Nikolaos Mannis | September 12, 2026
A text by an Athonite monk
recently came to my attention (he is known to me, but since he does not give
his name, I will not disclose it), bearing the grandiose title “Refutation of
the ‘Cyprianist’ False Teachings,” in which he attempts to refute the Orthodox
ecclesiological teachings concerning “ailing members” and “potentiality and
actuality,” while supporting the familiar false teaching of “automatic loss.”
Although I have already addressed some of the positions advanced by the author
in my text “Against Sakarellism”
(here: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2023/03/blog-post.html)
[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-contribution-to-liberation-of.html],
I believe that some answers must be given here as well. For when I attempted to
submit my observations on the author’s Facebook profile, he almost immediately
blocked me from commenting, as is customary among those who cannot hold their
own in a public dialogue.
I therefore considered it
necessary to publish them, all the more so when I learned of the “condemnation
of Cyprianism” by the new “Holy Alliance of the G.O.C.” of Kallinikos of the
Dodecanese and Athanasios of Lavreotiki. Through this condemnation, they have
made themselves patricides against their own spiritual fathers of blessed
memory: Cyprian of Oropos (in the case of the former—and for the second time,
following his participation in the sham deposition of 1986) and Elder
Chrysanthos (in the case of the latter). These Fathers of blessed memory not
only shared the same ecclesiological views but also belonged to the same Synod.
First, we must say that the text
in question is unfortunately a rant containing numerous insults and derogatory
labels, with an evident lack of composure. It also frequently contains
unsubstantiated claims and arbitrary interpretations and positions. He writes,
for example (p. 6): “The ecclesiological error expressed today under the name
‘Cyprianism’ clearly has its roots in the influence of Scholasticism and
Western theology, through which it entered the Orthodox world from the Middle
Ages onward.” Source? Proof? Documentation? Absolutely none; this is simply how
the author wants it to be...
* * *
Elsewhere (p. 11), we read: “It
is impossible for a member of it [i.e., the Church] to hold a manifest and
condemned false doctrine, proclaimed openly and publicly, and continue to be a
member of its body.”
At this point, I asked the
following question: “If a clergyman holds a condemned false doctrine but is
cunning enough not to proclaim it publicly and openly, is he a member of the
Church or not? Does he celebrate Mysteries or not? What do you say?”
The author, acting “cleverly,”
did not dare to give a clear answer. For if he were consistent with his theory
of “automatic loss” (that heresy automatically cuts a member off from the
Church and a clergyman immediately forfeits his priesthood), he would have had
to answer “no.” This would indeed create chaos, since no Orthodox Christian
would know whether he had truly been baptized, married, absolved in confession,
or ordained, because no one can know the hidden beliefs of every clergyman. If
he answered “yes,” it would be as though he were proving the equally absurd
position that it is not heresy that deprives a clergyman of Grace and
priesthood, but his stupidity or “cleverness”: if he is foolish enough to
reveal himself openly and publicly, then he is automatically stripped of …
Grace. But if he is cunning enough not to reveal himself openly, keeping his
heresies secret instead, then he duly possesses the priesthood and celebrates
Mysteries!
* * *
Elsewhere (p. 12), he writes
(again without substantiation): “Within Christ’s flock there may be sinful
members, but never heretical ones, since what defines the unity of the Church
is primarily the unity of faith expressed in the common Chalice, whereas what
destroys that unity is heretical belief, certainly not the sinfulness of Her
members. These two things cannot be compared! For this reason, a sinner can
belong to the body of the Church and be saved through continual repentance; a
heretic, however, never!”
What is the author telling us
here?
a) First, that you can be a
pedophile, murderer, rapist, someone who commits bestiality, etc., without
losing your membership in the Church, but if you are misled into believing, for
example, that “the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son” or that “Christ’s
divine nature absorbed His human nature,” then you are automatically outside
the Church.
b) That there can be “sinful
members” (and we agree; we simply call them “ailing”) in the Church, but not
“heretical” ones. In saying this, he both overlooks the fact that heresy is
also a sin and contradicts himself in the interpretation he attempts to give
immediately afterward, quoting Joseph Kalothetos’s statement that the Church
“abstains from everything (note: that is, not only from heresy) that is base
and wicked, and is free from every evil and from every stain and blemish”!
And—to crown it all—the author anathematizes himself, since on the one hand he
teaches that there are “sinful members” in the Church, while on the other he
declares that “the Church anathematizes those who question her purity and
attribute stain to her”!
c) That through repentance a
sinner can be saved, but a heretic never can, thus surpassing even the
Luciferians [i.e., the schismatic followers of the fourth century Bishop
Lucifer of Cagliari – tr.] in error and coming close to the Donatists.
* * *
The author then quotes a passage
(pp. 12–13, footnote 7, which I reproduce here: “To those who dare to say that
the Church does not preserve the purity and spotlessness of her sacred worship,
but has incurred some defilement through the reunion, accomplished by the grace
of God, of her children, whom the preceding scandal had divided, but whom its
rejection and repudiation by all together reunited: anathema”). This comes from
the Tome of Union of 920 (I mention this because the author does not).
The purpose of this Tome was to unite the two factions in the Church of
Constantinople: the Nikolaites (followers of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos) and
the Euthymians (followers of Patriarch Euthymios Syncellus), who had become
divided over the unlawful fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI the Wise. The
Tome therefore anathematizes those who opposed this union on the grounds
that the Church would be defiled. Thus, the passage in question has nothing to
do with the heretical theory of the Cathari that the author defends.
* * *
Further on (p. 21 ff.), the
author disparages both Metropolitan Basil of Smyrna of blessed memory (about
whom see here: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2016/12/1910.html) and the
Teacher of the Nation, Eugenios Voulgaris, regarding them as subject to “papal
theological influences” (p. 25). Yet in another text of his (“Is There Economia
in Baptism by Pouring?”, p. 10), he had praised the latter as exceptionally
wise! What does it reveal, then, when someone praises a person when he agrees
with him, but condemns him when he disagrees? Certainly, neither wisdom nor
prudence.
All the more so when this same
author, who regards New Calendarists as automatically outside the Church,
continually cites New Calendarists (that is, according to him, non-members of
the Church) to support his views, such as Trembelas, Androutsos, Sakarellos,
Christofilopoulos, Arampatzis (whom he calls Ambrazis on p. 48), and others...
* * *
Furthermore, the author attempts
to refute the Orthodox teaching on the indelibility of the priesthood (which,
of course, is not identical to the scholastic interpretation given to it by the
Papists), but he is refuted by the Church’s own practice: when She lifts a
clergyman’s deposition, She does NOT reordain him, as She would have to do if
his priesthood had been effaced. However, I have already stated my position on
this subject here, where the supporting patristic evidence can also be found: https://www.romfea.gr/katigories/10-apopseis/39359-to-anejaleipto-tis-ierosunis
* * *
Also noteworthy is footnote 49
(p. 36), in which the author expresses his surprise that the “Ecumenists” have
supposedly understood ecclesiology better than the “Anti-Ecumenists of
potentiality and actuality.” He then quotes from a text of the Church of Albania
(written, I believe, by [Archbishop] Anastasios of Albania of blessed memory),
which supposedly proves his position. In the table below, I reproduce an
excerpt from this text of the Church of Albania alongside an excerpt from an
old letter by Fr. Theodoretos Mavros of blessed memory, a defender of
“potentiality and actuality.”
CHURCH OF ALBANIA
(November 15, 2022)
Even if we suppose that imprints
of ordination remain, when the ordaining bishop is cut off from the Church,
deposed, anathematized, and excommunicated, he becomes inactive and transmits
no grace (just as an electrical device transmits no energy when disconnected
from the power supply).
Fr. THEODORETOS
(May 6, 1979)
As for the additional grace
possessed by a clergyman, we accept that only upon his condemnation by the
synod that bestowed it upon him does he—not lose it (“for the gifts and calling
of God are irrevocable”)—but become unable to exercise it (suspension). More
simply: if we regard the priest as a lamp and grace as the electric current,
all the synod does is disconnect him from the circuit so that he cannot light
up. In all other respects, the lamp outwardly remains a lamp, but without
light—that is, a priest unable to celebrate Mysteries.
Therefore, the only one shown
here to be ignorant of ecclesiology is the author.
* * *
Next, seeking to refute the fact
that those ordained by deposed bishops are judged as clergymen, the author
refers to Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council, the relevant portion of
which reads as follows: “Concerning those who were Paulianists and subsequently
sought refuge in the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must
without exception be rebaptized. If any were formerly numbered among the
clergy, and are found to be blameless and irreproachable, let them, after being
rebaptized, be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. But if the
examination finds them unfit, they ought to be deposed.”
He immediately poses the question
(p. 37): since the Paulicians were considered unbaptized, “From what are they
to be deposed? From the priesthood, which, as unbaptized persons, they entirely
lack?” Developing his argument, and drawing support from the opinions of the
canonists (p. 38) that “to be deposed” is used in an improper sense, he
attempts to extend this interpretation to every case! Yet the canonists are
absolutely clear and explicit:
a) Zonaras: “I believe that the
term ‘deposition’ is used here in an improper sense.”
b) Balsamon: “The term
‘deposition’ is used here in an improper sense, in place of ‘expulsion.’”
c) Saint Nicodemus: “For here
‘deposition’ is used in an improper sense, in place of ‘expulsion.’”
Here, then—that is, only in this
particular case! Not in every case, as the author distorts it by generalizing
it to justify his position.
* * *
Continuing, the author speaks
plainly and unabashedly (p. 40 ff.) in favor of the “automatic loss of Grace,”
on which he even makes the cessation of communion/walling-off depend. Here lies
the great difference between us: those who hold to automatic loss believe that
we must wall ourselves off because “Grace has been lost automatically,” whereas
we say that walling-off is undertaken to bring about a judgment by the
competent synod (for the Church is not a jungle where every beast can seize the
authority to judge, but has institutions and canons), and we do not wish to be
included in that synod’s condemnation. These views of the proponents of
automatic loss, which unfortunately continue to be repeated today, a century
after they were first expressed by the well-known Athonites ([Arsenios] Kotteas,
[Matthaios] Karpathakis, and others), have been answered by the Fathers, whom
we too follow: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_5.html
Furthermore, apart from the fact
that the author cites no scriptural, patristic, or synodal passage in support
of his position (with the sole exception of a reference to the New Calendarist
Christofilopoulos—that is, someone … “automatically outside the Church”), two
very important points are also worth noting:
a) If the “automatic loss”
proclaimed by the author were true, then there would be no Church today. Even
the G.O.C. and Zealots would be without priesthood, since their ordinations
derive from the active participation of New Calendarists...
b) The position of “automatic
loss” (also known as the central tenet of all extreme Zealots) is accepted not
by the Orthodox Church, but by the Papal Church! This is the well-known Latin
term latae sententiae (“with sentence already passed”) in the canon law
of the Papal Church, introduced by the Second Lateran Council (1139). It
denotes a penalty—chiefly “anathema”—incurred automatically (ipso facto)
by the very commission of an offense, without requiring a decision by the
competent ecclesiastical authority! What a pity for the unfortunate
Ultra-Zealots, who ultimately prove to be adherents of Papism...
* * *
Continuing his attempt to support
“automatic loss” and establish his ecclesiological position that those who
revive condemned heresies are automatically anathematized, the author uses a
passage supposedly written by Athanasius the Great, quoting only its
translation while concealing the original. The madness is complete with the
addition of a footnote (55), in which he provides a translation … of the
translation, so that he can then more easily misinterpret it. Let us examine
the text he uses, together with his misinterpretation, and then the original
text, its actual author, and its true interpretation.
The author quotes the following
(supposedly original) text, allegedly by Athanasius the Great (which, as we
have said, is a translation): “Let all heresies be anathematized, both those
condemned previously and those which, should they appear in a new guise, are
contrary to this formulated statement.” Then, after translating the translation
(“Let all heresies—both those condemned in the past and those which, should
they appear in a new guise, are contrary to this formulated statement [the
Definition of the Council]—be anathematized”), he interprets the final phrase
(“Let them be anathematized”) as follows: “This is a continuous present tense.
When the Church says ‘let him be anathema’ or ‘let them be anathematized,’ she
is not referring merely to a moment in the past. The anathema applies now and
always, as long as the particular error or situation remains unrepented of and
uncorrected.” His purpose is clear: to prove that the “anathema” supposedly
takes effect automatically and requires no new synodal judgment.
Let us now examine the original
text: “Let all heresies already condemned in the past, or any that have
recently arisen in opposition to this statement that has been set forth, be
anathema” (Athanasius the Great, EPE 10, 238).
This text is indeed contained in
Athanasius the Great’s work “On the Councils Held at Ariminum in Italy and
Seleucia in Isauria.” However, it is not the Saint’s own text, but an excerpt
from the Arian “Creed of Nike” of 359 (see also here: https://www.fourthcentury.com/the-thracian-nicaean-creed/),
which Athanasius the Great quotes in this historical work.
And now the most appalling part:
this heretical creed anathematizes the Orthodox, for they were the ones
expressing teachings (namely, the doctrine of consubstantiality) “contrary to
this formulated statement (the Definition of the Council),” as the author
translates it, foolishly failing to realize that this “Council” was Arian!
We see, then, what sort of people
these unfortunate critics of “Cyprianism” are: people who, although unable to
understand what they are reading (even falling into blasphemies), insist on
theologizing... At least they protect their honor and reputation by either
publishing their texts anonymously or circulating them secretly and privately.
Nevertheless, since the disputed
phrase “ἀνάθεμα ἔστωσαν” (“let them be anathema”) is also common in Orthodox
texts, let us examine its correct interpretation according to Greek grammar
(not Zealot grammar!). First of all, the phrase “ἀνάθεμα ἔστωσαν” is not a
“continuous present” (there is no “continuous present” in Greek grammar!), but
an imperative. The author himself acknowledges this elsewhere (p. 50), where,
however, he continues his abuse of poor grammar... First, he confuses the verb
with its tense, writing that “ἔστω” is a form “of the verb ‘εἰμί’ and not of ‘ἔσομαι’”
(whereas “ἔσομαι” is not another verb, but the future tense of the very same
verb, “εἰμί”!). He then speaks of the “same active conjugation,” referring to
the forms ἔσται / ἔσονται. However, the future “ἔσομαι” is a middle-voice
(deponent) form, and the forms “ἔσται” (third-person singular) and “ἔσονται”
(third-person plural) have middle endings, not active ones, since the verb “εἰμί”
has no active future. Finally, in a comparison wholly misguided from a
grammatical standpoint, he compares the imperative (ἔστω) with the future
indicative (ἔσται), two different moods with entirely different functions.
Let us therefore repeat once
again Saint Nicodemus’s interpretation (he knew grammar well) on this subject:
“We must know
that the penalties prescribed by the Canons, namely, ‘let him be deposed,’ ‘let
him be excommunicated,’ and ‘let him be anathema,’ are, according to the rules
of grammar, third-person imperatives referring to someone absent. For this
command to be conveyed to that person, a second person must necessarily be
present. Let me explain this more clearly. The Canons command the synod of
living bishops to depose priests, or to excommunicate or anathematize laypeople
who transgress the Canons. However, if the synod does not actually carry out
the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication or anathematization of
the laypeople, these priests and laypeople are neither actually deposed nor
excommunicated nor anathematized. They are, however, liable here to deposition,
excommunication, or anathematization, and hereafter to divine judgment.
Likewise, when a king commands his servant to beat another who has wronged him,
if the servant who received the command does not carry out the king’s order,
the one who wronged the king remains unbeaten, though liable to a beating.
Hence, those foolish people who say that at the present time all clergymen
ordained contrary to the Canons are actually deposed are greatly mistaken. A
tongue that foolishly babbles such things is one that slanders the priesthood,
failing to understand that the command of the Canons, without its actual
execution by the second person—that is, the synod—remains unfulfilled and does
not take effect of itself, immediately and before judgment. The divine Apostles
themselves clearly explain their meaning in their Canon 46, since they do not
say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts the baptism of heretics is
already, immediately, actually deposed, but ‘we command that he be deposed’;
that is, that he be brought to judgment, and if it is proved that he has done
this, then let him be stripped of the priesthood by your decision: this is what
we command” (Footnote on Apostolic Canon 3).
Of course, because Saint
Nicodemus delivers a crushing rebuttal here to the proponents of automatic
loss, the author resorts to the excuse that this supposedly “concerns canonical
offenses not yet adjudicated, and not cases of condemned heresies” (footnote
69). Yet this claim is arbitrary and, once again, entirely unsubstantiated.
* * *
On pp. 54–55, the author claims
that if the “Cyprianists” wish to be consistent with their ecclesiology (that
is, their acceptance of the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics), then “they must
accept every canonical act imposed upon them by the synodal courts of the
‘uncondemned’ heretical Ecumenist church from which they separated, submitting
to these acts without objection.”
This distorting argument is
familiar, since the Matthewites also used it. But here is how Fr. Theodoretos
of blessed memory refutes it, addressing an ideological predecessor of the
author:
“Wishing next to
proclaim your familiar refrain—the only weapon you have left—that the New
Calendarists lost Grace in 1924, you mention Chrysostomos, the former
Metropolitan of Florina, claiming that, if this were not the case, the
aforementioned hierarch would have to be regarded as truly deposed, since he
was deposed by a Church possessing Grace (according to my view). But who does
not know that depositions take effect and are valid only when carried out in
accordance with justice and the pronouncements of the sacred Canons? Here is
what Saint Nicodemus, to whom you also refer me for study, says on this matter:
‘Those who are unjustly excommunicated for the name of God, that is, either for
the faith or for the Traditions of the Church … ought to rejoice, since they
are worthy of being called blessed.’ And the divine Maximus the Confessor says:
‘If a hierarch excommunicates contrary to God’s purpose, divine judgment does
not follow him’ (note 3 on Apostolic Canon 32). Consequently, neither were the blessed
Metropolitan of Florina and his fellow hierarchs of Demetrias and Zakynthos
deposed in 1935, nor had the New Calendarist Church lost Grace. By introducing
a grave and dangerous innovation against Orthodoxy as a whole, she gave the
aforementioned hierarchs and the faithful People of God every right to
repudiate her and withdraw from her midst, as had happened many times before in
history” (Third Open Letter to Archpriest Eugenios Tombros, Mount
Athos–Athens, 1972, p. 2).
* * *
The author also makes a point of
referring (pp. 57–58 and 72–73) to Venerable Theodore the Studite and repeating
the positions concerning the invalidity of heretics’ Mysteries (also familiar
from their use by Fr. Efthymios Trikaminas). Venerable Theodore, however, was
active AFTER the condemnation of the Iconoclasts by the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, so his statements concern condemned heretics, despite the author’s
desperate attempt to persuade us (again without evidence) that they supposedly
concern uncondemned heretics.
Footnote 87 (pp. 64–65) provides
appalling evidence of the author’s darkened understanding, so I reproduce it
here verbatim, lest he remove it when he realizes the extent of its absurdity:
⁸⁷ Saint
Tarasios delivers a crushing rebuttal to the “Cyprianists’” nonsense about the
Orthodox and the Iconoclasts being united in one Church, since, during the
discussions recorded in the Acts of the Council, he repeatedly stated that the
Iconoclasts were completely cut off from the body of the Church, indeed
fervently praying for their reunion with the body of Christ!
“And Christ our
God, the rock upon which we are firmly established, in no way allowed the tunic
woven from the top throughout—that is, His Church, built by Him and upon Him—to
remain divided and torn, with its members moving now one way, now another, but
together with the ancient heresies, also the error of the new wickedness of the
accusers of Christians...” … “so that the divided parts might be united...” and
“that He might gather us into one, unite what has been divided, and heal the
longstanding wound...”
Translation:
“And in no way did Christ our God—the rock upon which we are firmly
established—allow His tunic woven from above, namely His Church, built by Him
and upon Him, to remain torn and rent, or its members each to move in a
different way; on the contrary, together with the old heresies, He also did
away with the error of the new wickedness of the accusers of Christians (the
Iconoclasts)... so that the divided parts might be united... and that He might
gather us all into one body, unite what has been separated, and heal the
longstanding wound...” Acts of the Councils, vol. 3, p. 261.
As every reader in his right mind
can clearly see, Saint Tarasios is plainly shown here to be a “Cyprianist”
(that is, Orthodox), since he accepts that, until the condemnation of
Iconoclasm (which divided the Church of Constantinople) by the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, over which he presided, the Iconoclasts were regarded as members of
the Church, albeit in error and ailing. This is why he rejoices that the
division has ceased, the divided members have been united in the truth, and the
error of heresy has disappeared. Saint Theophanes the Branded, the Confessor,
expresses the same rejoicing in a troparion of the canon he composed, which we
chant on the Sunday of Orthodoxy: “Beholding this greatest blessing—the
separated members of Christ gathered into unity—let us clap our hands and
praise God, who hath bestowed peace.”
Saint Tarasios, then, together
with the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, believes precisely the
opposite of what the author maintains, since they agree with us “Cyprianists”
(that is, the Orthodox) that the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics are
accepted. For when they say, “Should those ordained by heretics be received?
The holy council said: Yes, Master, we have heard, and they ought to be
received,” this can mean one of two things: either the Fathers are Ecumenists
and, like today’s Ecumenists, recognize Mysteries among those outside the
Church, or the Fathers are Orthodox (that is, “Cyprianists,” as the author
calls them) and accept the Mysteries of heretics BEFORE their condemnation.
Tarasios, the
most holy Patriarch, said: “We have heard the injunctions of the Fathers. What,
then? Should those ordained by heretics be received?”
The holy council
said: “Yes, Master, we have heard, and they ought to be received.”
Tarasios, the
most holy Patriarch, said: “Indeed, most of those who sat in the Sixth Holy
Council had been ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, the leaders of
the Monothelite heresy, since these men occupied the throne of Constantinople
in succession. No more than fifteen years elapsed between Peter, the last of
them to preside over the throne of Constantinople, and the Sixth Council. Even
Thomas, John, and Constantine, who became hierarchs in the intervening period,
had received their ordination from the aforementioned heretics during the
period already mentioned, and they were not rejected on that account; for the
heresy at that time persisted for fifty years. Yet the Fathers of the Sixth
Council anathematized those four, despite having been ordained by them.”
* * *
And when the author writes (p.
68), “Every contrary view is based on misinterpretations or even deliberate
distortions intended to produce predetermined conclusions that serve and
further the wicked aims of the Ecumenists,” the famous Latin phrase “Clodius
accusat moechos” comes to mind...
* * *
Continuing, and attempting to
downplay the importance of the invocation of the Holy Trinity in baptism
administered by heretics, the author states (p. 72) that Athanasius the Great
considers such a baptism unprofitable. Here too I reproduce the Saint’s original
text, which the author omitted (since the EPE translation he quotes is
problematic—for example, it renders “sound” as … “firm”): “Indeed, many other
heresies also pronounce the names alone, but neither think rightly, as has been
said, nor possess sound faith. Thus, the water administered by them is also
unprofitable, being deficient in piety, so that whoever is baptized by them is
defiled by impiety rather than delivered from it.” We see, then, that although
the Saint acknowledges that these heresies invoke the divine names (that is,
those of the Holy Trinity), he indeed quite rightly considers this baptism
unprofitable (“ἀλυσιτελές” in the original). Why, then, did Athanasius the
Great (together with all the Fathers and Councils) receive the Arians without
rebaptism (as everyone knows, except the author)? This happened, on the one
hand, because “unprofitable” does not mean “nonexistent” (Saint Augustine also
explains this in great detail in his work “Against the Donatists,” which I
shall publish shortly), and, on the other, because the invocation of the divine
names constitutes the basis upon which the Church, applying Economia,
accepts this existing Baptism, which she completes with the “sound faith” and
piety that are lacking.
* * *
What the author says about a
“divine spark” (p. 74), as well as his personal interpretations concerning an
invalid–nonexistent Mystery (pp. 77–79), is entirely unrelated to so-called
“Cyprianism,” with which he misleadingly attempts to associate these ideas,
time and again, without any evidence.
* * *
Concluding his rambling
discourse, the author essentially teaches (pp. 80–81) that the Church has a
magic wand with which she turns the nonexistent into the existent (that is,
precisely what Papism does, or what Patriarch Bartholomew did with the unordained
Ukrainians). Realizing, however (perhaps in a moment of heightened reason), the
absurdity of such a theory, he attempts to offer the laughable explanation
(again without any patristic substantiation) that an unordained man is
transformed into an ordained one through concelebration! He does not tell us,
however, how an unbaptized person is transformed into a baptized one...
* * *
In closing this post, I would
recommend that the newly emerged “anti-Cyprianists,” especially those who wear
the cassock, study these matters with humility, prayer, and care, so that they
do not disgrace Orthodoxy and themselves. For in slandering our Fathers as
heretics, let them not imagine that no one will come forward to defend them.
Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2026/09/blog-post_12.html
