Friday, January 31, 2025

Hieromonk Lavrentie: The Correct Response to the Emergence of a New Heresy

Summarizing what has been said so far, the requirement that all the faithful must necessarily confront doctrinal deviations as they arise, regardless of their theological training, as St. Theodore the Studite demanded, is excessive. It would indeed be beneficial if this were to happen, but it is beyond the capacity of many, who still have much work to do on their own souls and must first strengthen their faith before publicly rebuking various complex doctrinal errors. This is precisely why Synods are necessary—to define Orthodoxy without doubt and to ensure that it is followed by all without exception.

On the other hand, the canons cited, as well as others (such as Apostolic Canon 31 and Canon 3 of the Third Ecumenical Council), allow and praise those who defend the faith when it is under attack by new heresies. Their purpose is not merely to safeguard themselves and separate from the body of believers who remain in communion with heretical bishops, but to rebuke and confront those hierarchs, even by ceasing their commemoration, to draw attention to their teachings, which are harmful to the Church and place them in contradiction with their role as guardians of the flock. They are no longer commemorated in services to signify that they have abandoned their episcopal calling.

Of course, today's struggle against Ecumenism operates on two distinct levels: dogmatic counter-argumentation and the exposure of the betrayal by hierarchs. A well-structured refutation of ecumenist errors facilitates and clarifies the confrontation with bishops, whereas an uncalculated and even passionate reaction against them unfortunately leads to tensions that hinder the understanding and discussion of matters of faith.

But above all these important patristic and canonical details stands prayer and God's help, which alone can open the mind to a correct and salvific understanding of our pure faith.

 

Romanian source:

https://theodosie.ro/2024/05/06/intreruperea-pomenirii-este-conform-canoanelor-o-mustrare-a-episcopului-pentru-erezie/

Elder Eugenios of Piraeus

Archimandrite Eugenios Limonis (1875–1961)


The blessed Archimandrite Eugenios Limonis [1] of Panteleimonas, known in the world as Evangelos, was born in 1875 in Chotsista [2], Korça, in Northern Epirus. He was a graduate of the School of Letters and served as a public teacher in his village, while also being an excellent connoisseur of Byzantine music.

He had great reverence for the Theotokos, and, as we shall see, almost all the events of his life were connected with Her. The blessed Elder Chrysanthos Vrettaros, who knew and especially honored Papa-Eugenios, recounts the following:

"At a school in Northern Epirus, where he was a teacher, the Turkish occupier, following the instigation of the Turco-Albanians, intended to set it on fire and burn it down. The Orthodox Albanians revealed this plan to Evangelos, who responded: 'We have faith in the Theotokos, and the Theotokos will protect us.' When the Turks decided to go to the school to burn it, they saw before them a mountain, which they passed through without realizing the existence of the school, and thus they departed without accomplishing anything. When Evangelos was asked how he and the school remained unharmed, he told everyone that he had been reading the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos, and that the Most Holy Theotokos became a wall and a shelter, preventing the school from being burned by the occupiers." [3]

Father Eugenios visited Mount Athos for the first time in 1902 with the intention of becoming a monk. However, he ultimately returned to care for his parents, who were in need, until 1909, when he joined the brotherhood of the Holy Monastery of Dionysiou. He was tonsured a monk and distinguished himself for his obedience and monastic exactitude. He received the great Mystery of the Priesthood from Bishop Paisios Papapaisios of Nyssa (†1924) on June 28, 1917, [4] at the mature age of 42.

At the end of 1927, Papa-Eugenios, together with other Athonite Fathers, went out into the world to support the holy struggle for the Patristic Calendar. He placed himself at the service of the Greek Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox, which sent him wherever there was a pastoral need.

During one of these missions, he was arrested for the first time by the police following actions taken by the Innovator Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. Specifically, on March 10/23, 1929, a Saturday of the First Week of Lent (the Commemoration of the Miracle of Saint Theodore with the Kollyva), Father Eugenios was sent by the Community to Magoula, Eleusis, at the request of the Genuine Orthodox there. The police arrested him by order of the Archbishop, but the people of Magoula marched to Athens, and together with faithful from Athens and Piraeus—who had been mobilized by the Athonite Hieromonks Parthenios Skourlis and Gideon Pasios [5]—succeeded in securing the release of Father Eugenios.

Nevertheless, on another occasion, he did not escape imprisonment. The historical Patria records the following:

"'How are you, Father Gerasimos? Don’t you recognize me? I am Father Eugenios.'

"He was wearing a priest’s kalymavchion instead of the monastic Athonite skouphos he usually wore, which is why Father Gerasimos did not immediately recognize him. Spontaneously, they embraced and exchanged the kiss of their common struggle. They were both in the same prison for the same cause." [6]

In May 1929, the healing of the three-year-old Ioannis Spyridonakos took place, an event that was even recorded by newspapers. [7] The boy, who was on the brink of death with a destroyed lung, was brought by his parents to the small Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Piraeus, where Father Eugenios had just been appointed as a priest. They came to beseech the Theotokos for his healing. Father Eugenios made the sign of the cross over the child with the Holy Spoon, and by the grace of the Theotokos, the child was healed. [8]

When Father Eugenios first saw the small Church of the Life-Giving Spring, he said the following:

"Saint Gregory the Theologian found a small chapel (a humble hut) in Constantinople, and from there he preached Holy Orthodoxy, and thus today we are Orthodox. And from this cave, where the church of the Theotokos, the Life-Giving Spring, stands… Holy Orthodoxy will be preached to the whole world." [9]

Around 1930, Father Joachim Makrygenis came to Athens from America [10] and joined the Holy Struggle. Elder Chrysanthos recalls:

"Father Joachim connected with the priests of the Old Calendarists and told them to leave the houses where they were staying and rent a large two- or three-story building, where middle-aged men desiring the monastic life could reside. They should have a vehicle and a telephone for their needs and a resident spiritual father for the spiritual needs of the faithful. Unfortunately, the Athonite priests did not accept this advice, except for one—the propertyless and penniless Father Eugenios of Dionysiou." [11]

Unfortunately, in addition to being fought by the Innovators, Papa-Eugenios was also opposed by some of his own fellow strugglers, particularly certain Athonites from 1933—whose names later appeared in the unacceptable document of denunciation ("anathema"!) against the holy Bishop Chrysostomos of Florina in 1937, when they followed [Bishop] Matthew of Bresthena in his fall into schism. Specifically, these Athonites accused Papa-Eugenios of being a "traitor to the Holy Struggle" because he commemorated "for all Orthodox bishops." [12] Moreover, even the owner of the house where he was staying caused him distress, forcing him to leave, as she wanted to establish a women's monastery and have him as her elder. In response, Papa-Eugenios, to his credit, told her: "I did not leave Mount Athos to establish women's monasteries."

Father Eugenios also distinguished himself as a publisher, primarily of Oikoi and Akathist hymns, for which he had a particular preference. He was meticulous in his use of the Greek language and left behind related articles, though only a few have survived. It is known, however, that he held some unique views on the rendering of hymnographic texts, which at times even led to certain misunderstandings.

Completely without attachment to money and exceedingly destitute, he always lived as a guest. His asceticism resembled that of the ancient Fathers. He slept very little and never in a bed, but in a chair, which caused his back to become hunched. He spent his life in voluntary hardship, enduring cold without heating and practicing severe asceticism. Beneath his tattered and worn cassock, he wore heavy iron chains that had "eaten into" his flesh. Due to his constant walking and long hours of standing, his legs had rotted, yet they did not emit a foul odor! Elder Chrysanthos, in awe, recounts of the most pious Papa-Eugenios: "His feet had rotted, and as the worms fell from his wounds, he would pick them up and place them back onto his sores, so that his body would not be deprived of the martyrdom of the most intense pains" [13] ...

He ate very little. As observed by Elder Gabriel (†1983), the Abbot of the Monastery of Dionysiou, the blessed Papa-Eugenios was "a strict faster, or rather one nourished by the Divine Eucharist, through his daily Liturgies." [14] Nevertheless, when invited to homes and offered food, he ate very little in order to combat thoughts of pride. Whatever money was given to him, he immediately distributed. Moreover, to carefully conceal his virtue of almsgiving, people would sometimes hear him scolding children—but this was merely a pretense, so that he could secretly give them money for their impoverished families.

Whenever he was called to read exorcisms, he would leave quickly to avoid being praised, for the demons would depart, saying: "Your humility, Papa-Eugenios, has driven us out!" Elder Chrysanthos also recounts the following incident:

"One day, while he was serving the Divine Liturgy, there was a possessed man who screamed so loudly that the chanters fled. Then, Papa-Eugenios asked me to chant. I sang from the left choir while the demon shrieked. I continued chanting calmly, while Papa-Eugenios was immersed in the contemplation of the divine Mystery, and soon the demon left the man." [15]

Many times, while serving the Divine Liturgy, he was seen not touching the ground. He also celebrated the Liturgy in a small chapel dedicated to the Theotokos on the rooftop of a large house in Piraeus, where families would gather in faith, even during the difficult years of the Occupation. On one such occasion, a child peeked through the side door of the Holy Altar and, astonished, saw Father Eugenios elevated above the ground, entirely enraptured in liturgical prayer!...

During the Occupation, and later, during the severe persecution under Spyridon Vlachos in the early 1950s, there are testimonies of "raids" on the rooftop chapel, either by the Germans or by the police, aiming to disrupt the liturgical gathering of the faithful of Genuine Orthodoxy and to arrest and mistreat the holy Elder, Father Eugenios the Athonite—this pillar of piety and virtue. However, the Lord and the Theotokos preserved him and those with him. In one such raid, it is testified that the intruders ascended to the top floor of the mansion, where there was an internal metal staircase leading to the rooftop with the chapel. In a miraculous manner, although the armed raiders could hear the chanting and the readings from the Divine Liturgy inside the church, they could not see the metal staircase and were unable to find a way to reach the chapel—forcing them to retreat in shame and without success!...

Despite the persecutions against our Church and against Father Eugenios himself, he remained peaceful and without fanaticism—steadfast in the Confession of Faith and a true struggler, yet also opposed to any form of deviation against his persecutors. For example, there is a reliable testimony that, as a spiritual father, he once imposed a severe "penance" on a Christian of the Patristic Calendar who, out of indignation—likely due to an excessive ("bitter") zeal—referred to the fierce persecutor of the Genuine Orthodox, Archbishop Spyridon Vlachos, as a "goat," failing to show respect for his clerical dignity, which he bore even if unworthily!...

Father Eugenios was an excellent spiritual father, endowed with discernment and the gift of insight. He was particularly insistent on the decisive rejection of evil thoughts sown by the enemy devil, especially those of the flesh, which contaminate the souls of men. Through his demeanor and counsel, he inspired those who confessed to him with a spirit of optimistic struggle, as confirmed by many reliable individuals who knew him, including the late theologian Stavros Karamitsos [16] and the blessed Metropolitan Kyprianos of Oropos and Phyle, [17] among others.

The blessed Papa-Eugenios had an immense love for the Theotokos and for Her holy mother, Saint Anna, the Theopromitor ["giver of the Godhead"] and "grandmother" of all Athonites, whose Akathist Hymn he would recite many times a day. It is no coincidence that his repose occurred on her feast day. On the morning of December 9, 1961 (according to the Orthodox Calendar), he celebrated the Divine Liturgy in honor of Saint Anna and exited the Holy Altar with tears of joy. That evening, seated on his stool and holding his prayer rope, he peacefully ended his earthly life in a saintly manner at the age of 86, continually uttering the word "Rejoice."

It was the time when, after a year of being orphaned following the repose of the holy former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostomos, our Church had already gained a head in the person of the blessed Bishop Akakios of Talantion (†1963). Moreover, when certain renegade clergy of that time maliciously commented in a pamphlet that some venerable clergy of our Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece had supposedly not accepted the newly consecrated Bishop Akakios of Talantion—who had been ordained in America amid countless difficulties—an official written confirmation was made stating that those clergy, including the venerable Archimandrite Father Eugenios Limonis, fully accepted and commemorated their hierarch, His Eminence Akakios, as obedient children of the Church.

Around 2,500 faithful attended the funeral of the blessed Father Eugenios. The Funeral Service of the "hero of the Struggle," as he was justly called among others, was officiated by the Archimandrites of our Church: Paisios, Chrysostomos, Niphon, Germanos, Merkourios, Longinos, and Antonios, along with Hieromonk Hesychios and the Reverend Father Nikolaos Kaloskamis. His burial took place at the Holy Monastery Axion Estin in Varympompi, Attica. [19]

The guards of the Royal Estate, which was located near the Monastery, reported that they saw light emerging from his grave at night!

His forty-day Memorial Service was held at the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Piraeus, with His Eminence Bishop Akakios of Talantion presiding, on January 18/31, 1962. In a brief biographical note presented on that occasion, it was characteristically written:

"Hearing the turmoil in the world caused by the Innovation of the New Calendar, the Athonite Hieromonk Father Eugenios, following the example of the ancient God-bearing Fathers, left his solitude and went out into the world, strengthening and comforting the faithful through both his character and his words, becoming for all a model, an exemplar, and a most exact rule of virtue. Modest, simple, meek, and quiet, he attracted everyone to himself like a magnet. He departed to the Lord, full of days, having received a double crown—the crown of asceticism and the crown of confession." [20]

A photograph has been preserved, which we publish, from a Trisagion Service at the grave of Father Eugenios, with the reading of Absolution Prayers by the blessed Archbishop Auxentios in December 1964. [21]


The honorable Skull of the blessed Father Eugenios is preserved in a reliquary and placed for veneration, along with his other sacred relics, at the Church of the Life-Giving Spring in Piraeus. However, this church, being private, is unfortunately held by uncanonical clergy who do not belong to our Church. Two Theotokos icons and several other sacred objects, as well as structural elements from the rooftop chapel where Father Eugenios celebrated the Divine Liturgy, were collected and later safeguarded at the Holy Monastery of Saint Onuphrius in Dardiza, Keratea, Attica by His Eminence, Bishop Justinos of Evripos and Euboea. Bishop Justinos had known Father Eugenios during the time when he, as a Hieromonk, was serving in Piraeus and even celebrated the Divine Liturgy in that chapel after Father Eugenios' blessed repose.

Papa-Eugenios, boast of our Holy Struggle, intercede for us, your unworthy successors!

 

Notes

1. He is more commonly known as Lemonis [Λεμονῆς], although his surname, as he himself signed it, is Limonis [Λημόνης].

2. A town near the present-day Greek-Albanian border. At that time, its population numbered around 2,000 inhabitants, of whom approximately 1,600 were Romioi (Greeks and Albanian Orthodox), while the rest were Muslims.

3. Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, Elderly Memories and Narratives, published by Holy Monastery of Panagia Odigitria, Molos Lokridos, 2011, p. 282.

4. See the manuscript "Clergy Register of the G.O.C." (No. 65), preserved in the Archives of the Offices of our Holy Synod.

5. See the periodical "Ta Patria" (Jan.–Mar. 1978), p. 15.

6. See the periodical "Ta Patria" (Jan.–Mar. 1977), p. 24.

7. See the newspaper "Skrip" (22-5-1929).

8. Details of the miracle can be found in "Archive of the Holy Struggle", vol. 4 / Year 2016, pp. 29–31.

9. Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, op. cit., p. 35.

10. Regarding his figure, see Archimandrite Cherubim, Contemporary Athonite Figures, vol. 1, Joachim of St. Anne's Skete, published by Holy Monastery of Parakletos, Oropos, Attica, 1983.

11. Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, op. cit., p. 236.

12. See Agathangelos Koletsas, So That the Truth May Be Known, Athens, 1933, p. 12.

13. Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, op. cit., pp. 236–237.

14. Athonite Library, Year XXVII [1962], p. 58.

15. Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, op. cit., p. 285.

16. See The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, Athens, 1961, p. 327, where Father Eugenios is described as the most enviable ornament and the most precious treasure of our Holy Struggle.

17. Regarding Father Eugenios Lemonis, excerpt from a sermon by His Eminence Metropolitan Kyprianos I (†) in Australia (http://agioskyprianos.org/dihgiseis_1.shtml).

18. See "The Voice of Orthodoxy", issue 358 / 6-2-1961, p. 8. Additionally, Father Eugenios co-signed, along with other clergy of our Church, a declaration concerning the unity of the Church of the G.O.C. of Greece and the acceptance and loyalty to the rightful and canonical Shepherd, Bishop Akakios of Talantion, in response to a slanderous campaign against him by malicious individuals (see "The Voice of Orthodoxy", issue 371 / 31-7-1961, pp. 1–2).

19. See "The Voice of Orthodoxy", issue 381 / 18-12-1961, p. 6.

20. See "The Voice of Orthodoxy", issue 383-384 / 15-1-1962, p. 11.

21. See "The Voice of Orthodoxy", issue 462 / 15-2-1965, p. 5.

 

Primary Sources:

– Hieromonk Chrysanthos of Mount Athos, Elderly Memories and Narratives, published by the Holy Monastery of Panagia Odigitria, Molos Lokris, 2011 (primarily pages 281–286).

– Archimandrite Gabriel of Dionysiou, Eugenios, the Hieromonk of Dionysiou, in Athonite Library, Year XXVII [1962], pp. 58–59.

– Monk Moses of Mount Athos, Great Gerontikon of Virtuous Athonite Elders of the 20th Century.

– Periodical "Ta Patria".

– Recollections of His Eminence, Metropolitan Justinos of Evripos and Euboea, recorded by Brother Zisis Tsiotras, theologian and educator.

 

Source: Αρχειον του ιερου Αγωνοσ [Archive of the Holy Struggle], Issue 7, First Semester 2018, pp. 37-49. Online: https://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/images/stories/pdfs/Arxeion7-S.pdf.

 

Thursday, January 30, 2025

On the History of the G.O.C.: The Association of the Orthodox

 (1924-1926)

 

With the change of the Ecclesiastical Calendar in March 1924, an Orthodox Committee was immediately formed, which undertook action in favor of its restoration.

This Committee, presided over by Andreas Vaporidis, convened gatherings against the Innovation in the Hall of the Commercial Employees, near the Metropolis of Athens, and sent letters to the press and telegrams to Hierarchs regarding this matter.

In the summer of the same year, it was recognized as a legal association under the name "Association of the Orthodox." In the Statute of the Association, emphasis is placed on adherence "to the genuine Orthodox principles."

In its Administrative Committee participated Ioannis Sideris, Andreas Vaporidis, Miltiades Syngouris (the first President of the Association when it was renamed "Greek Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians"), and others, while its Secretary was Pericles Getouras.

The first actions of the Association were to send, from October to December 1924, three texts concerning the Ecclesiastical Calendar: "To the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece," "To the Most Blessed President of the Church of Greece," and "To the Venerable Fourth National Assembly of the Greeks."

At Christmas of 1924, according to the ecclesiastical calendar, they organized a Vigil, which was held in the Church of Saint Therapon in Goudi, in the presence of three thousand faithful, with Archimandrite Parthenios of Iviron officiating. This confessional Liturgy was marred by the intervention of the army and the police, following the actions of the Innovator Metropolitan of Athens, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. Regarding that sorrowful incident, as well as the intention of the Innovator Metropolitan to depose Archimandrite Parthenios, the Association issued a related Announcement.

A few days later, the Association organized the celebration of the Holy Theophany. The Vigil was held in the Church of Saint Theodore in Old Phaleron (which today belongs to New Smyrna) with the participation of approximately 3,500 faithful. The police intervened once again at the instigation of the Innovator Metropolitan and forcibly dispersed the crowd of believers.

The Association had foreseen this, and thus it had been planned for Vespers and Matins to be held at night in the aforementioned church, while the Divine Liturgy with the ceremony of the Great Blessing of the Waters was to take place in the Church of Saint George Xyrotagaros, Old Phaleron, by the late priest Fr. Ioannis Floros. However, even in Saint George, the army invaded and violently dispersed the crowd of faithful, making numerous arrests.

Immediately, a delegation of the Association visited the Minister of the Interior, Georgios Kondylis, and subsequently the Prime Minister, Andreas Michalakopoulos, to protest against the intervention of the army. At the same time, they sent a Protest to the National Assembly and to the Greek People.

In the following two months, several texts and letters were drafted by the Administrative Committee of the Association, which were made public in the press of the time.

On February 28, according to the ecclesiastical calendar, the Association published and distributed a poster with the Synodicon of Orthodoxy. On the day of the Annunciation, it organized a Vigil at the Omorfoklissia (Church of Saint George) in Galatsi (near Veikos Grove), during which it also distributed Icons of the Annunciation of the Theotokos to the more than two thousand faithful who participated.

On June 28, 1925, a "Response to the Most Blessed Metropolitan of Athens" was drafted concerning the fast and the feast of the Holy Apostles.

On September 14, 1925, according to the ecclesiastical calendar, the greatest Miracle of the 20th century took place, namely the Third Appearance of the Precious Cross, during a Vigil for this feast organized by the Association at the Holy Monastery of Saint John the Theologian on the slopes of Hymettus, with Fr. Ioannis Floros officiating. Regarding this Miracle, the Association issued a related Announcement.

On December 12, according to the ecclesiastical calendar, of the same year (1925), the "Greek Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians" was founded by the members of the Association, and preparations began for drafting the Statute and electing the Administrative Council.

On April 14, 1926, the Association organized a gathering of support for the three nuns of Tinos, who on that day were being tried in Athens by the Synod of the Innovators for their adherence to the ecclesiastical calendar. Two announcements were also drafted on this matter.

On June 29, 1926, what was likely the last Announcement of the Association was published, once again concerning the fast of the Holy Apostles.

A short time later, the procedures of the "Administrative Committee for the Organization of the Greek Religious Community of the Genuine Orthodox Christians" began, and thus the members of this historic organization, the Association of the Orthodox, became members of the Community. In the first elections, the following were elected: Miltiades Io. Syngouris (President), Ioannis Char. Sideris (Vice President), and the distinguished Canon Law expert Dimitrios Petrakakos (Honorary President), while members of the Administrative Council were well-known figures from their involvement with the "Association," such as Vaporidis and Getouras, as well as others, including Emmanouil Chaniotis (later Monk Markos) and the lawyer Konstantinos Antoniadis.

The Association of the Orthodox had branches throughout Greece. The most active branch was established in Thessaloniki, with the fervent struggler Vasileios N. Bairaktaris as President.

This branch carried out similar activities to those of the Association in Athens, namely the organization of Liturgies (mainly officiated by Athonite clergy), the conduct of enlightening lectures, the distribution of leaflets, and other actions. It also faced the wrath of the Innovator Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Gennadios, and on multiple occasions, the police attacked it or arrested its members.

Those first Strugglers of the Association of the Orthodox were the elite of religious Greeks, and may this small tribute be a candle in their memory. May God grant them rest!

 

N.M.

 

Main Sources

PANTAENOS (publication of the Patriarchate of Alexandria), 1924.

SKRIP, EMROS, ELLINIKI (Athenian newspapers), MAKEDONIA (Thessaloniki newspaper), 1924-1926.

TA PATRIA (historical periodical of the late Metropolitan Kalliopios Giannakoulopoulos of Pentapolis), 1976-1977.

 

Greek source: Αρχειον του ιερου Αγωνοσ [Archive of the Holy Struggle], Issue 1, Winter 2014-2015, pp. 6-9.

The Heresy of Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos

      by Dimitris Chatzinikolaou, Assistant Professor at the University of Ioannina

 

Well-meaning and reliable individuals who knew Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos say that he was a virtuous clergyman. He even authored a remarkable book against the accursed Freemasonry, which constitutes a significant contribution to the Church's anti-heretical struggle. Unfortunately, however, it seems that we live in times foretold by the Lord, who said that even the elect would be deceived (Matt. 24:24). A tragic example of this prophecy is Fr. Epiphanios, who proclaimed heresy!

Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite writes: "Heretics are those whose difference directly and immediately concerns faith in God, namely, those who are separated from the Orthodox in faith and dogmas and are entirely estranged" (see Pedalion, Astir edition, p. 588). He further notes that many saints emphasize that even a small deviation from the correct faith constitutes a transgression of God's law, that is, heresy. For example, the Second Ecumenical Council (Canon 7) considers the so-called Quartodecimans to be heretics because they celebrated Pascha not necessarily on a Sunday but on whatever day the moon reached its fourteenth day, even though in other respects they were Orthodox (see Pedalion, p. 163).

But what heresy did Fr. Epiphanios proclaim? In his well-known book, The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry, Fr. Epiphanios writes that the Orthodox can maintain ecclesiastical communion with the heretical Ecumenists and condemns as schismatics the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar who walled themselves off from the Ecumenist "bishops," whereas, according to the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, he ought to praise them! (Pedalion, p. 358). Why should he praise them? Because since 1920, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism has been officially taught and implemented on a global level, in word and deed, by "bishops" within the realm of Orthodoxy! One of them proposed that we abolish the dogmas of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Lord, and others, and replace them with new dogmas that would be more acceptable! (Iakovos of America, New York Times, Sept. 25, 1967, p. 40). Another teaches that Christ was not sinless from the beginning but achieved sinlessness "step by step"! (Stylianos of Australia, Voice of Orthodoxy, Vol. 9, No. 12, Dec. 1988). A third proposes that we modify the Holy Canons so that they align with his heretical behavior! (Bartholomew of Constantinople, Doctoral Dissertation, 1970, p. 73). And so on.

Fr. Epiphanios contradicts himself, for on the one hand, he acknowledges that the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council grants the right to wall off (The Two Extremes, p. 75) and that the Canon explicitly states that those who wall off do not create a schism but are worthy of praise. On the other hand, he condemns as schismatics those who exercise this right! For, according to Fr. Epiphanios, the decision to wall off must be made by the "officers" and not the "soldiers" (The Two Extremes, p. 59). By "officers," Fr. Epiphanios refers to the "bishops" who, for many decades, have been in communion with the heresy of Ecumenism, continually applying "economy" (The Two Extremes, p. 111), while he considers the walled-off bishops to be "outside the Church." Fr. Epiphanios also asserts that before a believer denounces the Ecumenist "pseudo-bishops" (a term from the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council), they must answer affirmatively the following question: "Do I believe that the entire Orthodox Church throughout the world has been swallowed up by delusion and that only I and a few others have remained preserving the truth?" (p. 58). In other words, according to Fr. Epiphanios, the denunciation of the "pseudo-bishops" is not permitted until they have completely destroyed the Church!

Over the past two decades, it has been repeatedly and extensively demonstrated that these teachings of Fr. Epiphanios are contrary to the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition. Consequently, there is no need to once again cite the hundreds of passages and examples of the behavior of the saints in similar circumstances, which confirm the truth of the matter. Moreover, Saint Mark of Ephesus succinctly and clearly summarizes the Orthodox teaching on this subject as follows: “All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the divine Scriptures counsel us to flee from those of different mind and to separate ourselves from their communion” (P.G. 160, p. 101).

If Fr. Epiphanios had simply created a new heresy and, like all previous heresiarchs, proselytized followers into it, drawing them away from Orthodoxy, the harm would not be as great as it is now, even if the number of his followers were large. For, as is well known, the Church has always had the power to combat and overcome heresies. Unfortunately, however, the heresy of Fr. Epiphanios causes far greater harm than other heresies. The reason is that it wears an Orthodox façade and consists of deterring the Church's battle against Ecumenism with "real fire," that is, with the denunciation of heretical bishops. It allows only verbal and written protests (The Two Extremes, pp. 73–74), that is, mere "paper warfare," as Professor I. Kornarakis aptly characterized these reactions. In this way, even true soldiers of Christ fall into confusion, are disarmed, immobilized, and the Church's anti-heretical struggle is weakened and paralyzed. As a result, the heresy of Ecumenism prevails, and many select souls are lost, including monks! For all these either accept Ecumenism, deceiving their conscience with the false love rhetoric of the Ecumenists, or disagree with it yet remain in communion with it "until the right time" (The Two Extremes, p. 59). They remain "sighing" (The Two Extremes, p. 69), submitting "until the right time" to "pseudo-bishops," as required by the heresy of Fr. Epiphanios, which has aptly been called "until-the-right-time-ism" [achrikaerismos]. Thus, the heresy of "until-the-right-time-ism" deceives the elect, while other heresies usually attract people who were generally indifferent toward Orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

The reason the Church has always overcome heresies is that it has an inherent, so to speak, automatic corrective mechanism, which consists of the effective reaction (and not "paper warfare"!) of its healthy members to the heretical teachings and actions of the "pseudo-bishops" and false teachers. The only effective reaction today is walling off [apoteichisis] from Ecumenism and its preachers. If, in the church where you worship, the name of a bishop in communion with Ecumenism is commemorated, then you must not attend the "Divine" Liturgy that is celebrated there! If other faithful do the same, then you will see the result! Unfortunately, however, the heresy of Fr. Epiphanios immobilizes and nullifies this mechanism.

Recently, the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos (Feb. 19, 2010, p. 8) published an article by Mr. P. Televantos, which once again proclaimed the aforementioned heresy of Fr. Epiphanios. The same author, in the same newspaper (July 3, 2009, p. 7), wrote that under no circumstances is it permissible for schismatics to sign the text of the renowned Confession of Faith. Nor should they be allowed to infiltrate the ranks of traditional people who oppose Ecumenism. The late Epiphanios Theodoropoulos spoke of "the two extremes" and showed us the way.

Since Mr. Televantos refers to "the two extremes" of Fr. Epiphanios, it is evident that the "schismatics" are the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar who walled themselves off from the Ecumenist "pseudo-bishops." Could Mr. Televantos perhaps explain how his stance—engaging in "paper warfare" with Ecumenism while simultaneously supporting the Ecumenist "pseudo-bishops" in their thrones—aligns with Orthodox teaching, as it is summarized above by Saint Mark of Ephesus?

 

Greek source: https://iaathgoc.gr/index.php/blog/rthra/ntiairetik/834-i-airesis-tou-pepifaniou-theodoropoulou

Life in the Face of Death

 

By Fr. Vladimir Anderson (+2010)

 

“It is well to meditate on the Apostle's saying: 'I die daily’; for if we live every day as if we were dying we shall not sin.” -  St. Anthony the Great

 

In the Orthodox Church services we often pray for "a Christian ending to our lives, painless, blameless, peaceful, and for a good defense at the dread judgment-seat of Christ." Fortunate are those who are able so graciously to depart this life. The Church, in her teachings tries to prepare us for such an end, but we are slow--sometimes even unwilling--pupils. Life in our modern world is fast-paced and mobile; if we meet with hard times, we can always have hope there will come a change for the better. And therefore we have great difficulty in grasping the concept of eternity, of a changeless destiny which offers no chance of upward mobility.

Imagine, if you will, that you have just been diagnosed as having an incurable blood disease and the doctor has given you a matter of months to live. What is your reaction? Some people set about in a flurry of activity to fulfill the dreams and desires of a lifetime: a trip to Hawaii, dinners in fancy restaurants, golf in Palm Springs... Such a response reflects the pagan attitudes commonly found in our society: "Let us drink and make merry, for tomorrow we die." Some spend all their remaining energy in seeking, at any and all cost, the prolongation of physical life. They may become angry at the doctors for being helpless, or at God, Who until that time had been comfortably anonymous. The Christian, while he is not likely to rush off in either of these directions, may throw himself into a similar frenzy of activity--of making amends, almsgiving, confession, increased prayer. The very fact that the prospect of death should invite a radical transformation of life magnifies our singular lack of preparedness for the one thing in life which is inevitable.

The Holy Fathers often speak of the need for a constant thought of death. Those Christians who have been able to benefit from a close encounter with death understand the wisdom of this counsel. The proximity of death opens a new perspective on life. Suddenly one is struck by the frailty of life and one's utter dependence upon God. One of man's first lessons after the Fall was "dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." While often treated as a poetic image, it acquires a sobering reality in the face of death.

Without the knowledge of Christ and hope in His salvation, the prospect of death can be terrifying. Even a Christian secure in his faith suddenly experiences a quickening fear of God and His judgment. Knowing that "a contrite heart God will not despise," he begins a thorough examination of his conscience. Are there any sins which, through shame or negligence, have never been confessed? In confession the priest reminds the penitent: "But if thou shalt conceal anything from me, then shalt thou have the greater sin. Take heed, therefore, lest having come to the physician thou depart unhealed.”

In making peace with God, a person preparing for death is naturally led to make peace with his neighbor. Has he offended anyone? Is he harboring any ill feelings or resentment of wrongs, which will weigh him down on the Day of Judgment? This thought inspires a spirit of forgiveness which, under normal circumstances, is often stifled by pride. But in the face of death and eternity, even long-standing animosities are more easily erased in the desire to meet God with a clean heart.

The imminent prospect of death gives new value to earthly riches as a means towards heavenly gain. It no longer seems necessary to replace the car with a newer or fancier model, and last year's wardrobe appears perfectly adequate without the addition of the latest fashions. Instead, the Christian living in the face of death may discover in himself a previously unknown generosity in giving alms, in seeking to help the poor.

Time becomes very precious; it is not wasted in frivolous amusements, in sitting for hours before the T.V. Each and every day is appreciated for what it is--a gift from God. Faced with death, the wise Christian uses his time in preparing for his journey into the next world: inwardly--by intensified prayer, by spiritual reading, and by becoming more closely acquainted with the saints, those who are already citizens of paradise; and outwardly--seizing every opportunity to do good, to spend quality time with family and friends, to visit the sick, the lonely, the imprisoned. How many such opportunities we let slip away, never stopping to think that we may be committing a sin of omission just as deplorable as any sin of commission.

In expectation of death a Christian more readily speaks out in situations when subjects such as premarital sex, homosexuality or abortion are raised, where previously he kept silent out of fear of offending, of appearing "fanatic" or being unwilling to "rock the boat." Silence is not always "golden." And he becomes more concerned in seeking the approval of God rather than man. Power, prestige and popularity appear superfluous before the sight of an open grave.

These are but a few ways in which we might want to change our lives if we were given to behold the approach of death. But who are we to assume we shall be granted such a chance to transform ourselves into "real" Christians at death's door? To most of us death will come unannounced. Will our lamps be trimmed and burning? Let us make use of our imagination--too often the playground of the devil--to see death just around the corner and thereby motivate ourselves to live as though our days were numbered -- for indeed, they are.

 

Source: Orthodox America, Issue 62, Vol. VII, No. 2, August, 1986.

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Letter of Protopresbyter George Grabbe to Archbishop Nathaniel Lvov (1976)

28. To Archbishop Nathaniel (Lvov)

March 2/15, 1976

Dear Most Reverend Vladyka,

Thank you for replying to me so quickly. I will send your report on Innsbruck to print.

I hope that Vladyka Vitaly in Montreal will organize something. In any case, he will distribute his publications. The issue of organizing worship services there does not arise, since there is a permanent cathedral, and everything is well arranged. The Metropolia is relatively sidelined there; it is hardly visible or heard, and the church cannot be compared to our very large and magnificent cathedral inside (though not outside). I hope that the NTS will assist in the distribution of literature. They will probably be working there.

<...>

I have carefully read the memorandum on church groupings. I recognize that the question of grace is very complex, and I do not like to determine where it has disappeared and where it still remains. However, there are canonical offenses for which retribution follows without a judicial decision in the so-called declarative order. Such, for example, is the crime against the Paschalion, apostasy, etc. The expression "incorrect position" is very general in nature and sometimes may be too mild. Can such a definition suffice in relation to Nikodim [of Leningrad]? I would agree that regarding jurisdictional deviations, one should not rush to final decisions, limiting oneself only to an actual break in communion. But is that sufficient when ecumenism reaches the point of communing heretics? It seems to me that no new fundamental definition is required, but rather, it is necessary only to uphold the previously established abstention from concelebration, especially the liturgy. We should be alarmed not only by the danger of making a mistake and condemning as invalid that which has not yet deserved such a determination concerning the sacraments of those who have separated, but also by the danger of displaying indifference to truth and falsehood and some kind of participation in it through liturgical communion with those who have fallen into it. In general, the very fact that we are discussing this issue indicates uncertainty about the grace of those who have fallen away, and where there is uncertainty, there can be no concelebration. However, such uncertainty is not yet a final decision on the gracelessness of all those who have split away. I believe that if ecumenism continues to develop further, the time may come for a more definite delineation. For now, this heresy nests at the top but has not spread among the people. But what will happen when the principles of the Thyateira Confession enter life and practice, and Patriarch Demetrios serves the liturgy with Pope Paul [VI]? If the First-Second Council indicates that in the case of a violation of Orthodoxy one must break with one’s hierarch, then a Council of a Diocese may act similarly concerning the Heads of other Churches. Moreover, the rule not only permits this but directly instructs it. As for specific rules regarding the order of reception from their flock, it seems that this is required only when, from personal error and personal preaching, the matter extends to the persuasion of the entire Church, that is, both clergy and flock. Separation from the Church is not a matter of a single moment but is usually the consequence of a known process.

I do not agree with your report on the attitude toward Patriarch Tikhon. The question of declaring Patriarch Tikhon fallen was never discussed either in the Synod or in the Council. He died in 1925, and by the 1930s, it was too late to discuss the matter of his sacraments. I have never heard from anyone about the possibility of recognizing them as non-sacraments. Even in relation to Metropolitan Sergius in the 1930s, the question was not framed in such a way. Perhaps the Evlogians attributed this to us.

<...>

I deeply sympathize with your illness. May God grant you recovery. But the clergy are falling ill and dying not only in Europe. In Australia, the situation is even worse. Somehow, we have not managed to prepare a replacement. There are no candidates for the episcopate at all. And our older generation has reached the age of death. I do not always feel like an old man yet, but essentially, of course, I am one. This year marks 50 years since my first theological article was published in Church Gazette. Seventy-four years is already the Psalmist’s age, and one must always expect the arrival of "toil and sorrow."

<...>

 

Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=740&Itemid=151

Metropolitan Vitaly of New York on Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate (1991)

Now, dear Vladyka, let us speak about the ideological side of the entire matter. It must be said immediately that our Church, under no Metropolitan, has ever declared that the entire Moscow Patriarchate is completely without grace. What is this? A betrayal of the Truth? Not at all! We deeply recognize ourselves as part of the FREE Russian Church and do not have the full authority to make such a declaration, which belongs only to the All-Russian Council of the entire episcopate... We express our total disagreement with Moscow by not having any kind of even social communion with their episcopate. Moscow is a defendant and awaits its condemnation. The Lord is evidently performing an incredible economia for us, for many truly believing people, and He grants them communion and bestows His grace upon them, for example, through Baptism. Can you yourself, who were once also part of this Moscow Patriarchate, deny this?! You cannot, for you know, and you have affirmed to us, that there are many wonderful priests of God who suffer within this Patriarchate, doing all they can to rightly shepherd their flock, and because of this, their days are numbered—they are all awaiting their expulsion, prohibition, or even removal from the priesthood without any trial.

In such conditions, can we declare an anathema on all of them? That would be a completely irreparable mistake, a tragedy for many, or even just foolish zeal without wisdom. The phrase you mention from the Hierarchal Message was a tactical error, and this is a lesson for us, as many in Russia must have been troubled by it, as you wrote. What is natural to us is not understood by them. We, thank God, have preserved our objectivity, but try to maintain that in the USSR, where you are constantly persecuted, oppressed, and harassed. We fully understand this and will simply proceed with caution. There is nothing else, nor can there be.

I could cite hundreds of excerpts from letters from Russia, in which many young people are fighting for the faith, getting baptized, and completely transforming their lives, something that only the grace of the Holy Spirit can accomplish. Could I suddenly tell them that it is all false, that they are not truly baptized? They simply would not believe me and would take me for some sort of sectarian because their hearts are filled with joy, they pray to God with tears, they have completely changed their lives, and I would insist that it is all an illusion? No, holy Vladyka, neither I nor you will act in such a way, of this I am completely certain. Give them time, and under the influence of God's grace, they will gradually become enlightened, their eyes of understanding will be opened. After all, we say at Baptism: "You have been baptized, you have been enlightened, you have been chrismated, you have been sanctified," and so on. It seems enlightenment works gradually, overcoming our weaknesses and distortions. We must give them time, and for us, patience. That is all on this matter.

- Letter of Metropolitan Vitaly of New York to Bishop Lazar of Tambov, dated January 9/22, 1991.

 

Russian source: https://archiv.livejournal.com/176877.html

Protopresbyter George Grabbe on the Calendar Innovation and Grace (1975)

23. To Archbishop Anthony of Geneva and Western Europe

July 23 / August 5, 1975

<...>

I think that the expression that I "complained" about you to Vladyka Pavel is not entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say that I lamented that there has been a certain change in your attitude.

Of course, Vladyka John was very close to Metropolitan Anthony. However, I believe that I was also close to him since 1922, especially since I lived in Sremski Karlovci in 1928-29, and even more so when I worked with him, starting in 1931. I would be a hopeless fool if, during this time, I had not learned anything from the Metropolitan.

In the matter of the calendar, Vladyka was rather lenient, but not in the matter of the Paschalion. He did not want to have any communion with the Finnish Church precisely because of the Paschalion. However, I think that none of us at that time, before the development of ecumenism, fully grasped the depth of the calendar issue as an introduction to the current deviations. It was the first step toward the present modernism. Taken separately, outside of this context, it appeared as something undesirable, a violation of tradition and unity, disrupting the liturgical yearly cycle, but nothing more.

I have never asserted the gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate. I believe that any illness in the Church spreads gradually and that until the final moment, when, as with the Arian heresy, for example, the evil fully poisons the organism of some part of the Church, one must be cautious in declaring someone graceless. Regarding the Patriarchate, I cannot help but have doubts about hierarchs who are agents of the KGB, but how can we accurately name them? That is why I always avoid answering the question of gracelessness. Refusing communion with someone is not at all equivalent to declaring them graceless. Only the Lord God knows this definitively. In such an approach to the issue, I believe I am expressing the "Antonian" thought. But Vladyka was very definite in his denial of the sacraments of clergy banned by him (the Evlogians). He called their communion the food of demons because he saw in the disregard of a lawful ban blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

<...>

 

Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=740&Itemid=151

Where do souls go and where do they remain after death?


Alexandros Christodoulou, theologian | April 27, 2022

 

After a person's death, the soul that enlivened the body separates from it. According to St. Athanasius, the soul is self-existent and self-moving, meaning that even after its separation from the body, it continues to live and move. The soul does not die, but the body does when the soul departs from it. The soul is the breath of God within us, which is why it is immortal. It is the spiritual creation, whereas the body is the material creation.

As soon as the soul departs from a person's body at the moment of death, it immediately enters a conscious new phase of life, which is connected to its previous life. This is affirmed by scriptural testimonies. The Lord said to the thief who pleaded with Him, "Remember me, Lord, when You come into Your kingdom," that "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." With the word "today," the Lord indicated the immediate continuation of the thief's soul's life, without any interval of either sleep or transition into a state of unconscious existence. At the Transfiguration of the Lord, we see the appearance of the two Prophets, Moses and Elijah. In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the souls continue to live after death under different conditions.

The Apostle Peter states that during His three-day Burial, the Lord descended into Hades and preached to the living souls of the departed pious people. These souls were alive and heard His preaching, and as the Fathers say, those who believed in Christ were saved.

The fact that the soul goes somewhere else and remains there is seen in the accounts of the resurrection of certain dead people. In the Old Testament, when the Prophet Elijah prayed before the lifeless body of the widow of Zidon’s child, his soul returned to the body, and he was brought back to life. Therefore, the soul, which was elsewhere, heard the Prophet and returned to the dead body.

But where do the souls go during the interval between death and the Second Coming of the Lord?

We must know that the answer to this question, as St. Athanasius says, is "a strange and fearful mystery, hidden from men." That is, it is a mystery where the souls go. Based on the Holy Scripture and our Patristic Tradition, let us seek the path that souls follow after the death of the body.

The Holy Scripture mentions Hades as a place where the souls of sinners dwell. It is a place of darkness. However, the Holy Scripture also speaks of Paradise, the place where the righteous will remain after the Second Coming. St. Athanasius tells us: "The souls of sinners are in Hades, while the souls of the righteous are near God, and after the Second Coming of the Lord, they will be in Paradise." St. John Chrysostom informs us that "with death, the souls are led to a certain place." But what could this place be? The concept of place is worldly. However, God is beyond containment. Souls, too, have no shape and do not occupy space. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, our Lord Himself says that the soul of the poor Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham. This is an anthropomorphic expression, meaning that the souls were in a good place. St. John Chrysostom says that the souls "are where the only eternal and only immortal One is, the Creator of souls and bodies, where God is," and they await the fearful day of the Second Coming. The philosopher and martyr Justin states that the souls of the pious remain in a better place, while the souls of sinners remain in a worse place, awaiting the time of Christ’s coming. St. Gregory of Nyssa advises: "Do not fear Hades as a place, but as a state of incorporeal life," that is, a life without a specific form. This state of waiting is called the intermediate state of souls.

Intermediate State

Let us examine some characteristics of the intermediate state. After death, the partial judgment takes place. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it is mentioned that as soon as they died, they were judged and placed in their appropriate place—the rich man in fiery Gehenna and, opposite him, the poor Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. This judgment is temporary, as the great and final judgment is expected at the Second Coming, when the bodies will be resurrected, reunited with their souls, and appear before the Judge. In the partial judgment, only the soul is judged, not the body, which has been given over to corruption. Thus, the temporary judgment is the first characteristic of the intermediate state.

The second characteristic of the intermediate state is a condition of waiting. The souls await the final judgment; however, as the Fathers of the Church say, they may improve their state through the great mercy of the Lord and under certain conditions. Someone might say, "But in Hades, there is no repentance." How, then, can souls expect any improvement in their condition? First, we must affirm that we all believe in the great mercy of God. God is exceedingly compassionate, loving toward mankind, and abundant in mercy; He is not limited by anything or anyone.

Our Holy Orthodox Church, based on a series of serious Scriptural considerations, concludes that it has the right to offer prayers and memorial services to God for the departed faithful. These are effective only in cases where people believed in Christ but, for reasons beyond their will, either did not have the opportunity to confess their sins, though they desired to do so, or were not given the chance to express their repentance by approaching the sacrament of repentance and confession.

The dogmatic theologians of our Church assert that unrepentant souls do not benefit at all from the supplications and prayers of the Church. Professor Andreas Theodorou writes: "The supplications and memorial services that are performed cannot save the unrepentant soul, which, in the intermediate state, is in the vestibule of hell and suffers according to the measure of judgment imposed upon it by God."

But who among men can say with certainty that a fellow human being was faithless or died unrepentant? Only God knows the inner depths of each soul. Only He knows whether someone is a conscious unbeliever or an atheist. Many times, we make mistaken judgments. For this reason, our Church, not only because we do not know the inner state of each person’s soul but also because she is a compassionate mother who cares for her children, prays and offers memorial services for all the departed, entrusting the fate of each person into the hands of God.

The third characteristic of the intermediate state is that it serves as a foretaste, either of reward or of punishment. That is, the partial judgment that takes place after death grants souls the ability to experience in advance either the joy of the reward they will receive at the Second Coming or the sorrow of the punishment that awaits them.

Saint Athanasius assures us that the righteous, after their death, experience a "partial enjoyment," while sinners undergo a "partial torment." He gives the example of a king who invites someone to a banquet and says, "On such and such a night, I expect you to come to the palace, where I will host a banquet for you." The person who receives the invitation feels an inner joy, a sense of satisfaction. He eagerly anticipates the moment when he will go there and experience the honor and glory of sitting at the same table with the king. This is one instance where there is a foretaste of joy.

On the other hand, suppose you have done something wrong, and you are arrested and about to be judged. You are imprisoned and told that you must wait for the judge to arrive. During this waiting period, you feel sorrow—you experience a foretaste of the punishment that is to come. This foretaste varies in each case. Saint Basil the Great says, "The enjoyment of the Righteous will have different levels; it will be on various degrees—God will honor some greatly and others less."

The souls of the Righteous, says Saint Gregory the Theologian, contemplate and have a foretaste of blessedness. Saint Justin, the philosopher and martyr, says, "The souls of the Righteous remain in a better place, while the souls of sinners remain in a worse place, awaiting the great judgment that is to follow."

 

Greek source: https://www.pemptousia.gr/2022/04/pou-pigenoun-ke-pou-paramenoun-i-psiches-meta-ton-thanato/

Saint John the Hozevite of Romania (+1960)

On the sacred commemoration of the newly glorified Saint John the Hozevite of Romania, we publish a short dedicatory text written by the late Monk Fr. Paul the Hagiotaphite [of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre], a Cypriot, who had known him personally. This text was originally published in two parts in Orthodoxos Typos in the year 1969. Additionally, we include two representative poems of his in Greek translation.

Saint John, born as Elias Jacob, was born in Romania in 1913 and became a monk at a young age. He traveled to the Holy Land to freely follow the Patristic Calendar, which he staunchly defended throughout his short earthly life. In the Holy Land, he distinguished himself as a hermit and ascetic.

Although he received the priesthood from a bishop of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1947, he remained in seclusion and avoided ecclesiastical communion to prevent, out of ignorance, any association with the Innovators and Ecumenists.

He reposed on August 5, 1960, at the age of only 47, and was buried in the cave of his ascetic struggle, in the Skete of Saint Anne at the Monastery of Hozeva, near Jericho.

In 1980, the translation of his holy relic took place, and it was found completely incorrupt and fragrant! Since then, it has been placed for veneration in the Catholicon of the Holy Monastery of Hozeva. Saint John also performed miracles, confirming his holiness.

The Sister Church of the Genuine Orthodox of Romania has always honored him as a modern Confessor and Ascetic Saint, while our Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece officially recognized his veneration as a Saint by Synodal decision as of last year.

May his holy intercessions uphold all in the path of Truth and Virtue!

 

John the Hermit

By Monk Paul the Hagiotaphite

 

[…] One of the most devout Fathers whom I consulted, and who had already reposed a decade ago, was Hieromonk John, a Romanian by origin. However, having lived many years among the Greeks, both his speech and his Liturgy were purely Greek.

In terms of piety, seriousness, and complete avoidance of unnecessary and improper conversations and engagements for a monk, I have encountered very few like him throughout the world in my travels.

Becoming an orphan and experiencing the "blessings" of a cruel stepmother, he became acquainted with sorrows from childhood, enduring them with patience. After spending some years at the Monastery of Neamț, the monastery of Saint Paisius Velichkovsky, where he served as librarian, he left Romania due to the New Calendar and other reasons. He then traveled to the Holy Land on pilgrimage, where he remained for many years in the Lavra of Saint Sabbas. Always of frail health himself and possessing considerable medical knowledge, he served the elderly and sick with compassion, patience, kindness, and love, attending to them with zeal and brotherly care. It was there that he was also ordained.

For several years, he lived by the Jordan River and in a steep, hewn cave in the desert surrounding the Monastery of Saint Gerasimus of the Jordan, until the outbreak of the last world war. Due to this, he was forced to leave and subsequently settled at the Monastery of Hozeva and in the Skete of Saint Anne, located within a narrow gorge near the monastery, where he remained until his repose.

His piety, modesty, and attentiveness to himself are rarely found today. Never did I hear him engage in idle chatter or excessive talk, the most common yet not the least of faults. If ever idle talk, gossip, or slander arose, he would either change the subject or withdraw. Not even once was he heard uttering even the most innocent joke, nor did he laugh beyond a restrained smile. His gaze never lingered on the face of another person or his interlocutor; rather, he spoke softly, slowly, and reverently, with his eyes slightly lowered, in an atmosphere of peace and humility.

He usually avoided concelebrating with others because he longed to read the prayers, especially the silent ones, slowly and with compunction, whereas others would "hurry." As he would say, he preferred to read the Psalter in Greek, as he found in it a particular grace that he did not perceive in the Romanian translation.

How exactly he lived in his cell is unknown, for each monk's dwelling was a place of solitude with God alone.

He possessed great patience in seclusion; though of frail health, he never went to the cities nor sought physicians, relying instead on the remedies he knew and placing his trust in God.

For the last six years, his only journey was from his cave to mine (a distance of approximately 50 meters, though steep) for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

He did not read political newspapers, except when a topic of religious concern caught his attention. Being a zealot of the Patristic Traditions, he followed, as much as possible, the "modern movements", feeling sorrow and pity for the emptiness and poverty of novel ideologies, which had lowered the divinity of Orthodoxy to the level of human negotiations. He believed that all adversaries of God—the dark forces, Communism, Papism, Freemasonry, heresies, and all inventions of demons—are nothing but smoke, possessing no real power. They can only be confronted through a true return to God—and only in this way can they be overcome.

Having also a poetic gift, he drew countless themes from the Gospel and the entire life of the Church, composing verses that inspired deep compunction, the fear of God, zeal for Orthodoxy, and praise of virtue, as well as themes of tears, humility, watchful prayer, and incidents from the Lives of the Saints, Martyrs, and Ascetics—in general, everything that nourishes a soul hungry for God. Recently, through assistance, his disciple, Monk Ioannikios, published a volume of his works. According to those familiar with the language, these poems could only have been inspired and composed through the Spirit of God.

Source: Orthodoxos Typos newspaper, issue no. 109 (Oct. 10, 1969), p. 2, and issue no. 110 (Nov. 1, 1969), p. 2.

 

TWO POEMS OF SAINT JOHN

 

Epigram

If the mind does not soar
high into the heavens and toward death,
it easily wanders
amid vain words.

And when the mercy of peace
does not rest within us,
we will always find a reason
for quarrels and wars.

And when we have no care
for self-knowledge,
we will always proclaim
only the works of others.


At the Door of Mercy

(A Prayer to the Theotokos)

Most Holy Mother and Virgin,
hope of my soul,
You are my mediator
before the merciful God.

If the world had no kinship
with heaven from the earth,
then life would be desolate,
just like a grave.

If You were not the spring
of the noetic age,
it would always be winter,
and the sun would never smile.

If You had not risen as the dawn
upon the slumbering world,
then the shadow of death
would have been eternal.

And today, O All-Pure One,
when all follow after evil,
if You do not fervently pray,
Your Son will abandon us.

Send signs of repentance
to the troubled people
and strengthen our faith
in our misguided souls.

O Most Immaculate Mother,
loosen the bonds of slavery
and grant patience
to the suffering Christians!

 

Source: The Life and Poems of Saint John the Hozevite, 1913-1960, Romanian Hesychast in the Jordan Valley, published by "Orthodox Kypseli", Thessaloniki, undated (1984), pp. 68, 154-155.

 

Greek source:

https://ecclesiagoc.gr/index.php/%E1%BC%84%CF%81%CE%B8%CF%81%CE%B1/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%B1/844-osios-iwannis-xozevitis-ek-roumanias

 

On the Attitude of Archbishop Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky) of Crimea toward the True Orthodox Church

 "...Luke informed me that in one of the settlements in the Bakhchisaray district, there lives Hieromonk Hippolytus (Veryutin), a former Josephite, who does not recognize either him as an archbishop or the Patriarch. He goes around the villages performing various rites, and he asked me to take measures prohibiting him from performing these rites. Three or four days later, Hieromonk Hippolytus Veryutin was summoned by me. An old man of about 80, living in the family of a kolkhoz worker in the Bakhchisaray district. During the German occupation, he was a priest in the village of Bazarchik—now the village of Pochtovoye in the Bakhchisaray district. Veryutin denied performing any rites. Nevertheless, he was warned by me that, lacking the appropriate registration documents, he was not permitted to perform any rites or ceremonies. After this, no further reports were received of him performing rites."

- From the informational report of the Commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the Crimean region, Ya. Zhdanov, for the 2nd quarter of 1948, July 1, 1948 // The Crimean Diocese under the Leadership of Saint Luke (Voino-Yasenetsky): Collection of Documents — Simferopol, 2010, p. 183.

 

"I consulted Luke regarding what the old Greek [i.e., free of Latin and Protestant influences] direction within the Tikhonite movement represents, which has recently emerged in Crimea. To this question, Luke replied as follows: 'I know nothing about these gentlemen here in Crimea, especially in recent times. This movement is particularly widespread in the Rostov diocese, but there they call themselves True Orthodox Churchmen. Our principal disagreement with them lies in two main issues: 1) They do not tolerate the commemoration of the ruling authorities during the liturgy; 2) They do not recognize married bishops or archbishops who are married or were once married, calling them graceless, and on this basis, they do not attend church.' To my follow-up question about what, after all, the Tikhonite direction represents, Luke replied as follows: 'Under Tikhon, there was no commemoration of the ruling authorities in churches. Tikhon was for the so-called "pure church," meaning a church that stands apart from all worldly matters and, in particular, from the existing Soviet government.' However, Luke added, if Tikhon lived in our time, it is hard to say what actions he would have taken. 'I know Tikhon,' Luke said, 'as a most intelligent Patriarch, and he never and nowhere made counterrevolutionary statements. He was intelligent enough, Luke confirmed, to understand the circumstances he faced in the early days of Soviet power.'

"Luke told me the story of the Church after the October Revolution, particularly focusing on the Living Church, which was later renamed the Renovationist Church, with its own archbishops and bishops. The people rejected these rebellious actions (meaning the faithful, not the general populace). Luke gave me an example that illustrates the attitude of the faithful toward the Living Church Renovationists.

"One evening, after a service in Simferopol, a Living Church bishop (he did not tell me the bishop’s name) was returning home when he was attacked by believers who tore out his beard and mustache in clumps. This is a very painful ordeal, Luke remarked, and after such disgrace, this Renovationist left Simferopol.

"'I was threatened with death by the so-called T.O.C. (those recognizing the True Orthodox Church, or, as they now call themselves, supporters of the Old Greek direction within the Tikhonite movement) simply because I was [previously] married, and therefore, in their mistaken view, I cannot be an archbishop. They are ignorant,' Luke stated, 'and do not know history. Once, they threw a large stone through my apartment window, but they missed me, and I remained unharmed. However, there was a case in Rostov,' Luke reported, 'where supporters of the T.O.C. planted a time bomb under the bishop's apartment, but thanks to its timely discovery, the bishop survived.'"

- Note from A. Guskov, Commissioner of the Council for the Affairs of the ROC under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for the Crimean Region, regarding a conversation with Archbishop Luke, addressed to V.G. Komyakhov, Secretary of the Crimean Regional Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, March 20, 1958 // Ibid., pp. 467-468.

 

Russian source:

https://nicefor.info/ru/%d0%be%d0%b1-%d0%be%d1%82%d0%bd%d0%be%d1%88%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%b8-%d0%b0%d1%80%d1%85%d0%b8%d0%b5%d0%bf%d0%b8%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%bf%d0%b0-%d0%ba%d1%80%d1%8b%d0%bc%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%b3%d0%be/

General Confession of Sins, Pronounced by a Penitent before a Priest

By St. Dimitri of Rostov


I confess to the Lord God Almighty, glorified and worshipped in Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to the most blessed Ever-Virgin Theotokos Mary, and to all the saints, and to you, honorable father, what I have done in all my sins, by thought, word, deed, and all my senses,1 for I was conceived in sins, I was born in sins, I was raised in sins, and I have dwelt in sins after baptism, even up to this very hour. I confess also that I have sinned in extreme manner by pride, vainglory, haughtiness with eyes and also with clothes and all my deeds, envy, hatred, desire for honors, and also by avarice, wrath, sorrow, laziness, stuffing the belly, sodomite lust, desecration, unrighteous cursing, adultery, theft, robbery, every type of fornication, most exceedingly shameful impurities, drunkenness, gluttony, lazy babbling, fleshly lust, impure kissing and touching even with my child-bearing members, the mental desire to murder; with respect to faith, hope, and love by always receiving the body and blood of the Lord unworthily; by violent exhortations and deception, ignorance, neglect, transgressing in gifts given and received, practice of usury, stewarding church property in an evil manner, insufficient giving of alms, hardness toward the poor, in insufficiently welcoming and giving hospitality to the lowly, stinginess toward the orphans entrusted to me, not visiting the sick and those in prison in accordance with the evangelical commandment, not burying the dead, not clothing the poor, not feeding the hungry, and not giving drink to the thirsty; by not rendering due veneration, honor, and celebration to feast days, both those of the Lord and of those saints who have pleased him, and by not remaining pure and sober on them; by agreeing to do evil against the one in charge and not being helpful before him; by not comforting those who ask and even harming them; by blaspheming and cursing elders and superiors, not keeping trust with my friends and benefactors, not fulfilling my given obedience, looking with impure conscience on bestial and animal intercourse; proud entrance into the church of God, standing, sitting, lying down, and going out of it inappropriately; carefree conversations in it, lawless activities, defiled conversations with others; touching the sacred vessels and the holy service with impure heart and defiled hands, and by performing the prayers, psalmody, and calling upon God indifferently in the church of God; by most exceedingly evil intention, meditation, and depraved teaching, lying opinion, senseless judgment, evil concord and unrighteous counsel, defiled enjoyment and delight, in free, excessive, impure, and vexing words, in lying, in enticements, in various curses, in unceasing slanders, stirring up quarrels and dissensions and laughing at others, in carefree mockery, in debates, in deceit, in wickedness, in whispering, in vain and futile joy and in all evil; complaining, blasphemy, joking, causing laughter, oversleeping, evil talk, reproach, defiled speech, insults, hypocrisy, keeping vigil against God [1], bodily lust, prodigal thoughts, impure delights, concord with the devil, breaking God’s commandments, neglect in offering love both for God and neighbor, by lustful and impure sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. I have perished in all my thoughts, words, will, and deeds. Inasmuch as in these and other lawless acts, by all those things by which only human infirmity can sin against its God and Creator in intention, word, deed, or pleasure, or enjoyment—in all this have I sinned—I consider myself guilty before the face of God more than all people, and I acknowledge and confess this and all my other numberless sins that I have committed, whether voluntary or involuntary, in knowledge or ignorance, myself with myself or through others, or by tempting my brother, and those which, on account of their multitude, I can neither know, nor remember, though what I have remembered, I have said—inasmuch as I repent, regret, and consider myself guilty before the Lord my God—for what has been said and not said, on account of not remembering the multitude of my sins, so do I humbly pray to the most holy and most blessed Virgin Theotokos and all the heavenly powers, and all the saints well-pleasing to God, and to you, honorable father priest, in all of whose presence I have confessed these things, that on the day of judgment you all might be witnesses against the devil, the enemy and adversary of the human race, that I have confessed all of this, and that you may pray for me, a sinner, to the Lord my God. And I ask you, honorable father, as one who have the authority given you by Christ God to absolve those things which have been confessed, to forgive and remit sins, that you absolve me from all these my sins, which I have described before you, cleansing me, forgiving me all these things; and also grant me an epitimia for all my transgressions, for I truly regret my transgression, and I have the will to repent and henceforth to keep myself from these things as much as is possible, with God’s help.

Forgive me, father, absolve me, and pray for me, a sinner. Amen.

And after this you may read a prayer to Christ, crucified for our sake, in order to recall his saving sufferings, undertaken for the sake of our sins, reading which [prayer] a man attains some tenderness, and, as if by some fetter, is held back from transgressions, with a view toward correction and succeeding in a life pleasing to God.


[1] “Keeping vigil against God”: The reversing of daytime and nighttime activities in opposition to the God-established order.

Source: Jesus Crucified: The Baroque Spirituality of St. Dimitri of Rostov, by John Mikitish, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2017, pp. 149-151.

The Pseudo-Walling Off of Fr. Theodoros Zisis

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