Message for the Sunday of the Myrrh-Bearing Women

His Eminence, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia

May 3, 2025

 

Beloved brethren in Christ,

Today, the third Sunday after Pascha, our Holy Church takes us a few days back, to Great Friday, to the place where our salvation was accomplished, the dreadful Golgotha.

At the center of the scene, the middle Cross on which the Most Pure Body of our Lord is nailed, now lifeless. Below, only a few people are watching, with the Ten Apostles absent. Among those present was Saint Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Great Sanhedrin, who had been a secret disciple of Jesus, fearing to be put out of the synagogue. He, seeing the unjust martyrdom that his beloved Teacher suffered, cast away all fear at once, armed himself with courage, and went to Pilate to ask for the Body for burial. Likewise acted the councilor Nicodemus, also formerly a secret disciple of Christ. Seeing Joseph going to Pilate, he bought precious spices for the needs of the burial. With Pilate’s permission, Joseph received the All-Holy Body, and together with Nicodemus, anointed the Body with spices, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and buried it in the new Tomb which Joseph himself had hewn out and intended for himself.

The next day, the Pharisees and the chief priests, fearing that the Apostles might steal the Body and spread the claim that the Lord had risen, placed a guard at the Tomb with Pilate’s permission.

However, what our Hymnography rightly emphasizes came to pass: “In vain do you guard the tomb, O watch. For the tomb cannot hold the Giver of life.” It was not possible for Christ, the Life and Source of life, to remain confined in the Tomb. He who shattered the gates of Hades could not remain enclosed in the Sepulcher. Thus, the longed-for event occurred, and we Orthodox today can say and joyfully cry out:

“Christ is Risen!”

Without knowing it, the Pharisees and the chief priests added an important piece of evidence for the Resurrection—the guard. If there had been no guard, then indeed they could have said that the Apostles stole the Body. But now, with the soldiers guarding the Tomb, the lie about the Body being stolen was utter foolishness, for since the soldiers were keeping watch, how could the Body have been stolen? And if the soldiers were sleeping—as they were told to spread—how did they see that the Body was stolen? Obvious falsehoods!

Very early on Sunday morning, before the sun had even risen, the Holy Women, who had ministered to the Lord throughout His journey, gathered to go to the Tomb to anoint the Body with myrrh, as was the custom of the Jews. They knew that there were soldiers and that the stone sealing the door of the Tomb was very large, heavy, and unmovable by a few weak women. This was their great concern. They did not take into account the presence of the soldiers. Their anxiety and distress were over how they would manage to roll away the stone to enter the Tomb. Others, in their place, would not have even bothered to go to the Tomb. But they went. Despite their thoughts, despite their weakness, despite their anxiety, they went! They went and were rewarded. They saw that the great stone had been rolled aside, and the soldiers were nowhere to be seen. They entered the Tomb and did not see the Body, but an angel who asked them: “Why do you seek the Living among the dead? You seek Jesus the Nazarene, the Crucified One. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him.”

For their courage, the Myrrh-Bearing Women became the first witnesses of the Resurrection, with our Most Holy Theotokos being the first among them. After the event, they were seized with fear and amazement. A little later, however, they saw the Risen Christ Himself saying to them that famous word: “Rejoice!” “Have joy! Sorrow has ended, the curse has been broken, death has been abolished. Let there be only joy for you!”

How beautiful are the messages that today brings us!

We saw the once-secret disciples, from being last, taking the first place in the great event of the Lord’s Burial. Such is our faith. God does not look at rank, but at sacrifice. The Eleven were the first, but through their sacrifice and courage, Joseph and Nicodemus surpassed them at that given moment. In every Divine Liturgy, we commemorate Joseph for his actions after the Great Entrance.

On the other hand, we saw Joseph, without a second thought, offer his Tomb for Christ to be buried there. As generously as he offered his Tomb, just as generously did the Lord bestow blessing upon that Tomb. Who could have imagined that Joseph, that the Tomb he hewed and which was in his possession, would, even to this day and until the end of time, become the greatest place of pilgrimage in the world—and not only that, but also “the source of our Resurrection.”

Perhaps, however, the most striking message—the one that must accompany us in every movement of our life—is that which the Myrrh-Bearing Women experienced. Faced with the problem of the great stone, they responded with their courage. They did not remain dwelling on the obstacles. They moved forward and succeeded.

So too must we, beloved brethren. Because Christ is Risen from the dead, in our life we must arm ourselves with courage and hope. If death itself was not an obstacle, what then could possibly hinder us?

Many times we set out to do something important in our life. Many times we too, like the Myrrh-Bearing Women, begin to draw near to God. Since along the way thoughts will certainly trouble our mind, let us not pay attention to them, but proceed with hope toward the Giver of Life. Upon arriving, we will see that the stone has been rolled away!

Truly the Lord is Risen!

Rejoice!

Your Bishop,

† Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia

Greek source: 

https://www.imab.gr/index.php/latest-news/3258-minyma-tou-sevasmiotatou-mitropolitou-attikes-kai-voiotias-k-xrysostomou-gia-ten-kyriake-ton-myroforon-2025

To a New Calendarist Theologian

My dear friend,

You write that most of the Old Calendarists are proud, lack love and humility, and are, in a way, fanatical and malicious. Overlooking the fact that the above traits can also be found among New Calendarists—since fanaticism, pride, and malice are passions that can afflict any kind of person (and not exclusively Old Calendarists!)—have you ever wondered how this mentality may have arisen among many Old Calendarists? If you carefully study modern ecclesiastical history, you will find the answer. Read about the early period after the Calendar Innovation (1924) and the prohibitions against celebrating services according to the Old Calendar under penalty of defrocking for priests (only from a certain point onward—and not from the beginning—was the "official Church" forced to accommodate both calendars).

Read the New Calendarist Encyclical of 1926, which states that the Mysteries of the Old Calendarists are invalid (at the same time, they recognized the mysteries of the Anglicans!) and that the Old Calendarists are condemned (that is, the New Calendarists were the first to do the very things they now accuse the Old Calendarists of doing).

Read about the sealing of churches, the beatings, the exiles of clergy, the imprisonments, the disrobings, even the murders (such as that of Katherine Routis in Mandra, Attica in 1927). About the basements of the Metropolis of Athens where they shaved the heads of our priests. For all these, there are relevant historical documents—well known to many, unknown to most—which are at your disposal, if you wish. Why then should anyone be surprised that many of the Old Calendarists developed such behavior, which now scandalizes you?

And one more thing. During the time of Iconoclasm, when some of the faithful saw a man of the emperor attempting to take down the icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate, they threw him off the ladder and killed him! And yet, we honor them as saints (see the Synaxarion on August 9th, the Commemoration of the 10 Martyrs at the Chalke Gate). How fanatical they would have been called even then! And yet the Lord, who sees into the depths of the heart, justifies the intention and not the observance of the rules of savoir vivre!

You wrote, “you are outside the official Church.” You also wrote that we are showing “disobedience to the official Church.” But how many times in our ecclesiastical history was the official Church in the hands of newly-appeared and pretending-to-be-Orthodox heretics, while the true Orthodox were under persecution?

Here are only three indicative examples:

First example. During the reign of the Arian-minded emperors Constantius (337–361) and Valens (364–378), those who did not accept the First Ecumenical Council belonged to the “official Church” of the Empire. Any suspicion that someone expressed faith in the Creed of Nicaea and in the "homoousios" was enough for exile and martyrdom. It is worth reading the manuals of Church history to be horrified by the rage of the Arians and the feats of the Orthodox who were exiled, imprisoned, and martyred many times.

Second example. During the time of Saint Maximus the Confessor, in all the Local Churches there were Monothelite bishops or those in communion with them. Read how this Saint describes his meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch, who had fallen into heresy: “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 these together with their provinces are united. If therefore you belong to the Catholic Church, be united, lest by innovating a foreign path in life, you suffer what you do not expect.’” (P.G. 90, 132). But the Saint replied that God considers “the Catholic Church to be the right and saving confession of faith in Him” (ibid.). Who could have imagined then that, years later, when the Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened, it would vindicate the obscure monk Maximus and condemn the patriarch and those with him?

Third example. During the time of Iconoclasm, the “official Church” was the one that destroyed the icons, persecuted monasticism, and generally approved all the reforms of the iconoclast emperors. Indeed, not five, nor ten, but three hundred thirty-eight (338) bishops of the “official Church” formed a synod at Hieria in 754 (which they called the Seventh Ecumenical!) and anathematized the iconophiles—that is, Saint Germanos, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was unlawfully deposed, Saint John of Damascus, and others, who did not belong to the “official Church.”

You write that no saint has emerged from among the Old Calendarists.

Dear friend, if you do not know someone—perhaps because they did not happen to receive the appropriate “promotion” through newspapers, magazines, television, or the internet, like several newly-acclaimed Elders—that does not mean they are not a saint. Were not the Zealot Athonite monks Kallinikos the Hesychast and Daniel of Katounakia universally acknowledged saintly figures? Was not Katherine Routis, a mother of four children who rushed to shield the priest with her body and took to her head the butt of the gendarme’s rifle—sent by a New Calendarist bishop—a saint, a martyr, a model of self-sacrifice? Was not the grace-filled Elder Ieronymos of Aegina, about whom two important books have been written by New Calendarist authors Petros Botsis and Sotiria Nousi, a true saint, acknowledged even by Elders Porphyrios and Paisios? Was not Tarso the Fool-for-Christ, about whom the New Calendarist professor Ioannis Kornarakis wrote a book, a saintly figure straight out of the old Synaxaria? Was not Sophia of Kleisoura, tonsured a nun with the name Myrtidiotissa by the blessed Bishop Kyprianos, acknowledged as a saint even by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and—oh, what a disgrace!—they did not recognize her monastic tonsure because it was performed by an Old Calendarist Bishop)? Was not Elder Ioannis of Amfiali, about whom the Orthodoxos Typos also published an extensive tribute, a wonderworking and grace-filled saint? Was not the barefoot Athonite monk Avvakoum one of the great saintly figures of the 20th century, acknowledged even by hardline New Calendarists like Chatzifotis, Louvaris, and Karmiris? And how many more, known and unknown?

Should they all have carried the seal of the New Calendarist, ecumenist Patriarchate in order for the Lord to include them in the choir of His saints?

You also write that the clergy of Jerusalem and of Mount Athos (those who commemorate) do not permit Old Calendarists to serve liturgically. But in fact, the exact opposite is the case! It is the Old Calendarists who do not wish to serve or commune or have fellowship with those who are in communion with the ecumenists—even if they themselves follow the Old Calendar (and this, in fact, is the greatest proof that the Old Calendarists are not calendar-worshipers!).

And one last thing, so that you may not be scandalized and write baseless things.

We have absolutely no sense whatsoever that we will be saved because of the Patristic Calendar (it is obedience to Christ and His Church that saves, not a calendar), nor do we feel any superiority over you as persons.

A sense of superiority we have only because we came to know Orthodoxy, the only true religion, which we love unto death and cannot bear to see dragged through the dens of the heresy of the W.C.C. and humiliated in this way for so many years.

With the due love in Christ toward all,

Nikolaos Mannis

 

Greek source:

https://nicefor.info/en/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82-%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7-%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF-2018-%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BB%CE%B1/

 

A Prayer of St. Isaac the Syrian: "At the door of Thy compassion do I knock, O Lord..."

At the door of Thy compassion do I knock, O Lord; send aid to my scattered impulses, which are intoxicated with the multitude of passions and the power of darkness. Thou canst see my sores hidden within me; stir up contrition—though not corresponding to the weight of my sins, for if I receive full awareness of the extent of my sins, O Lord, my soul would be consumed by the bitter pain from them. Assist my feeble stirrings on the path to true repentance, and may I find alleviation from the vehemence of sins, through the contrition that comes from Thy gift, for without the power of Thy grace, I am quite unable to enter within myself, become aware of my stains, and so, at the sight of them, be able to be still from great distraction.

Source: The Prayers of Saint Isaac the Syrian, translated by Sebastian Brock, adapted by the Brotherhood of the Monastery of St. John, Divine Ascent Press, 2011, pp. 8-9. Adapted to hieratic English.

Excerpt: "Does Cessation of Commemoration Constitute Schism?"

Excerpted and translated from the academic presentation: 

Does the cessation of commemoration by clergy and the severing of communion by monks or laity, in the case of a public proclamation of heresy by a bishop, primate, or synod of bishops, constitute the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism?

By Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos

Assistant Professor (ret.) of Ecclesiastical Law at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki School of Law, Supreme Court attorney, Theologian

October 13, 2016

 

A negative answer to the above question, for the following reasons:

Part 1: Interpretation of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod

1. The cessation of commemoration by clergy or the severing of communion by monks or laity, because of a formal accusation of ecclesiastical criminal offenses, except that of heresy, by the ecclesiastical subordinate against the ecclesiastical superior, before the irrevocable synodal conviction of the latter, constitutes the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism, by virtue of the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-3, Canons of the First-Second Synod. On the contrary, the same cessation because of a public and open proclamation of heresy in the church, condemned by Holy Scripture, the Holy Synods or the Holy Fathers, and before the synodal conviction of the ecclesiastical superior, does not constitute the said offense of schism, by virtue of Canon 15, paragraph 3 of the First-Second Synod.

1.A. - Obligation to maintain ecclesiastical communion by the clergy with the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority, except in the case of a public and open declaration of heresy in the church by the latter

The clergy (bishops, presbyters and deacons), when they officiate in accordance with the liturgical books, have the obligation to state the name of the superior of the relative authority (presbyters and deacons of their bishop, bishops of their metropolitan, if the metropolitan system of administration is in operation, and metropolitans or bishops of their primate or first, patriarch or archbishop), under the following conditions: as long as the superior of the relative authority 1) is not impious (i.e., is rightly teaching the Word of Truth) [31st Apostolic Canon and 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod], or 2) is not unjust (i.e., does not violate the canonical order of the Church) [31st Apostolic Canon]. The commemoration of the superior of the relative authority expresses the hierarchical unity of the Church, which is defined in the 9th article of the Creed (“in One... and Apostolic Church”). The commemoration, because it takes place during divine services, is the most significant expression of the ecclesiastical communion by the clergy with the superior of the relevant authority. Other expressions of their said ecclesiastical communion are indicative a) their obedience in the Lord to that authority if it rightly teaches the Word of Truth, and b) their concelebrations and joint prayers with the bearer of the same authority.

Presbyters and deacons commemorate the relative provincial bishop, independent of the administrative title he holds (bishop, metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch). Bishops commemorate their metropolitan, if the metropolitan system is in force in an ecclesiastical district. Metropolitans and bishops commemorate their primate or first, archbishop or patriarch. Through their primate or first, the bishops, i.e., the superiors of the local catholic churches (i.e., the dioceses), commune with the primates and bishops and by extension with the remaining clergy of the other autocephalous churches. Because the primate commemorates, on the one hand, “all Orthodox bishops who rightly teach the Word of Your Truth,” on the other hand, the names of the primates of the other autocephalous churches, in accordance with the liturgical books.

The monks or laity, attending church in the places of worship in which the clergy officiate, are obliged to commune with these clergy and through them with their superior authority, within the framework of the above-mentioned hierarchical unity of the Church.

The obligation of clergy to maintain communion with the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority is prescribed by the 31st Apostolic Canon and by the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-3, Canons of the First-Second Synod (A.D. 861), which stipulates the following:

Canon 13 of the First-Second Synod states: “Having sowed the seeds of heretical tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut down to the roots by the sword of the Spirit, the very cunning one employed another method, trying to divide the Body of Christ with the fury of the schismatics. The Holy Synod, however, completely checking even this plot of his, has decreed that from now on, if any presbyter or deacon dares to, because perhaps he has accused his bishop of certain crimes, remove himself from his communion, before a synodal decision and investigation and his irrevocable conviction, and does not mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the tradition of the Church, he shall be subject to deposition and deprived of all priestly honor. For he who is established in the order of presbyter, and who seizes the judgment of the metropolitans, and who condemns, as much as it depends on him, before the judgment of his father and bishop, he himself is neither worthy of the honor nor of the name of presbyter. And those who follow him, if any of them are ordained, let them also lose their own honor, and if they are monks or laymen, let them be completely excommunicated from the Church, until they reject their connection with the schismatics and return to their bishop.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “In various ways, the canon says, the evil one plots against the church of Christ. For when he saw the tares of heresy cut down by the sword of the Spirit, he devised another method to divide the body of the church, and to break the union. This is the fury of the schismatics, who are restrained by the declarations of the Synod, which decree that no presbyter, or deacon that dares to renounce the bishop, whom they are under, and to not commune with him, not even to mention his name, according to custom, as to perhaps condemn this bishop, before a synodal investigation, or before the cause against the bishop be  considered, and a final vote performed to reprove him, the doer thereof shall be deposed. For he who has the merit of a presbyter, and seizes the judgment of the metropolitans, (for the bishops are judged by the metropolitans), and renounces the respective bishop, who is his spiritual father, before he is judged, is not worthy of the honor or name of presbyter. And they who follow the schismatics, they too are dividers, and if indeed being ordained, shall be deposed, and they who are laymen, or monks, are to be completely excommunicated from the church, rather than being cast out, so that they cannot enter the church. For there is excommunication, and they are shut out merely from partaking of the divine Mysteries. And there is also being out of the church, called a complete excommunication, as the most severe, and totally separating the faithful from those excommunicated. And in time this excommunication determines their return. For they are, they say, set apart, until they come to their respective bishop, hating the company of the schismatics.” 

Interpretation of Balsamon: “Having been dismissed from heretical dissensions by the grace of God, the Fathers have seen some of the priests, being devious by their satanic methods, in a schismatic fury, as departing from communion with their bishops, not being impious or unjust, according to the 31st Apostolic Canon, but only so that perhaps something criminal may be said against them. Thus, as they divide the body of Christ, that is, the church, they are corrected, designating deposition of the daring priests, or deacons, who in this disrespectful manner distance themselves from communion with their bishop, before a complete synodal condemnation of him, and do not mention his name in the divine services, in accordance with ecclesiastical tradition. It is said that he is not worthy of the name or has the honor of presbyter, who has shamelessly seized the judgment of the metropolitan, which was meant to be brought fairly against the bishop, and condemns according to his personal conscience, his personal father, the bishop, by not communing with him, truly condemned, as it were, in appearance only. And not only these, but also their followers, on the one hand being priests, are appointed to be deposed, and on the other hand being laity to be excommunicated, and are rebuked, until they may become knowledgeable of the wrong, and approach the appropriate bishop. Read again the first chapter of the twelfth title of the present constitution, and the first canon of St. Basil. And ask something, if the canon punishes only the schismatic presbyter and deacon, if another clergyman alongside him abstains from communion with this bishop, will he be punished or not?  Solution. The canon henceforth expels not only the instigating priest, but also those that follow him, necessarily all the clergymen who instigated the schism, such as they might be, shall be persecuted in their respective ranks. And it is right for the presbyters and deacons uniquely to be mindful of the canon, since the schism takes place chiefly from them, as they carry out the actions at the holy altar, and are able to mention, or not mention, the name of the bishop. And do not say to me, and how, under the canon, can only a presbyter be reprimanded and not also a deacon?  For you hear, that to the priests belong, further more than to the deacons, the things regarding the mention of bishops, and wherefore provides more reason concerning this.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “If a presbyter, or deacon, as on the basis of an alleged crime of his personal bishop, before a synodal decision, knowingly rejects communion with him, and does not mention his name, is deposed, and is deprived of all priestly honor. And those who agree, on the one hand being priests, lose their personal honor, on the other hand, monks, or laymen are excommunicated, until they come back.” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “As with the heretics, as with the schismatics, the devil attempts to divide the Body of Christ, that is, His Church. For this reason, the present Canon appoints, that any Presbyter, or Deacon who separates from the communion of his Bishop, and whose name is not commemorated as is customary, before the Synod examines his crimes, and sentences him. Indeed, they should be deposed, since they are not worthy to have the rank and name of Presbyter and Deacon, those who censure the Bishop, their spiritual father, and who snatch the Metropolitans’ judgment before them. For the Metropolitans and not the Clergy judge the Bishops. And those who follow such apostates, Presbyters and Deacons, if on the one hand they are ordained, may they be deposed, if on the other hand they are Monks and laymen, may they be excommunicated, not only from the Divine Mysteries, but also from the Church, until they hate them, and are united with their own Bishop. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.”

The 14th Canon of the First-Second Synod provides: “If a bishop, using a pretext against his metropolitan, before synodal judgment, departs from communion with him and does not mention his name, according to custom, in the divine ceremony, the Holy Synod has ordered that he should be deposed, if, by merely departing from his own metropolitan, he will create a schism. For everyone must know his own limits, and neither the presbyter should scorn his own bishop, nor the bishop his own metropolitan.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “These shall be appointed by the above canon and this canon, about bishops separating themselves from their own metropolitans, and not communing with them, not even mentioning them.”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “And the present canon is similar to the one before in all respects, even if there is reconciliation concerning the persons.” 

Interpretation of Aristenos: “And whichever bishop dares to do this against his own metropolitan, depose him. For it is necessary for each one to recognize the relevant measures.”

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “Similarly to the above Canon, the present Canon also deposes those Bishops who separate themselves from the communion of their Metropolitan, and who do not commemorate his name as it is customary. Because neither should the Presbyter scorn his Bishop, nor the Bishop his Metropolitan. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.”

Canon 15, paragraphs 1-3, of the First-Second Synod contains: “Whatever was defined for presbyters and bishops and metropolitans, is even much more suitable for patriarchs. Therefore, if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to separate himself from communion with his own patriarch, and not mention, as has been defined and determined, his name in the sacred ceremony, but creates a schism before the synodal judgment and his irrevocable conviction, the Holy Synod has determined that any priestly ministry be completely taken away from him, as long as it is proven that he has committed this violation. And yes indeed, these things have been defined and ratified for any who secede from their own leaders under the pretext of certain accusations, and cause schism and sever the unity of the Church (...)” 

Interpretation of Zonaras: “That which the Fathers of the synod defined about metropolitans and bishops, they say these things are even more befitting patriarchs. For if a metropolitan, or a bishop, or an elder, they say, dare to abolish communion with his patriarch, and to mention his name, before the development of a Synod regarding the patriarch, and before these things are examined, and perhaps he is convicted, such a person having created a schism will be completely alien to every priestly function. And it has been said, correspondingly, on the one hand bishops to every episcopal function, on the other hand, priests to every priestly function. And absolutely, at no time will they come to officiate, then once again restored to the familiar honor, but their merit is completely deducted, and not even having the honor belonging to bishops and priests alone. Therefore they bring about, indeed it has been defined and it has been sealed, that is, it is surely stamped, (for the stamp is a confirmation of the sealed and the imprisoned, that also those deserving of prison are sealed so that they are not plotted against) that these are regarding a pretense of any crimes of the relative renounced presidents, and the breaking of the unity of the church, that may be attributed to the accused, namely prostitution, or sacrilege, or ordination for money, or other such things…”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “And moreover the rule of the items of the 13th and 14th Canons is prescribed to him. For it is declared that the things which have been defined are even more befitting to a patriarch, when one boldly separates himself from his communion. And while having said this, if for a fair reason, perhaps a pretext of heresy, he distances himself from the communion of the bishop, for what shall he be punished?  The Fathers bring forth, as these things are always done, when on the pretense of some criminal case, per se, of a personal shepherd, he is condemned, and therefore separates himself, and in this way breaks the union of the church. For he shall not separate himself for criminal reasons, but for heresy... And it is stated by this Canon, that the schismatic is completely alien to the entire priesthood, for it tells such a one that he is obliged to immediately stop himself from the priesthood, and not be deposed. And the criminal accusations are prostitution, sacrilege, and violations of the canons... And the 31st Apostolic Canon, maintains both the condemners of the respective bishops, as obvious wrongdoers, and those splitting from them are irresponsible.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “And likewise, if a certain bishop, or metropolitan dares to do such things against the patriarch, I will become alienated from the entire priesthood...” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “Wherein those things which the above Canons defined about Bishops and Metropolitans, the present Canon defines them, and much more, about Patriarchs, saying: that, whichever Presbyter, or Bishop, or Metropolitan wanted to be separated from the communion with his Patriarch, and does not commemorate his name according to custom (that is, the Metropolitan only, for the Presbyter commemorates the name of his Bishop, and the Bishop of his Metropolitan), before the matters against the Patriarch are disclosed to the Counc, and he is censured by the Synod. These, I say, let them all be completely deposed, on the one hand, the Bishops and Metropolitans from all Episcopal operations, on the other hand, the Presbyters from all Priestly operations. But indeed these things shall take place, if it is established that for such crimes, prostitution, sacrilege and others, the Presbyters separate from their Bishops, the Bishops from their Metropolitans, and the Metropolitans from their Patriarchs…”

1.B. - Establishment of the ecclesiastical criminal offense of schism due to the formulation of a charge by an ecclesiastical subordinate for ecclesiastical criminal offenses of the ecclesiastical superior, before the irrevocable synodal conviction of the latter, except in the case of heresy, according to the aforementioned

The provisions of the aforementioned Canons punish, for cause of schism, clergy who, with the pretext on behalf of their formulation of a charge of crimes against the bearer of their superior authority, 1) remove themselves from his communion, before the synodal judgment and his irrevocable conviction for these things, and 2) do not commemorate him in their divine services, as is provided by ecclesiastical tradition and the above sacred canons. For these clergymen usurp the irrevocable synodal judgment with regard to the bearer of their superior authority, censuring and disdaining him.

The penalties which are provided by the above Canons are the following:  a) for the clergy, perpetrators or participants, deposition, and b) for participating monks or laity, the major excommunication, which is necessarily lifted, by grace, only in the case in which these participating monks or laity disapprove of their connection with the schismatics and return to communion with the bishop concerned.

The prohibition of schism and the punishment of those responsible for its creation aim to avert the creation of schism, that is, the dividing of the Church as the Body of Christ. It is made clear that one of Satan’s methods is the heretical tares which he spreads to disturb the peace and unity of the Church with the intention to frustrate the salvation of the faithful. If these tares are cut off by the sword of the Spirit, then Satan resorts to his other method, that is, schisms.

1.C. - Ecclesiastical communion of monks or laity and its suspension

The cessation of commemoration, as the most important form of suspending ecclesiastical communion, does not relate to monks or laity, but only to clergy. Because the latter are those who are competent to mention the name of the bearer of the relative ecclesiastical authority in the divine services which they celebrate according to the liturgical books.

Monks or laity participate in communion with the officiating clergy. The communion of monks or laity with the officiating clergy and, therefore, with their superior authority, and like the cessation of this communion, is based on the 10th Apostolic Canon and the 2nd Canon of Antioch (A.D. 341), which contain the following:

The 10th Apostolic Canon defines: “If anyone shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him be excommunicated.”

 

The 2nd Canon of Antioch, par. 2, provides: “... And if it is proved that a certain one of the bishops or presbyters or deacons, or a certain one of the lower clergy, communes with excommunicated persons, then he too is to be an excommunicated person, because he violates the ecclesiastical canon.”

1.D. - Severing of ecclesiastical communion by clergy

The severing of ecclesiastical communion (walling off) by clergy with their superior authority is expressed chiefly by ceasing the commemoration of the bearer of that authority. Of course, the aforementioned severing of ecclesiastical communion also includes other expressions of its suspension, such as their obedience to the Lord in this authority, since the bearer of it has ceased to rightly teach the Word of Truth, or to comply with the canonical order of the Church. The severing of ecclesiastical communion is imposed necessarily on clergy, only in cases of public and open preaching of heresy in the Church by a bishop or primate or synod, in accordance with the 15th Canon, par. 4, of the First-Second Synod, and likewise in agreement with that according to Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, a model of the application of these Canons by the Holy Confessors of the Church. It must be noted that blessed Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, in his book, The Two Extremes, erroneously and mistakenly maintains that the 15th Canon, par. 4, of the First-Second Synod is of potential application, besides the other reasons mentioned in this study, and for the reason that the sacred canons are the laws of the Church and the laws in general, either of the State or of the Church are never of potential application, given that in this way they are self-abrogating. On the contrary, the aforementioned severing of communion is prohibited in any other case, according to the 13th, 14th and 15th, paragraphs 1-2, of the First-Second Synod, except in the case of an obvious violation of the canonical order, in accordance with the 31st Apostolic Canon.

The fourth paragraph of 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod defines: “For those removing themselves from communion with their president, because of some heresy, which has been condemned by the Holy Synods or the Fathers, namely since their president publicly proclaims and openly teaches the heresy in the church, not only should they not be expected to be submitted to punishment from the canons, because they are walled off from communion with the one called bishop before his synodal judgment, but they should also be considered worthy of the honor befitting the Orthodox. For they did not condemn bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, and they did not shred the union of the Church by schism, but took care that the Church should avoid schisms and divisions.”

Interpretation of Zonaras: “And if by chance the patriarch, or the metropolitan, or the bishop, happens to be a heretic, and such a one, as he publicly preaches heresy bareheaded, and unconcealed and with boldness, teaches heretical doctrines, against him, the ones who secede from him, whoever they may be, not only are not deserving of punishment for it, but are also deserving of the honor, as Orthodox, by separating themselves from communion with heretics. For this is clear, they are walling off (for the wall is a separation of those within it toward those outside of it). For they have not withdrawn from a bishop, but from a pseudo-bishop. They have not even created a schism against the church, but rather they have freed the church from schisms, essentially by themselves.”

Interpretation of Balsamon: “... And while having said something, if for a fair reason, happening under the pretense of heresy, he should distance himself from communion with the bishop, for what shall he be punished?  ... For if he shall separate himself from his bishop, or his metropolitan, or his patriarch, not for a criminal reason, but for heresy, as he was shamelessly teaching in the church certain subjects alienated from right doctrine, and if such a one, before complete discernment, and even much more after discernment, if he walls himself off, that is separates from the communion with his primate, not only shall he not be punished, but he shall also be honored, as Orthodox. For he has not separated from a bishop, but from a pseudo-bishop and a pseudo-teacher. And by this fact he is worthy of praise, because he does not divide the church, but rather unites it, and frees it from division... And the canon stated correctly that they are praiseworthy who separate themselves, and before conviction, from those that teach heretical subjects, and indeed are obvious heretics. For if the matters of heresy are whispered secretly and with submission by the primate, as doubting, he is not obligated to separate from him before conviction. For it is the proper thing to reform him toward Orthodoxy, toward complete judgment, and to depart from heresy. Note these things, they may be of use against those who say, it is not right to separate ourselves from the throne of ancient Rome, before he is to condemn them as malicious about this. And indeed, the present canon does not punish them for separating for a doctrinal reason. And the 31st Apostolic Canon maintains both the condemners of the relevant bishops, as obvious wrongdoers, and those separating from them, are irresponsible.”

Interpretation of Aristenos: “... And if certain ones have split from them, not with a criminal pretext, but for heresy condemned by the synods or the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance as Orthodox.” 

Interpretation of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite: “... If the said presidents are heretics, and their heresy is boldly preached, and for this reason their subjects separate from them, and still before a synodal judgment is brought forth concerning this heresy, these separators, not only are not condemned for the separation, but are even worthy of proper honor, as Orthodox, because, they have not produced schism in the Church by this separation, but rather they have freed the Church from the schism and heresy of these pseudo-bishops. See also the 31st Apostolic Canon.” 

Interpretation of the Canonist Serbian Bishop Nikodim Milas (19th century): “This canon is a supplement to the 13th and 14th Canons of the present Synod. And it orders that there must exist that relation on the one hand of the presbyter to the bishop, and on the other hand of the bishop to the metropolitan. Much more so must this relation exist to the patriarch, to whom all owe canonical obedience: the bishops, presbyters and the rest of the clergy of his patriarchate. 

“Defining these things about obedience to the patriarch, the canon makes a general observation about all three (13th-15th) Canons, with which it says that the intended orders are valid only in the case upon which schisms are introduced because of some unproved transgressions of the patriarch, the metropolitan and the bishop.

“But if a certain bishop or metropolitan or patriarch begins to publicly proclaim in the church some heretical teaching, which is contrary to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned have the right and at the same time also the obligation to immediately be walled off from that bishop, metropolitan, and patriarch. For this, not only are they not subject to canonical punishment, but they must even be commended. Because by this walling off they have not criticized and they have not rebelled against the legitimate bishops, but against the pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers. And neither did they thus create a schism in the Church, but on the contrary, they freed the Church, as long as they could, from schism and division.” (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Interpretation, Vol. II, Novi Sad, 1896, pp. 290-291)

In total contrast to the text of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod, the valid Byzantine and modern interpreters, but also the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and the deeds of the Holy Confessors of the Church, Professors Spiros Troianos, Haralambos Papastathis and Karagiannakidis, in their common opinion (of August 2002), support the following obviously and completely erroneous position: “Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod does not introduce rebellion into the bosom of the Church, and neither can the faithful - individually or collectively - substitute the Holy Synod, by usurping competences and authorities that belong to it alone (see the interpretation of the above canons of Nikodim Milas... p. 48).”

1.E. - Rendering the proper honor to Orthodox

1. because the Orthodox faithful severing communion did not condemn bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers, called such even before their synodal judgment, and

2. they did not break the union of the Church by schism, but took care so that the Church may avoid schisms:

This subject is directly connected to the matter of the concept of the Church according to the Holy Fathers, that is, with the matter of whether the Church is Christ-centered (or God-Man-centered) or Episcopal-centered (or anthropocentric).

The concept of the Church according to the Holy Fathers, which St. Gregory Palamas summarizes, along with his disciple, the monk Joseph Kalothetos:

 

a) In the Refutation of the explanation volume of Kalekas, St. Gregory Palamas states: “Therefore since he (Kalekas) is in this way and so many times cut off from the entire fullness  of the Orthodox (because of the anathematizing of the Barlaamites by the Orthodox Synod of 1341), it is impossible to be among the pious if one is not separated from him, while whoever is separated from him for these reasons, in fact belongs on the list of Christians and is united with God through pious faith” (EPE, 3, 692). Besides the breaking of communion with Kalekas because of his heresy, the present excerpt also becomes a reason for the union of the discontinuers of communion with God via pious faith, that is, someone is in the Church, only when one has the pious (Orthodox) faith, and not when one maintains communion with the current ruling bishop, even if he is a heretic.

 

b) In the Refutation of the letter of Ignatius of Antioch, St. Gregory Palamas explains the criteria of inclusion and exclusion of someone from the Church, as follows: “What clergy, what portion, what genuineness to the Church of Christ exists for the advocate of falsehood, toward the Church ‘which is the pillar and support of the truth’ according to Paul, which by the grace of Christ remains continually secure and steadfast, solidly based on all the truth is based on?  Because those of Christ’s Church are of the truth. And those not of the truth are neither of the Church of Christ, so much more so if they tell lies amongst themselves, calling themselves and amongst themselves holy shepherds and chief shepherds. In fact, we were not taught that Christianity is characterized by persons (meaning: bishops) but by the truth and accuracy of the faith” (EPE 3, p. 606). That is, when someone has the truth and accuracy of the faith, one belongs to the Church, while when he loses it, then he exits the Church. And the entrance or the exit of the Church has no relation to the bishops, who do not rightly teach the Word of Truth.

 

c) In the Refutation of the letter of Kalekas, St. Gregory Palamas refutes the heretical position “wherever a bishop (independent of his heresy), there the Church is,” against the Orthodox position “wherever Christ the Truth, represented by a bishop rightly teaching the Word of Truth (if there is one), there the Church is,” as follows: “But I believe that the one so shamelessly writing and unhesitatingly spreading so many lies to all, would easily say this also, that he alone was the synod, because many times he also says that he alone is the church, and that whatever he considers right and says, he says the entire Church considers and declares it correct. And if someone does not immediately agree to whatever, even something very unprofitable to himself and improbable, he is the one completely insubordinate and disobedient to the entire Church. So after all he insists on calling us also disobedient and alien to the Church, because we refuse to be impious as he demands... This one, then, how will he not easily say that he alone was that greatest synod, so as to be uncontrolled, and whatever he may create and write against us is ostensibly from it?” (EPE, 3, 590).

The disciple of St. Gregory Palamas, the monk Joseph Kalothetos, following the ecclesiological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas and of the previous Holy Fathers:

a) Distinguishes the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs from the new so-called Church, which is founded, because of their rebellion, by the bishops who espouse heresy, who erroneously view that the Church is theirs. This new so-called church of heresy is deluded and cuts off its participants from God. That is, when the institutional church (or autocephalous church) is controlled by heretical bishops, it becomes heretically separated from the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

 

b) Notes that the characteristic features of the Church are a) the non-existence of whatever heretical teaching and b) the purity of the doctrines of the God-bearing Saints.

 

c) Elucidates that the severing of communion with the heretical bishops (or pseudo-bishops) aims for a) the prevention of communion with the new so-called Church which is founded, because of their rebellion, by them, and b) the remaining of the faithful in the Church of Christ, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

 

d) Emphasizes that the obligation in the Lord of obedience of the Orthodox faithful to bishops who have adopted heresy, and to clergy who commune with them, is lifted.

 

e) States that any Orthodox who forgives a heretic before he repents and returns from heresy to the right faith, is not forgiven by God and sins twofold. First, because he forgives him before he repents and returns to God. And second, because he presents himself to be more benevolent than God.

The above ecclesiological positions are based on the following writings of the monk Joseph Kalothetos:

 

A. 8th Speech “Against John Kaleka” (D. Tsames, Joseph Kalothetos Writings, vol. 1, pp. 294-296),

 

B. “Letter to Mount Athos, to the so-called Gregory of Strabe Langada [Crooked Ravine?]  in Lavra” (D. Tsames, op. cit., Letter 2, ch. 7, p. 373),

 

C. 2nd Speech “Against Akindynos and Barlaam the unorthodox” (D. Tsames, op. cit., Speech 2, p. 138).

Anonymously translated.

Conservative “Orthodox” — The Trojan Horse of Ecumenism

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | August 24, 2012

We read on a page of an “anti-ecumenist” theologian some comments regarding the statement of Metropolitan Kosmas of Aetolia against the Old Calendarists.

He states:

It is at the very least laughable — and certainly untheological — to fight against the heretical “Baptismal theology” of His Eminence [John] of Pergamon and the “divided Church” of His Eminence [Chrysostomos] of Messinia, while at the same time recognizing valid mysteries among the schismatic and heretical Old Calendarists who are outside the Church!!!

Is it not laughable — and certainly untheological — to fight against the heretical “Baptismal theology” of His Eminence of Pergamon and the “divided Church” of His Eminence of Messinia, while at the same time your Bishops recognize valid mysteries among the schismatic and heretical Papists who are outside the Church? Is it not laughable and certainly untheological to commemorate, concelebrate with, and receive these Bishops into their cities as if nothing is happening?

What should we recall first? Balamand, Chambésy, the Encyclical of the Patriarchate of Antioch in support of the Monophysites... what should we recall first?

Since when do we believe that heretics and schismatics perform valid mysteries?

Since the time when the Bishops whom you commemorate and are in communion with proclaimed those very positions!! When?? We have written a few of the many things above!!!

Where did the Old Calendarists find the priesthood and episcopacy in order to perform valid mysteries?

Although you know this very well, perhaps you should ask yourselves — and also ask the Bishops with whom you are in communion and whom you commemorate — where the Papists, the Monophysites, and the Protestants found the priesthood and episcopacy in order to perform valid mysteries! Ask the Bishops, we repeat, with whom you are in communion and whom you commemorate!

Unfortunately, despite the clear warnings of the wise canonist and holy Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, who codified and summarized the Church’s teaching regarding the parallel danger of Ecumenism and schism, many traditional believers — even leading figures of the anti-ecumenist struggle — treat the schismatic and heretical Old Calendarists as if they were supposedly members of the Church.

What clear warning did Fr. Epiphanios write against the Ecumenists? Do you perhaps mean the “until the appointed time” commemoration of heretical Bishops? Is that a warning or an ENCOURAGEMENT in their favor?

Such “warnings” became the Trojan horse of Ecumenism!!!

In his well-known book “The Two Extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotry,” Fr. Epiphanios writes that the Orthodox can have ecclesiastical communion with the heretical Ecumenists and condemns as schismatics the Orthodox of the Patristic Calendar who walled themselves off from the Ecumenist “bishops”!

How many Churches are there, in totality, to justify the Old Calendarists being considered a Church?

But it’s simple! Ask your Bishops and from them you will receive the appropriate answer! Shall we help you with simple words? Why, they will tell you that the “Church is divided” and indeed must be reunited! Do you not know this “theology” of the ecumenist bishops with whom you are in communion and whom you commemorate — regardless of whether you, as you write, disagree with them!

Go ahead and ask them: Are the Papists, Monophysites, and Protestants a Church — yes or no? Do they belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — yes or no?

You supposedly seek to find out whether the Old Calendarists are a Church, and you have forgotten that the Pope is commemorated and recognized as the canonical Bishop of Rome by the Bishops with whom YOU are in communion! And you ask whether the Old Calendarists are a Church?

The wisest comment was that of a dear friend who wrote: “Ecumenism has managed to make even words lose their meaning... Mr. Kosmas of ‘Aetolia’ says he does not recognize our mysteries! That is pleasing… because if Mr. Kosmas, who is in communion with his Ecumenist superiors Bartholomew and the other Ecumenist forces — who are in communion with the Vatican — were to recognize us, then we would not feel well…” That was the simplest yet also the wisest comment!!

Beloved!

Do not pretend that you do not understand. You simply cannot believe that these “conservative” theories which you (I mean those of the same mindset) teach have become the Trojan horse of Ecumenism, which unfortunately, for many years now — and even more so today — has already begun the conquest!

Spiritual courage — not cowardice — is to admit it and to begin from now the implementation of the patristic teaching in PRACTICE! Otherwise, you will see things become even worse in the “Church” to which you belong, and you will also see the true face of the “Bishops” with whom you are in communion and whom you commemorate — and we hope it will not be too late by then.

We will continue to pray for you to acquire sobriety and repentance, and we will remind you of the word of the great father Fr. Georges Florovsky, where he states the following:

“Very often the measure of truth is the testimony of the minority. It is possible for the little flock to be the Catholic Church. Perhaps there are more heterodox than Orthodox. It is possible for the heretics to spread everywhere and for the Church to end up on the margins of history or to withdraw into the wilderness. This has happened repeatedly in history and it is very likely to happen again... The duty of obedience ceases when the bishop deviates from the catholic rule, and the people have the right to accuse him, even to depose him.”

(Protopresbyter G. Florovsky, Holy Scripture, Church, Tradition, publ. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki, pp. 71 and 75)

Amen, may it be so!

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_24.html

Saint Chrysostomos of Florina on Meletios Metaxakis

On the Holy Mountain, the heroic shepherd remained for five years studying and praying for the Church and the afflicted Nation. Having been informed that the innovator Meletios Metaxakis was preparing to seize the Ecumenical Throne, he went down to Athens and presented to the then Prime Minister [Dimitrios] Gounaris the danger threatening the Patriarchate from the ascent of Meletios to it. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, as always happens, remained completely indifferent to Chrysostomos' anguish. But let us allow the sorrowful consequences that followed to be described to us by himself in his well-known vivid manner.

“In the meantime, Meletios Metaxakis—who had been in America propagandizing on behalf of Venizelism along with the Archbishop of Athens, who was then still an archimandrite—was elected Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople. And thus began a new stage of persecution for me, since I had resolved always to fulfill my duty in accordance with the dictates of my hierarchical conscience, as a consequence of the uncanonical election of Meletios to the throne of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As soon as Meletios’ election was announced, all the Hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, those in the New Lands of Greece—about sixty in number—gathered in Thessaloniki under the presidency of the first in rank, then Metropolitan of Cyzicus and later Ecumenical Patriarch Constantine, and declared ‘the election of Meletios null and uncanonical.’ Unfortunately, however, shortly thereafter, under pressure from the revolutionary government of [General Nikolaos] Plastiras, all the participants of the aforementioned Synod of Thessaloniki hastened one after another to recognize Meletios, except for two bishops: Sophronios of Eleutheroupolis and our close friend Chrysostomos.

“Having then been summoned by the holy Chrysostomos of Kavala at the behest of the Minister, and urged by him—up to the point of threat—to also recognize Meletios, I categorically refused to comply with the suggestion, paying no heed whatsoever to his threats. Then, in order to avoid a second exile on the Holy Mountain, I departed in time for Alexandria to visit my relatives there and to find relief from my afflictions.

“While I was in Alexandria, I received a summons from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, calling me to appear before the Holy Synod and give an account, because I had not recognized the election of Meletios as Ecumenical Patriarch. But being under such circumstances that I could not appear in person before the Synod, I sent a written defense, in which I justified—on the basis of the divine and sacred Canons—my non-recognition of Meletios as a canonical patriarch. And while the latter was preparing to try me in absentia and depose me, he was expelled from the throne by the Turks, as one who had scandalously involved himself, contrary to his spiritual mission, in anti-Turkish politics. And thus, I was then saved by the providence of the Lord from an unjust condemnation, in order to suffer now one that is still more unjust. Such, in general terms, was my past until my restoration to the province of Florina (1924), which I shepherded in a god-loving and God-pleasing manner by the power of God and the grace of the All-Holy Spirit for six years, and from which I voluntarily resigned for reasons of health, in order to devote my remaining strength again for the sake of the Church, serving and preaching the Gospel of Christ without recompense in Athens and elsewhere. After such a past of active service, can one who judges rationally and justly doubt that I, after my departure from active duty and in the twilight of life, would undertake such a great and bold step, if it had not been imposed upon me by my hierarchical conscience? And what shall I say regarding the disgraceful slander of His Beatitude, that I was promoted to this position together with my fellow strugglers in order to serve personal grudges against him and to pursue egotistical ambitions and aims—when my entire past guarantees the purity and nobility of the motives behind my whole episcopal policy?”

 

Source: Ο Σύγχρονος ομολογητής της Ορθοδοξίας [The Contemporary Confessor of Orthodoxy], by Stavros Karamitsos, pp. 24–26.

Online: https://entoytwnika1.blogspot.com/2025/05/blog-post_74.html

Praying for the Non-Orthodox

Source: Orthodox Life, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1976), pp. 27-31.

 

The Orthodox Church, in accordance with the love for man which characterizes her, permits prayer for those who have cut themselves off from her, i.e., for heretics and schismatics. But prayers in what regard? Prayers that they convert to the Orthodox Faith before the end of their lives.

Thus in the Prayers of Intercession we pray: "Illumine with the light of grace all apostates from the Orthodox Faith, and those blinded by pernicious heresies, and draw them to Thyself, and unite them to Thy Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church." From this it is clear that the Orthodox Church permits prayer for those who have departed from the holy faith—prayer for their conversion. But what can one say about those who have departed from this life? Does the Church pray for such persons in her divine services? In the services of the Orthodox Church there is no prayer for persons who have died in heresy. Quite the opposite, on the First Sunday of Great Lent, in the Service of Orthodoxy, our holy Church pronounces anathema, i.e., excommunication on all heretics and apostates from Orthodoxy. How is it then, we ask, that the Church at one and the same time anathematizes and prays for apostates? "The non-Orthodox by their very non-Orthodoxy have excommunicated themselves from the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow stated that not commemorating them during the Liturgy and removing their names from the diptychs (the Synodikon, or lists of names to be commemorated; i.e., the lists of those with whom the Orthodox are in communion) is in full accord with and flows logically from their excommunication. We might note here that removal from the diptychs reminds us that the names of the non-Orthodox should not be commemorated at any Orthodox Service. It may be objected that this is certainly very strict, but what can we do? We cannot force the Lord to mercy with prayer! For our God is a jealous God (Ex. 20:5); The Lord is righteous and loves righteousness (Ps. 10:7). There have been cases when He Himself forbade prayer for certain persons: He said to His prophet Jeremiah about His people: do not pray for these people, and do not ask that they be shown mercy, and do not pray, do not approach Me concerning them, for I shall not hear you (Jer. 7:16). Now this command of the Lord refers to persons who are still alive, and who consequently still have the chance to repent. And the Prophet did not dare to disobey the word of the Lord by justifying his prayer for them as love for mankind.

It is to be noted that here we have in view prayer for the non-Orthodox offered by the Church. To permit such prayer in the Orthodox Church during a divine service would cause scandal, at least for those with a weak conscience. If such persons were to hear petitions in an Orthodox Church for the health or repose of Roman Catholics or Protestants, they could come to the conclusion that it really does not matter what you believe. And through this there would be ever more and more frequent apostasy from the Orthodox Church, if not formally, then at least in spirit. And this would be the greatest woe, for then, imperceptibly, the person thus led astray becomes Orthodox in name only, and in actual fact one who does not believe correctly or even does not believe at all. In the same way, persons of other confessions, seeing that the Orthodox Church prays for them, will come to the same conclusion about the equality of all confessions of faith. And this can distract those non-Orthodox who desire to be united with the Orthodox Church, for they will say the Orthodox pray for them anyway.

However, in speaking about the strictness of the Orthodox Church concerning the commemoration of the non-Orthodox, we do not mean to say that our Holy Orthodox Church commands us, her children, not to pray for them at all. She only forbids us to pray according to our own whims, to pray in whatever manner might come into our heads. Our Mother the Orthodox Church teaches us that everything we do, including prayer itself, must be done decently and in a proper manner (I Cor. 14:40). We pray at all the divine services for all the various nations and races and for the whole world, more often than not without us knowing or understanding this. We pray just as our Lord Jesus Christ taught His Apostles to pray in the prayer He taught them: Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven! This all-embracing petition gathers within itself all the needs of ourselves and of all our brothers in the faith and even those of the non-Orthodox. Here we beg the All-good Lord even for the souls of the deceased non-Orthodox, that He might accomplish with them that which is well-pleasing to His holy will. For the Lord knows immeasurably better than we to whom to show what mercy.

And so, O Orthodox Christian, whoever you may be, either a laymen or a priest of God, if during some service of the Church there comes upon you the zeal to pray for some non-Orthodox close to you, then during the reading or chanting of the Lord's Prayer, sigh for him before the Lord and say: "Thy holy will be done in him, O Lord!" and limit yourself to this prayer. For thus you are taught to pray by the Lord Himself. Thus, to pray for the non-Orthodox in the Public prayers of the Church on an equal basis with Orthodox Christian, i.e., to commemorate their names in churches just as the names of Orthodox Christians are commemorated, is not in accord the traditions of our One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus do we speak and so do we act. And this is in no wise out of hatred for the non-Orthodox or because we do not wish them well, but because our willful prayer for them will not be pleasing to God, will be without benefit for their souls and will become a sin for those who pray thus.

We can see a clear example of this in Saul, king of Israel. He had to all appearances done a good deed when, before the opening of hostilities with the Philistines, he turned to God with prayer and offerings of sacrifices. But since he acted in this case in his own way, without awaiting the prophet of God, Samuel, as he had been told, he not only did not attract God's good will and blessing upon himself, but earned instead God's anger and punishment.

 And now a few words about private prayer. There is scarcely more than one example in the Orthodox Church of how the personal prayer of a saint of God aided the souls of the deceased non-Orthodox, even of pagans. St. Macarius of Egypt tells the following of himself: "Once, while travelling across the desert, I found the skull of a certain dead person lying on the ground. When I struck the skull with a palm branch, it spoke to me and I asked it: 'Who are you?' The skull replied: 'I was the chief priest of the idols and pagans who were in this place; and you are Macarius, the Spirit-bearer. When you, taking pity on those who suffer in torment, pray for us, we sense a certain relief.'" The elder asked him: "What is the relief and what the torment?" And the skull said to him: "As far as heaven is above the earth, so much is there fire beneath us, and we ourselves stand from head to foot in the midst of the fire. None of us can see another's face, for the face of each of us sees the back of someone else. But when you pray for us, then each of us sees in part the face of another... This is our relief!" The elder began to weep and said: "Unhappy the day on which this man was born!" The elder further inquired: "is there not some other, more terrible torment?" The skull answered: "Beneath us there is a torment still more terrible." The elder asked: "And who is to be found there?" And the skull replied: "As we did not know God, we are shown a measure of mercy, but those who knew God and turned away from Him (of course with false wisdom in matters of faith and with a careless life)—they are beneath us." After this, the elder took the skull and buried it in the earth.

From this story of the blessed father we see first of all that his prayer for the pagans suffering in the fire was not public prayer in church, but private prayer. This was the prayer of the solitary desert-dweller, praying in the secret chamber of his heart. Moreover, this prayer can serve in part as a reason for us Orthodox Christians to pray for the living and deceased non-Orthodox in our private prayers. The saint did not inform us how he prayed for the pagans, but being a great saint of God, he undoubtedly attained great boldness in his prayers to the Lord. St. Macarius prayed for the pagans not in a prayer of his own fancy, but as he was taught by the Spirit of God dwelling in his pure heart, the Spirit Which taught him to pray for the whole world, for all peoples, living and dead, as this is a regular characteristic of the loving hearts of all the saints of God. As the Holy Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: Our heart is enlarged; ye are not straitened in us (2 Cor. 6:11).

Thus can we now agree that Orthodox Christians may indeed pray for the non-Orthodox, both living and dead—in private prayer at home; but here we repeat again and again, not in prayers according to one's own designs, not in such as might come into one's head, but according to the direction of persons experienced in spiritual life.

In this instance the direction of such people is as follows. There was an occasion during the life of the Optina Elder Leonid (Lev in the Great Schema), who died in 1841. The father of one of his disciples, Paul Tambovtsev, had died an unhappy and violent death by suicide. The loving son was deeply grieved by this and poured out his sorrow before the elder thus: "The hapless end of my father is a heavy cross for me. I am now upon a cross whose pain will accompany me to the grave. While imagining the terrible eternity of sinners, where there is no more repentance, I am tortured by the image of the eternal torments that await my father who died without repentance. Tell me, father, how I can console myself in this present grief?" The elder answered, "Entrust both yourself and your father's fate to the will of the Lord, which is all-wise, all powerful. Do not tempt the miracles of the All-high, but strive through humility to strengthen yourself within the bounds of tempered sorrow. Pray to the All-good Creator, thus fulfilling the duty of the love and obligation of a son." Question: "But how is one to pray for such persons?" Answer: "In the spirit of the virtuous and wise, thus: 'Seek out, O Lord, the perishing soul of my father: if it is possible, have mercy! Unfathomable are Thy judgements. Do not account my prayer as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!' Pray simply, without inquiring, entrusting your heart to the right hand of the All-high. Of course, so grievous a death for your father was not the will of God, but now it rests completely in the will of Him Who is able to hurl both soul and body into the fiery furnace, of Him Who both humbles and lifts up, puts to death and brings to life, takes down to Hell and leads up therefrom. And He is so compassionate, almighty and filled with love that before His highest goodness the good qualities of all those born on earth are nothing. You say, 'I love my father, therefore I grieve inconsolably.' That is right. But God loved and loves him incomparably more than you. And so, it remains for you to entrust the eternal lot of your father to the goodness and compassion of God, and if it is His good will to show mercy, who can oppose Him?"

This private prayer for use in one's own room at home, given to this disciple by the Elder Leonid who was experienced in the spiritual life, can serve Orthodox Christians as an example or paradigm of prayer for some non-Orthodox persons close to us. One can pray in the following manner: "Have mercy, O Lord, if it is possible, on the soul of Thy servant (Name), departed this life in separation from Thy Holy Orthodox Church! Unfathomable are Thy judgments. Do not account this prayer of mine as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!"

We do not know (and to no one of us has it been revealed) what or how much benefit such a prayer can bring to the non-Orthodox. But from experience it has been learned that surely it eases the burning sorrow of the person praying for the soul of one close to him who died outside the Orthodox Church. For according to the word of the Psalmist: a broken and contrite heart God will not despise (Ps. 50:19). The more humble and self-abasing the prayer, the more hopeful and beneficial.

Heresy and Commemoration

What is the proper stance of the Orthodox Christian toward the Hierarch who has fallen into a crime or heresy?

Ioannis N. Paparrigas | February 13, 2010

 

The cessation of the commemoration of the local Hierarch constitutes a sin. This applies even in the case of a crime. Then, the cessation of the Hierarch’s commemoration, “prior to synodal determination” (14th Canon of the First-Second Council) “and his complete condemnation” (15th Canon of the First-Second Council), is punished by the total exclusion of the cleric from every priestly function (ibid.).

On the contrary, when the Hierarch publicly “and with uncovered head in the Church” proclaims, teaching “some heresy condemned by the Fathers,” the cessation of communion with him prior to synodal judgment is an Orthodox act (ibid.). Those who act in this way “not only are not subject to canonical penalty for separating themselves from communion with the so-called Bishop prior to synodal determination, but shall also be deemed worthy of the appropriate honor among the Orthodox” (ibid.). “If some,” writes Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, “separate themselves from someone not under the pretext of a crime, but because of heresy condemned by a Synod or the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and acceptance, as are the Orthodox” (PG 87, 3369–3372). Likewise, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, writing to those in Constantinople concerning Nestorius, emphasizes: “As for the clergy, that is, either those who have separated from him because of right belief, or those deposed by him, we are in communion with them” (Mansi 4, 1096). And the 31st Apostolic Canon provides for separation from a Bishop in the case of his condemnation “in piety and righteousness.” Here, “in righteousness” clearly refers either to a heretical denial of the divine law — which is heresy — or even to a simple transgression of it, in which case the provisions of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council apply.

Those who, as stated above, separate themselves from a Hierarch who is preaching heresy cannot be accused of showing contempt for a Bishop or of causing schism. On the contrary, they are to be praised, for they distinguish the false bishops from the true, and through their stance they endeavor to save the Church from “schisms and divisions.” “For they did not condemn bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and they did not sever the unity of the Church through schism, but strove to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions,” proclaims the First-Second Council (15th Canon).

Is the Canon optional or obligatory?

Those of contrary opinion write that the Canon is optional — that is, if you cease commemorating, you do well; if not, you do not sin. However, since the Canon praises and deems worthy of honor those who cease commemoration prior to synodal judgment, it is evident that it reproves and condemns those who do not cease but await the synodal judgment, for in every matter the opposite is evident.

Because if those who cut themselves off strive to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions (as the Canon states), it is evident that those who do not cut themselves off are causing divisions and schisms. And if the former separate themselves from a wolf and a false bishop, the latter align themselves with the wolf and the false bishop.

And if someone should wonder why the Canon does not determine the fate of those who await the Synodal judgment, this is easily understood when the meaning of the Canon is interpreted correctly and not erroneously. For in this case, the Canon speaks ONLY about those who cut themselves off, and not about those who do not.

Thus, for example, we hear the most infallible mouth of our Lord Christ proclaiming, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Here, the troublemakers are passed over in silence, but no one in sound mind would ever reach such confusion as to suppose that if the troublemakers are not blessed, they are nevertheless not wretched — for one who offers such an interpretation is irrational, either from a distorted mind or from bad intent.

The divine and sacred Canons not only absolve those (who cease commemoration) from all suspicion of schism, but declare such persons to be defenders of the unity of the Church... “and they did not sever the unity of the Church by schism, but strove to deliver the Church from schisms and divisions.” For whom does the Canon say these things? For those who separate their responsibility? Or for those who commune with heretics so that schism might not occur? Where have you found it written to quibble that the Canon is optional and not obligatory? What does “optional” mean? Does the Canon perhaps say anywhere that if a bishop falls into heresy, those who wish may commemorate him and those who wish may separate from communion with him?

The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is not optional, but entirely and absolutely obligatory. Separation from heretics is never an optional act... The Canon simply makes a distinction between the two cases of separation from communion with the president (bishop), and says that if we separate from him on account of a personal sin prior to synodal judgment, we are schismatics (“we cause schism”); whereas, if we separate on account of a case of known heresy, we are not schismatics (“we did not sever the unity of the Church by schism”). The Canon VERY CLEARLY teaches when separation constitutes schism and when it does not. When we may, and when we may not. But when we may, it does not mean that we are somehow not obliged to do so; on the contrary, the possibility gives rise to a moral obligation.

 

Greek source: https://entoytwnika.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_13.html

Fr. John Romanides on the Greek Old Calendarists

There are over one million Old Calendarists in Greece who suffer humiliating persecutions. In reality, they are the true devout Orthodox in the traditional sense of the term, faithfully observing all feasts and liturgical customs. In their homes, one finds the Philokalia and all the splendid translations of the Fathers made in the past century. In the homes of the pious of the official Church, one finds Guardini, [1 word – Blondel?], Holzner, Pascal, etc., but not even a single Father of the Church.

- Letter of Protopresbyter John Romanides to Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, dated May 28, 1958. Cited in π. Ιωάννης Ρωμανίδης: ένας κορυφαίος δογματικός θεολόγος της Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας [Fr. John Romanides: a foremost dogmatic theologian of the Orthodox Catholic Church], by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos), Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos, 2012.