OPEN LETTER OF THE
FATHERS
Once again, the Holy Monastery of
Esphigmenou is vindicated...
At a moment of high symbolism for
the global movement of the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism, the “green patriarch” Mr.
Bartholomew and Pope Leo XIV signed a disgraceful Common Declaration in the
“Throne Hall of the Patriarchal House” at the Phanar, on November 29 (new
calendar). In this declaration, among other things, the two men stated verbatim
the following: “we must acknowledge that what unites us is the faith
expressed in the Nicene Creed.”
Even this declaration alone is
sufficient to demonstrate the magnitude of the hypocrisy staged on a global
scale, with the heads of modern ecumenism as protagonists, and the victims
being the naïve and ignorant lukewarm, who, being deceived and deceiving
others, indifferent to the truth, will in the end even worship the Beast.
The papal parasynagogue—and not
the papal “church” as it is deliberately called—true to its principles of
innovation, progressivism, arrogance, and lust for power, remains firmly
attached to a multitude of heretical doctrinal distortions: the Filioque,
the Primacy of the Pope, the rejection of Uncreated Grace, sprinkling
instead of Baptism, the introduction of unleavened bread (i.e., the host
in their “liturgy”), compulsory celibacy for all clergy, the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception of the Theotokos (that she was born without original sin), Purgatory,
and many others, all constitute indicative proofs of the conceited papal
“muddled-ology” and not theology, through which the Pope and his followers
remain unrepentantly attached to their heresies. What relation, then, can there
possibly be between the above blasphemous dogmas of this pseudo-church and the
faith expressed in the Nicene Creed?
On the other hand, what relation
can the “green,” unionist, Latin-minded Bartholomew have with the Fathers of
the First Ecumenical Council, or with the Orthodox Fathers in general? He calls
the pan-heretical Pope the “most holy bishop,” recognizing him as having
grace and apostolic succession. In violation of a host of Holy Canons, such as
the 10th, the 45th, the 65th, and those of Laodicea, he prays together with
heretics, receives their “blessings” (which are absurdities), and allows them
to enter and pray within holy churches. He opposes all the saints of our faith:
Saint Mark of Ephesus, who at Florence declared, “we have nothing in common
with the Latins”; Saint Theodore the Studite, who warned, “whoever
commemorates a heretical one becomes a participant in his delusion”; and
Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, who said, “curse the Pope.” What relation,
then, can there possibly be between the above blasphemies of the “green” man
and the immaculate faith expressed in the Nicene Creed?
Yes, for the umpteenth time, the
struggle of the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou is vindicated. Since 1974, our
brotherhood has unanimously ceased to commemorate heretical—ecumenist
pseudo-patriarchs, who unworthily bear the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” while
in reality they are Latin-minded and papolaters. Our guides are the Holy Canons
and their exponents, namely the holy teachings of the God-bearing Fathers of
our Orthodox Church. We obey Saint Mark of Ephesus, who teaches: “Therefore
I beseech you, avoid the Papists as one flees from a serpent or from the face
of fire, and likewise [avoid] the ‘Orthodox’ who associate with Papists. The
further away one flees from these ‘Orthodox,’ the closer one comes to the Holy
Fathers. And the closer one comes to them, the further he departs from our
Saints. There is no room for condescension in anything that concerns our
Orthodox Faith.” We obey Saint Cosmas of Aetolia, who instructs us: “One
Antichrist is the Pope...” and “Curse the Pope, for he will be the cause
of the evil” (90th Prophecy).
But we shall close with the most
beloved Saint, the Great Basil (it should be noted that he is also honored as a
saint by the Catholics), who, with the following few but weighty words, puts an
end to the drivel—the foolish talk—of the modern ecumenists regarding the
Latins. Thus says the Saint: “If the wrath of God against us continues, what
help can Western arrogance and haughtiness offer us? They neither know the
truth nor do they want or tolerate to learn it, but being prejudiced by
baseless suspicions... they fought against those who told them the truth and
supported heresy by their stance. I myself am even thinking of writing to their
chief (Pope Damasus of Rome) and foremost among them... that they neither know
the truth nor condescend to follow the path by which they could come to know it...
and that they should not consider pride a virtue, which is a sin sufficient in
itself to create enmity toward God.” (St. Basil the Great, EPE 1,
304) Therefore, St. Basil the Great clearly stresses that the Latins neither
desire nor tolerate to follow the path of truth. Now consider the extent and
depth of the hypocrisy and deception that took place before the television
cameras, on the hallowed ground of Nicaea the other day. We therefore have our
Saints, who show us the way to Paradise—and not the antics of the tragic
wolf-shepherds, who seize souls in order to deliver them to eternal anathema.
Since 1969, the Holy Monastery of
Esphigmenou, together with 10 other Monasteries of the Holy Mountain
(Dionysiou, Karakallou, Simonos Petra, Grigoriou, Saint Paul, Xenophontos,
Stavronikita, Koutloumousiou, Konstamonitou, and Great Lavra) and many Cell-dwelling
Athonite Fathers, based on the 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Holy Canon of
the First-Second Council, ceased the commemoration of the great ecumenist and
Freemason “patriarch” Athenagoras for reasons of faith (his uncanonical lifting
of the anathemas in 1965, pro-papal overtures, heretical mindsets, etc.). On
November 13, 1971 (new calendar), the Extraordinary Double Assembly of the Holy
Community stated in an official document that “it is left to the conscience of
each Monastery whether or not to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical
Patriarch.”
Of interest are the responses of
the Holy Monasteries to the above-mentioned document, excerpts of which we
present below:
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Stavronikita (October 7, 1970):
“We have ceased
the commemoration, having felt that every margin of tolerance or deadline for
waiting has been exhausted.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Karakallou (no. 117/September 21, 1972):
“We wish to
reiterate our confident and irrevocable decision to continue the cessation of
the Patriarchal commemoration as a sign of protest, for as long as the new
Ecumenical Patriarch Mr. Demetrios I continues the line maintained by the Holy
Synod which had been laid down by Athenagoras. We will be obedient to the new
Patriarch when we ascertain that he will reconsider the heretical declarations
of his predecessor and will not continue the pro-papal trajectory.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of St. Paul (no. 624/September 25, 1972):
“Concerning the
matter of the commemoration of the name of His All-Holiness the Ecumenical
Patriarch Mr. Demetrios, our decision is that we are not able to proceed to
discussion unless His All-Holiness declares publicly through the Press that he
will not follow the course of his predecessor.”
Response of
the Holy Monastery of Xenophontos (no. 188/September 22, 1972):
“Our Holy
Monastery remains firm in the faithful application of the decision of the
Extraordinary Double Holy Assembly under ref. no. NB’, 18.11.71, given that the
causes which led us to the cessation of the commemoration of the Ecumenical
Patriarch have not been removed, as we had hoped and awaited.”
At this point, it is worth noting
that the cessation of commemoration of Athenagoras by the majority of Mount
Athos was the principal reason for the postponement of the pseudo-union in
practice between Orthodoxy and Papism, which already earlier, in 1964, had been
theoretically agreed upon. Such was the power of the cessation of communion and
commemoration that it delayed the pseudo-union! And now the very reasonable
question arises: for what reasons does only the Monastery of Esphigmenou
continue today to refrain from commemorating the “patriarch,” while all the
other Monasteries have returned normally to the commemoration of the respective
“Ecumenical Patriarch”?
The question becomes all the more
reasonable when the objective observer notes that the formerly stated demands
of the Monasteries—that there be no dogmatic deviations by Athenagoras and
Demetrios, as cited above—have in the end not only gone unaddressed, but have
been all the more demonstrably scorned by Bartholomew, who has surpassed them
in ecumenistic leaps.
The answer is astonishing... Two
factors broke the resistance of the other monasteries. The first is the famous
Phanariot diplomacy. It is the proverbial dexterity and skill of the clergy of
the Phanar to persuade others that all is going well, that the watchmen are
vigilant, and that under the sleepless gaze of the “guardians of Orthodoxy,”
even interfaith dialogues or various ecumenist practices do no harm—because, as
they argue, “at the end of the day, everyone wants to be saved and no one wants
to be damned.”
The second factor, for those not
convinced by the above deceptive words, is Warfare. It is multifaceted,
gradual, and multidimensional. At first, it appears in letters containing
insinuations in a threatening tone, in patriarchal writings that warn of possible
ecclesiastical sanctions, deposition from ecclesiastical offices, or even
excommunication! Thus, the conditions of a Cold War are created. If someone
survives even this, a frontal assault follows: deprivation of material goods,
violation of human rights, seizure of monastic property, selective enforcement
of the articles of the Charter of Mount Athos, restriction of the freedoms of
individuals, denial of the right to medical care, seizure of all financial
resources of the monastery to which the dissenters belong, endless and repeated
lawsuits for any cause or pretext the human mind can invent—and the list has no
end...
The conclusions are yours to
draw. You have just been informed of the levels of “temptations” that every
monastery on Mount Athos which does not wish to commemorate ecumenists is
obliged to endure. The results are well known!
As the struggle of our Monastery
is revealed through the events as a steadfast confession of truth, it becomes
entirely evident that nothing of what is happening arose suddenly. All that now
emerges as wounds on the Body of the Church, our brotherhood had discerned with
spiritual discernment and prayer. Our voice was never one of reaction or
egotism, but a paternal reminder of the path of the Fathers. Thus, the
Monastery stood firm—not to resist men, but to preserve the truth that saves.
It did not begin from momentary reactions nor from human animosity. It was the
fruit of many years of discernment, prayer, and deep conscience. The decision
to cease the commemoration of a “patriarch” who distorts the faith and prays
together with heretics was not an act of isolation, but a movement of obedience
to the Holy Canons, to the tradition of the Fathers, and to the Holy Spirit who
dwells in the Church.
For decades, our Monastery
insisted that the day would come when heresy would be called dialogue and
falsification would be covered under the cloak of diplomacy. It saw the
distortion approaching, saw the joint prayers multiplying, saw the oaths of
unity with Papism being prepared as something natural. That is why it stood
firm when most remained silent. That is why it spoke when many preferred not to
confront their responsibility. All that today constitutes a public wound in the
Body of the Church, the Monastery had prophetically pointed out. And when the
hour of confession came, it did not retreat. It did not make deals, did not
calculate subsidies, did not bow to authorities, but preserved the mindset
handed down by the Fathers of the Holy Mountain—not out of pride, but from a
sense of duty. Not to cause division, but to preserve.
The cessation of commemoration
was never an end in itself—it was an act of salvation. It was a deed that cried
out to the people that the faith is not negotiable, that the truth does not
conform to balances, that Orthodoxy does not compromise with heresy. Our
Monastery, with persistent and unwavering speech, prepared souls to remember
the ancestral piety, to hear again the voices of the Fathers, to distinguish
the love that saves from the anti-patristic and hypocritical love that betrays.
And now that joint prayer has
become a public spectacle, now that adulteration is presented as unity, now
that papal ecclesiology is promoted as a fraternal relationship, the stance of
Esphigmenou no longer appears as exaggeration, but as a confession that has
been vindicated. The history of the Holy Mountain will record that there were
once some who spoke when no one else dared to speak. And how this voice was not
extinguished, because it was not supported by human strength, but by patristic
truth. Where the faith is being falsified, confession is a duty. And where
silence becomes complicity, the truth raises her voice through those who do not
submit. The Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou stood and still stands in this
position—not as an arbitrary reaction, but as a guardian of ancestral piety.
Our humble and poor coenobium
continues to live and to struggle against the raging forces of darkness and of
the Pan-heresy of Ecumenism—the worst heresy that has ever passed through the
history of mankind. Our strength, although humanly limited, is nonetheless
inexhaustible, for we have beside us the Lord of Glory, who encourages us with
those sweetest of words: “Fear not, little flock” (Luke 12:32). We have
the Lady Theotokos, who aided the Zographou monks by appearing to the ascetic
Elder dwelling outside the Monastery and saying to him: “Go quickly to the
Monastery and announce to the brethren and to the Abbot that the enemies of Me
and of My Son have drawn near”—referring to the Latin-minded ones during
the “patriarchate” of John Bekkos, like-minded with the present “patriarch”
Bartholomew, who were approaching the Monastery, and who would soon after
render 26 Zographou monks holy martyrs. We have so many Athonite holy Fathers
who were martyred for refusing to bow to Papism—such as the holy martyr Kosmas
the Protos (1279), the 12 holy martyrs of Koutloumousiou (1280), the 14 holy
martyrs of Iveron (1279), the 13 holy martyrs of Vatopedi (1279), and many
others who refused to venerate Latin-minded and unionist “patriarchs.”
Justification is not a matter of
triumph—it is a matter of mourning for what has occurred, and a matter of
responsibility for what is to come. The Monastery does not rejoice in being
proven right; it grieves that the Church has been wounded so deeply as to bring
about that confirmation. Yet it also knows that truth is never left without
witnesses—and that its confessional struggle was not in vain, but became a
light for souls seeking the path of salvation.
As Esphigmenite monks, as
Athonites, but above all as Orthodox Christians, we confess, we affirm, and we
proclaim that our motto—“Orthodoxy or Death”—which we have displayed on black
banners hanging from the towers of our Monastery since 1974, is for us not a
mere slogan, but a living dogmatic ideal, a conscious way of life, and the
highest vow of our monastic state—one which we are ready to serve and defend
with the last drop of our blood.
ORTHODOXY OR DEATH, then,
and:
“If God be for us, who can be
against us?”
We shall not deny thee, beloved Orthodoxy;
we shall not lie against thy ancestral reverence;
in thee were we born, and in thee do we live, and in thee shall we fall asleep;
and if the time shall call us, a myriad times for thee shall we die.
—(Bryennios Joseph)
A supplicant before the Lord,
THE ABBOT OF THE HOLY MONASTERY
OF ESPHIGMENOU
Archimandrite Methodios
Greek source: https://esfigmenou.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.