The New Ecclesiology of the Phanar led to the “Council” of Crete and to the Ukrainian “Autocephaly”

Presented by Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

Emeritus Professor of the School of Theology of A.U.Th.

June 22, 2019 | Thessaloniki

 

1. Record of reactions before and after the “council” of Crete.

Already three years have passed since the convocation and the proceedings of the pseudo-council of Crete in June 2016, which they called the “Holy and Great Council,” which was “Neither Holy, nor Great, nor a Council,” as the Orthodox self-awareness demonstrated—part of which we recorded in the double issue of Theodromia (July–December 2016) bearing the same title, namely, “Neither Holy, nor Great, nor a Council.” In that issue, extending to 320 pages, we included the texts rejecting the “council” from the four autocephalous Churches—of Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia—which did not participate in the pseudo-council, because they did not agree either with the manner of convocation and functioning, or with certain heretical pre-conciliar texts, for which they had requested corrections—a request that was not fulfilled.

It should be noted that the Orthodox faithful of those four Churches represent 70% of the total number of Orthodox believers; therefore, only 30% were represented at the “council,” a fact that alone shows that it was not “Great,” even more so considering that, out of a total of 800 Orthodox bishops, only 160 were present by selection, and of those, for the first time in the history of the councils, only the ten (10) primates—patriarchs and archbishops—voted, thus degrading the ecclesiastical institution of the equality of bishops. In the same double issue are also published texts rejecting and criticizing the “council” by many hierarchs, other clergy and monks, as well as lay members of the Church.

The reaction of the Orthodox plenitude [pleroma] was not, of course, after the fact—after the evil had already been done—but many decades earlier. Since those who convened the “council,” as well as those who prepared the conciliar texts—especially in their final form—were, for the most part, ecumenists by conviction, dyed-in-the-wool ecumenists, they did not succeed in gaining the trust of the Orthodox plenitude, which foresaw that, since the tree—the organizers of the “council”—were ecumenists, the fruits of the tree would be accordingly ecumenistic and syncretistic, as indeed occurred, since “a tree is known by its fruit.” [1] These reactions prior to the pseudo-council, even up to the eve of its convocation, we gathered—selectively, of course, since entire volumes would have been needed—into another double issue of Theodromia (January–June 2016), spanning 350 pages. The cover of this issue is adorned with three venerable figures of our times who struggled so that this council, with ecumenistic specifications, would not be convened, because they foresaw that its fruits would be bitter and poisonous: namely, the venerable Elder Daniel of Katounakia of the Holy Mountain; the already glorified Saint by the Church of Serbia, the great dogmatic theologian Saint Justin Popović; and the Elder Philotheos Zervakos, also of a holy life and known as a Saint by the conscience of the Orthodox. In addition to the writings of these three Righteous ones, texts are also published by hierarchs—Greek and non-Greeks—monasteries, clergy, monks, and laypeople.

Our own texts, both those before the “council” and those after it, were also published in two separate books with the titles: a) “Holy and Great Council: Should we hope or be concerned?” [2] and b) “After the ‘council’ of Crete: The cessation of commemoration and my judicial prosecution.” [3] Two other related books of mine were published, one with the title “My ministry at the Holy Church of Saint Anthony in Thessaloniki: A response to the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki,” [4] and a small booklet in the “Kairos” series titled “Walling off is not schism: Necessary explanations.” [5]

2. The ecclesiastical model changed. A higher form of resistance.

From the titles of the most recent publications, it becomes evident that, since the pseudo-council of Crete blatantly, “with bared head,” legitimized and synodally ratified the pan-heresy of Ecumenism—as is clearly shown from the texts it approved—the ecclesiological climate, the ecclesiological framework, the ecclesiastical atmosphere changed dramatically, and for that reason we had to react. The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, suffered grievous blows in two fundamental aspects of the dogma concerning the Church. First of all, in regard to whether there are ecclesiastical boundaries, ecclesiastical limits that define the characteristics one must have in order to be a member of the Church, in order to be included within the boundaries of the Church—and these are the Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Baptism. Can everyone, even heretics, belong to the Church? Is the baptism of heretics valid? Is there one Church or many divided churches that must unite to form together the One Church? Are heresies also churches? And secondly, there is the violation of the synodal system of the Church, which requires that decisions be made synodally by the bishops, in agreement with the whole Church, with the plenitude of the Church, which ultimately is the guardian of the Faith and of the Tradition of the Church, according to the well-known “Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX (1848).” [6] Now, however, the plenitude is being disregarded; if some react, they are punished, and the bishops are no longer equal among themselves, they no longer decide synodally and equally, but servilely follow certain “firsts,” or a “first one,” after the papal model—the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who aspires to become the pope of the East.

Many do not perceive, either out of ignorance or indifference, the seriousness of these ecclesiological deviations concerning fundamental dogmas and institutions of the Church—or they do perceive them, but are afraid to react. We do not condemn anyone. Even the fruits on the same plant, on the same tree, do not ripen at the same time. Those of us who were anxious and concerned about the bad course of ecclesiastical affairs—which constantly worsens—decided, after the synodal recognition in Crete of the heresies as churches and the devaluation of the synodal system of Church governance by the “firsts” of the churches and the “first” of Constantinople, to move on to a higher form of struggle and confession. Anti-ecumenist sermons and writings are good and holy, as are prayers and vigils for God to enlighten those in darkness. We too engaged in these for many decades, but instead of the situation improving, it became worse. God hears prayers—but when they are also accompanied by deeds; He wants both the one and the other. Did He not Himself say, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven”? To those who limit themselves only to words and to formal Christian duties, He will say: “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who work lawlessness.” He knows only those who hear His words and do His will. [7]

It was not difficult to understand what the will of God is, when heterodoxy, heresy, entered the sphere of the Church—when another gospel is preached, when in the place of Christ, who is the Head of the Church, the only First, other “firsts” and another “first” are placed; when instead of Christ, we have Antichrist and antichrists. We follow the example of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, who cut off communion with heretics, even to the point of not greeting them, not saying good morning to them. This was reaffirmed in the 9th century by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council under St. Photios the Great (861), which recommends that we cease the commemoration of the bishop’s name when he preaches heresy “with bared head,” adding that those who do this are worthy of praise, because not only do they not create a schism, but they protect the Church from schisms. [8] This we also did—we Fathers here in Thessaloniki, in Langadas, in Florina, on the Holy Mountain, and elsewhere in Greece, as well as in other Orthodox countries—ceasing to commemorate in the services the names of the respective bishops.

3. Obedience to wicked bishops is evil

Already two years have passed since then, since the spring of 2017. They drove us out of our churches, they displaced us and unsettled us, because we did not obey the bishops—the heretical bishops. We respond that we obey Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers, the Orthodox bishops who do not offend the dogmas and institutions of the Church. We commemorate “every Orthodox bishop that rightly divideth the word of truth,” because we know from countless opinions of the Holy Fathers, which we compiled in a book written in 2006, thirteen years ago, that there is such a thing as “Evil Obedience and Holy Disobedience.” [9] Saint Gregory the Theologian recommends one thing: to avoid evil bishops—“Turn away from me one thing: wicked bishops.” [10] He boasts because, as one who also struggled for matters of the Faith, for the truths of the Faith, he found himself among those slandered and persecuted, among the “hated.” He justifies his boast by saying that war is better than peace that separates from God: “For better is a praiseworthy war than peace that separates from God.” [11] His like-minded, like-spirited companion and leader in the struggles for the Faith, the other great Cappadocian theologian, Saint Basil the Great, in his well-known reply to the Arian heretical governor Modestus—who marveled that he had not encountered another bishop who spoke to him with such boldness—answered that perhaps he had not met a true bishop, for if he had, one struggling for such high matters should have responded to him in the same way. And he added that in all other matters we of the Church are meek, peaceful, and humble; we do not raise our voice, not even to state officials, nor even to the simplest person. But where God is in danger, where Orthodoxy is in danger, we disregard all else and look to God alone: “Where God is in danger, disregarding the rest, we look to Him alone.” [12] And the other of the triad of Hierarchs, the great martyr Saint John Chrysostom, who was slandered, condemned, exiled by unworthy fellow bishops and eventually died in exile, writes to the deaconess Olympias that he fears no one as much as he fears the bishops—except for a few: “I fear no one as much as the bishops, except a few.” [13] Interpreting the words of Christ, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword,” [14] he says that concord is not always good, for even robbers agree among themselves. God wants peace and concord to coexist with piety; when piety is absent, war and division are justified: “For concord is not always good, since even robbers agree... He Himself desired that all be of one mind concerning piety; but since they are divided, war ensues.” [15]

So we too boast, because we passed from words to deeds, because we recognized that our faith, Holy Orthodoxy, is in danger—“God is what is endangered”—because we separated ourselves from the wicked bishops and showed, through the cessation of their commemoration, that we do not share the same faith with them, that concord and peace are not always good when they are not accompanied by piety and truth, that in such cases of impiety and heresy, war is preferable to peace, to comfort and ease, because those things separate us from God: “For better is war than peace that separates from God.”

4. We remain within the Church. Who is outside. The example of Saint Maximus and Saint Gregory Palamas

We thank the brother clergymen who still commemorate their bishops but agree with us; we are all together, both those who commemorate and those who do not, within the boundaries of the Church, and we struggle against heresies, against the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, and we distance ourselves from the wicked bishops. We thank all of you—our spiritual children, our students, and all others who follow us—because you overcame the hesitations, the slanders, the fears that supposedly, if you follow us, you will end up outside the Church, the threat that you will be cast out. Did not the parents of the man born blind in the Gospel have that same fear? They refused to stand by their son, they refused to confess the miracle, because the then high priests and the then legal experts and theologians, the Scribes and Pharisees, had already decided that “if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” [16] Successors of that unlawful council are the present-day hierarchs and theologians who have distorted the Gospel and Orthodoxy through Ecumenism, and have resolved to persecute—and do persecute—those of us who confess the true Faith.

But we are not afraid, because we know that Christ neither praised nor went to find the high priests who threatened with "excommunication," with today’s equivalent: “outside the Church”; nor did He go to the parents of the blind man who were afraid to confess, but He went and found the blind man who received his sight—not only bodily, but also spiritually—through the courage of his confession and of the truth. Christ and His Church are present where the truth is, and not where heresy and delusion are; those who are with the truth are within the Church, those who are with heresy are outside the Church. This is excellently expressed by Saint Gregory Palamas, following the preceding Patristic Tradition, especially Saint Maximus, who was worthily and fittingly named the Confessor. Both had walled themselves off; they had broken communion with the heretical bishops of their time—Saint Maximus with the Monothelites, and Saint Gregory with the Barlaamites. The Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople advised Saint Maximus to follow the Church, which at that time, as a whole—together with the five patriarchates of Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem—had aligned itself in favor of the heresy of Monothelitism. He told him that he must unite with the Church, to be within the Church; otherwise, by following his own alien and outside-the-Church path, he would suffer the consequences. The situation was worse than that in Kolymbari of Crete: all the then autocephalous churches were in heresy. Saint Maximus was all alone in his walling-off. What did he answer them, giving to us also an example and arguments? He said: The Church, he said, is not where heresy is, but where there is the correct and salvific confession of the Faith. [17]

Seven hundred years later, Saint Gregory Palamas refutes a letter of the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius, addressed to the well-known Barlaamite and Latin-minded Patriarch of Constantinople, John Kalekas, in which he wrote to him that, having supported Barlaam and the Patriarch and having condemned Saint Gregory, he now returns to his own church, which Christ granted to him: “Our humility departs to its church, which it has truly inherited by the grace of Christ.” Saint Gregory is angered and indignant in his commentary and says: What inheritance, what genuine relationship to the Church of Christ can someone have who is a defender of the falsehood of heresy—toward the Church, which, according to the Apostle Paul, is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” [18] and which, by the grace of Christ, remains forever secure and unshakable, firmly established upon that which supports the truth? The members of the Church of Christ are identical with the truth; those who are not of the truth do not belong to the Church: “For those of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ.” For this reason, they contradict themselves when they call one another pastors and archpastors. Christianity is not defined by persons but by the truth and the precision of the Faith. [19] A walled-off, persecuted hieromonk does not hesitate to place two patriarchs outside the Church—John Kalekas of Constantinople and Ignatius of Antioch—who hurled all manner of accusations against him, just as accusations are hurled against us now, and to say to them: Because you are not with the truth, but with heresy, you are outside the Church, whereas we, whom you persecute, are with the truth, and for this reason we are within the Church.

5. Outside the Church will be those who commune with the Ukrainian schism, following Patriarch Bartholomew

We sincerely grieve not for the Ecumenists who deliberately accuse us and consider us as schismatics and outside the Church, frightening the simple-minded faithful so that they do not follow us. They are doing their job well, the task assigned to them, namely, to spread the disease of Ecumenism within the Church. We grieve for the many anti-ecumenists who, instead of praising us and encouraging us, as the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council under St. Photios the Great recommends, leave the impression among simple believers that we erred in proceeding to walling off, while they acted correctly by remaining within the Church; therefore, we who have walled ourselves off are supposedly outside the Church. I wrote in another of my texts that I did not expect such theological ignorance and incompetence—unless they are covering with these claims their own lack of courage to move from words to action. I will not here fraternally refute this unjustifiable position; what I have already said is sufficient. More can be found in the small booklet which I wrote for them and which I previously mentioned, titled “Walling Off is Not Schism: Necessary Explanations.”

We have declared many times that we are not going to proceed into schism by commemorating other schismatic bishops. And because malicious and deceitful people have distorted our positions and spread all manner of lies against us, the spiritual laws have come into effect, and now many are brought before the dreadful dilemma: either to commune with a true schism, with true schismatics—condemned and deposed synodally—or to break communion and cease the commemoration of bishops who will recognize the schismatics. We are of course referring to the schismatics of Ukraine, to whom the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granted autocephaly, having supposedly restored them to canonical order, without having any such right or authority, intervening in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of another, and trampling upon the autonomy and full independence of autocephalous churches—thus confirming the new ecclesiology of the Phanar, which supposedly grants him the right, as “first,” to intervene in the internal affairs of other churches. Now it is no longer easy to find excuses for the continued commemoration of bishops who will recognize the schismatics of Ukraine. Already two churches—Russia and Serbia—have broken communion with Constantinople; until now, no autocephalous Church has recognized the autocephaly of the schismatics of Ukraine, as Fr. Photios [Vezynias] will tell us in his presentation. The Church of Greece, although it has also not recognized the new pseudo-autocephalous church, is postponing the making of decisions and is under pressure, both political and ecclesiastical, so that the unraveling may begin from her, and that other churches may then be dragged along as well, as Fr. Angelos [Angelakopoulos] will tell us.

We were grieved by the intervention of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, by which he assesses that we must necessarily proceed with the recognition of the autocephaly, disregarding all the historical and canonical reasons presented by nearly all the Churches, and which we too have highlighted through special studies that have been published in books—our own book titled “The Ukrainian Autocephaly: Uncanonical and Divisive Invasion of Constantinople,” [20] and more recently the book of Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos titled “The Ukrainian Autocephaly: A Contribution to the Dialogue.” [21] A small taste of Fr. Anastasios’ positions we will receive from his presentation. To the unexpected intervention of Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos we responded with an article of ours published on the Internet under the title: “Archbishop Ieronymos at an Impasse over the Ukrainian Issue—Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Rushes to His Aid.” And following the recent visit of Archbishop Ieronymos to Constantinople for the name day of the Ecumenical Patriarch (June 11), where he met with the schismatic Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kiev. I expressed my concerns with an article under the title: “The Unity of the Church Is Threatened—The Church of Greece as the Weak Link.”

In Ukraine, acting anti-synodally as a “first without equals” according to the novel ecclesiology of the Phanar, and disregarding the canonical local autonomous Church under Metropolitan Onuphry and the Mother Church of Russia, to whose jurisdiction it belongs, Patriarch Bartholomew not only did not restore unity, but widened and deepened the schism, with persecutions and hatred against the non-schismatic Orthodox, as we learn from the news reports and as we will hear from our speaker who is an eyewitness from Ukraine. The schism in fact does not remain confined to Ukraine, but extends throughout the entire ecclesiastical space of the Orthodox. We proceeded to walling off for matters of faith: for the ecclesialization of heresies at the pseudo-council of Crete, the synodal approval of our participation in the so-called “World Council of Churches”—that is, of heresies—and the acceptance of the heretical texts of the Theological Dialogues. Now, the wallings-off and the interruption of communion between local churches—for matters of jurisdictions and thrones—though justified by canonical order, will provoke a broad and incurable schism. This shows that sensitivity regarding matters of faith has weakened in the ecclesiastical realm, due to the syncretistic influences of the Ecumenism of the so-called New Age.

6. Heresy and schism as fruits of the new heretical ecclesiology of the Phanar. The two main lines of the new ecclesiology

Heresy and schism, the two greatest evils for the unity of the Church—but above all, the two gravest obstacles to the salvation of men—are already present in the life of the Church, as fruits and offspring of the new ecclesiology of the Phanar, which was developed and continues to be developed systematically since the past century, primarily from the time of Patriarch Athenagoras, but now more intensively and provocatively by Patriarch Bartholomew and the other clergy and theologians of the patriarchal court. Much has been written, and of great value, about this new ecclesiology and its various aspects, which could not be presented in a twenty-minute lecture. God willing, we shall attempt to synthesize and comment on it in the future. Two, however, are its guiding lines, as we hinted earlier. The first dissolves the Church—the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church—which now supposedly exists nowhere. Athenagoras said that we must re-establish the Church. There exist only divided fragments of this Church, which must be united—without this union requiring unity in faith or a common baptism. Even the heretics are within the Church; this is why in Kolymbari we called the heresies “churches.” It is the well-known Protestant branch theory. The baptism of heretics introduces them into the sphere of the Church, regardless of the faith of the one baptizing or being baptized, and regardless of the manner in which the baptism is performed. Therefore, the rebaptism of heretics is forbidden. This is the baptismal theology of Metropolitan John of Pergamon and others.

The second destructive line of the new heretical ecclesiology dissolves the synodal system of governance of the Church and institutionalizes, even for the East, the global jurisdiction of the “first,” the Patriarch of Constantinople. The simple “primacy of honor” of the first is transformed into a “primacy of authority and jurisdiction.” Constantinople is no longer the head of the Church of Constantinople, but the patriarch of all the Orthodox. He is no longer the “first among equals” (primus inter pares), but the “first without equals” (primus sine paribus), according to the obsequious and servile ecclesiology of Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa, who has now been sent as archbishop to America to enlighten even those there. And the worst of all—which astonished even the Roman Catholics in the theological dialogue with the Orthodox, who base the primacy of the pope on the Apostle Peter, whom they consider the pope’s predecessor—is that our own “Orthodox” Metropolitan of Pergamon, the celebrated theologian, elevated the primacy even higher. He gave it a blasphemous Trinitarian foundation and taught that just as there is a first in the Holy Trinity—the Father—so too there must be a first in the Church. The monarchy of the Father in the Holy Trinity justifies the monarchy of the first in the Church, as Fr. Seraphim [Zisis] will explain to us in his presentation. That is why the monarchical “first” of the Phanar did not take into account the four absent patriarchs at the “council” of Crete, did not invite all the bishops who are equal to him, but only those whom he wished, did not grant the right to vote to those who were present, and threatened—and continues to threaten—all of us who resist, by encroaching upon the canonical territory of autocephalous Churches. That is why he does whatever he wants regarding the Ukrainian Autocephaly and considers no one, even though all the local autocephalous Churches are opposed to him. Let the primates who granted him the “primacy” in Crete now realize—albeit belatedly—that the first has become the pope of the East, and that the only first considers not even the other firsts as equals.

Epilogue

Last year we were again here in Thessaloniki, at a similar successful conference with the theme: “Two Years after Kolymbari: Heresy–Deposition–Orthodox Resistance.” This year, once again here, with the same determination for Orthodox resistance and confession, in an ecclesiologically even more burdened climate due to the pseudo-autocephaly of the Ukrainians. We hope and are certain that God will not permit the new ecclesiologists of the Phanar to dissolve the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through their blasphemous Trinitarian monarchies, and that He will strengthen us to maintain distance from the wicked bishops. The Ukrainian schism will test the consciences of many.

 

NOTES

1. Matt. 12:33: “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit.”

2. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2016.

3. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2017.

4. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2017.

5. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2017.

6. See the text in: Ioannis Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. II, Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz-Austria 1968, p. 920: “Moreover, among us neither Patriarchs nor Synods have ever been able to introduce anything new, because the defender of religion is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves, who desire their religion to remain eternally unchanged and identical with that of their Fathers.”

7. Matt. 7:21–24.

8. “For those who, on account of some heresy condemned by the holy Synods or the Fathers, separate themselves from communion with their president—that is, one who publicly preaches the heresy and teaches it with uncovered head in the Church—such persons are not only not subject to canonical censure prior to a synodal decision, for separating themselves from communion with the so-called bishop, but they shall also be deemed worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they have not condemned bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they have not divided the unity of the Church by schism, but have been zealous to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.”

9. Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis, Evil Obedience and Holy Disobedience, Thessaloniki 2006.

10. Poems to Himself, Poem 12, To Himself and Concerning Bishops, EPE 10, 174.

11. Apologetic for His Flight to Pontus, 82, EPE 1, 176.

12. Gregory the Theologian, Funeral Oration for St. Basil the Great, 48–50, EPE 6, 208–210.

13. Epistle 14.4, PG 52, 617.

14. Matt. 10:34.

15. On Matthew, Homily 35.1, PG 57, 405.

16. John 9:22: “These things his parents said, because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Him to be Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”

17. To the monk Anastasios, PG 90, 132A: “Yesterday, the eighteenth of the month, which was Holy Pentecost, the patriarch said to me: ‘To which Church do you belong? Byzantium? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? Behold, all of them, together with their provinces, have united. If then you are of the Catholic Church, unite with them, lest by innovating your own foreign path in life, you suffer that which you do not expect.’ To whom I replied: ‘The Catholic Church is the right and salvific confession of faith in Him, which God—who is over all—declared when He blessed Peter for rightly confessing. Let me learn the confession upon which the union of all the Churches was made. And I do not alienate myself from that which was rightly done.’”

18. 1 Tim. 3:15.

19. Refutation of the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch, 3, EPE 3, 608: “For those who are of the Church of Christ are of the truth; and those who are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ. And all the more so, since they themselves are contradicted—calling themselves and being called by one another shepherds and archpastors—yet we have been instructed that Christianity is not defined by persons, but by the truth and the exactness of the faith.”

20. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2018.

21. Editions “To Palimpseston,” Thessaloniki 2019.

 

Greek source:  https://aktines.blogspot.com/2019/06/blog-post_498.html

Russian translation:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191227023508/http://agionoros.ru/docs/2851.htm