Priest Georgios Stavrou
Parish Priest of the Holy Church of Saint Paraskevi
Zagora, Pelion 370 01 Zagora
Zagora, October 11,
2026
To His Eminence
Metropolitan of Demetrias and Almyros
Ignatios
Thessaly Conference Center
380 01 Volos
Tel. 24210 93500
Subject: Cessation of Commemoration. Walling-Off
Your Eminence,
By the present letter, I declare
and inform you that, after much reflection and prayer, as of today (October 11,
the Fourth Sunday of Luke), I shall henceforth cease commemorating your name as
bishop during the sacred services, as I have done until now with a heavy heart
and troubled conscience, in violation of the Sacred Canons, the teaching, and
the example of many eminent Holy Fathers of the Church. However, as our people
wisely say, what is right must be done, even if belatedly: “Better late than
never.” According to Saint John Chrysostom, Christ accepts the last as He does
the first: “He gives rest to him who comes at the eleventh hour, as to him who
has labored from the first” (Paschal Catechetical Homily).
The commemoration of the bishop
by priests was instituted for very serious theological reasons, and when these
reasons are absent, commemoration becomes not only unnecessary but also
dangerous to the salvation of the one commemorating him and of the flock. By
commemorating the bishop’s name, the priest assures those attending church that
they are in a church belonging to an Orthodox diocese, and not a heretical or
schismatic one, and that the bishop is Orthodox, pious, and rightly divides the
word of truth.
All Christians must be pious and
Orthodox, and all the more so the bishop, who is a shepherd and teacher. We
very frequently hear deacons and priests pray in the litanies: “For pious and
Orthodox Christians, let us pray to the Lord.” The priest, therefore,
commemorates the bishop by name and prays for him when that bishop is pious and
Orthodox. This means that the bishop does not teach impious or heretical
doctrines, does not distort the teaching of Christ, the Apostles, and the Holy
Fathers—whom, on the contrary, he respects, praises, and upholds—does not
recognize heresies and schisms, and does not pray together with heretics and
schismatics.
Unfortunately, Your Eminence, you
do not belong among the pious and Orthodox bishops, but among those who promote
and advocate the pan-heresy of Ecumenism–Syncretism, indeed being one of its
foremost and most prominent supporters. Therefore, I cannot, by commemorating
your name as an Orthodox bishop, silently participate in the Ecumenists’ destructive
frenzy against Orthodoxy, endanger both my own salvation and that of the small
flock entrusted to me by God, or speak falsely before the Holy Altar by
proclaiming your name as that of a pious and Orthodox bishop.
It is unnecessary for me to
enumerate all that has been written against Ecumenism since the last century by
eminent and learned hierarchs and by the Holy Mountain, even by contemporary
Saints and by a multitude of clergy, monastics, and laity. To this day, there
are hierarchs who call for the Church of Greece to withdraw from the center of
Ecumenism, the World Council of Churches (WCC), from which two Orthodox
Churches, those of Bulgaria and Georgia, have rightly and piously withdrawn.
This opposition of the Orthodox throughout the years was summarized and
expressed by the “Assembly of Orthodox Clergy and Monastics” in the historic
text it composed and circulated in 2009, entitled “Confession of Faith Against
Ecumenism.” This text brought joy to the Orthodox and put those of false belief
to shame. It was signed by several hierarchs, numerous abbots of Athonite and
other monasteries, hundreds of other clergy and monastics, as well as thousands
of the faithful, who always preserve Orthodoxy when the shepherds betray their
mission and pastoral duty. By contrast, the pan-heresy of Ecumenism was
promoted through the actions of well-known Freemason Patriarchs of
Constantinople, such as Joachim III, Meletios IV Metaxakis, Athenagoras I, and,
more than all the others, the present Patriarch Bartholomew, who, seeing the
aforementioned opposition of the pleroma of the Church, clergy and laity
alike, as manifested through the circulation of the “Confession of Faith
Against Ecumenism,” decided to expedite the convocation of a synod in order to
secure synodal endorsement of Ecumenism and neutralize the Orthodox who were
struggling against it, by imposing penalties and persecutions.
In the preparation of this false
synod, you, Bishop Ignatios, Metropolitan of Demetrias, played a leading and
decisive role, chiefly through two actions that contributed to the maturing of
my decision to break off all communion with you: a) Through the establishment
and operation of the “Academy for Theological Studies,” which would more
appropriately be called the “Academy for Ecumenist Studies,” and b) through
your participation in the preparation and proceedings of the Ecumenist false
synod held at Kolymbari, Crete (June 2016), which recognized heresies as
churches and legitimized the pan-heresy of Ecumenism condemned by the Orthodox.
My decision to cease commemorating your name, that is, to wall myself off,
as this action is expressly termed by the 15th Sacred Canon of the First-Second
Council of Constantinople, held under Photius the Great (861)—a canon that
many, through ignorance, disregard, misinterpret, or even abolish—was therefore
strengthened by three further reasons, making five (5) in all, which I shall
briefly set forth:
1. The
Establishment and Activities of the Post-Patristic “Academy for Theological
Studies”
The initiative to establish the
Academy was yours, Your Eminence, immediately after your election (1999),
although there was no need to fill any theological void. The two Theological
Faculties of Athens and Thessaloniki, with their four departments, two in each
faculty, more than adequately met the theological needs and provided
theological education for clergy and laity. What was lacking, as far as you
were concerned, was a theological institution that would change the traditional
Orthodox Theology hitherto taught in the university faculties, introduce
modernity into the sphere of Theology and the Church, and serve as a laboratory
for Ecumenism, the New Age, Syncretism, Globalization, and a Universal
Religion. The planners judged that this undertaking would enjoy greater success
and a better reception if it also had ecclesiastical backing, an ecclesiastical
guise. And since it was difficult at that time for the Church administration to
provide such a mantle, particularly through a synodal decision, you, the
Metropolitan of Demetrias, willingly undertook to provide it, thereby assisting
the modernists and Ecumenists, who at that time constituted a minority among
the hierarchs and professors of the Theological Faculties, while undoubtedly
also expressing your own modernist and Ecumenist convictions.
The subjects of the conferences
and lectures during the Academy’s first decade of operation were Ecumenist and
distinctly Protestant: Liturgical renewal, translation of liturgical texts,
feminist theology, the priesthood of women, participation of the laity in
divine worship and chanting, and others. Two subjects in particular brought the
Academy’s anti-Orthodox activities to a climax and openly (“with uncovered
head”) revealed the heretical deviations of its founder and president. Both
testify to and confirm the identity and purpose of those associated with its
establishment and operation, as well as its unmistakable connection with
facilitating the Ecumenist course of the false synod held at Kolymbari, Crete. The
first subject is the alteration of the Orthodox character of religious
education and its transformation into a religious-studies-based, Ecumenist
subject. Many members and friends of the Academy collaborated with Professor
Stavros Giagkazoglou, the principal architect of the transformation of religious
education, a favored protégé of Archbishop Ieronymos and the leading figure
behind the well-known theological association “Kairos,” many of whose members
are collaborators of the Academy. This also explains the wholehearted support
given to the Academy by Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Ieronymos, the
chief architects of the false Synod of Crete’s turn toward Ecumenism.
The second major,
blasphemous, and heretical subject with which the Academy of Volos concluded
its first decade was the questioning, for the first time in the centuries-long
history of Orthodox Theology, of the authority and value of the Holy Fathers,
through the promotion of the theory of “Post-Patristicity,” namely, that we
must “go beyond the Fathers,” transcend the Fathers, and not remain within the
boundaries established by the Holy Fathers. Until now, Orthodox Theology has
taught us not to move the boundaries established by the Fathers, “Do not move
the boundaries which our Fathers have established,” and to follow the Holy
Fathers, “Following the Divine Fathers.”
The official emergence of the
heretical doctrine of “Post-Patristicity,” which had previously been
expressed sporadically and unofficially by modernist theologians, both our own
and foreign, took place at a four-day conference organized by the Academy in
Volos from June 3-6, 2010. The theme of the conference was: “Neo-Patristic
Synthesis or Post-Patristic Theology? The Demand for a Theology of
Contextuality in Orthodoxy.” I shall not discuss the storm of reactions
provoked by this first attempt to transcend and invalidate the Holy Fathers,
nor the many critical articles written in rejection of this new heresy.
I shall confine myself to just two references. First, to the immediate reaction
of an Orthodox hierarch, Metropolitan Paul of Glyfada of blessed memory, who
rightly hastened to address the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece with a
“Memorandum,” which he submitted on September 28, 2010, entitled:
“‘Contextual,’ ‘Post-Patristic,’ and Other Theological Explorations at a
Conference of the Theological Academy of Volos.” What the blessed Metropolitan
Paul reveals, particularly his selection of passages from numerous
presentations that advocate, promote, and justify the heretical doctrine of
“Post-Patristicity,” astonishes and provokes indignation among Orthodox
consciences. In conclusion, he makes the following observations:
“We do not deny
freedom of expression in the sphere of Orthodox Theology, but we cannot accept
that freedom of expression should ultimately become Protestant discourse… Our
Theology needs to grow in the Grace of the Holy Spirit. And this can take place
through the Saints, who continually arise within the Church.”
He signs the Memorandum “awaiting
a response from the Hierarchy concerning the scandal caused to the Christian
pleroma,” but unfortunately, even after his death, he is still waiting for the
Hierarchy to address the matter, while its primate is a supporter of and
enthusiastically praises the Academy for Ecumenist Studies.
The second reference is a
crushing and devastating blow to the work of the Academy, which is supported
with all their might by the principalities and powers of darkness. What the Hierarchy
under Ieronymos failed to do was done by Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, who
organized a one-day theological conference in Piraeus on February 15, 2012,
entitled “Patristic Theology and the Post-Patristic Heresy,” the proceedings of
which were published that same year. The very characterization of
Post-Patristicity as a heresy would alone suffice for a positive
assessment of the conference’s work, at which hierarchs in attendance,
distinguished professors, and researchers delivered presentations critically
examining the subject.
I shall selectively add just a
few assessments concerning the characterization of Post-Patristicity as a heresy.
In a letter to the Metropolitan of Piraeus, Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem
points out that Orthodox Theology cannot be characterized as post-patristic,
“because the age of the Fathers does not belong to the past but constitutes a
perpetual present in the Holy Spirit within the Orthodox Church.” Metropolitan
Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, who was present at the conference and also delivered a
presentation, writes: “In general, this movement, which today is called
Post-Patristic Theology, is the reappearance, in a more pronounced form, of
what a few years ago was called Neo-Orthodoxy, and earlier, Barlaamism.” The ever-memorable
Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Venerable Gregory, the Very Reverend Fr.
Georgios Kapsanis, writes in a letter to the Metropolitan of Piraeus:
“Your decision
to organize the conference in question is praiseworthy and necessary, because
in our days, regrettably, the faith, piety, and theology handed down to us by
the Fathers are in danger of being corrupted by the novel ‘theologies,’ as
Saint Gregory Palamas would call them, of audacious theologians who theologize
in the manner of Aristotle rather than that of the fishermen, following not the
Divine Fathers but Barlaam the Calabrian and those like him. Whenever these
‘theologies’ also receive ecclesiastical endorsement, they influence the
pastoral work of the Church and lead uninformed Christians away from the true
faith and piety.”
Protopresbyter and Professor Fr.
Georgios Metallinos of blessed memory, at the conclusion of his presentation,
draws, among others, the following conclusions:
“It is precisely
in this direction that the intervention of so-called ‘Post-Patristic Theology’
proves to be demonic, providing theological cover and support for our Ecumenist
hysteria and for the demolition of our patristic and traditional foundations… Post-Patristicity,
therefore, is in essence anti-Patristicity, because this Protestantizing
movement undermines the patristic tradition, without which Orthodoxy remains
defenseless amid the turmoil of Ecumenism and the furtherance of the plans of
the New Age. And to paraphrase Dostoevsky: ‘Without the Fathers, everything is
permitted!’ According to Saint Gregory Palamas, however, ‘True piety consists
in not disputing with the God-bearing Fathers.’”
Protopresbyter and Professor Fr.
Theodoros Zisis calls post-patristic theologians opponents of the Fathers and,
in another text on the subject, considers them worse than the iconoclasts. He
writes:
“This opposition
to the Fathers is even worse than iconoclasm. For it removes the very living
instruments of the Grace of God. These opponents of the Fathers are worse than
the iconoclasts… And they strike at Orthodox Theology, which is not only
Apostolic but also Patristic. ‘The preaching of the Apostles and the doctrines
of the Fathers’ together constitute the faith of the Church. Therefore, those
who set the Fathers aside undermine the very foundations of Orthodoxy.”
Finally, the very title of
Professor Demetrios Tselengidis’s presentation, “‘Post-Patristic’ or
‘Neo-Barlaamite’ Theology?” characterizes the Post-Patristicity of the Academy
of Volos as a heresy.
After these assessments by
distinguished and eminent theologians and teachers, both clergy and laity, that
Post-Patristicity is a heresy, the Holy Synod should immediately have
initiated judicial proceedings against the Metropolitan of Demetrias, while we,
the priests of the Metropolis, should have ceased commemorating the name of
Ignatios during the sacred services, even before a synodal judgment, as
provided for by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople
(861); that is, we should have walled ourselves off. I did not do so at the
time because, apart from the fact that no one then recommended it to us, we
were waiting for other hieromonks and priests, better trained and more advanced
than ourselves in theological and spiritual matters, to take this step, so that
through them we might give an answer “to everyone who asks.” Unfortunately, I
also failed to do so when our Metropolitan fell into an even worse heretical
deviation: cooperating in the preparation and convening of the heresy-tinged
false synod of Kolymbari, Crete (June 2016). By then, moreover, I was entirely
without excuse, because many struggling monks of the Holy Mountain had opened
the way for Walling-Off, foremost among them the most venerable and discerning
Monk Gabriel, Elder of the Holy Kellion of Venerable Christodoulos,
belonging to the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, as well as pious abbots and
priests in the world, such as ever-memorable Elder Maximos Karavas, the
struggling confessor and abbot of the Holy Monastery of Saint Paraskevi in
Milochori, a true spiritual child of blessed Metropolitan Augustinos Kantiotis
of Florina, legendary for his struggles; Protopresbyter Nikolaos Manolis of
blessed memory, likewise a struggling confessor, together with the multitude of
his spiritual children; and the respected and well-known Protopresbyter,
Professor, and Teacher Fr. Theodoros Zisis, renowned for his struggles
throughout the Orthodox world and even among heretics. Inwardly, I considered
them blessed and praised them for their boldness and confession of faith, and I
prayed that the Grace of God would strengthen and encourage me to follow them
in openly and publicly condemning the false Synod of Crete, as I am doing now,
regardless of the consequences or persecutions, which will be a crown and a
cause for praise.
But why do I reject and condemn
the false synod of Kolymbari, Crete?
2. Participation
in the False Synod of Crete
Apart from the establishment and
activities of the Academy for Theological Studies, which taught the heresy of
Protestant “Post-Patristicity,” the second serious reason that helped my
decision to wall myself off mature was your participation, Your Eminence,
Metropolitan Ignatios, in the preparation and proceedings of the false Synod of
Crete (June 2016), which called heresies churches, gave synodal legitimacy to
Ecumenism, and bears no resemblance to the previous Orthodox Synods, which were
unanimously accepted by all the Local Churches. This Synod, however, was not
accepted by four Orthodox Churches (Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia),
which did not participate and which represent more than half of all Orthodox
Christians. Many hierarchs who did participate also refused to sign its
heretical texts. Many pious clergy, monastics, and laity condemned it through
Walling-Off, not only in Greece but also in other Orthodox countries.
I shall not elaborate on the
reasons for its rejection and condemnation. Many others have already done so in
the most convincing and irrefutable manner, through conferences and a multitude
of publications and lengthy books, of which I shall mention only a very few! In
two lengthy issues (January–June 2016 and July–December 2016, totaling 704
pages), the journal “Theodromia” of the “Society for Orthodox Studies”
published a total of one hundred (100) texts by a) Churches, b) hierarchs, c)
other clergy and monastics, and d) laity. In the first issue, fifty texts
advise against convening the Synod, because its preparation was not in keeping
with that appropriate to Orthodox Synods, and the texts prepared for it
required numerous corrections. Among these texts are writings by three contemporary
Saints, whose icons adorn the cover of the issue: Saints Justin Popovich,
Daniel of Katounakia, and Elder Philotheos Zervakos of Paros, who is venerated
as a saint. In the second issue, an equal number of texts (50), written after
the convocation and proceedings of the Synod, reject and condemn it as a false
synod for numerous reasons. The issue presents this genuinely synodal
rejection, albeit informal, under the title printed in large letters on its
cover: “Neither Holy, nor Great, nor a Synod.” We also mention the one-day
conference jointly organized in Thessaloniki by three (3) associations: a) the
“Society for Orthodox Studies,” b) the “Saint Joseph the Hesychast Orthodox
Christian Association,” and c) the “Life-Giving Spring Greek Orthodox
Association,” on June 16, 2018, entitled: “Orthodoxy and Kolymbari, Two Years
Later: Heresy – Deposition – Orthodox Resistance.”
3. Acceptance of
the Schismatics of the Falsely Autocephalous Ukrainian Parasynagogue. Praying
Together with Heretics and Schismatics.
The false Synod of Crete, a
schismatic and heretical “achievement” of the Ecumenist Patriarch Bartholomew,
which, as we have mentioned, excluded more than half of Orthodox Christians and
fragmented the Church, was followed by a similar uncanonical and anti-synodal
action on the part of the Phanar. Acting as a Pope of the East, Patriarch
Bartholomew intervened in another, foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction, on the
canonical territory of the Church of Russia. He disregarded the canonical
Orthodox Church of Ukraine under Metropolitan Onuphry, which had existed and
operated there for centuries, and established a second church in the same
territory, composed of deposed, schismatic, and self-ordained clergy under
Metropolitan Epiphany, whose schismatic status and deposition by the Church of
Russia Patriarch Bartholomew himself had previously recognized. This falsely autocephalous
community was not recognized by ten of the fourteen Autocephalous Churches.
Indeed, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow ceased commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew
during the services and advised Russian Orthodox Christians, when traveling,
not to attend services in churches belonging to dioceses whose bishops had
recognized the schismatic construct in Kyiv, which has contributed and
continues to contribute to the bloodshed and persecution of the Orthodox in
Ukraine and is causing schismatic divisions throughout the Orthodox Churches.
You, Bishop Ignatios, not only
followed Archbishop Ieronymos along the schismatic path of Bartholomew, as you
also did with the false Synod of Kolymbari, Crete, but also took steps to
strengthen and consolidate the falsely autocephalous Church of Ukraine, thereby
strengthening the schism and bloodshed in Ukraine. You offered one of your own
clergymen, Archimandrite Epiphanios, to be consecrated by the schismatics of
Ukraine as Bishop of Olbia. You concelebrated the Divine Liturgy with this
false bishop on Sunday, October 20, 2019. Indeed, you even expressed your joy
at “the first concelebration with a Hierarch of the Autocephalous Church of
Ukraine, following the recent positive stance of the Hierarchy of the Church of
Greece on the question of autocephaly.” Since then, you have repeatedly
concelebrated the Divine Liturgy and prayed together with him, and you have
pressured clergymen to receive him into their parishes. You also prayed
together with Papist and Protestant “priests” at the Agape Vespers this year
(2026) in the Metropolitan Church of Saint Nicholas in Volos, following a
practice favored by your beloved Patriarch Bartholomew and disregarding the
Sacred Canons, which severely punish with the penalty of deposition clergymen
who pray together with heretics. The schismatic rector of the Kyiv Academy of
the false Church of Ukraine, Fr. Aleksandr Trofimliuk, invited the Director of
your own Academy, Pantelis Kalaitzidis, to participate in the Scientific
Committee overseeing the publications of the Academy of the schismatic
Ukrainians. At the end of July 2019, for the third consecutive year, your
Academy, once again in cooperation with another academy belonging to the
schismatics, in the city of Volyn, conducted a continuing education program
(“Summer University”) for twenty-three Ukrainian clergy and lay theologians.
I need add nothing further
concerning the falsely autocephalous Ukrainian parasynagogue and the new
ecclesiology of the Phanar, which allows Bartholomew to intervene in foreign
jurisdictions as “first without equals,” establishing a primacy that is
nonexistent and unknown in Orthodoxy, a primacy not of honor but of authority,
like that of the Pope. Everything necessary concerning these schismatic and
heretical deviations was stated at a one-day conference organized in
Thessaloniki by three (3) Orthodox associations on June 22, 2019, entitled:
“Ukrainian Autocephaly and the New Ecclesiology of the Phanar.” The eight (8)
presentations delivered at the conference, together with fifteen (15) related
articles by hierarchs, clergy, monastics, and laity, were published in a double
issue of the journal “Theodromia” (April–September 2019, 526 pages).
4. The Coronavirus
Pandemic and the Blasphemous Measures Against the Sacredness of Churches, Holy
Icons, and, Above All, the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist.
Using the Coronavirus infection
as a pretext, the impious government adopted measures unprecedented in the
history of the Church. It closed and disinfected the holy churches, imposed
social distancing among worshippers when they reopened, required the wearing of
masks even when venerating holy icons and sacred relics, prohibited the
reception of Holy Communion and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, and
imposed many other restrictions. Many bishops, exceedingly willing to comply
with these measures, set a bad example—fortunately, not all of them—by
implementing the prescribed measures, which violated fundamental doctrines of
the Church, such as the healing grace of churches, icons, and holy relics, and
above all, of the Divine Eucharist. Many bishops and priests themselves wore
masks inside the churches—wretched and unworthy men—put on gloves to distribute
the antidoron to the faithful, and forbade them to kiss their hands. The
very few bishops who refused to implement the measures were summoned to the
police to provide explanations, while many priests were brought before
ecclesiastical courts or received threats from their bishops of suspension and
transfer.
And you, Your Eminence, also
violated the sacredness of churches and the faith in the healing Grace of
icons, relics, and the Divine Eucharist, and scrupulously observed every
measure imposed by the godless government concerning the Coronavirus, even going
beyond what was required. You obliged priests to participate in the open
blasphemy against sacred things, even requiring them to receive the vaccine
made from cells of aborted fetuses. You were not concerned that you might have
been mistaken, even when it became known that fellow bishops of yours, such as
the former Metropolitan Ambrosios of Kalavryta and Aigialeia, Metropolitan
Nektarios of Corfu, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, Metropolitan Kosmas of
Aetolia and Acarnania of blessed memory, Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythera, and
others, were protesting against the Church’s humiliating submission to the
government’s unprecedented blasphemous measures, which violated the sacredness
of churches and the Mysteries celebrated within them and made a mockery of the
Church’s dogmatic teaching. In any case, before undertaking to formulate
charges against me as a poorly educated priest lacking theological knowledge,
on this matter as on the others, take a little time, out of genuine concern, to
read what your fellow bishops and other pious and learned clergy, monastics,
and laity have written about this deplorable state of the Church
administration. These writings have once again been collected in a double issue
of the journal “Theodromia” (January–June 2020, 336 pages).
5. Celebration of
Sacred Services in the Demotic Language
In concluding, I shall add,
because of its pressing relevance and the great scandal it causes among the
faithful, that you continue, during Divine Liturgies celebrated for schools and
services for the blessing of the waters at the beginning of the school year, as
you did again this year, to use not the sanctified traditional language of the
divinely inspired and holy hymnographers, which, when heard and chanted, raises
those who listen to the heavens, but the commonplace, everyday Demotic
language, which lacks the sanctifying Grace and uplifting power of the
ecclesiastical language of the holy hymnographers. Archbishop Christodoulos of
blessed memory, who began these experiments in translation as your predecessor
in the Metropolis of Demetrias and continued them during his first years as
Archbishop in Athens, realized his mistake and discontinued them. You persist
in this mistake, disrupting unity in Divine Worship and violating liturgical
good order. Indeed, there is also a synodal prohibition against translations. Why
do you not obey the Synod, as the Metropolitan of Peristeri does by removing
the Cross from the Holy Sanctuary? Is it only from priests and the faithful
that you demand unconditional obedience to your decisions? Conscientious and
pious believers are bewildered and find themselves perplexed and confused by
this liturgical disorder and lack of uniformity. In any case, in response to
the unsuccessful efforts of Archbishop Christodoulos, which you continue
despite the synodal prohibition, there is a short book by Professor Theodoros
Zisis, published in Thessaloniki in 2003, entitled: “Should the Liturgical
Texts Be Translated? Neo-Barlaamism or ‘Liturgical Renewal’?” It is worth
reading and making available through the bookstores of the Holy Metropolis, the
holy churches, and the holy monasteries.
Epilogue
From the few things I have set
forth, Bishop Ignatios, it follows that you fall under the provisions of the
15th Canon of the First-Second Council concerning the cessation of
commemoration of your name on multiple grounds. On account of the false Synod of
Kolymbari, Crete, alone, many Fathers ceased commemorating the names of their
bishops. They did not cause a schism, nor do they place themselves outside the
Church. It is heretics and schismatics who place themselves outside the Church,
together with those who justify heresies and schisms and maintain communion,
pray together, and concelebrate the Divine Liturgy with heretics and
schismatics. The Church, as Saint Gregory Palamas says, exists where the Truth,
Orthodoxy, is found, and not heresy and schism. According to the Sacred Canon I
have mentioned, those who cease commemoration protect the Church from schism;
they do not cause schism, and they deserve to be honored and praised. Besides
Kolymbari, you are also culpable of the heresy of Post-Patristicity, support
for the Ukrainian Schism, and the other matters I have mentioned. Particularly
concerning the heresy of Post-Patristicity, Saint Gregory Palamas, who, as an
Athonite hieromonk, walled himself off from Patriarch John Kalekas, regards you
as falsely pious, for he says that true piety consists in not questioning the
value and authority of the Holy Fathers, as the Academy you established and
continue to operate does: “This is true piety: not to dispute with the
God-bearing Fathers.” I desire to follow the Holy Fathers and confessors, the
ranks of the Lord, the fragrant flowers of Paradise, the all-golden mouths of
the Word, those who handed down to us the true Faith, Orthodoxy, unharmed and
without innovation. I rejoice because, after certain unjustified reservations,
I now join with all my soul and heart those who walk the difficult path of
Orthodoxy. I was deeply moved by the conviction of that pillar of Orthodoxy,
Saint Mark of Ephesus, who said that the further he distanced himself from the
Latin-minded Patriarch and those like him, the counterparts of today's
supporters of the Pope and Ecumenists, the closer he drew to God and the
Saints; and the more he separated himself from them, the more he became united
with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers of the Church.
I, albeit belatedly, separate
myself from you Ecumenists and supporters of the Pope, and protect myself and
my small flock from heresies and schisms. I pray that you, too, will do the
same for the large but uncatechized flock of your diocese. It is never too
late. Amen.
With due respect,
The least among Priests,
Fr. Georgios Stavrou
Greek
source: https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2026/10/blog-post_914.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.