Two views on the Glorification of Elder Paisios the Athonite

1. In the Sorrowful Aftermath of a Most Joyous Canonization

Nikolaos Pantazis, walled-off theologian | January 22, 2015

 

“Saint Elder Paisios, intercede for us!”

We rejoice with great joy! We glorify our Triune God! We celebrate together and dance together with the Triumphant Church in the Heavens for the long-awaited and deeply anticipated Canonization of the ALREADY, long ago, Saint, Elder Paisios.

However, some very necessary and essentially indispensable indications–observations must be made on the highest matters of Faith and Truth, which allow no ignorance, suppression, or contempt. To the glory of our Triune God, we analyze the following three things for your love:

A. First and foremost.

We do not have “saint-making,” but an Orthodox “canonization.” Saint Elder Paisios did not now become a Saint, nor did the Arch-Heresiarch Patriarch personally and autonomously “make” him a saint! He was a saint by God, from his mother’s womb. He had a holy life and was enriched with abundant sanctifying gifts of the All-Holy Spirit. He had an incorrupt Dogma, but… he was not, however, infallible. No saint or theologian, or even Father of the Church, is individually, personally infallible.

The canonization did not take place by command of the Patriarchal Synod, nor according to “the recommendation of the Canonical Committee,” as the indeed riddled-with-holes Announcement formally states… It took place by command of the sovereign Faithful People of God. Elder Paisios was first a Saint in the CONSCIENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD.

It is precisely the conscience of the faithful people that infallibly expresses the will of God, through the canonical prerequisites set forth by the Holy Fathers. And it is precisely this conscience of the Faithful People that will approve or condemn the Pseudo-Union!

God, however, according to economy, arranges and permits this canonization to be carried out by a heretical, Latin-minded Patriarch. It is, we might say, a necessary Ecclesiastical Act from the Patriarchal Office, an “ecclesiological bureaucracy,” in order to avoid confusions, delusions, and irregular recognitions. The now officially placed Halo of Holiness is a sacred “Seal of Authenticity” which certifies, not holiness itself, but the faith and conscience, I repeat, of the faithful people of God. It ratifies the creed of the Orthodox verdict of the people. This “creed,” these testimonies, are gathered, systematized, classified, and entered into the “Canonical Committee,” which in turn “recommends” what is proper, what is easily understood and necessarily performed, however much the Patriarch may be displeased or “swallow hard.”

B. Secondly

Saint Elder Paisios was indeed a fierce Anti-Ecumenist and hated the shameful, anti-Orthodox, and dark Ecumenistic works of the Heresiarch Bartholomew. He considered them filthy transgressions, “devil’s rags” = vulgar women, acts of fornication and adulterous couplings. The “strange woman” (according to the written confession and condemnation of Saint Elder Paisios) “whom the Patriarch loved” is not the true “Woman” of Christ, nor the “Bride,” but a strange woman, of a strange dogma. We have spiritual adultery even when an Orthodox Christian has intercourse (the term is Saint Maximus’s, to forestall those who are very easily “scandalized”) even with a heterodox “woman,” and indeed a “Lady,” the Sovereign Sacred Prostitute of the Vatican, not merely a “trollop”…

Elder Paisios was a champion of the correct, Patristic cessation of commemoration without the creation of New Synods! This “without” has tremendous significance, just as in the Scriptural passage which says of Christ that He was in all things like us, yet without sin! (Heb. 4:15). He was not against walling off and the cessation of commemoration, as many contemporary Ecumenist-abettors deliberately attempt to recast him, excuses in sins. He was against every creation of new, many-headed synods, mutually hostile and mutually anathematizing one another.

C. Thirdly

However strange, “blasphemous,” and irreverent it may sound, the truth is that Saint Elder Paisios had certain missteps concerning the Teaching of the Holy Fathers in relation to our communion with, and withdrawal from, the heretical, Ecumenist Bishops. He maintained communion with them unto death.

This does not “dishonor” his memory. It does not abolish his holiness; it does not remove his very many gifts, just as this did not happen even with Judas. I am not likening the Elder to Judas, God forbid, but I want to point out that the dreadful Betrayal of Judas, which Christ foresaw and perceived as God, did not become a cause for depriving him of the choir of the Apostles and of his portion of the gifts. That is to say, the presence of rich fruits and abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit does not automatically certify the heresy of individual infallibility.

The fact that there are, in Saint Elder Paisios, alongside his strict condemnation of Ecumenistic actions, also words of praise and indeed communion with the Heresiarch Patriarch, and even a photograph in a “pose” with this declared enemy of God, the Great Disdainer of the Holy Fathers, the conscious trampler upon the Canons, and the ruthless Great Betrayer of Orthodoxy. This does not particularly honor him….

 

 

May God forgive the newly canonized Saint Elder Paisios, in view of the myriads of souls whom he benefited greatly and brought to repentance and to the True Faith! These things are not said in order to harm his soul, or even our own, but so that an unadulterated and incorrupt witness of holy Patristic Tradition may be given. No Father of the Church would praise the Pope or the papophile Latin-minded ones, nor would he ever deign to be depicted, since the science of photography did not then exist, with a heretic, one who professes heresy and gives consent together with him. Those “who consent together” with heretics are condemned and anathematized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the uncanonically, diplomatically, and unjustly lifted Anathemas.

And one final thing, yet by no means accidental. Something revelatory and not secondary. Something dreadful, shameful, loathsome. Something truly blasphemous, which literally harms the reputation of Saint Elder Paisios and passed unnoticed, why, one wonders, by the majority. Before I point it out and present it to your sacred indignation, I set forth the text of the relevant, now Historical Announcement, the parentheses are mine:

“The Holy and Sacred Synod convened, under the presidency of His Divine All-Holiness, (it is not simple, mere All-Holiness, but indeed Divine All-Holiness from his own most divine head) in its regular session today, Tuesday, January 13, 2015, for the examination of the matters inscribed on the agenda. During this, the Holy (obviously in a liturgical sense) and Sacred Synod:

a) having unanimously (as if we could have had conscientious objectors too!) accepted the recommendation of the Canonical Committee (who can compare with its grace! Could it perhaps be the Greater and Supreme one?) inscribed in the Hagiologion of the Orthodox Church the monk (it should have had at least a capital “M”: Monk) Paisios the Athonite and… (please, HERE pay attention to the Second Decision)

and b) upon the proposal (yes, of course, the proposal was his; the entire world is now grateful to him!) of His Divine All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch kyr kyr Bartholomew (two “lords,” double lordship, glorify him!) by canonical votes (in essence UNCANONICAL, because Papophile, ECUMENIST Heretical Bishops do NOT have the right to vote, but, as we said, “according to economy”) elected unanimously the Very Rev. Archimandrite Mr. Eirenaios Avramidis, serving in Paris, (fear guards the deserted places) as Assistant Bishop to the Most Reverend (MOST IRREVERENT AND MOST HERETICAL) Metropolitan of France Mr. Emmanuel (= The Pope is with us!), under the title of the once-brilliant Bishopric of Rhegion.”

I consider it Luciferian, the GREATEST INSOLENCE, and a deliberate, flagrant INSULT toward the newly canonized ANTI-Ecumenist Saint, that there should be “honor” and “recognition” with “brilliance” worthy of Foskolos’s Lampsi, “of the once-brilliant Bishopric” of one of the most loathsome and worst antichrist ecumenist bishops, Emmanuel of France, as a second item for Vote, together with the canonization of Saint Elder Paisios!

 

 

Emmanuel of France is THIS man, this sub-human who came forward all delighted, strutting, with great strides, skipping, with a rejoicing foot, bent down SERVILELY and DISGUSTINGLY kissed the Pope’s hand, with contemptible subservience and nauseating enslavement through unionist lust, with his gaze fixed upon the Luciferian Primacy as “the Pope’s slipper”; see here:

http://youtu.be/KCGwjCuSSWw [publicly unavailable]

[Trans. note: without going into the sordid details, Bishop Emmanuel has been publicly associated with multiple sexual and financial improprieties in France and elsewhere]

And now the “Holy Ones on the Bosporus, the Pope’s Cast-off Children,” the cast-off children of their Ecumenistic “fate,” come to attach an impermissible stigma to the holy name of Saint Elder Paisios, by adding the doubly lordly and supremely Ecumenistic name of Emmanuel of France, together with the Assistant Bishop (in common parlance, “lackey”), Archimandrite Eirenaios Avramidis. They will have anything but peace in their conscience, nor will they ever see days of peace, unless they repent of this greatest impiety and titanic blasphemy of theirs.

BE NOT DECEIVED, GOD IS NOT MOCKED!

 

Greek source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2015/01/1024x768-normal-0-false-false-false.html

 

2. “Glorifications” With a Sinister Ecumenical Agenda (2015)

By Mr. Konstantinos Georgitsis

Published by the Holy Monastery of Esphigmenou, Mount Athos

 

In the context of setting forth a conscientious objection, one which is imposed by conscience, against the observed torrent in our days of “glorifications” in the Orthodox Church of persons in whom the prerequisites required by the Church are not fulfilled—prerequisites corresponding to the situation that is formed in each period of time, which has a direct effect upon Her historical course toward the Kingdom of God—it is deemed necessary, in opposition to these “glorifications,” to set forth views strengthened by the ecclesiastical Orthodox teaching, which constitutes the “touchstone” for the impartial, unprejudiced, and disinterested drawing of conclusions on this matter, far removed from wicked expediencies.

Looking back to the historical past of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, we find that She characterizes and sets forth as Saints, with the sense of the term known to all, that is, as “true and faithful friends of God,” according to Saint Theodore the Studite, all those whose life and stance were absolutely harmonized with the condition in which She found Herself during the successive periods of time down to our own days. These, namely their ecclesiastical life and stance, also contributed as determining factors to their characterization by the Church, which She expressed by assigning to them an appellation (=designation) corresponding and related to the stance maintained by them toward the various situations that successively arose in Her and had a direct effect upon Her.

Accordingly, then, from the above the conclusion is drawn that the Church classifies Her Saints, in proportion to the periods of time and the situations being formed in parallel, as follows:

A) During the periods of the persecutions by the idol-worshiping emperors of the Roman Empire: the Holy Great-Martyrs, the Holy Martyrs, the Holy Hieromartyrs (in the case of clergy who were Martyrs), the Holy Venerable-Martyrs, and the Holy New Martyrs of the more recent historical times (chiefly of the period of the Turkish rule);

B) During the periods of the variously named heresies, during which the persecutions were revived, with the persecutors in this case being heretical emperors of the Byzantine Empire, clergy (chiefly bishops), and local rulers (governors), the Holy Confessors, and

C) During the peaceful periods through which the Church passed (which were the shorter in duration), the Venerable Saints.

Following this introductory prologue, some objections will be set forth, occasioned by two recent publications of the newspaper Orthodoxos Typos, issue nos. 2053 of January 16, 2015, and 2054 of January 23, 2015, through which the recent “glorification” of Elder Paisios the Athonite by the ecumenical robber synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is being promoted with an evident enthusiastic disposition. This “glorification” constitutes the continuation of a series of “glorifications” that have as their background the wicked ecumenistic expediencies of those who carried them out, and which concern, in parallel, Elder Porphyrios the Kavsokalyvite and Elder Justin Popović. The approval, acceptance, and enthusiastic promotion of the “glorification” of Elder Paisios are focused on an “anti-papal letter,” the authorship of which is attributed to Elder Paisios, and which the aforementioned Orthodoxos Typos presents as the sole piece of evidence upon which the above “glorification” is validated (???) and demonstrated as having Orthodox foundations.

The subsequent citation of a portion of this letter, which is representative of the ecclesiastical mindset of Elder Paisios, presented as the one who composed it, and the comparison with it of the corresponding evangelical teaching, as well as of the corresponding teachings of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Church, will demonstrate that Elder Paisios not only does not fulfill the prerequisites for his inclusion among the Saints of our Church, since it is proved from his writings that his life and stance are not harmonized with the condition through which the Church is passing in the present period of time, and consequently it is impossible for him to be included among the Holy Confessors, but also that he opposes, willingly or unwillingly, the Church Herself through his writings, because he abolishes an evangelical commandment and teachings of the Holy Apostles and of the Holy Fathers, which self-evidently constitute the official saving teaching of the Holy Church. This fact, on the one hand, deprives him of the privilege of his inclusion among the Venerable Saints, and, on the other hand, ranks him among those whom the ecclesiastical word of Saint Ignatius of Antioch the God-bearer indicates as opposing the ecclesiastical Orthodox ordinances, as follows:

“Let everyone who speaks contrary to what has been ordained (i.e., contrary to the commandments of the Lord and the teachings of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers), even if he be trustworthy, even if he fast, even if he preserve virginity, even if he perform signs (i.e., working miracles), even if he prophesy, appear to thee as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, working the destruction of the sheep.” BEPES 2, p. 330.

Among other things, the one presented as the author of the “anti-papal” letter, as it is characterized, Elder Paisios, states:

“In our times we see that many faithful children of our Church, monks and laypeople, have, unfortunately, broken away from Her because of the advocates of union. I am of the opinion that it is not at all good to separate ourselves from the Church every time the Patriarch is at fault. (Note: the conscious deviation of the Patriarch into the heresy of Ecumenism is characterized by Elder Paisios as a simple fault.) But from within, close to Mother Church, each person has the duty and obligation to struggle in his own way. To cease the commemoration of the Patriarch, to break away and create his own Church, and to continue speaking while reviling the Patriarch—this, I think, is irrational.

If because of the first or the second deviation of the Patriarchs of each period we separate ourselves and make our own Churches—God forbid—we shall surpass even the Protestants. One separates easily and returns with difficulty. Unfortunately, we have many ‘churches’ in our age. They were created either by large groups or even by a single individual... If the advocates of union deal the first blow to the Church, these, the above-mentioned, deal the second...”

As the Holy Fathers of the Church assure us, every word of the Lord included in Holy Scripture, Old and New, constitutes a clear and categorical commandment of His, the possible transgression or abolition of which, or even, worse still, the urging of others also toward the rejection of it, constitutes a mortal sin and places in danger the salvation of the one who commits these things.

Concerning this, first of all the Lord Himself draws our attention, warning: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5:19.

And explaining this warning of the Lord more clearly, Saint John Chrysostom teaches that: “He who falls (into any sin) does not pay the penalty only for his own fall, but is also punished because he causes others to stumble.” E.P.E. 34, p. 124. That is, the one who sins is not punished only for his fall, but also because he overturns, leads astray, others as well. And it is “clearer than the sun” that the one presented as the author of this letter, Elder Paisios, by urging Christians not to “separate themselves from the Church (obviously meaning by Church the Patriarch who has deviated into heresy and the clergy around him) every time the Patriarch is at fault...” (i.e., that is, deviates into heresy):

A) He abolishes and annuls the commandment of the Lord (which is suited to the present condition of the Church) which says: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, SAITH THE LORD, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, SAITH THE LORD ALMIGHTY.” 2 Cor. 6:17–18.

B) He rejects the commandment of the Holy Apostles concerning walling off from corrupting—heretical shepherds, which says: “... Just as the sheep that does not follow the good shepherd is exposed to the wolves unto destruction, so also the one that follows the wicked shepherd has death manifestly before it, because he will devour it. THEREFORE ONE MUST FLEE FROM CORRUPTING SHEPHERDS.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book II, §19, p. 88.)

That is, just as the sheep that does not follow the good shepherd is exposed to the wolves who will destroy it, so also the sheep that follows the bad (unworthy) shepherd has death manifest beforehand, because he (the shepherd) will devour it. Therefore, you must flee from base (corrupting) shepherds.

And it is known that the rejection of the commandments of the Holy Apostles constitutes rejection of the Lord Himself and of His commandments, as He Himself assures us, saying to the Holy Apostles that “... he that rejecteth you rejecteth Me; and he that rejecteth Me rejecteth Him that sent Me, the Father.” (Luke 10:16).

C) He reproaches the Church as though She were acting irrationally and, at the same time, approving the “creation of other churches” foreign to Her, when She teaches us (insultingly toward the Patriarch, according to the claims of Elder Paisios!!!) through the mouth of, 1. of Saint Athanasios of Alexandria: “If the bishop or the presbyter, who are the eyes of the Church, conduct themselves badly and scandalize the people, they must be cast out. For it is better to gather without them in a house of prayer than, together with them, to be cast, as with Annas and Caiaphas, into the Gehenna of fire.” (BEPES 33, 199), or 2. through the mouth of Saint Mark Evgenikos of Ephesus: “... They must be fled from, (the Latin-minded bishops) as one flees from a serpent, as from those serpents themselves (the Latin-minded, i.e., the unionists)... the Christ-peddlers and Christ-merchants...” And elsewhere: “... Flee, therefore, from them, brethren, and from communion with them. For such men (the pro-unionist Latin-minded) are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ...” Patrologia Orientalis, Tome XV, Au Concile de Florence, pp. 318–320.

And, in parallel with these things, it follows that the Church, on the basis of Her above teachings, indicates to the faithful the sole manner of struggle in periods of heresies, and that it is not legitimate for “... each person to struggle in his own way...” while at the same time remaining in full ecclesiastical communion with the heresy and its bearers, using as pretexts “excuses in sins,” one of which is that the faithful must struggle against heresy while remaining “inside Mother Church” (!!!). And

D) By expressing his personal opinion, devoid of Orthodox foundation, that those who have walled themselves off from the pro-unionist bishops “... have unfortunately broken away...” from the Church, with the result that “... we have many ‘churches’ in our age...,” he diminishes the value and authority of the opinion of the Holy Fathers who, with the most holy Photios preeminent among them, convened the Holy First-Second Council, and who, by their 15th Holy Canon, declare that those who have walled themselves off “... have not sundered the unity of the Church by schism, but have hastened to deliver (i.e., to protect) the Church from schisms and divisions.”

Concluding the present objection, with what has been written up to this point, the following conclusions are drawn without reservation:

1) The recent “glorification” of Elder Paisios, as well as the earlier one of Elder Porphyrios the Kavsokalyvite (of Athens!!!), constitute the fruit of the deceitful ECUMENICAL AGENDA, which is also assisted by those who present themselves as supposedly anti-Ecumenists, but who have revealed themselves as the “fifth-columnists” of Ecumenism, through their uncritical, enthusiastic acceptance and adoption of these “glorifications,” and also through their promotion of them by every manner and means, which will bring spiritually negative consequences both to our contemporary generations and to those to come, because of the formation and consolidation of an altered, innovationist, anti-Orthodox ecclesiology on the matter of the ecclesiastical body’s confrontation of heresies. And

2) Ecumenism, which is a “type and effulgence” of Freemasonry (since both include within their bosom all religious doctrines in a syncretistic coexistence, without attempting any alteration of them) produced, through its ecclesiastical organs, its own “saints” (Paisios, Porphyrios, etc.), in imitation of Freemasonry, which, through its ecclesiastical organs (a coincidence?) produced its own “saint,” the Ethnomartyr Metropolitan of Smyrna Chrysostomos Kalafatis, striking a decisive blow against the Orthodox ecclesiological tradition, unto the perdition of the ecclesiastical body.

May the Lord soon deliver His Church, “which He hath purchased with His own blood,” from the putrid growths of Freemasonry-driven Ecumenism and from its fellow-travelers! So be it!

 

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a6vJp-3kXtCMKHDO4GMxCCFlqktl_zgF/view?usp=sharing

Online Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2015/02/blog-post_30.html