Patristic Consensus, point in exactly the opposite direction, since they, the Holy Fathers, demonstrated great concern regarding these matters. After all, did not St. Maximos the Confessor (580-662 A.D.), when the Patriarch of Constantinople embraced heresy, say, “Even if the whole universe began to commune with the Patriarch, I will not” [22] - and this breaking of Eucharistic communion with heretical hierarchs was hardly unique to St. Maximos! He stood with the tradition, not against it!

If the mere fact that we refrain from Eucharistic communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (today, an avid syncretist-Ecumenist) makes us schismatics, we are in very, very good company indeed. But it does not make us schismatics, since by refraining from communion with heretical hierarchs, we avoid being in schism from our Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord. How else can the canonical order of the Church be understood?

What is at stake here is, after all, simple enough: the bogus Christ, Who did not die and rise for us, cannot save us. What is at stake here is our salvation. Christ knew this; the Apostles knew this; the Fathers of Church knew this, the Martyrs knew this, the Oecumenical and Regional Synods knew this. We know this. Do the self-styled traditionalists - who are in communion with Ecumenist bishops - do they not know this?

Apparently, these self-styled traditionalists within the Ecumenist jurisdictions are prepared to pursue their spiritual lives on the basis of a glaring contradiction. Their justification for remaining under Ecumenist bishops is evidently based on the idea that they are fighting from within. One would have thought that the history of quite a number of now-depleted American denominations (starting with the Episcopalians and their famous “Anglican comprehensiveness”), who made fighting from within a battle cry, would have inoculated any serious Orthodox Christian against the idea. After all, that battle is over, and we all know who won. How can anyone possibly square the idea of fighting from within with the actual history of the Church?

That said, I would concede that fighting from within does have a legitimate venue. That venue is the arena of politics. One can fight from within one’s political party for a particular “plank” to be added to, or removed from, the party platform, for sure.

But in the arena of the Church, I would reject any idea of fighting from within. I do not think it is appropriate to invoke the political methodology of Machiavelli or his progeny within the Body of Christ. Nor do the canons support such an idea. They tell us to flee heretical bishops. There is no provision for fighting from within.

I believe that to argue otherwise is to misconstrue the actual canonical meaning of the episcopal ministry in the Church. We do not privatize nor do we compartmentalize our own individual faith apart from the faith of our Bishop. I believe that to do this, one effectively detaches the Bishop from the Church and its faith - from his own distinctive ministry, in fact.

I believe that the position of men and women today, who call themselves Orthodox but who elect to remain in communion with Ecumenist bishops, cannot be sustained on the basis of the doctrinal decrees of the Oecumenical and Regional Synods, or on the basis of the canonical order of the Church, or on the basis of the lives of the Saints.

We do not forget the sobering words of our Saviour cited above: I never knew you. And this, to those who called Him Lord and worked miracles in His name! If we want to discuss schism, I never knew you might be a good place to begin.

I repeat: the inconsistency, the contradiction, involved with the so-called Orthodox traditionalists who remain in communion with Ecumenist bishops contradict the Church’s understanding of heresy. Is there any other way to construe this? [23]

Now, if this view ends up having a divisive (schismatic) impact somewhere, then it does, doesn’t it? If some run after another Jesus, another Spirit, another Gospel - then they do. The Church will warn; the Church will explain; the Church will exhort and defend; the Church will continue to preach a straight line concerning the real Christ, the real Spirit, the real Gospel. What else would the Church be expected to do?

Will the result of this action exclude someone and create divisions, that is, schisms? Well, yes, it will. It certainly did in the New Testament. And take a look at the history of the Church during the crises provoked by Arianism and Semi-Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, the crisis of the encounter with western theology and anthropology during the era of the Palamite Councils: divisions galore! And yes, always tragic, but - in the light of man’s God-given freedom - evidently unavoidable. [24]

I have to say, in our ecumenical age, there are a lot of people who are a lot more careful about buying a car, or buying a pair of shoes, or buying a bottle of wine, than they are about buying into their bishop’s faith - or lack of it!

Continuing our review of Scriptural precedents for the situation we find ourselves in today, let us turn to a matter as recorded in St. John’s Gospel [25] that is of critical importance to this question. The quoted material is extensive, but you are all familiar with the narrative and will have no difficulty in following our Saviour’s point clearly:

“… my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. And Jesus said unto them, ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger: and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (…) he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying, who can hear it?’

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, ‘Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (…)

From that time, many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Then Jesus said unto the twelve, ‘Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.’” [26]

Like the intense moment concerning Christ’s identity in St. Matthew that we studied earlier (pp. 3-4), so here in St. John we are witnessing another intense moment in the life of our Saviour and His interaction with His immediate followers. As in St. Matthew, here again Christ confronts us with the question of His identity, of Who He is, and the issue is here, as before, the fundamental issue of truth. And as before, it is Christ Who raises the question; the question comes to us from our Saviour at the origins of the Church.

And just as Christ asked the Apostles, He asks us, are we offended by this truth? Will we also walk away from it? Away from Him? A burning question.

Or will we make mental compromises and detach Christ from His real identity - as it is given here, in St. John’s Gospel? Will we fabricate another Christ Who will be easy on us, and with whom we can live untroubled lives, a Christ stripped of His genuine identity, and the hard sayings that His real identity involves?

And is this fabrication of bogus Christs not at the very heart and core of syncretist Ecumenism? And is this not the explanation of why we choose to stand outside the communion of all those great, historic Patriarchates, who today have bought into syncretist Ecumenism, hook, line and sinker - and who revile and denounce any who question them, as we have seen?

The Church is the Body of Christ: dismantle the foundations of the Church - by joining her to the World and Regional Councils of Churches - and one inevitably dismantles the identity of Christ of the Gospels.

The point is clear: If contemporary syncretist Ecumenism throws its considerable weight behind a left-wing approach to today’s social, political or sexual issues, supporting - as it unarguably does - a remarkably left-wing position on such issues as marriage or sexual orientation - as it is doing - how do you square this with the Christ of the Gospels? You cannot. And the blunt truth is that this makes mincemeat of the claim by the Ecumenist Patriarchates that their representatives to the World and Regional Councils of Churches are there in order to witness to Orthodoxy. What witness would that be?

For heaven’s sake: the current Patriarch, Bartholomew, in an interview a few years ago with the San Francisco Chronicle’s star reporter, Herb Caan, admitted that he supports abortion! [27] Witness to Orthodoxy? This same Patriarch has decorated two of the most avid pro-abortion Congressmen in Washington - Senators Paul Sarbanes and Olympia Snowe. [28] And we are asked to accept that the so-called “Orthodox” representatives to the World Council of Churches are there to witness to Orthodoxy? Anyone here interested in a bridge I know about in Brooklyn?

But since the syncretist Ecumenists believe that the secular agenda is in fact the norm, it means that Scripture has ceased to be normative for them. This is why they need to fabricate a new Christ. False ideas of Christ are precisely what Christ spoke out against, as we have seen in the Scripture quoted earlier. What is going on here?

And this is where we come to the parting of the ways with syncretist Ecumenism. Have we forgotten St. Paul’s sharp words to his Corinthians regarding the preaching of another Jesus Whom we have not preached, and of another Spirit, Which ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted? Is it even possible that the self-styled traditionalists fighting from within the communion of syncretist-Ecumenist bishops do not hear what we hear when we read St. Paul’s urgent warning?

We are not arguing over externals. We just want to hold on to the real Christ, Who rose from the dead for us and for our salvation. Period. This is why we will not hold communion with the Oecumenical Patriarch or with any who hold communion with him. The issue is salvation in Christ. I have to confess, I do not see this as a fight over externals. Do these self-styled traditionalists see Christ and salvation as externals?

So, where is this desire on our part to engage in one-upmanship with non-Orthodox or with self-styled traditionalists fighting from within Ecumenist jurisdictions? Where is this pharisaical obsession with externals, this so-to-speak “schismatic personality disorder”, of which we are accused? What utter nonsense! None of these accusations hits their target, in fact - and none of them does the accusers any credit.

In the extensively recorded incident from St. John cited above concerning the Flesh and Blood of Christ, He is dealing of course with Jews, with their detailed kosher dietary laws, and He is confronting them with Who He is, what He is up to, what the agenda is. And addressing this group of kosher Jews, He is speaking about the eating and drinking of His own Flesh and Blood.

Their reply is an understatement: “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” And Christ’s reply to their dismay is: “Doth this offend you?”

And yes, it did. And we see that the result of proclaiming this hard truth is that “many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.”

Is the result of Christ’s truth divisive? Does it show distinct schismatic tendencies - that is, some inner compulsion to exclude somebody? Is it intolerant? Is it lacking in Anglican comprehensiveness?

Is our Saviour’s teaching an instance of fanaticism or bigotry? Fundamentalism, perhaps?

You tell me. But when our Saviour asks, Doth this offend you?, the “this” that potentially offends is the Truth, however unpalatable this particular Truth is to those who are about to “no longer walk with Him” - AND, please note: this is a price our Saviour and the Twelve are fully prepared to pay for Truth.

This is the scale of what is at stake; this is its sobering immensity. To put it one way, what is at stake is that you and I never hear our Saviour say to us, I never knew you.

The question always has to be, is Christ here, or is He absent? Is the Truth here, or is it not? Here are the real questions. My parish’s roster of clergy, their skills and shortcomings, the character of our coffee hour and our programs and the level of preaching and the ease of access from a major road - all take a back seat to the fundamental questions.

And it is just here, at this very point, that the great problem of syncretist Ecumenism intrudes itself into local communities. While the syncretist Ecumenists preach love, dialogue and unity, what they offer, in fact, is another Christ. Another Spirit. Another Gospel. If we were paying attention during the reading of the Scriptures cited above, we realize just how destructive the preaching and accepting of a bogus Christ, a sham Spirit and a fake Gospel is, in the eyes of the Lord and of St. Paul, among others!

Our issue is not a pharisaical obsession with externals - the issue is our devotion to Truth, and our faithfulness to Christ.

And it may be relevant to note just how far to the left the social, political and syncretist agendas of the World Council of Churches and its regional affiliates are, in fact. In order to square the historic Christ with the syncretist/Ecumenist agenda, with its extremist, radical views of contemporary social, political and sexual issues, the Christ they end up with has lost its Scriptural anchor. They have truly come up with another Christ. And the Ecumenists call us extremists!

Pardon us if we find both the presence of the so-called traditionalists in Ecumenist jurisdictions and their justification for their presence there - their fighting from within slogan… self-contradictory - that is, saying one thing, but doing just the opposite. And it goes without much saying that none of these contradictions, these inconsistencies, survives the Lord’s straightforward command to “let your communication be, ‘Yea, yea’; ‘Nay, nay’: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” [29] Self-contradiction is not one of the traits recommended to believers!

I end by saying that when our critics decide to discuss the matter of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, I know very many in our midst who will volunteer to join that discussion. As God wills, I would be there myself!

And if people call us names - they call us names. Heretics called the holy Hesychasts “navel-gazers” (omphaloskopoi) in the 14th century during the encounter between St Gregory Palamas and his western opponent, Barlaam of Calabria, and in the 19th century, the holy Fathers concerned for the integrity of the liturgical/mysteriological life, were derisively called the boiled wheat men (kollyvades); and today they call us, old calendarists - as if our only issue involved a matter of 13 days! It is an issue, but it is hardly the only one. Our primary discontent is with the pan-heresy of Ecumenism itself, “smuggled” into the Church by means of that unasked-for calendar change.

And the sole purpose of all these pejorative nick-names hurled at the Church by a long line of heretics over the centuries, was to make the Orthodox position, and those holding it, appear to be ridiculous!

We can live with name-calling and finger-pointing today, as did the Fathers in their day. Bless them that persecute you. [30] So, we will say, May God bless our critics, every last one of them! With apologies for errors and a lengthy presentation, I thank you for your attention.

[I also thank many thoughtful readers whose criticisms of the original paper are valued, and often incorporated, in this post-Conference revision of the original paper. All errors of fact or judgment are mine alone.]

 

(Revised for printed distribution, October 16, 2012.)

 

ENDNOTES

1. The phrase Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism is from Archimandrite Justin Popovic (+1979), noted Serbian theologian and ascetic. See his Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Lazarica Press, 2000, for context. See also <http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theo_en/ E3a4012Popovic.pdf>, “Orthodoxy and Ecumenism: An Orthodox Appraisal and Testimony,” Archimandrite Justin (Popovic).

2. The phrase is, of course, from the Nicene Creed.

3. Among the studies covering this: The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, Archbishop Chrysostomos et al., Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1985; The Struggle Against Ecumenism, [Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston], Holy Orthodox Church in North America, 1998; New Zion in Babylon: The Orthodox Church in the 20th Century, V. Moss, 2008 (on-line); “The Old Calendarists,” Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in Minorities in Greece, Richard Clogg, ed., 2002; The Old Calendarists and the Rise of Religious Conservatism in Greece, Dimitri Kitsikis, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1995. The literature, though extensive, is of uneven quality. The brief essays by K. Ware and D. Kitsikis are particularly important. The definitive study remains to be written. Syncretist ideas began to be heard in Constantinople before Meletios Metaxakis’ reign, in fact: heard, but not yet implemented.

4. Jude 3.

5. The single best glimpse we have of a smoking gun in connection with the purpose behind the calendar change is the infamous 1916 letter to Emmanuel Venizelos from his minister, Andreas Michalakopoulos, cited above in the essay by D. Kitsikis. Nothing exposes the sinister agenda that overthrew the Church in Greece more compellingly than this disturbing and Machiavellian political conspiracy against the canonical integrity of the Church of Greece. One thing is clear: at a fundamental level, the calendar change had little to do with calendars as far as those responsible for the change were concerned, and everything to do with transforming the Greek Church into an erastian Protestant denomination. See also Struggle Against Ecumenism, pp. 26-27.

6. For a concise summary of Meletios Metaxakis’ biography, see: Struggle Against Ecumenism, pp. 29-38.

7. For an entirely different, positive, view of Meletios Metaxakis and his agenda see A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church: The 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress, by Antiochian Archdiocese Priest, Fr Patrick Viscuso, InterOrthodox Press, 2006. Note especially Antiochian Metropolitan Philip Saliba’s assessment of this book on its back cover.

8. D. Kitsikis’ essay, cited above, provides a clear view of the matter, with documentation.

9. See the World Council of Churches website: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/handbook/global-bodies-and-mission-communions/ wcc.html?print=1%253Fprint%253D1print%D1%253Fprint%253D1#c23067>.  See also <http://www.oikoumene.org/en/ handbook/church-families/orthodox-churches-eastern/dictionary-of-the-ecumenical-movement-eastern-orthodoxy.html> This list is current.

10. On this urgent question, see an excellent multi-part presentation on YouTube by Father Maximos (Marretta), Ekonomos of Ascension Monastery in Bearsville, NY, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNI2A45q61c.

11. Ironically, the early work of John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist – Bishop – Church, Holy Cross Press, 2001 (in fact, Zizioulas’ Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Athens in 1965) – remains the best study of the integral bond between the Bishop, his faith, his Eucharist, and his Church. Zizioulas, now Metropolitan of Pergamon in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after years of teaching academic theology in western universities, has become, sadly, one of the most Ecumenist hierarchs in that ecumenist Patriarchate.

12. A good summary of this Council and its significance: is found in the essay, “The Life of St Photios,” by Fr Justin Popovic, in On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, by St Photios of Constantinople, translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Studion Publishers, 1983, especially pp. 42-55. See also The Rudder, Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983, pp. 470-471.

13. See Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. Revised, 2005, p. 88.

14. St Matthew 16:13-17.

15. http://www.monomakhos.com/category/a-michalopulos-blog/

16. St Matthew 7: 21-23. Again, we are not trying to win an argument here; the Church does have a clear obligation to raise the questions that guide people to the Truth, and this Truth is always Jesus Christ the Lord.

18. The full statement is at <http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/sunday-orthodoxy-2010>.

18. Cf. Romans 12:5; i Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:12; Hebrews 13:3; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24.

19. Note St Paul’s admonition in Titus 3:10.

20. 2 Corinthians 11:4. St Paul accuses his Corinthian Church of being quite capable of running off after some other Gospel, preaching some other Jesus, some other Spirit, that contradicts his own apostolic preaching. St Paul is here making one of the most blatantly anti-ecumenist assertions that occurs in Scripture. St Paul is not in some kind of competition with other apostolic leaders – he is not asserting that he is, so-to-speak holier than thou, that is, better than someone else. His claim needs to be understood clearly: he knows the truth concerning Christ. St Paul demonstrates no interest at all in inclusiveness, in tolerance for any other preaching by any other self- appointed “apostles” of some “other Jesus”, some “other Gospel”, some “other Spirit”. None at all. We are in something of a “boot camp of the Christian mind”: this is what is true; that is what is untrue. Choose the truth.

21. St Luke 8:35.

22. http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/saints/maximos_confessor.htm

23. See again the reference to Father Maximos (Marretta’s) valuable presentation in footnote 10, above.

24. The Oecumenical Synods of the Orthodox Church: A Concise History, by Father James Thornton, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2007, provides an excellent summary of these doctrinal struggles.

25. The narrative begins at St John 6:32.

26. St John 6: 32-33; 35; 47-63; 66-69.

27. http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/a-patriarch-who-generally-speaking-respects-human-life/

28. http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/the-post-orthodox-orthodox/

29. St Matthew 5: 37. In plain English this reads “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and let your ‘No’ be ‘No’”, of course. It does not get a lot plainer than this. The command (and the ethic behind it) covers a state of interior consistency, as do the Canons of the Church, such as Canon 15 of the 1st-2nd Council, cited above at footnote 10. The same point is made at St Matthew 6:22, “If… thine eye be single… But if thine eye be evil…” Double-mindedness, “double-think” are rejected as “evil”. A Christian does not speak or act with his fingers crossed behind his back. The normal English term for this state of things is hypocrisy, of course.

30. Romans 12: 14. Also, Matthew 5: 11-12 and 5: 44.

 

Source: Orthodox Youth Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 6, 2012.

Original lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GXicy_2ZXE&t=11s