Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Archbishop Leonty of Chile: Confessor of Heartfelt Orthodoxy

Source: The Orthodox Word, Vol. 17, No. 4 (99) July-August, 1981, pp. 149-154.

 

Despite the apparent fading away of the power of Christianity from our civilization and the noticeable absence of Christian heroes in our midst today, God has not abandoned His persecuted Church in this century and has raised up remarkable Orthodox hierarchs whose heroic stature only increases with time into historic proportions. These heroes, unfortunately, largely escape the attention of most people in the Church.

One such hierarch, who died just ten years ago, almost in oblivion, was Archbishop Leonty of Chile, a fearless propagator of Orthodox Christianity at first in Russia and later outside of it. His historic place is that of a true confessor of the Christianity of the heart.

When he died on June 19 / July 2, 1971—precisely the fifth anniversary of the repose of his beloved Archbishop John Maximovitch, another outstanding hierarch of the 20th century—Archimandrite Constantine of Jordanville stated:

"There are people whose death fills with light the spot which they have in people's hearts. These people in all their contacts lived by their great heart. What does this mean? It means that for them every person with whom they had contact, even if only for a moment, was a personality of a spiritual nature… One can say that although he has left us, he has come close to us, but not in an earthly way."

Archbishop Leonty was born on August 7, 1907, in a pious Russian family (Filipovich). His distant relative was St. Athanasius of Brest, who suffered a martyr's death at the hands of Roman Catholics in the 17th century.

From early childhood he revealed strong leanings towards the Church and longed to dedicate his life to it. His early education took place in a private school, where his immense musical talent made him a leading boy-soloist in choir. He remembered with great emotion how Emperor Nicholas II visited his town and he saw the unearthly glance of the future Tsar-martyr. When the Revolution struck Kiev, he was already spiritually close to the Kiev Caves Lavra, and he was arrested: but when it was discovered that he came from a "proletariat" family, he was released, and because of his great tenor voice the Soviet government offered him a free education and training for the opera. Thus, a great musical career was open before him, but he turned it down in order to serve the Holy Orthodox Church.

And what a sorrowful path he took upon himself!—a path of perpetual deprivation, suffering, and the witnessing of endless personal tragedies during the Soviet years down to the coming of the Germans in 1941. He became a novice at the Lavra at the very time when it was being ruthlessly liquidated. Its monks were tormented and given over to various deprivations, and many were killed.

Out of his sufferings he became a comforter of banished clergymen: he washed the wounds of the hierarchs who had been released and sought refuge in the Lavra. He saved the life of Bishop Parthenius by pulling him out of a gutter and away from a pack of ravenous dogs, and then brining him to an old woman who was able to nurse him back to life again.

After the final liquidation of the Kiev Caves Lavra, he went to Moscow, where under terrible conditions he was able to go through the theological course in the Academy; the academy sessions at that time were conducted in the private apartments of the professors. Here again he met many bishops and served as a source of contact between them and other clergymen.

Possessing a document declaring him a genuine member of the "proletariat," he took advantage of this opportunity and traveled to many holy places and monasteries in Russia just prior to their liquidation, or shortly afterwards. Thus, he visited Sarov, Diveyevo, many monasteries in the Novgorod area as well as in other regions. He saw the great Rostov vandalized, its relics desecrated, and the clergy humiliated. All that he saw he recorded in his diaries, a portion of which has been preserved in manuscript form.

He witnessed the death pangs of Holy Russia. He heard the voices of holy hierarchs lamenting, holy fools prophesying, and mothers weeping; but all this did not throw him into despair, but on the contrary filled his heart with holy zeal, for he understood that he lived in a new age of martyrs.

Because of his close association with very many church figures, he was able to be a living witness to their confessing stand for Christ, which enabled him later in the free world to testify to their innocent sufferings, inflicted with beastly atrocity by the Soviet government. Much of the work of Father Michael Polsky in his three volumes on the New Martyrs of Russia is based on material sent him by Archbishop Leonty.

Archbishop Leonty himself did not escape severe persecution in the years before the outbreak of the Second World War. He was imprisoned three times and after recalled how, when several bishops and priests had been incarcerated with him under the close supervision of the inhuman guards, they had managed to celebrate the Divine Liturgy while pretending to play cards around a table. The prison conditions in the 1930's were so bad that most inmates were prepared to die in the most inhuman conditions. Some performed the Eucharist on the body of a dying sufferer, recognized as a martyr, since the Divine Liturgy is always performed over the relics of martyrs.

Somehow Vladika managed to get out of prison and for some time was forced to hide in an attic, suspended in a sack-like hammock so as not to reveal his presence by footsteps; the only time he could exercise was in the dead of night when the tenants below were asleep. Such living conditions of the persecuted Christians in the USSR seem incredible to us in the free world only because of the lukewarmness of our own Orthodox faith. But if we would live by the Orthodox calendar, where every day there are Scripture readings and the commemoration of saints and martyrs, we would understand.

When the Germans arrived into Western Russia in 1941, freedom of religion was restored and a tremendous field of activity opened for the surviving clergy. At this time Archimandrite Leonty found himself in Belo-Russia, where he was soon consecrated bishop in the renowned Pochaev Lavra, which up to then had been Polish territory and so had escaped destruction at Soviet hands. Between 1941, when he was consecrated, and November of 1943, when he left for the West, he was bishop of Zhitomir and consecrated over 300 priests and several bishops, and opened hundreds of churches. His enthusiasm and deeply-felt attitude towards people made him an outstanding archpastor who, when celebrating the Divine services, was transported into another world. His high tenor voice seemed to soar above earthly tumult, but his keen mind was never detached from human reality. He continued his church activity in the same spirit in Austria and Western Germany after the war, when he was appointed bishop of Paraguay and Chile in South America (Argentina became part of his diocese just before his death).

In Chile he founded a monastic community, one of whose members was the later Bishop Savva of Edmonton, Canada. Vladika brought him into his monastic brotherhood, inspired him towards the monastic ideal, tonsured him and placed him as an independent pastor who later, as a zealous bishop, started a movement of spiritual renewal in the Russian Church and is now known as the chronicler of the miraculous life of Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch.

During his travels in the free world Archbishop Leonty made a study of the sorrowful state of his Orthodox brethren in Greece, who were languishing under the modernistic influences on Orthodox life, symbolized by the new papal calendar which had been forced upon them in the 1920's. In his martyric zeal he went to Greece and consecrated bishops for the believers who followed the Old Calendar, thus establishing a close contact between them and the Russian Church Abroad.

Soon he was made an archbishop and founded the Dormition Convent from nuns he brought from the Holy Land; this convent now operates an orphanage and a parish school in the name of St. John of Kronstadt. These nuns, headed by the righteous Abbess Alexia, were originally blessed in their ascetic life by the Optina Elder Nektary, now a glorified saint, whose traditions they firmly adhered to in the monastic training of novices.

Archbishop Leonty was a flaming defender of truth and rose fearlessly in all his spiritual stature to put down any manifestation of unrighteousness. From his first acquaintance with Archbishop John Maximovitch in Paris, he immediately recognized in him a living saint, just like the ones he had seen and lived with in much-suffering Russia. With all his loving heart he bowed down before the spiritual authority of Blessed John and supported him whenever he was slandered by those who lacked his experience of living contact with God's genuine saints. When these slanders took a serious form and Archbishop John was put on trial in San Francisco in the 1960's (accused of covering up dishonesty in church finances), Archbishop Leonty immediately flew to defend him and sat with him, together with Bishops Nektary and Savva, on the bench of the accused. Archbishop John, of course, was proven innocent, and the monument of his victory today is the magnificent cathedral, "The Joy of All Who Sorrow," in San Francisco, under which Blessed John's own remains lie.

When Archbishop Leonty learned of the sudden death of Archbishop John, he, together with another righteous and persecuted hierarch, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, drove all the way across the United States to be at his funeral. There he shed bitter tears over the body of Archbishop John, whom he loved so much that his wish was to be closer to his grave, perhaps as Archbishop of San Francisco. God, however, did not grant this, and exactly on the fifth anniversary of Archbishop John's death, after having prayed for the repose of his soul in his own cathedral in Buenos Aires, he gave his soul over to God, joining his beloved Abba.

The sudden death of Archbishop Leonty, who had been recovering from a heart ailment, was a great sorrow for his flock. They buried him in the cemetery which he himself had established. The sick, dying child of a local Chilean woman was placed on his grave and was miraculously healed. There were other cases of similar heavenly intervention through the prayers of Archbishop Leonty. But the most touching account of him comes from a venerator of his memory, who was granted a series of visions of him, a portion of which we offer here:

"This vision took place exactly on the day of the decision of the Council of Bishops in 1971 concerning the beginning of preparations for the canonization of the New Martyrs of Russia. It was on a Saturday. During a light sleep my spiritual father (who is still alive in Buenos Aires) appeared to me in spirit, confessed me, and released my sins.

"At the beginning of this dream I saw myself in a huge temple not built by human hands. On the right kliros for quite a distance was a huge crowd of people dressed in white: I could not make out their faces. Around me there was a quiet, heart-rending singing, although I couldn't see anyone there. Then both side doors of the altar swung open and from them began to come out holy hierarchs and monks, fully vested in gentle blue vestments; among them I could recognize only St. Nicholas the Wonderworker of Myra in Lycia. From the door near me, among the passing bishops, Vladika Leonty passed by and stopped near me, saying: 'You, brother Basil, were called and you did come. You know we have a great celebration here today!' 'What kind of celebration, Vladika?' I asked. And he continued: 'The heavenly glorification of the Tsar-martyr!' And having bowed to me slightly he continued on his way to the kathedra (in the center of the church).

"Finally, the holy doors of the altar opened, and out of them came the Tsar-martyr, looking just as he appears on his official portraits during the first years of his reign—that is, very young. He was dressed in the Tsar's royal mantle, as during his coronation, and he wore the emperor's crown on his head. In his hands he held a large cross, and on his pale face I noticed a slight wound, either from a bullet or some blow. He passed by me at an even pace, descended the step of the ambo, and went into the center of the church. As he neared the kathedra the singing increased in volume, and when his foot touched the step of the kathedra it became so loud that it seemed that a whole world of people had gathered and were singing with one breath.

"Here I came to my senses on my bed, immediately shaken, with a little wound on my right eye. It was about four o'clock in the morning. For a long time, I was under the deep impression of what I had experienced."

The same man saw Archbishop Leonty in a dream just before the fortieth day after his repose: "On the 37th day after the repose of Archbishop Leonty I had a vision in a dream. I saw him in church vestments and a mitre heading a solemn pontifical church service. When he saw me, he quickly got up and hastened to greet me. He embraced and kissed me and said, 'How happy I am to see you, brother Basil. I am now quite well. I feel no pain, and here I am very happy. In a few days I will receive new quarters with all comforts, as they say on earth; it has already been promised me.'

"A month after this I saw another dream, which indicated to me that he had been granted a heavenly abode. I heard beautiful music and saw millions of sparkling stars, and I was already on a boat which was to bring me to the other shore where he was. This is what God prepared for his faithful servant of the catacomb hierarchy, and later of our Church Outside of Russia" (Orthodox Life, 1971, December, pp. 18-20).

Through the prayers of the righteous Archbishop Leonty, confessor of the Orthodoxy of the heart, may our Lord have mercy on all of us. Amen.

F.H. 

Monday, April 28, 2025

"Love God with all your soul and heart, and keep His commandments."

In our evil days, the whole world is in danger of perishing because of the many sins of men, who, although they see the dangers (wars, plagues, famines, earthquakes, floods, etc.), not only do not repent and do not correct themselves, but become worse. They become unbelieving, impious, blasphemous, proud, envious, liars, unjust, thieves, rapacious, slanderers, lewd, licentious, savage, ungrateful, unholy, irreconcilable, traitors, reckless, hypocrites, deceitful, crafty, murderers, evildoers.

Be on guard, my children, against the men of this evil, crooked, perverted, and corrupt generation.

Love God with all your soul and heart, and keep His commandments.

- Elder Philotheos Zervakos (+1980)

 

Source: Σοφές Πατρικές διδαχές καί σωτήριες ἀλήθειες τοῦ Ὁσίου γέροντος Φιλοθέου Ζερβάκου [Wise Patristic Teachings and Saving Truths of the Venerable Elder Philotheos Zervakos], published by Orthodox Kypseli.

The uncatechized Greeks and the unrepentant Vatican

by Dimitrios K. Anagnostou, Theologian | April 27, 2025

 

On the occasion of the Pope’s funeral, the confusion, the delusion, and the betrayal of many contemporary Orthodox Greeks regarding their faith, but also their history, were revealed even more. We heard the unbelievable and the absurd, as if we were in a Papal country, and even worse.

Mrs. Korina Georgiou, journalist of Skai, moved to the point of tears by her assignment to the Vatican, mentioned (commenting on the good weather in Rome): "The sun concurred with the holiness of Pope Francis and showed that he is being led into the light!"

As for Mr. Tsouros, journalist of Mega, he seriously agreed, as he emphasized, with the papal cleric who was a guest on his show, that in the election of the new Pope the illumination of the Holy Spirit would prevail, since, after all, among both the Orthodox and the Catholics, as he stated, "the body and blood of Christ that the faithful partake of are the same"!!!

In the end, we are both uncatechized and ignorant of history. And as for the journalists, it is understandable — they either do not know what they are saying or simply say what they are told to say — but has the Greek people, after all, been lobotomized, so as to ignore or forget that Papism is the greatest distortion of Christianity, that the Pope as an institution, with the characteristics he assumed after his schism from the Church, has been aptly characterized by a great Orthodox Dogmatic theologian of the 20th century (the Serbian Elder Justin Popovich) as one of the three falls in the history of humanity (the first being Adam, the second Judas, and the third the Pope), and that the state of the Vatican is one of the most corrupt states in the world?

So as not to go into more difficult and deeper matters, such as that Papism is not the Roman Catholic Church as it was until the 11th century. After all, the Catholic Church, according to the Saints of the second millennium, is and remains only the Orthodox Church, as the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" that we confess in the Symbol of Faith.

Let certain theologians of the "times," and not only them, be held accountable, who became more royalist than the king (the Christianophobic Ministry of Education) and took the lead so that even the subject of Religious Education for Orthodox Greek students would cease to have a catechetical character and essentially become religious studies and colorless. They convinced us that Catechism is something inferior and bad, whereas it is the necessary acquisition of knowledge in order for us to gain awareness of our unique and precious Faith.

On the other hand, the Vatican remains, like its Papism, unrepentant, as was once again confirmed (with a "rich" past against Orthodox East and Hellenism, from the horrific first Fall of Constantinople and our National Revolution of 1821, to the Second World War and the Asia Minor Catastrophe), even at the funeral of the deceased Francis, with the inclusion in its ceremonial of the active participation of a group of Uniates ("janissaries" of the "Holy See," "Orthodox" in appearance but who commemorate and submit to the Pope), in the presence of Patriarch Bartholomew, who performed a memorial prayer for the pontiff and even sang three times in the Greek language "Christ is Risen," thus returning mockery to the Orthodox Tradition of which, according to Patriarch Bartholomew and his like-minded companions or other naive individuals, the deceased was supposedly a friend.

What will save us?… The psalmist points it out to us:

"Embrace instruction (Orthodox catechesis and Patristic study), lest the Lord be angered and you perish from the righteous way"!

P.S. And while the aforementioned unfortunate admirers of the Pope are simple laypeople, there are also quite a few rasso-wearers who did not fall short in making unacceptable statements. A typical and most characteristic case is that of the well-known self-promoter as a great Spiritual Father, Nektarios Moulatsiotis, who, in a related video, says unspeakable things, revealing in all its negative "splendor" his shallowness or even his... opportunism (as a recent supporter of the occupant of the Phanar), weaving praises for the deceased leader of the heretical West, Pope Francis, even judging that God took him on a good day as a "friend of Orthodoxy" (!) and wishing, he too — once promoted as a staunch struggler — for the "union of the Churches"! What opportunism indeed!... And yet, this reckless cassocked man is promoted by the ecclesiastical television station "Lychnos," of the supposedly traditional Metropolis of Patras, as a wise Elder and experienced Teacher of Orthodoxy. New times, new customs!

 

Greek source: https://aktines.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_542.html

Greek public opinion at the mercy of ecumenistic madness

Parakatathikos | April 28, 2025

 

On the occasion of the death of Pope Francis and what followed, in the mass media of our country [of Greece], we witnessed exaggerations and extremities that were neither accidental nor spontaneous.

A journalist even characterized the Pope as a God-man!

Orthodox (supposedly) Patriarchs, Archbishops, and Bishops characterized him as a "brother," "most holy," "friend of Orthodoxy," and even wished him "eternal memory."

In terms of communication, whoever looks to the East sees the "Green Patriarch," and whoever looks to the West sees the "Pope of the poor."

Strange titles (at least for Orthodoxy) that were carefully cultivated by their communication teams.

Exclusively in the Orthodox Tradition there appears a type of asceticism, that of foolishness for Christ.

In these days we became witnesses of a new dystopian hybrid of "holiness," that of a foolish-for-Christ... heresiarch.

This decline, this experienced communicational downfall, allows us two observations.

The first observation concerns the very profession/office of the journalist. Professional journalists who are bound by the code of ethics of the journalistic office are now rare.

Even more rare are the combative journalists with adequacy in their linguistic equipment.
No resistance to the political and communicational strategies of the new totalitarianism.

Two striking examples are the rapid adoption of the rhetoric of the woke agenda and the use of the term North Macedonia for Skopje, from the treacherous Prespa Agreement.

The politicians betray the foundations of the nation, and the journalists, like wound-up parrots, reproduce their treacherous narrative.

The second observation concerns the office of the clergy, especially at the top of the administrative ecclesiastical pyramid.

We observe a new model of clergyman that has been formed since the second half of the 20th century and is continually evolving. Its characteristic features are the new language, the aversion toward Tradition, and the absence of Orthodox experience.

When, moreover, through their interventions they resemble more the professional journalists we described above and their rhetoric is completely identical, even more questions and reasonable concerns are raised.

For an Orthodox clergyman, every Pope is an unrepentant heresiarch.

No matter how much officials, politicians, journalists, and Bishops attempt to communicate and paint the hagiography of a Pope, in the conscience of the people, a heresiarch for Christ cannot exist.

Christ is Risen!

 

Greek source: https://katanixi.gr/dia-christon-airesiarchis/

Sunday, April 27, 2025

He Abandoned Sinai and Joined the Resistance

The world-renowned Spiritual Father Adrianos, confronting Ecumenism.

By Apostolos Kapsalis

 

Again Herodias rages, again she seeks the head of John on a platter. This time Herodias is Ecumenism, and John is a monk of the desert of Mount Sinai, Archimandrite Adrianos.

For thirty consecutive years he served with all the strength of his soul the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai. As a parish priest and also a Spiritual Father, he gave the best he could. Thousands of souls from all over the world, who flocked to his stole, he supported. He became world-renowned for his virtue and his moral stature.

His soul could not endure what was happening in the Church, and especially the joint prayers of Orthodox and other heretics.

His soul could not endure the ecumenistic leveling [of all religions].

And he chose the Sunday of Orthodoxy to abandon the Ecumenists at his Monastery, with the Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Archbishop Damianos, being at the forefront.

His monastic roots are Athonite. For twelve years he lived as a monk at the Holy Monastery of Vatopedi.

He does not sell the birthright for a bowl of lentils.

He does not betray Orthodoxy for the sake of the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

He proceeded and now communes spiritually with the Bishops of the Synod in Resistance, whose President is Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle.

In the conversation we had yesterday, he kept repeating the word "Orthodoxy."

We asked him what made him abandon the Monastery of Sinai.

He answers directly: "Ecumenism, this terrible pan-heresy. The joint prayers with the Papists and the other heretics. The Union has already taken place secretly, but they are afraid to make it public. They are calculating the reaction of the People."

He speaks about persons and situations he saw in Australia, where he had traveled.

[Archbishop] Stylianos [of Australia], with the consent of [Patriarch] Bartholomew, openly preaches the pan-heresy of Ecumenism.

He also encountered the same things in Canada.

They have now launched a mudslinging attack, saying that he is deluded, because they have no other way to strike him.

He is world-renowned for his spirituality.

They call him "the Saint of the rain," because whenever there was a drought, he would pray and it would rain.

Now, leading the attack is Metropolitan of Zakynthos, Panteleimon.

He wants to seal his privately-owned chapel, where he serves, within his paternal property in the village of Planos, Zakynthos.

Obviously, incidents will occur if he proceeds with this threat.

 

Source: Ελεύθερη Ώρα, Tuesday, April 12, 1994




Friday, April 25, 2025

A New Confessor of Bulgaria

The Life, Sufferings, and Miracles of the Holy Confessor Protopresbyter Evstati Yankov Evstatiev (+1952)


https://www.imoph.org/pdfs/2025/04/22/E20250422aAgiosEystathiosBoulg.pdf




"Nothing has changed after the Council of Crete" as a formula of apostasy or the anesthetization of the faith

Hieromonk Lavrentie | Oct. 12, 2021

 

The docilization and immunization of clergy and laity toward the betrayals signed in Crete were achieved through the inoculation of the idea that nothing has changed in the Church; therefore, questions, concerns, and anxieties are superfluous. Naturally, this tactic gained ground against the backdrop of the believers' ignorance, who do not know Church history and, evidently, do not follow the path laid down by the Saints whom they ought to honor.

Even though we have indirectly combated this lie, that "Nothing has changed," through articles about the errors of the Council, about the patristic attitude toward heresies, and through many others on the theme of the heresy of ecumenism, it is still worth addressing this diversion head-on. Why? Because it is becoming a modus vivendi of our Orthodoxy here [in Romania], a permanently entrenched distortion.

In a particular form, this festivism of apparent prosperity can be observed in a recent laudatory article about His Beatitude Daniel, the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, written by Father Sorin Ionițe, in which he makes an assessment of the 14 years of his patriarchate (on September 30). Among the great achievements is counted his performance at the "Holy and Great Council of Crete (2016)," despite all of its serious shortcomings.

[https://basilica.ro/14-pagini-de-istorie-a-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-sub-conducerea-preafericitului-parinte-patriarh-daniel/]

Besides this, it is also noteworthy that the other praiseworthy deeds are mostly managerial actions; nevertheless, two are in the same vein as the ecumenist betrayal and draw special attention, namely the reception of Pope Francis in Bucharest and the management of the pandemic challenges, when religious rights were violated with the consent of the hierarchy last year. Then the question arises: What do we still understand about the Church and what is its purpose? Is its glory the Cross or material accomplishments and even deviations from Orthodox tradition?

Regarding the subject that concerns us, the decisions made in Crete, it is stated in the Romanian version of the article that they were not dogmatic, while in the English version it is said that there were "not only dogmatical decisions," but also provided "practical pastoral and missionary guidance." What can we understand from this? That Romanians are being told that doctrinal issues are not even in question, much less any changes, and that they should stay quiet, while before the foreign public the dogmatic character of the signed documents is being acknowledged. It is possible that this is merely a banal translation error into English, which is nevertheless being picked up by foreign agencies, such as OrthodoxTimes.

[https://orthodoxtimes.com/romanian-orthodox-church-14-pages-of-history-under-the-leadership-of-patriarch-daniel/]

It must be said that from the beginning, Patriarch Daniel pursued this tactic of lulling the faithful into believing that there was no question of changing anything in the content of the faith. Indeed, a very good idea, but one that was scarcely adopted by the representatives of the other Local Orthodox Churches. And when we speak of the beginning, it truly is so, meaning even before the sessions of the Council began. Such assurances were given even before the Romanian delegation’s departure, and even much earlier. As early as 2014, when the decision to convene the Council was made, His Beatitude the Patriarch stated: "The future Pan-Orthodox Council will not debate dogmatic issues," despite the obvious fact that the decision for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement is of a dogmatic nature. As a side note, attention is also drawn to the statement made back then, that "texts which were drafted many years ago will be updated," which indeed happened, the document on the Relations of the Church… being the most retouched in an ecumenist heretical sense.

Still, has anything changed?

In essence, the slogans "Nothing has changed" and "There were no dogmatic decisions" are equivalent. Both suggest that the decisions are unimportant, merely courteous, and do not affect the Creed. But is that truly the case?

I will not insist here on the idea that there are dogmatic errors in the final documents, but rather on the way they are received, in blatant contradiction with the Church’s age-old practice.

There are a few similarities between the older heresies and the ecumenism signed in Crete:

1. Heretics have never claimed that they formulated new dogmas or introduced innovations, but rather that they adhered to the authentic ecclesiastical tradition, that they correctly expressed the teaching of the faith. The same is happening after Crete;

2. Heretics have never encompassed the entire Church, but only significant parts of it. Likewise now, ecumenism was not endorsed by all hierarchs, but only by the majority of those who participated in Crete;

3. Heretics have always sought to obtain recognition either by force or formally, as was the case with the Arians and the Iconoclasts (by force) and with the Monothelites (by forbidding discussions on the topic). Similarly today, any contestation of the Council is suppressed either by force or by milder means.

But there are also important differences between the Church’s former reaction to heresies and today's:

1. The holy hierarchs of the past, as well as simple fathers and faithful, reacted to the dogmatic deviations of heretics (such as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Barlaam...) and condemned them, whereas today the so-called unity of the Church is promoted, meaning a worldly peace, a compromise with evil;

2. The Holy Fathers did not "become haughty, but were saddened" (Gal. 5:2) in the face of heresies and made every effort to uproot them, not to have them, so to speak, absorbed by the healthy part of the Church, knowing that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). Whereas today we are told not to judge and, practically, not to take any stance in the face of the advancement of evil.

3. The Church has always been regarded as the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and its unity formed on steadfast faith in God, whereas today it is conceived more as an organization and an autonomous institution, at the whim of the hierarchs, episcopocentric, not Christocentric.

If someone says that they see no changes after Crete, would they not have said the same thing in the time of the Arians, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Barlaamites, or other heresies that seemed not to affect the conduct of worship? Yes, the Iconoclasts removed the icons from the churches, but a multitude of other heretics did not bring visible changes, and yet they were firmly opposed. Why is that?

The change that is taking place is not at the material, visible level, but at the spiritual level, at the level of the faith. Even if the services remain the same, the Creed upon which they are founded is no longer the same. What greater difference could there be? And whoever does not perceive this can hardly be called a believer. They are capable of seeing a scandal in the perhaps exaggerated reactions of some, but not in the unacceptable decisions signed by the hierarchs. This proves once again that today we are dealing with an ongoing heresy that undermines the doctrine concerning the Church; there is no longer a correct understanding of what salvation within it means.

Even Mount Athos is functioning incorrectly

The expectations of many to denounce the errors from Crete were directed toward Mount Athos, which has the reputation of being a republic of monks who seek nothing but God, having no earthly interests. However, how false and illusory this disposition proved to be!

Without speculating on the honesty of the monks there, it is telling to see how the Holy Community decided that the Council of Crete had made no mistakes.

On June 17/30, 2017, the Double Assembly of the Holy Mountain discussed and approved an official document regarding the Council of Crete. But it is well known that "the text was not composed during the session itself, but beforehand by Archimandrite Vasilios (Gondikakis), the former abbot of the Monasteries of Stavronikita and Iveron, who is known to be close to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although the text was issued in the name of the entire Holy Community, it is also known that a number of Athonite Monasteries contested the document." [See https://orthochristian.com/105681.html] Although "the long-standing policy of the Holy Community is to issue all statements that are not of a dogmatic nature as if they were taken unanimously, even if 7 or 8 monasteries would be in disagreement," it is precisely here that the deception appears. The issues raised by the decisions of Crete are of a dogmatic nature and, therefore, the very procedure of discussing them was itself wrong. Even the Monasteries of Xeropotamou, Karakallou, Philotheou, Constamonitou, and Gregoriou did not oppose as they ought to have, as one would against heresies, but merely expressed their disagreement. Of course, there are also other important figures who, in fact, did not agree, but again, that no longer matters.

What is important to note from all this is that the very structure of the Church is changing, the souls and consciences of the faithful are no longer being formed by reference to the unadulterated truth revealed by Christ, but by various compromises. And, of course, these concessions do not stop here, because such is the nature of any heresy, to erode and suffocate the saving faith.

In times of tribulation, salvation is attained through self-compulsion despite the adverse circumstances.

 

Romanian source: https://theodosie.ro/2021/10/12/nu-s-a-schimbat-nimic-dupa-sinodul-din-creta-ca-formula-de-apostazie-sau-anesteziere-a-credintei/

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

Those who knowingly commune with heresy are equated with those who preach it.

In contrast to the Arch-Heresiarch Bartholomew and all his … underlings, that is, those who commemorate him and therefore commune with him, the Arch-Heresiarch of the Last Times, the Atlas of Orthodoxy [St. Mark of Ephesus] thunderously proclaims concerning the Frankish Latins: 

"We have rejected them as heretics, and for this reason, we have separated from them," "They are heretics, therefore we have cut them off as heretics."

But the same, the steadfast Saint, thunderously proclaims also against the Graeco-Latins, that is, those who accept the Frankish Latins as "Orthodox," namely the Graeco-Latin Phanariots and those who commemorate the Graeco-Latin Patriarch Bartholomew and thus commune with him: 

"But what," he says, "shall we do with these intermediaries, the Graeco-Latins? ... Flee from them as one flees from a serpent, as from those very ones... the Christ-merchants and Christ-traders. For these are, according to the divine Apostle, those who regard piety as gain, concerning whom he adds, saying: 'Withdraw from such people.... What communion has light with darkness? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?...'" "Therefore, flee from them, brethren, and from communion with them. For such as these (i.e., the Latin-minded bishops) are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ..." (Patrologia Orientalis, Volume XV, Au Concile de Florence, pp. 318-320). 

The same is confirmed by Saint Basil the Great:

"Those who pretend to confess the sound faith but commune with those of another mind, if they do not separate after being admonished, should not only be considered as excommunicated but also not even be called brethren." (P.G. 160, p. 101). 

The Fathers teach that those who knowingly commune with heresy are equated with those who preach it. Can you tell us to whom the Holy Fathers address all these words? To the rocks, the walls, and the pebbles? No, of course not, but to you and me, to those registered in the records of the Church. And what do they mean by "communion"? They mean participation, joint prayer, co-worship, any sacramental and prayerful relationship with them, even commemoration. Even the commemoration of heretics defiles the faithful. These ones, they should not only be considered as excommunicated (walled off) but not even called brethren. FLEE, THEREFORE, FROM THEM AND FROM COMMUNION WITH THEM. The Holy Fathers use the same words. Are we the ones misinterpreting them? You give your own interpretation.

"So that this may not happen, be willing... to turn away from those who openly hold impious beliefs and to guard yourselves against those who claim not to hold the beliefs of Arius yet commune with the impious. And especially from those whose mindset we reject, it is fitting to flee from their communion... And if someone pretends to confess the right faith but is seen communing with them, exhort such a one to abstain from such a habit; and if he promises to do so, consider him as a brother. But if he stubbornly persists, reject such a one. For by continuing in this manner, you will keep the faith pure; and they, seeing you, will benefit, fearing lest they be regarded as impious and holding the same beliefs as them." (St. Athanasius, "Letter to Those Practicing the Monastic Life," P.G. 26, 1185-1188) 

St. John Chrysostom writes: 

"Never think highly of yourself, even if you are wiser than all; nor despise the counsel of others, even if they are the most insignificant of all. If someone advises you about something proper, even if he is a servant, accept the admonition. For we should not look at the quality of the persons giving counsel, but rather always at the nature of the counsel itself. If someone advises you correctly, even if he is a servant, accept the admonition; but if he advises something destructive, even if he holds the highest rank, reject his opinion. For it is not the quality of the persons advising that we must consider, but rather the very nature of the counsel itself everywhere." 

Cheap piety does not lead to the Kingdom of God.

"I know many who fast, pray, endure hardships, and generally practice every religious custom with zeal—provided that it costs them nothing (cheap piety)—and yet they do not give a single coin to those in need. What benefit does the rest of their virtue bring them? They are not fit for the Kingdom of God." (St. Basil the Great, P.G. 31, p. 277, "To the Rich")


Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html


The Walling-off of Saint Raphael

In December of 1452, while the Protosyncellus Father Raphael and his Deacon Nicholas were in Constantinople, Emperor Constantine organized an official concelebration in the Church of Hagia Sophia with the Pope’s representative, Cardinal Isidore, as part of the unionist policy he was implementing, under the illusion that Constantinople would be saved from the suffocating Turkish encirclement with the help of the Pope. On December 12, 1452, the feast day of Saint Spyridon, this concelebration took place. However, Protosyncellus Raphael did not want to attend, nor did he allow his Deacon to go. He knew very well that this would be a betrayal of the Faith. “No, not that far. Contact, yes; help, yes; concelebration with the papists—never!” said the Saint. The Emperor became very angry and punished them with temporary exile to Ainos. For this reason, Saint Raphael is also called a confessor, because he abandoned the honors and glories of his office and did not count the cost of opposing the emperor in order to defend the truth of Orthodoxy against the heresy of Papism.


Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_22.html

See also: https://agiosrafael.gr/index.php/en/40-dimosievmena-arthra/orthodoksi-pisti/210-saint-raphael-and-the-unification-joint-liturgy-in-hagia-sophia-of-constantinople

Teaching of the Church on the Mysteries of Heretics

Source: excerpt from Ἡ Πέμπτη Οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος [The Fifth Ecumenical Synod], by Metropolitan Meletios (Kalamaras) of Nikopolis and Preveza, Athens, 1985.

 

According to an indisputable ecclesiastical principle, the unity of the Church is not of an administrative-institutional form. The Church is one in the Spirit; it is united in the name of Christ. "One Lord; one Faith; one Baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all of us." This unity is shaken only by heterodoxies. He who thinks differently than what has been handed down ceases to have the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

For this reason, according to the Fifth [Ecumenical] Synod (Act I §3, 17), the supreme duty of the priests, the guardians of the Church, is the safeguarding of the faith.

The fall of priests from the unity of the faith defiles the Mysteries performed by them and removes from them the gift of spiritual fatherhood. Instead of shepherds, they become wolves, devouring their flock (see Act VI §15, 10 and Act I 3, 14).

For this reason, Justinian declares (and the Synod confirms this "position" in Act VII §16, 1–2) that he will never tolerate receiving Holy Communion from priests suspected of heresy. And the Orthodox, throughout the entire duration of the Acacian schism [484-519 A.D.], refused to commune of the immaculate Mysteries from the hands of those merely suspected.

"Why do we remain without communion for so many (35) years? Why do we not commune?" (A.C.O. 3, p. 72). Priests and fathers are only those who keep the faith undefiled (Act I §3, 14).

Every priest celebrates the immaculate Mysteries worthily and unto sanctification only insofar as he is united with the faith of the Church. The commemoration in the holy diptychs takes place as a declaration and safeguarding of this unity. In the diptychs of the living, the names of the "communing" Orthodox hierarchs and patriarchs are inscribed and proclaimed. For this reason also, the Synod, for the safeguarding of the purity of the holy Mysteries, erased from the holy diptychs the name of the then-reigning Pope Vigilius (see Act VII §§16–17). In the diptychs of the departed, only Orthodox fathers and teachers are commemorated. Therefore, when it was determined that Theodore was preaching heterodox teachings, his name was erased from the diptychs of the Church in Mopsuestia. "It is foreign to Christians to accept impiety (=heresy) equally with the Orthodox faith" (Act I §3, 13). All priests must have one and the same mind (Act II §5, 7).

 

Greek source online: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_40.html

 

The Errors of the Saints

The foolish accuser [Nun Magdalene, writing blasphemously of St. Nektarios], unfortunately, was not able to understand that a saint does not mean sinless, because only One is such—the God—but it is the course of a soul constantly repenting and striving for the better, according to Saint Isaac, even if small or somehow great falls are marked along this course, as we see this most clearly in the lives of the saints of our Church.

The Church condemns the writings of holy men—or even the men themselves—only when they do not conform to her instructions to correct what may be amiss in them; otherwise, she rejects their erroneous opinion, without, however, stripping them of the title of sainthood, seeing with wisdom that they did not write or say something unorthodox out of a disposition of heterodoxy, but were led astray as mortal men in their judgments, or, as our great father Barsanuphios most beautifully says, because they did not pray beforehand that God might inform them whether what they had received from the teachers before them was true. Commenting on the above, Saint Nikodemos writes: “Such a thing seems to have happened also in the case of the aforementioned divine Gregory of Nyssa; for having received the opinion concerning the apocatástasis, from the teachers before him without scrutiny, he did not beseech God to reveal to him whether it was true. Hence it is found scattered throughout his writings, especially in those called Macrineia. And that this opinion was truly his is agreed upon with this divine Barsanuphios also by the great Maximus, who interprets the words of Nyssa toward the correct meaning; and Gennadios Scholarios, even the unadulterated word of Germanos of Constantinople, assert that this was an addition of the heretics. Let it also be noted, however, that the saint does not assert this with insistence, nor through a synodical definition on this matter; for later the Sixth Ecumenical Council rejected this opinion as blasphemous.” (Response 64 from the Book of Barsanuphios, p. 287).

Compare now and marvel, my beloved Akakios. An entire Ecumenical Council with its approximately 250 holy fathers examining the works of Saint Gregory and rejecting whatever in them is unsound, yet continuing to honor the holy father himself—as does the whole Church—as a “father of fathers,” even though he fell into a great dogmatic error.

Must we then consider Saint Mark of Ephesus also a traitor to the faith, who, approximately 400 years after the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, accepts that the returning Papists to Orthodoxy are sufficiently received merely by chrismation, mentioning nothing concerning their rebaptism, as ought to have been the case?

But why do I mention only Saint Mark? In like manner, one must also erase from the diptychs of the saints Saint Arsakios, successor of Saint Chrysostom to the throne of Constantinople, since none—or rather, all the bishop friends of the golden-mouthed one—desired not even to have ecclesiastical communion with him. Thereafter, we must also erase from the Pedalion the Canons of Theophilos of Alexandria, who, as is known, was the principal cause of the exile of Saint Chrysostom, having convened that unlawful synod—later called “robber”—at the Oak, which condemned the great Father. But do we encounter only the above impossible and shadowy elements in the lives of the saints? I shall enumerate for you still more shortcomings of great men of our Church:

Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus, for instance, clashed with Holy Chrysostom in Constantinople, and they parted from one another without being reconciled. Saint Cyril of Alexandria considered the great John Chrysostom to have been justly exiled, and for many years his name was not included in the diptychs for commemoration. Saint Germanos of Constantinople, as well as Saint Andrew of Crete, signed—even if unwittingly, according to some—a royal decree against the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Patriarchs Photios and Ignatios remained out of communion and mutually anathematized for years, being reconciled only one year before the repose of Saint Ignatios. And all this, because—as a pious contemporary scholar aptly writes—“even the saints are subject to the conditions of human nature and can commit errors as they strive, ‘with God cooperating,’ to transcend the boundaries between heaven and earth.”

Finally, she must cease continually exalting and calling Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem “thrice-wise” and “saint” and “Trinitarian theologian,” constantly referring us to his works, since—listen, brother, and be horrified—in his Orthodox Confession, article 15, he ACCEPTS AS VALID THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS! [1]

As for the canonization of the saint [i.e., St. Nektarios] by the heretic Athenagoras, this in no way diminishes the worth and holiness of the father, since the proclamation of someone as a saint by the Patriarchate does not mean that the Patriarchate makes him a saint, but rather that it comes to seal and officially proclaim before the Church the conviction and belief of the faithful people concerning the holiness of such-and-such a person. For this reason, after all, the foolish accuser also honors and venerates in a special way Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, although he too was proclaimed a saint by that same heretic Athenagoras!…

 

[1] I. Karmiris, Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments, vol. II, p. 757 [838]

 

Source: Hieromonk Theodoretos (Mavros), Response to the One Afflicted with the Disease of Fighting Against Saints, Nun Magdalene

Online: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_23.html

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

A brief commentary on the “common cup” and the steps toward the unity of Orthodoxy with heterodoxy...

Protopresbyter Peter Heers

[Written in 2016, prior to the Pseudo-"Pan-Orthodox" Synod of Kolymbari, Crete.]


In response to the well-meaning concern, cultivated by certain Orthodox, regarding the "pan-heresy" of ecumenism (the ecclesiological-theological denial of the existence of one Church, which is the Orthodox Church), one often hears a curt reply: that “this will never happen,” “there is no chance that we will come into communion with Rome,” and so on. This reassuring manner aims to lull us into complacency and to focus our anxieties solely on the issue of the “common cup.”

In response to the well-meaning concern, cultivated by certain Orthodox, regarding the "pan-heresy" of ecumenism (the ecclesiological-theological denial of the existence of one Church, which is the Orthodox Church), one often hears a curt reply: that “this will never happen,” “there is no chance that we will come into communion with Rome,” and so on. This reassuring manner aims to lull us into complacency and to focus our anxieties solely on the issue of the “common cup.”

Nevertheless, neither now nor over the past 30 and more years has this been the point at stake; in reality, the current contentious issue is something else. Even if we never come into communion with any heterodox, the possibility of adopting a heretical ecclesiology is real.

Behold, a way to understand what is happening and how our enemy is preparing us to accept a heretical ecclesiology and, consequently, a false union. This is how I explain the situation to some of my parishioners: at this moment, the ecumenist mindset wants to make us believe that we are betrothed to Papist Protestantism, that is, to Catholicism. Thus, you often hear them say that we have the same faith but, unfortunately, we cannot yet commune together.

The next step is to recognize, in synod, that we are both “the church,” even though one side is more so than the other (depending on the point of view). This is equivalent to marriage, that is, to the recognition of the mysteries and of ecclesial character (ecclesiality). This is essentially what is achieved—though hesitantly and with double-speak—by the document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”

From the moment the marriage is performed, it is a matter of time before the newlywed couple retreats inward and consummates the relationship. That is the common cup. Whether it comes a little later, sooner, or not at all, it does not matter much, because the marriage is the key that ends the separation. Do not fixate on the issue of consummation….

The recognition of the mysteries and of the “ecclesial character” is everything here.


Greek source: http://makkavaios.blogspot.com/2016/02/blog-post_23.html

The new Heresy of the anti-Ecumenists that they instill in the Flock!

If we are spiritually weak and the behavior of the other person affects us negatively, then we should not accuse him, but avoid him and not associate or have dealings with him. And if he is a heretic, then we should completely avoid him and not accept him. Because companionship with heretics is dangerous, it can poison us and spiritually kill us.

— Elder Iakovos Tsalikis

Source: http://www.orthodoxia-ellhnismos.gr/2016/12/blog-post_25.html

 

Behold, this is the new HERESY of the anti-Ecumenists which they teach both in deed and in word! And they do not understand (?) that in this way, they give the Ecumenists the opportunity to instill the Pan-heresy into the Flock! That with this tactic they do not truly cause any substantial problems for the Ecumenists, who proceed with the expansion of the pan-heresy and its further “rooting” into the body of the Church:

Until — they say — the PAN-HERESY of ECUMENISM is condemned, it does not poison, it does not kill! (even though they do not merely call it heresy, but PAN-HERESY!).

WHEN, however, and IF it is condemned (by whom? By the heretical Ecumenists themselves? By the anti-Ecumenists who refuse to name them?), then it will begin to poison and to kill!

Yet all the Saints teach us that heresy poisons and kills, whether it is condemned or uncondemned, just as Elder Iakovos tells us above! And Elder Iakovos says something else noteworthy: Not only heretics, but even the bad behavior of others affects the weak! How much more so heresy?

And yet the anti-Ecumenists recommend to the faithful to confess, to be spiritually guided, and to commune from the Ecumenists, and they do not dare to give us a NAMED list of who these are, with whom we should not commune! At the very least, which among the Bishops and spiritual fathers! Why? Because they themselves commune with them, stubbornly refusing to cease commemorating them!

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post_391.html

 

The Consequences of Not Ceasing Commemoration of the Ecumenists and the “Economies” of the Anti-Ecumenists

Panagiotis Simatis, theologian | April 22, 2018

 

“The divine Fathers, who arranged all things well,” always applied the Cessation of Commemoration of heretical Shepherds as a pastoral measure of salvific significance. A measure which is the only effective one for the confrontation of heresy and its consequences. This was done simultaneously with the appearance of heresy or even after its denunciation and the attempt to refute it, at the time—namely—when the heretics were still members of the Church and were performing valid mysteries, and NOT after their removal/deposition from the Church, just as occurred in the case of the heretics, for example, Nestorius and Kalekas, whose mysteries the saints Celestine, Cyril, and Gregory Palamas considered valid, although they regarded them as “false shepherds” / “hirelings.” And this is because, after their condemnation, they were considered outside the Church and as having no mysteries.

The period of tolerance (from the moment of the denunciation of the heresy) was always brief and aimed at informing the faithful and correcting those inclined toward heresy (as well as those following them) and, of course, at averting the destructive consequences that the corrupting ideas of heresy have upon their souls. For heresy alters the “faith once delivered” and severs man from the truth and from God.

Illuminating and expressive of the patristic teaching are the things written by Fr. Euthymios Trikaminas, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

“In order that each believer may not participate in the heresy of Ecumenism, there exists one and only way, handed down by Holy Scripture, the sacred Canons, and the holy Fathers: walling off. The anti-Ecumenists, however, have unfortunately invented today another way, which teaches that one may avoid participating in heresy while being ecclesiastically integrated with the heretics, provided that he has an Orthodox mindset. This is, in other words, the theory of convenience and of paper warfare, which we have pointed out many times.”

This observation of Fr. Euthymios shows the anti-patristic stance of the anti-Ecumenists, who teach the combating of heresy while at the same time being in communion with heresy.

The Saints, however, teach otherwise, such as Saint Theodore the Studite. In a letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem and Alexandria, he states that even he who is Orthodox is lost, insofar as he is in communion with heretics. He writes: “Some have utterly made shipwreck concerning the faith, while others, even if they have not been drowned in thought, nevertheless are destroyed through communion with heresy” (Fat. 276, 411,68). And: “Some have utterly made shipwreck concerning the faith, while others, even if their thoughts have not been submerged, by heretical communion are in peril of bodily death halfway...” (Fat. 275, 407,42).

“The anti-Ecumenists, of course, do not believe in the teaching of the Saints, and for this reason they have created the New Age theory that one is not harmed by ecclesiastical communion with heretics, so long as he has an Orthodox mindset and does not accept their heresies.

“For the anti-Ecumenists, as is proven, this concept of communion has been distorted and means a kind of partnership and collaboration in which each one, while being in full communion with the heretics… while mingling as an equal member with the heretics of the W.C.C., while signing (as a Bishop) divorces for any reason and licenses for second and third adulterous marriages according to the directives of the state, while teaching that he is not defiled by this integration,” nevertheless can “at the same time hold to his faith, reproach and rebuke those with whom he has this full communion on matters of faith, and consider that he fully possesses the truth, not only on a personal level but also on an ecclesiastical level, despite the full communion with heretics and despite the fact that not only are the heads who stand in the place and type of Christ heretical, but also the line and path which they synodally follow is utterly heretical and conformed to the mandates of the pan-religion and the New Age.”

(here: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2015_05_11_archive.html?m=0)

The result of this stance of the anti-Ecumenists is the increase of confusion among the flock and the imposition of the heretics. Consequently, we are called to choose whom we will listen to: the proponents of possibilism—that is, Seraphim of Piraeus, the newly emerging anti-Ecumenist Ambrosios of Kalavryta, Fr. Theodoros Zisis, Fr. Nikolaos Manolis (and any other Shepherd)—or Saint Theodore and the Holy Fathers in agreement with him?

Surely, the responsibility for the choice lies with each believer.

The Cessation of Commemoration or walling off, then, is not a stance of a potential or optional character toward the heretics, but for anyone who has taken his faith and salvation seriously, it is an obligation, a duty, a salvific stance. As for one who is not concerned with his salvation, he may choose not to distance himself from the heretics; he may remain “for a time” in communion with them—or even permanently; just as, of course, someone else may also choose not to follow Christ, not to keep His Commandments!

For the “divine Fathers who arranged all things well,” separation from the heretics resembles the fleeing of “sheep” from “wolves,” of a man from a serpent, of healthy persons from an infectious disease and contagious pandemic; an exit and departure from a house that is burning; walling off takes place so that one may not be burned together with those who willingly (=optionally!) remain within the fire of the Pan-heresy!

For indeed, this is the truth: the believer is devoured and burned by the wolf and the fire of heresy, as the Saints teach us, when he remains in communion with the heretics. He is affected both imperceptibly and perceptibly, and becomes defiled, and thus is lost. The Apostle Paul has warned us that this happens even in matters of lesser importance, such as conversations and associations: “Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Therefore, the believer must withdraw from the heretics and from those who commune with them, “as from a serpent,” just as when one encounters a snake before him, or as when someone finds himself in a place where there is a contagious disease—if he desires to be saved and not be infected.

This is the one aspect of the matter.

At the same time, every believer who considers the Church to be the Body of Christ and the other brethren as members of that Body, when he sees that the members of the Body have been infected or are in danger of being infected by the contagious diseases contained in the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, out of love and duty toward Christ, the Church (his home), his brethren, and himself, out of love and concern for the truth and the true Faith, struggles self-sacrificially against every assault upon the Faith and the Church and withdraws from the heretics, sounding the alarm also on their behalf, even if he remains alone with respect to men. It is not possible for someone to care for the Fathers and his brethren, to care for the integrity and preservation of the One Church of Jesus, and for that concern of his to be (as some foolishly characterize it, even praisingly) optional!

Either one cares or one does not care—little or much. Either one loves or one does not love—little or much. Either one believes or one does not believe—little or much. There is no such thing as optional concern, optional faith, and optional love! Even if your faith is weak, your love small, as a believer you fall at the feet of Jesus and, like the father of the demon-possessed boy, you cry out: “I believe, Lord; help Thou mine unbelief.” I am not worthy, O Lord, like Thy Saints, who struggled for the preservation of the Faith undefiled, who strove with tireless concern for their brethren, who struggled with steadfastness, unwavering and fearless, for my passions deprive me of that ability. But nevertheless, I follow Thy Saints, Thy Most Pure Mother, so that the whirlwind of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism may not sweep me away as well, so that it may not destroy my brethren, my children, those around me.

It is absolutely clear that the first who desire and support the optional application of separation from heresy are the heretics themselves. It is absolutely clear that the Ecumenist Shepherds and those who commemorate them and are in communion with them fear one thing: the cessation of commemoration. That is why they resort to threats, that is why there are persecutions, and why the teaching of the Saints is misinterpreted and distorted—something they do with infuriating ease, as though performing the holiest of acts—bringing to mind the Lord’s words: “Whosoever killeth you will think that he offereth service unto God” (John 16:2).

From these things it is shown that the heretics, or those who are in communion with the heretics, are (both metaphorically and literally) “hireling” shepherds (John 10:12) and “evil” shepherds; and this is precisely why what they fear and tremble at is the loss of their power, their communion—recognition—mutual support from fellow clergymen, the prestige granted to them by their office and not their communion with God, whom they abandon and offend, since they do not strive to drive away the heretics who are ravaging His Church! What concerns them is social prominence, income, and the service of their own interests. For some, even secret carnal, pleasurable indulgences (by the threat of exposure—as recently happened in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem—the Ecumenists keep them under control), and other unconfessed things.

Because of all this, even the cessation of the commemoration of their name drives them mad; they cannot even conceive of an open challenge to their authority. The thought of being left alone for the love and faith of the Lord Jesus, as all the Saints did, drives them insane. And thus they proceed to compromises, concessions, and the betrayal of our Faith.

That things stand thus is absolutely evident from one single fact: the Ecumenists have proceeded—and proceed daily and now without any pretense—not to one, but to hundreds of betrayals of the Faith; they add one betrayal upon another; they have gone so far as to legitimize their betrayals with the Council of Kolymbari (which they were not ashamed to call “Holy”!). And the Shepherds (Bishops, priests, deacons, monks) commune with all these as if NOTHING has happened. And not only that—they even honor them!!!

The false assurances of the Ecumenists that “everything is going well,” or that “we are not betraying the faith,” or that all these things “we do out of love for the heterodox,” though they are refuted daily by new betrayals, by the silent (or even open) acceptance of new heresies (verbal or practical), do not in the least trouble these shepherds—and this is precisely what places them among the false shepherds. They continue to keep their eyes closed to the distortion of the Faith, to its selling out!

They remain coldly indifferent to the fact that heresy, with the half-hearted manner of confronting it, with indifference and ostrich-like behavior, does not retreat, does not diminish, does not disappear, but on the contrary grows, strengthens, expands, prevails.

They do not even consider turning their eyes to the lives of the Saints—despite praising them every day in festive concelebrations—and to imitate them. To imitate their confession, their manner of confronting heresy. And yet, a good general, when he sees that the strategy he applies in battling the enemy is not yielding results, changes it. But these remain unrepentant and unteachable, clinging to their same ruinous tactic. Because they do not desire to walk with the victorious Christ, who alone, seated upon a white horse, “went forth conquering and to conquer” (Rev. 6:2), but instead they care for and find security in walking with the many.

There are, of course, also those who exhort their spiritual children to look to the Bridegroom Christ, but they urge them to pray while closing their eyes and not allowing them to understand that the Lord and the Saints, along with prayer—and because of their fervent and sound prayer—were illumined, were strengthened, and advanced beside the victorious Christ; they fought in the arenas for His love, they did not leave Him alone, they did not allow His bride, the Church, to be wounded by the heretical frenzy. They were first in refuting heresy, but primarily first in distancing themselves from the heretics, since mere identification and a paper war against heresy does not particularly disturb the heretics, who are always supported by powerful centers of authority. This paper war is ignored by the heretics; they bypass it. In former times, they did so because they persisted in their satanic pride, claiming that they alone had rightly understood the Faith, that they alone possessed the truth. But today, they do so because they have consciously sold their souls to the New World Order–Luciferian powers that are preparing the coming of the Antichrist!

Thus, both shepherds and flock have been infected (and to some degree this happens to all of us, since we live within the suffocating, infectious atmosphere of the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism) by the ecumenist virus. And the longer the believer remains in communion with the Ecumenists, instead of things improving (as the anti-Ecumenists foolishly claim), the worse they will become, the more our immune system will weaken, be afflicted, be numbed—until we reach a point in time when our reaction will be nonexistent.

Is this, then, what those supposedly concerned and “fighting” against the Pan-heresy want—those who themselves remain (and advise the faithful likewise to remain) in communion with the Ecumenists?

Whether they want it or not, these are the consequences, the effects of communion with heretics—in all ages; this is where the Pan-heresy leads, to a far greater degree even than the heresies of other times, since today we are bombarded daily by the heretics with thousands of images, videos, speeches, dialogues, conferences, and so many other means of communication—means which in earlier times were non-existent and unimaginable, and the influence of heresy was lesser.

While there is still time, let us all put into practice—with concord, unity, humility, and, indeed, a SACRIFICIAL spirit—the specific Commandments of God concerning separation from the heretics. The EXAMPLE of the Saints is easily and quickly grasped and can be compared with the COUNTER-EXAMPLE that the contemporary false shepherds recommend to us.

For this, of course, what is needed is BOLDNESS—like that shown by the holy MYRRH-BEARERS of today, who did not follow an optional teaching about offering support to the dead Christ. But disregarding every difficulty and danger, they spread the timeless myrrh of their love, their myrrh-bearing example to the whole world.

This myrrh-bearing support to the Church of the dead and Risen Christ—to the Church which today, instead of receiving myrrh, receives the stench of the heretical Pan-heresy—is what the Lord also asks of us:

“Come out,” then, brethren, “from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,” and “touch not the unclean” Ecumenistic thing, “and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be to Me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:18–7:1).

 

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2018/04/blog-post_732.html

Photios Kontoglou: Christ is Risen! The Trial of Reason

Most people are unbelievers. Even Christ’s own disciples did not believe the words of their teacher whenever He told them that He would rise again, despite all the reverence and devotion they had for Him and the trust in His words.

And when the Myrrh-bearing women went at dawn to Christ’s tomb and saw the two angels who spoke to them, saying that He had risen, they ran to bring the joyful news to the disciples, but the disciples did not believe their words, thinking they were fantasies: “And their words seemed to them as idle tales (nonsense), and they did not believe them.”

Do you see how much unbelief Christ Himself struggled against?

Even with His own disciples. Did you see with how much longsuffering He endured it all? …And despite all this, even to this day, most of us are separated from Christ by a frozen wall—the wall of unbelief. He opens His arms and calls to us, and we deny Him.

He shows us His pierced hands and feet, and we say that we do not see them.

We seek to find supports for our unbelief in order to satisfy our pride, which we call Philosophy and Science.

The word Resurrection does not fit within the books of our knowledge... Because “the knowledge of this world cannot know anything else, except for a multitude of reasonings, but not that which is known through the simplicity of the mind.” Yes, those who have that blessed simplicity of mind, the Lord blessed them, saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And to Thomas, who was seeking to touch Him in order to believe, He said: “Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed?

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Let us pray to the Lord to grant us this rich poverty, and the pure heart, so that we may see Him rising, in order that we too may rise with Him.

This unknowing (ignorance) is higher than knowledge: “This is the ignorance that is superior to knowledge.” Blessed and thrice-blessed are those who have it.

 

Greek source: https://353agios.blogspot.com/2016/04/blog-post_61.html

Monday, April 21, 2025

Defining Ecumenism and the Proper Resistance to It

(Extracts from The Criteria of Ecclesiastical Struggle, a talk by Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, presented on March 17, 2012, at Holy Archangel Michael Serbian Orthodox Church in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.)

 

PART 1: SUMMARY DEFINITION OF HERETICAL ECUMENISM:

These innovative teachings can be summarized as follows (see Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites, Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 17-22):

a) "Baptismal theology." This particular teaching maintains that baptism - Orthodox or heterodox - supposedly delimits the Church, establishing the so-called "baptismal boundaries" of the Church, and that, in this way, She includes Orthodox and heterodox, who are held together by the "baptismal unity" of the Church….

b) The theology of "Sister Churches," according to which Orthodox and Roman Catholics are supposedly "Sister Churches" in the full sense of that term, despite existing dogmatic differences; in fact, the Orthodox ecumenists have extended the term "Sister Churches" to other heterodox communions, too…

c) The theology of the "Broad Church," which talks about "the Church in the broadest sense"; about "the Church of Christ in her totality," and "no longer about Orthodoxy alone"; about a "Church outside the Church," "outside the walls," and "outside the canonical limits" and "ecclesiastical boundaries" of Orthodoxy…. (Once more, even the more liberal of the Roman Catholic ecumenists have never sacrificed their claims to primacy in the stark terms accepted and promulgated by the Orthodox ecumenists.)

d) The theology of "cultural pluralism," which regards the unity of Orthodox and heterodox as a "given" and existing dogmatic differences as a simple divergency in theological nomenclature about the same faith, corresponding to our individual cultures and complementing one another in a legitimate variety of theological traditions….

e) The theology of "common service,” which acknowledges that there are dead-ends in the "dialogues," that is, an impossibility of union in the same faith, and that, in order to overcome these, proposes a confederational and moral union of the Orthodox and heterodox by way of organization, action, and solidarity for "common service" to the world.

PART 2: SUMMARY OF THE PATRISTIC MODEL OF RESISTANCE

Summarizing our analysis of the Nestorian controversy, we see a reiteration of the principles and protocols of ecclesiastical struggle laid out by the Lord and the Apostles, demonstrated in the Life of Saint Gregory of Nazianzos, and discussed in the exegetical works of the Divine Chrysostomos.

Let us review the steps in this process of struggle with the bold proclamation of Nestorios' innovative and subversive doctrine:

1) The right-believing and healthy members of the Church recognize the heretical innovation as a "subversion" of the Gospel.

2) Keenly aware of their responsibilities, they flee the innovation and wall themselves off, "lest," as St. Cyril notes, "they should be harmed in their faith." Their separation, St. John Chrysostomos assures us, is not from some "contentious" or "ambitious" spirit, but is, rather, aimed at the preservation of Christian preaching (the "Gospel") and, accordingly, the unity of the faithful.

3) The leaders of the Church address the innovator, refuting his error for the sake of his correction and the protection of the faithful.

4) With the innovator's obstinacy and persistence in error, the walled-off, resisting, and right-believing members of the Church labor towards a hearing of the disputed issue before "the Church"; that is, a competent or Oecumenical Synod.

[We note that the collective labors involved in these first four steps are what the Holy Fathers call "resistance."]

5) At the assembly of a competent or Oecumenical Synod, the issues are again examined in full in light of the Church’s established teaching, as expressed, for example, in Scripture, Patristic writings, and worship. Error is denounced, truth is proclaimed, and the innovative, ailing individual (or contingent) is given a last opportunity to correct his (its) views.

6) With continued obstinacy from the innovator, the Synod "rejects" the heretic, pronounces the final, authoritative, and effective condemnation of both the individual(s) involved and his (their) errant teaching.

7) The heretic, now condemned, becomes as a "heathen and publican," removed from the body of Faithful believers. His errant and divisive teaching is catalogued and takes its place among the other notorious subversions of the Christian Faith, i.e., among the condemned heresies.

These seven procedural steps, though extracted from the events of a single controversy in the fourth century, can be distinguished in virtually every great ecclesiastical contest. in fact, all of the core elements of my outline have been established as conventional protocol, either in the writings of the Saints, in the Church Canons, or in the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Synods themselves (most notably the Seventh Oecumenical Synod and the follow-up First-Second Synod, held in the eighth and ninth centuries, respectively).

PART 3: SUMMARY OF THE ACTIVE RESISTANCE

By your patience and with God's help, we have now reached the last portion of our talk. Let us recapitulate our points and make some summary observations.

First, we have pointed out that, for many reasons, God allows contentions within the Church. When the divisive issues are minor, we are advised forbearance, forgiveness, and conciliation. When, however, the controversy is over some deviation from received, established teaching, that is, a matter of heresy, the Church advises a dramatically different strategy: that of resistance. We have seen that heresy is not simply a matter of wrong opinion. it also involves an ailing disposition that is marked by self-reliance and a stubborn opposition to correction.

We have seen that resistance, the process whereby the Church addresses and corrects heresy, encompasses some seven steps, as we labor to preserve the healthy faithful, restore the Church's ailing members, and promote unity in the Church. These steps are:

a) an identification of the un-Orthodox teaching;

b) a walling off, that is, separation from the new subversive teaching, lest our own faith be harmed;

c) instruction, admonishments, and reproofs are issued by the Church's teachers, for the protection of the faithful and the correction of the innovators;

d) (assuming that the innovators do not repent) we labor for the convocation of a competent or Oecumenical Synod for the adjudication of the contentious issue;

e) the convening of a Synod and a judgement, Orthodoxy is delineated, the controversial heresy is identified and condemned;

f) the innovator is given a final opportunity to repent and makes his decision;

g) should he remain obstinate, the heretic is excised from the body of the Church, becoming "as a heathen and publican."

Secondly, we have applied the rubrics of resistance—that is, an outline of the Church's method for dealing with heretical innovations—to our contemporary Church situation. We have seen that, working like a pernicious bacterium, ecumenism has infected all of the local Churches, sapping them of strength, dulling their ecclesiastical consciousness, and depriving us all of blessings. Specifically, we can list five new teachings proclaimed by the Orthodox ecumenists that are condemnable:

a) "Baptismal theology";

b) the theology of "Sister Churches";

c) the theology of the "Broad Church";

d) the theology of "cultural pluralism"; and

e) the theology of "common service."

We have argued that the heresy of ecumenism has prompted a God-pleasing resistance in nearly every local Church. Following the examples and admonitions of the Holy Fathers, right-believing Orthodox have walled themselves off for the protection of their faith. Responsible and authorized teachers in the Church—Hierarchs, Clergy, theologians, and capable laity—have raised their voices in protest, in proclamation of Orthodox teaching and in the denunciation of subversive innovations. These are the first three steps of resistance, which we have, by God's help, accomplished.

With prayer, with sincere efforts to follow God's commandments—specifically in the cultivation of love towards our neighbor and repentance in our life—and with hope in God, we labor along the fourth step, towards the convocation of a unifying, Oecumenical Synod that will adjudicate the contention, proclaim Orthodoxy, and condemn ecumenism.

 

Heresy is awarded and Orthodoxy is persecuted.

Awarding of two Bavarian prizes to Patriarch Bartholomew June 20, 2025 On June 5, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew arrived in Munic...