Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Radical Old Calendarists

by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory on Mount Athos

In the magazine "Holy Kollyvades"1 an article by Fr. Nicholas Demaras was published, in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory is criticized for its stance regarding Ecumenism and Zealotism.

The occasion of this article was my departure from the Zealot Fathers of the Holy Mountain and my taking up residence in the aforesaid Sacred Monastery. My reason for leaving is the entirely mistaken ecclesiastical line which the Zealots and remaining G.O.C. [Genuine Orthodox Christians] Old Calendarists have adopted. Among my many arguments for this decision was the stance of Saint Sophronius regarding the heretical Monothelites.

In his article Fr. Nicholas deals mainly with the stance of Saint Sophronius. The bishops of the Church are also accused of preaching the heresy of Ecumenism through the change of the calendar, the dialogues, joint prayers and other innovations. Simultaneously our Sacred Monastery is also criticized because we do not sever ecclesiastical communion with our bishops, despite the (supposed) explicit injunction of the holy Fathers and the requirement of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod (861)2.

I lived with the Zealot fathers who, in all other respects, are beloved virtuous monks. I admired their piety, their love for monasticism, and their struggling spirit. I ascertained, however, that they are maintaining an anticanonical schism, misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastical history.

With the blessing of my venerable elder Father George, I will for the moment respond concisely to the accusations of the article in order to prove that our stance is absolutely in agreement with Orthodox Ecclesiology. The basic criterion for this answer derives from the patristic teaching regarding heretics and bishops who act anticanonically.
A. THE PATRISTIC TEACHING
1. About condemned heretics

The stance of the holy Fathers regarding heretics was always the same. Saint Tarasius of Constantinople says that "in nothing do we find the fathers disagreeing, but as they are of the same spirit, they all preach and teach the same"3. Thus, Saint Gregory the Theologian teaches that we should turn away from heretics as being foreign to the catholic Church4. The heretics, according to Athanasios the Great, are wolves and forerunners of the Antichrist5, whereas, according to Basil the Great, worse than Judas6. Saint John of Damascus commands that we not give communion to heretics, nor take their own,7 since, according to Saint Theodore the Studite, the communion of heretics is a poison which darkens and blackens the soul8.

The commemoration of a heretical bishop is a defilement9, whereas, according to Saint Symeon of Thessalonica, even attending church with heretics is forbidden10. The Saints urge the heretics to abandon their heresy and to enter the catholic Church, otherwise they are not benefited by their good works11, nor can they inherit the kingdom of God12.
2. Concerning those who unite with condemned heretics

According to Canons 1 and 2 of the 3rd Oecumenical Synod,13 whoever affiliates himself with heretics falls from ecclesiastical communion and the priesthood. Therefore, Saints Savvas and Theodosios, together with all the monks of Palestine, declared that they were willing to shed their blood rather than to accept union with the Monophysites14. The unions with the unrepenting Latins in the years 1274 and 1439 were faced in the same manner. In other words, the Fathers interrupted ecclesiastical communion with whoever accepted the union of Lyons (1274). They furthermore preferred tortures and death, like the venerable Haghiorite martyrs15 and Saints Meletius and Galaktion16. Saint Mark Eugenicos also urged the Orthodox not to commune with whoever accepted the false union of Florence (1439). He used to say: "Flee from them, as one flees from a snake"17.
3. Concerning those who preach heresy

The sacred Dositheos of Jerusalem, interpreting Orthodox Ecclesiology very beautifully, presents the way in which the Church faces those who preach within Her heretical dogmas: "Heresy which springs up, if it spreads, an Oecumenical Synod judges and condemns"18. While after the Synod the unrepentant heretics were completely cut off from ecclesiastical communion.

In some cases the ecclesiastical communion with these innovators was cut off even before a Synodical judgement.19 The 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod allows this action, as long as it is done with the goal of freeing the Church from the schism and heresy of erring bishops20. Because ecclesiastical schism is not something simple, however, the final judgment and cutting off of heretics from the Church, as we previously mentioned, was entrusted to Oecumenical Synods.

The reason for the aforesaid is that heresies are not easily and immediately realized by the faithful pleroma of the Church. Some people communed with bishops who preached heretical beliefs out of ignorance, others for reasons of economy or some other potentially justifiable cause. As such, it wasn't right for them to be considered heretics before the final decision of an Oecumenical Synod. Hence, no sacred Canon or holy Father ever imposed on the Orthodox pleroma the cutting off of ecclesiastical communion with the heretics before a Synodical condemnation, nor was any clergyman punished for maintaining communion prior to said condemnation. This is, of course, not the case with those who continued to maintain communion [with heretics] after the Synodical condemnation.

Quite a few examples from ecclesiastical History prove that from the appearance of heretical teaching up to the final condemnation, there was a period during which the Church tried, through Her representatives, to bring to repentance the "new" teachers, implementing the path of oikonomia, which was recognized by all the holy Fathers. Thus, for example, whereas Monotheletism was first preached in 615, its main opponents, Saints Sophronios and Maximos, do not seem to have interrupted communion with the heretics before the Synods of the West (640-649), which anathematized them.

Oikonomia is also encountered in the case of the stance regarding the Latins. We reach the above conclusion even if we accept the extreme case, to wit, the popes officially preached the heresy of the Filioque in 1009 as opposed to spreading it unhesitatingly from the 10th century.21 The Zealots maintain that the division happened immediately, since Sergius of Constantinople removed the pope from the diptychs in 100922. They furthermore present a related testimony of the sacred Dositheos.

Their perversion of history and the obfuscation of this sacred Father's words are very apparent. The sacred Dositheos writes that the remaining patriarchs did not remove the pope from the Diptychs in 1009, but instead after forty five years (1054). It is, of course, understood that Constantinople was united with the above patriarchs during this whole period. This oikonomia towards the Latins happened because "the Patriarchs, according to the ancient ecclesiastical custom, instead of implementing the canonical justice of Keroularios, awaited the correction of the Roman Church, hence they also suffered long"23. "The Easterners (in other words), had, by way of oikonomia, kept silent for a long time, thinking the Italians would move their innovations towards the better, but [the Italians] having remained in their own stubbornness, [the Easterners] cut them off from ecclesiastical unity"24.

When also Saint Gregory (the father of Saint Gregory the Theologian) out of simplicity signed a semi-Arian creed (361), the monks cut off communion with him25. Saint Gregory and others, however, did not separate from him. This fact the Zealots usually hide, as well as the judgments of the sacred Father concerning the monks26. The union was achieved after Gregory convinced his father to publicly pronounce an Orthodox Symbol of Faith (364)27. What is more, in his first Peaceful homily, given on the occasion of union, the great Theologian censures the [zealot] monks indirectly for their rebellion, hastiness and audacity. He advises them not to return to "their own vomit", as it is preferable that we remain in the common body of the Church when we are not perfectly sure.28.
4. Concerning those who transgress the sacred Canons

How they deal with those who transgress (more or less) the sacred Canons, without touching the dogmas, is completely different. Canons 13, 14 and 15 of the First-Second Synod strictly forbid the interruption of ecclesiastical communion with bishops who fall into whatsoever"crime" before Synodical judgment. The holy Apostles had allowed the interruption of communion for reasons of "piety and righteousness"29. The word "righteousness", however, was easily misinterpreted, resulting in various schisms which were condemned by the Church. These successive schisms—which were mainly by the Studites, and which continued until the days of Saint Photios the Great—were the reason why the Saint and his Synod legislated these Canons.

Also, about fifteen years before the Synod of Saint Photios, "the holy Methodios synodically brought forth an anathema against the monks of Studium who cut themselves off from the Church, because they opposed what was said and written by Theodore against Tarasius and Nicephorus"30. The tactic of Saint Methodios to accept by oikonomia the ordinations of the Iconoclasts had caused schisms. The Venerable Saint Ioannikios condemned these schisms in various ways, maintaining that the Church must be united because justification for these schisms due to reasons of faith did not exist 31.

Likewise, the older short-term schisms of Saint Theodore the Studite in response to the oikonomia applied by the holy patriarchs Tarasius and Nikephorus "did not seem like a small fall to the Fathers, but nevertheless again they were corrected"32. Even his biographer, Michael the Studite, did not dare support the action of Saint Theodore33. These schisms were condemned by the sacred Methodius34 and Dositheos35, among others. Many monks of that time—notably those who shone forth as great Saints—also did not follow the Studites. Among them was the great confessor Theophanis, who in his "Chronography" mentions the breaking off of Saint Theodore from the "holy Church" and the "most holy patriarch"36 Nicephoros. Again, the cause of their condemnation was that that there did not exist justification owing to matters of faith, but rather a deviation from the sacred Canons.

Of course, the aforesaid notwithstanding, Saint Theodore is a great confessor; and he is a model on account of his heroic struggles against the iconoclastic heresy. Only his short-lived schisms for the above acts of oikonomia cannot comprise a rule for the Church.

Unfortunately, the Zealots publicize these schisms ad nauseam, presenting them as an ecclesiastical law and unbreakable rule, precisely because they also do not have reasons of faith for their schisms. They furthermore call "Adulterers" the opponents of the Studite—as he also called them for a time; and most of the time they hide the names of his opponents, or fail to call them Saints!37 The reference is to the Saints and Confessors Nicephoros of Constantinople, Michael of Synnada, Euthymios of Sardeon, Aimilianos of Kyzikus, Theophylactus of Nikomedia and other great Fathers.

Saint Daniel the Stylite also called to repentance those monks who separated themselves from the Church without reasons of faith. He exhorted them thus: "not without danger do we separate ourselves from our holy mother"38.

In general, all the schisms which took place on the pretext of exactitude never genuinely expressed the phronema of the Church. Needless to say, those who did not participate in these schisms were also not considered to be outside of the Church.
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTISM
1. The Zealots' mistaken evaluation of Ecumenism

In the last century a modernistic tendency—seminal elements of which were observed even earlier—began taking shape in the bosom of the Church. This coincided with an intense effort to approach various heretics. One of the many sour notes heard during this time was the correction of the ecclesiastical calendar (1923-1924). This was the occasion of the schism of the Zealots from the Church. Of course, it would have been a great blessing if the calendar had remained unaltered and all of the Orthodox had continued to celebrate the feasts together.

Three great Synods condemned the Gregorian calendar at the end of the 16th century. The historian F. Vafeidis writes that "during that year (1583) a Synod gathered in Constantinople, which mainly condemned the Gregorian calendar; for according to this calendar it happens that we celebrate [Pascha] with the Jews, which is contrary to the Synod in Nicaea."39 The Zealots, when they mention the above phrase, [often] stop after the word "calendar", omitting the rest!40 It seems they believe that the main work of the Synod was the condemnation of the Gregorian calendar per se.

In fact, as the historian stated, the main reason for the condemnation of the Gregorian calendar was concelebration with the Jews—i.e., the alteration of the Paschalion [so that Pascha occasionally coincided with Passover—ed.]. This, however, never occurred, and we hope that it will never occur.* In other words, the full meaning of the above quote removes from the Zealots a reason for schism, since the change of the festal calendar [i.e., the Menaion—ed.] does not touch the dogmatic nature of the First Oecumenical Synod41, and consequently it does not comprise a heresy.

Therefore, based on the most strict Canons of the First-Second Synod, and especially on the 15th—which the Zealots constantly call upon—, the calendar schism was completely anti-canonical.

Furthermore, most of the Zealots preach that all those who accepted the new calendar, or who commune with the new calendarists, are excommunicated and are thus without divine Grace!

Of course, the Zealots were not so naïve as one might think based on their odd ecclesiology. They knew they needed a dogmatic reason. One had to be found at all costs.

Unfortunately, they were aided by those who promoted a syncretistic ecumenism through ecumenistic dialogues; excessive longing for union with the heretics; occasionally imparting to them the holy Mysteries; the isolated cases of recognizing their mysteries as valid; the acceptance of an ecclesiastical character in their confessions; and joint prayers, among canonical transgressions.

The Zealots, therefore, declared as heretics those responsible for the above actions, and thus the longed for reason was found, albeit delayed. For them it is not important that the calendar schism occurred a few decades earlier. The important thing is that the dogmatic justification was found! They also rejoice that they were delivered "just in time" from the Ecumenists.

In any case, many times, during periods when heresy was being preached, the holy Fathers implemented praiseworthy oikonomia towards heretics in order to help them change their train of thought. They never, however, instigated schisms on account of some clairvoyant ability [that gave them insight into the outcome of the controversy—ed.].

Unfortunately for the Zealots, it must be stressed that the above canonical transgressions, no matter how grievous and worrisome they are, do not comprise in and of themselves heresy. They comprise "crimes" against the Canons of the First-Second Synod, as well as transgressions of other sacred Canons, but not heresy. Heresy is "to deviate in something from the dogmas laid before us, concerning the correct faith,"42 and estrangement from the faith43.

What about the sporadic and unofficial—i.e., devoid of any Synodical recognition—unorthodox declarations, agreements or theories of isolated Ecumenists? These do not comprise an official proclamation of heresy. Even the most extreme Zealots teach that the sporadic proclamations of the heresy of the Filioque—which was preached for centuries, and to a much greater degree44 than the Protestant branch theory—did not comprise a cause for schism45. Therefore, since these heterodox teachings have not been [officially] recognized or become hardened and settled, they do not comprise a cause for schism.

The faithful do have a responsibility, of course, constantly and fervently to struggle against these heterodox teachings, to wipe out or at least limit them, so that finally the Ecumenistic attitude and tactic arising from them may cease.

Even the lifting of the anathemas of 1054 against the papists by Patriarch [Athenagoras] of Constantinople—an act condemned by many Orthodox as a very great "achievement" of the Ecumenists—was a formal "gesture of love", without any relationship to the theological positions of the Orthodox and the Papists. It did not mean the Schism was over, nor was there any change in the teaching, canonical order, divine worship or ecclesiastical life of the Church, nor was there restoration of sacramental communion46.
2. Similar situations from previous times

Similar canonical transgressions, as well as direct or indirect deviations from Orthodox Ecclesiology, have occurred in times past, especially in parts of the world where the heterodox were a majority. Notably, these transgressions did not result in schisms. Unfortunately, the Orthodox diaspora has brought about an increase in these worrisome and unacceptable transgressions and deviations.

Subsequently we will mention a few occasions of oikonomia, canonical transgressions and unofficial (direct or indirect) ecclesiological deviations, on account of which the holy Fathers did not, however, interrupt ecclesiastical communion with those responsible. These cases, of course, are much milder than the official declaration of the Filioque in the Symbol of faith, or the huge spreading of the heresy of Monotheletism. Despite this, as we have previously mentioned, for many years the Fathers employed the establied method of oikonomia in these more serious cases.

1. The Fathers of the Third Oecumenical Synod condemned Nestorius. They did not, however, anathematize his "father"47 and teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had already died, "so that some people will not, by being devoted to the man out of respect, cut themselves off from the churches. Their application of oikonomia in this was most excellent and wise", according to Saint Cyrill48.

Later on, when an issue arose whether to anathematize the heretic Theodore, the sacred Cyrill wrote to St. Proclus of Constantinople and urged him for the sake of "oikonomia"49 "not to allow him to be anathematized, as this would become a cause for disturbance"50. As St. Theodore the Studite wrote, "the divine Cyrill practiced oikonomia so that those of the West would not be cut off (by oikonomia he communed with them), who in the diptychs mentioned Theodore of Mopsuestia as indeed a heretic"51.

2. The 95th Canon of the Penthekte [Fifth Oecumenical] Synod defines that, kat' oikonomia, Nestorians and Monophysites can be accepted with a simple libellum52. This Canon was also used by St. Theodore for the Iconoclasts53.

Therefore, these applications of oikonomia were accepted by the Orthodox without creating schisms. Today's "super-Studites", however, accept the new calendarists with chrismation. What is more, they claim to act "out of extreme economy," saying that canonically they ought to rebaptize them (as if it were a case like the Manicheans!).

3. St. Photius bore the iniquitous customs of Rome as long as they did not impose them on the Church of Constantinople. He knew that "what is being neglected is not the faith"54, and consequently there was no reason for schism. Deviations included fasting on the Sabbath, eating non-fasting foods during the first week of Great Lent, forbidding Priests to marry, allowing Chrism to be administered only by the bishops55, and overturning the apostolic restriction concerning the eating of choked animals and blood. Thus, according to the Eighth Oecumenical Synod (879), the restoration of the relationships between Saint Photius and Rome occurred through the recognition of the Symbol of Faith without the addition56, though Rome did not cast off the aforementioned customs.

4. The holy Fathers bore the Western church of the 10th century, which was undergoing the age of "the reign of fornicators"57.

5. During the age of the Latin occupation the sacred the Germanos the New of Constantinople, along with his Synod, allowed kat' oikonomia the Cypriot Bishops to accept the profiteering demands of the Latins. Specifically "for their successors to be appointed by the Latin archbishop, who also has the right to judge even every episcopal decision that has been appealed by one of the litigants."58

6. Following the schism of 1054 there was always a longing for union. At times many epistles were exchanged and dialogues occurred, specifically 1098, 1113, 1136, 1154, 1169, 1175, 1206, 1214, 1232, 1234, 1250, 1253, 1254, 1272, 1333, 1339, 1366, and 1438. Furthermore, in 1253 concessions also occurred59; and in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase "the spirit proceeds from the father through the son"60. Schisms on account of the dialogues, however, did not occur, except during the false unions of 1274 and 1439.

Today, both the Haghiorite fathers and all pious Christians proclaim that they will never accept union with the Latins, Monophysites or other heretics if they do not denounce their heretical dogmas.

Unfortunately, in texts of the Zealots we observe much confusion. The Latin-minded ones which accepted the Union of 1274 are identified with those who today engage in joint prayers, dialogues, excessive pro-union efforts, or other similar activities. Likewise, the words of St. Mark of Ephesus concerning those who accepted the false Union of Florence are also applied to them, as if they are the same as those who actually entered into union with the heretics! If matters were so simple Orthodoxy would have been lost centuries ago.

7. St. Mark, when discussing the prospect of true union with the Latins, named them not brothers but "fathers"61. His teacher and great opponent of the Latins, Joseph Vryennios, had previously held union discussions with the Latins. He furthermore wrote a consultative homily regarding the union under consideration. In it, however, he fiercely condemned the "Ecumenists" of his age: in other words, those who wanted—according to the "branch theory" of that day—to be united with the pope even though the Filioque remained in the Symbol. He urged, without separating from those irresponsible parties, that any union must occur in a correct manner—i.e., that the Orthodox not be subjected to error, so that "we do not fall from the intention"62 (of true union in Christ.)

8. Many transgressions or deviations (direct and indirect) from the Orthodox phronema—transgressions that are similar to today's—occurred in those times, especially in parts of the world where the Latins abounded. A multitude of testimonies during the 16th and 17th centuries indicate that it was customary for the Orthodox to commune with the Latins, and vice versa. To this we add the commemoration and recognition of Latin bishops, isolated concelebrations, mixed Mysteries, the granting of Mysteries to heretics, funerals for heretics, studies in heretical schools,63 the granting leave to the papist Capuchins to confess and teach, etc. Even Metropolitans and monks confessed to Latins (in areas occupied by the Turks and Latins), something which the sacred Makarios of Patmos condemned fiercely, without, however, initiating a schism.64

During the middle of the 17th century "the monasteries of Athos repeatedly called the Jesuits to found a school on the Holy Mount for the spiritual training of monks"!65 Also in the same period "in many places, in Jerusalem, in Alexandria and other places, in one church, in one area, the easterners chant, and in the other [the westerners chant]"!66 During the same periods dialogues also occurred with various branches of the Monophysites and Protestants, who were liked and defended by a significant number of Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, schisms did not occur in the Orthodox Church, even though holy Fathers struggled against union with groups such as the "Lutheran Calvinists"67.

9. St. Nikodemos condemned the "Latin-minded ones" of his age, or "volunteer defenders of the Latin false baptism", as he named them68. In 1755 the Eastern Patriarchs synodically decided that the Orthodox "who came from the Latins should be baptized, because until then the Latins were accepted into Orthodoxy mainly by chrismation. Despite this, the Latin-minded ones fought this decision and continued accepting those having the papal sprinkling of the Latins merely by chrismation.

St. Nikodemos grieved over the great falsification, corruption and misinterpretation of the sacred Canons, and for the "fruit that is fatal and an accessory to the perdition of the soul" which was born of them69. He also mourned over the severe transgressions of the sacred Canons (especially Canon 6 of the Fourth, and Canons 14, 19, and 23 of the Sixth). As well he grieved for the Simoniacs, who, according to Saint Tarasius, are worse than the Pnevmatomachi70. He wrote that this God-hated (according to Saint Gennadios) heresy had become a virtue71, and that most are ordained for money72. Simultaneously he prudently censured the theologians of his age for their heretical and blasphemous mindsets73.

The Saint, along with the other Kollyvades Fathers, struggled fiercely for the sacred traditions. Yet nowhere can we find that they interrupted communion with the Latin-minded ones or the other erring Orthodox. These prudent zealots, contrary to those of today, were able to discern the difference between the Latin-minded ones of their age and the more egregious Latin-minded ones who entered into the false unions of 1274 and a 1439.

St. Nikodemos knew that there are "two types of governing in the Church"74: exactitude (akribeia) and economy (oikonomia). Although he was a lover of akribeia, he implemented oikonomia, as a long as there was no officially preached heresy. He taught that when hierarchs or priests transgress, we must toil to convince them that God's will should be done, without however making schisms which desolate our souls75.

10. The sacred Synod of the Church of Greece, in Her decision of 1834, officially allowed marriages with heretics (they were unofficially done prior to this), a decision which is "illegal and contrary to the sacred Canons"76. Constantine Economos relates also the dissolution of more than four hundred monasteries, the approval of forbidden marriage relations, the founding of theological schools according to Protestant models, and many other painful things that occurred during that time.

It should be obvious, of course, that the above canonical transgressions are condemnable. Moreover, whoever takes them as a model for their relationship with the heterodox is not imitating the holy Fathers, who struggled for their elimination.
3. Contemporary Zealotism

We believe that the inconsistency of the Zealots is made clear when they equate the severity of the calendar change or joint prayers with the fearful heresy of Nestorius, which overturned the "mystery awaited of the ages" 81 and corrupted the meaning of the salvation of the human race.

Contemporary Zealotism cannot be seen as in agreement with the teaching and action of the holy Fathers. It rather resembles the Studite schisms [arising from canonical infractions] (we do not mean, of course, those which happened in a praiseworthy manner and with an utterly confessional mindset against the heresy of Iconoclasm). This resemblance leads to its condemnation, since these particular Studite schisms were not recognized by anyone, but instead were condemned. In reality, however, the present-day schisms do not exactly resemble these Studite schisms either, since at that time there were not so many mutual defrocking and "Churches". The unsuspected and lightening-quick defrockings and "acquittals" of zealot clergy can find no parallel in church history.

The Zealots have fallen into a multitude of contradictions, from which it is impossible for them to be freed, since they persist in their positions. Specifically:

1. When they want to justify their schism due to the calendar change (1924) or one of their internal schisms (in other words, situations that do not involve heresy), they call upon the Studite schisms (which justify a schism for canonical transgressions) or the 31st Apostolic Canon, which allows a schism for reasons "of piety and righteousness". They do this, as we have noted, by misinterpreting the word "righteousness".

2. When however they want to justify their schism due to Ecumenism, or in order to prevent one of their internal schisms, they call upon the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod (which allows schism only for reasons of heresy).

Of course the invocation, on the one hand, of both the Studite schisms and of the 31st Apostolic Canon, and on the other hand of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod, creates a huge contradiction; for the latter was instituted (as we have said above) in order to avert the Studite schisms and to clarify or interpret properly the 31st Apostolic Canon!

The above contradictions are what contribute to the Zealot divisions. The Zealots typically explain the existence of nine churches for the Genuine Orthodox Christians, as well as other independent groups, as the fruit of bad administration and human passions. We are not in agreement. Rather, their schisms are an outpouring of their utterly deluded and distorted ecclesiology. Their divisions will never end as long as they invoke the Studite schisms and the 31st Apostolic Canon for disagreements over the consecration of metropolitans82, ordinations83, constitutions84, the publication of an encyclical against the new identification cards85, iconography86 and other minor issues. (There even exists a group of "Hexagonists"!) The presidential chair of "the Synod in Resistance" was created out of three schisms, which brought about an equal number of defrockings. These activities remind us of the schisms of those abandoned by divine Grace, such as the Monophysites, Protestants and Old Believers.

Their internal schisms prove how groundless is their schism from the Church. The ease with which they characterize the remaining Zealots as heretics reveals that long ago that they have lost an understanding of the true meaning of heresy and ecclesiastical schism. The simple people have become confused because they are constantly found in a different group without even realizing it!

Every group believes that they alone constitute the Church of Christ, resulting in the performance of rechrismations between themselves. According to information we received, an archbishop was even reordained. They have approximately fifty bishops in Greece for only 60-70,000 people. Years ago the "Andrewite" group in Greece had ten bishops and eighteen priests. Half of the groups have bishops consecrated by either one hierarch or no hierarch at all.

In 1955 one of the two groups was left without a bishop. By necessity they took refuge in the graceless (according to their theory, since they communed with the new calendarists) Russians of the Diaspora87. The ends justified the means. Unfortunately they were not able to recognize that this was matter of abandonment by God, which their impasse had revealed.

The Zealots, despite their polemics against Ecumenism, appear to fully implement Ecumenist practices. This is so, because the "heretical" new calendarists are [often] allowed to receive divine Communion and other Mysteries [in their churches].

We reiterate that the means by which they deceive and gather to themselves followers is the misappropriation or misinterpretation of Church history. In time this should be more fully revealed in a detailed and systematic refutation of zealot ecclesiology.

For all these things we believe that whoever joins the schism of the Zealots in order to fight syncretistic Ecumenism is making a serious mistake before God. They harm themselves, as well as those who are properly struggling against Ecumenism, and who are in need of strengthening. Despite our strong words of correction, we love the Zealots and pray that God will enlighten them to be enlisted in the Church, which would allow them to follow the old calendar, as has happened in previous instances. We are certain that the Church will exhaust every oikonomia to effect their return and will show the foremost care for them, since, moreover, they are not heretics.
C. THE CASE OF ST. SOPHRONIOS

Father Nicholas criticizes me for what I wrote concerning the stance of Saint Sophronius during the period of Monotheletism. He said that from this I concluded that the Fathers did not cease commemorating heretics before a Synodical diagnosis occurred. I never said such a thing. Rather, I wrote that, based on the stance of Saint Sophronius, especially in his address "to the concelebrant"88 regarding the heretic Sergius of Constantinople in 634, the obvious forbearance and oikonomia of the Church to those officially proclaiming heresy is proved. By implication, of course, this oikonomia prevails much more today—an age during which no similar heresy is being so openly preached. Father Nicholas describes the ecclesiastical condition during that time and concludes that in 634 no heresy was officially being preached. As such, he argues that there was no reason for interrupting communion or applying oikonomia.

He specifically supports the following:

1. The events leading up to the heretical "Exposition" of Sergius (638) consisted of discussions and other efforts to ensure the triumph of the Orthodox position. Clarification was needed concerning the definitions of Chalcedon, which solved very difficult ideological problems.

2. In 634 Saint Sophronius rightly calls Sergius a concelebrant because the latter's Monothelitism is not officially proclaimed until in 638.

I answer the above as follows:

His first argument is surprising. After carefully researching the writings of more than twenty-eight historians I realized that a clarification of the Definition of Chalcedon (which had occurred 170 years before) was not at all in view at that time. On the contrary, the only goal was a means for union with the Monophysites. As a result, the following expression: "two natures in Christ on the one hand, but one energy and will"89. This confession comprised the bare minimum threshold for Monophysitism, since all the Monophysites accepted one energy and will90..

Father Nicholas writes that efforts were put forth for the Orthodox positions to prevail. Does this not reveal that heretical views existed against which the Orthodox ones had to prevail? It is clear that the Zealots label certain periods when heresy was preached in one of two ways, according to their whims: "a period of heresy" or "a period of struggle for Orthodox positions to prevail" (concealing by this choice or words that heresy was truly being preached.)

Moreover, in ten points of the article Father Nicholas admits that Sergius had an heretical phronema (mindset), that he negotiated union (which also was achieved), and that Saint Sophronius reacted to the union and condemned Monoenergitism. These events are not, however, described in chronological order. Moreover, the terms "union with heretics" and "heresy" are also avoided, resulting in confusion. His is, for the most part, a copy of the synoptic history of Stephanidis.

The following precise enumeration of the ecclesiastical situation at that time will thus prove how groundless Father Nicholas' second argument is:

Sergius of Constantinople sent to the bishop of Pharan Theodore a false libellum of Minas of Constantinople (+552), asking his opinion about the monenergetic and monothelite positions of this libellum. Theodore accepted it. Sergius also sent this libellum to a certain heretic, Paul, stating his and Theodore's agreement with it. These two events, which must are surely not the only ones, are mentioned by Saint Maximus in his dialogue with Pyrrus91. The historians place them around 615-618, since it is certified later in the homily of St. Maximus.

The Saint mentions that Sergius also wrote to the Severian George Arsa and asked him to send patristic statements about the one energy. He furthermore told him that based on these statements he would enter into union with them. Saint John the Merciful became acquainted with this epistle and wanted to depose Sergius. However the invasion of the Persians (619)92 in that year prevented him.

Around this time Saint Maximus embraced the monastic life. He was frustrated by the condition of the Church due to the expansion of Monotheletism93. As a result, when he saw the heresy "expanding rather completely"94, he departed around the year 626 to Africa, where Orthodoxy prevailed.

In 626 Sergius also wrote to Cyros of Phasidos, certifying the heresy95. In 629, based on the acceptance of one energy and will, he is united with the monophysite bishop Athanasius, whom he actually recognizes as Patriarch of Antioch96. Cyrus ascends in 630 to the throne of Alexandria and begins a struggle for union with the Monophysites97. Saints Sophronius and Maximus unsuccessfully try to prevent him 98. Cyrus united with the Monophysites in 633 based on the heretical confession "one theandric energy in Christ"99.

Sergius, who had already projected "in many ways his own illness" and corrupted "the majority of the Church"100, accepted this union. He was furthermore united in the same year with the heretical Armenians, based on the same heretical confession101. Saint Sophronius then went to Constantinople, and "with the appropriate humble-mindedness of his schema"102, entreated Sergius not to renew this old heresy. Frustrated by Sergius' lack of repentance, however, he goes to Jerusalem and informs the believers that the patriarch and the pope are heretics103.

Sergius was troubled by these Orthodox voices. He decided to abandon Monoenergitism and to limit himself to milder Monotheletism104. In the "Vote", which he published around the end of the 633, he preached the heresy in a milder form. St. Maximus hoped for a moment that he would disavow the "innovation"105, which had occurred in Alexandria. Furthermore in his epistle to Abbot Pyrrus he likened Sergius with Moses106.

In 634 St. Sophronius ascended to the throne of Jerusalem. He sent his enthronement epistle to Sergius and the patriarchs, striking a blow against the heresy of one energy and will. Nevertheless, he refers to Sergius as "the most holy of all bishops, and most blessed brother and concelebrant Sergius"107. He asked him to accept his dogmatic epistle and to send him the "longed for letters", which will clearly express the correct faith108. Unfortunately, Sergius did not change, and in 638 he publishes his heretical "Exposition".

So we see that Saint Sophronius was in communion with Sergius until 634, even though the latter preached heresy from about 615, had caused the frustration of St. John in 619, had corrupted the majority of the Church, and had accepted the unions of 629 and 633.** We have no historical witness that the sacred Sophronius cut communion until his repose in 638.

These events triumphantly proves the point of which I spoke, to wit, that the Church was longsuffering and used economy towards bishops who then preached heresy. These events also show that the Zealots are wrong when they argue that the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod is obligatory109. In the Synod of the Lateran (649) against the Monothelites there is clear talk about this oikonomia. In his libellum Sergius, bishop of the Cypriots writes the following: "For until today we kept silent owing to oikonomia, thinking they would correct their own teachings"110.

I will conclude by refuting one more argument of the article. Father Nicholas mentions that St. Maximus did not accept the conciliatory "Formula" (Typos) and cut communion with the heretics. "Finally", he concludes, "because he was chased from Constantinople, the Saint managed with the convincingness of his teaching to call Local Synods in Chalcedon (646) and in Rome (641) during the reign of Pope John the Fourth, and in 649 with St. Martin, which condemned Monophysitism and his Monophysitic expressions".

This is a perversion of history. For the sake of the simpler readers I will only say the following: Sergius' lack of repentance became finally became clear in 638111. Saint Maximus then began new struggles to convene Synods which condemned Monothelitism (641, 646, 649). During this period the Saint must have also cut communion with the heretics. The "Formula (Typos)" which Father Nicholas mentions, was published in 648112. Saint Maximus was led in 653 to Constantinople to be judged113. He was chased out in 655 and sent to exile in Vizyi of Thrace, and finally to Laziki114, where he died as a confessor.

So Father Nicholas in his article commits an historical error when he writes that St. Maximus, after being chased out in 650, managed to call the Synods of 641,646 and 649! Accordingly, the result would be [if Fr. Nicholas' historical math were correct] the Zealots' beloved conclusion, namely, first the breaking of communion and later synodical judgment.

Finally, we posit that Zealotism and syncretistic Ecumenism actually comprise two great ecclesiastical deviations, both of which bring about many harmful things for the Church. We pray that the God-man Jesus will protect His Church from both of these extremes, abundantly spread abraod His illuminating Grace, "so that we will all say the same thing, and schisms will not be among us"115.
Endnotes

* The author probably has in mind only the Church of Greece. Concerning all of the Orthodox Churches, "The sole exceptions are the autonomous Church of Finland, which adopted the uncanonical Western Paschalion at the instigation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the so-called "Pan-Orthodox" Congress of 1923, as well as several parishes in Western Europe, including that of Froisek (Switzerland), which celebrate Pascha at the same time as Roman Catholics and Protestants and thereby, at times, with the Jews, contrary to the First Canon of the Council of Antioch...." A Scientific Examination of the Orthodox Church Calendar, p. 173.

** See also the Life of St. Meletius the Confessor. During the Antiochian Schism he was consecrated in part by Arians, in full knowledge thereof. His irenic, conciliatory personality is similar to that of St. Sophronius.

1. Volume 27 July-December 1999.
2. P.G. 137, 1068 A-C. Presided over by St. Photios the Great.
3. S. Milia "Of the sacred synods...collection, Paris 1761, vol. 2, p. 737.
4. Letter 102, P.G. 37, 196A.
5. Faith of the saints...The Fathers in Nicaea, P.G. 28, 1641C.
6. Letter 240, P.G. 32, 897A.
7. Precise exposition of the Orthodox faith, ch. 13, (86), P.G. 94, 1153B.
8. Letter 24, book 2, P.G. 99, 1189C.
9. Saint Theodore the Studite, Letter 220, book 2, P.G. 99, 1669A.
10. Interpretation concerning the divine temple, ch. 28, P.G. 155, 708D
11. Saint Anastasius of Antioch, Guide, P.G. 89, 48C.
12. Saint Ignatius the Godbearer, P.G. 96, 508C.
13. P.G. 137, 349-353.
14. Saint Symeon Metaphrastes, Life and lifestyle of our venerable and godbearing father Theodosius the Ceonobiarch, 49, P.G. 114, 517C.
15. A. Dimitrakopoulou, History of the schism, Leipsia, 1867, p. 70-74.
16. Saint Nikodemos, New Eklogion, p. 320-322.
17. Orthodox Christians...everywhere upon the earth, 6 in Jn. Karmiris, The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox and catholic Church, in Athens 1960, vol. 1, p. 427.
18. Dodekabiblos, book 4, ch. 10, 3.
19. Saint Cyrill of Alexandria, letter 11, P.G. 77, 81BC.
20. Saint Nikodemos the Haghiorite, Rudder, Athens 1970, p. 358.
21. F. Vafeidou, Ecclesiastical History, 113:1.
22. Concerning ecclesiastical communion and the memorial and the 15th sacred canon of the 1st and 2nd holy synod, related to them. Holy Mountain 1993, p. 62.
23. Op.cit. book 8, ch. 2:6.
24. Op.cit. book 6, ch. 7:9.
25. Presbyter Gregory, Life of Saint Gregory, P.G. 35, 261C.
26. Orthodox Informer, Sacred Metropolis of Oropos and Filis, vol. 27, p. 1, 2.
27. Presbyter Gregory, op. cit. P.G. 35, 261D-264A.
28. Ch. 19-20, P.G. 35, 745-748.
29. Canon 31, P.G. 137, 96C.
30. M. Gedeon, Patriarchal Charts, Athens 1996, p. 185.
31. Saint Symeon Metaphrastes, Life.....of our venerable father Ioannikios, ch. 51, 52, .P.G. 116, 85A-88B.
32. Concerning Tarasius and Nicephorus the holy patriarchs, P.G. 99, 1853C.
33. P.G. 99, 157CD.
34. Concerning Tarasius and Nicephorus the holy patriarchs, P.G. 99, 1853D.
35. Op. cit. book 7, ch. 4:5.
36. P.G. 108, 992B.
37. Orthodox Informer, Sacred Metropolis of Oropos and Filis, vol. 3427, p. 1.
38. Les Saints Stylites, Bryxelles 1923, p. 85.
39. Op. cit. 216.
40. Voice from the Holy Mountain, that is: Response to...the censure of the Calendar accusations," Holy Mountain 1981, p. 16.
41. 1st canon of the synod in Antioch, P.G. 137, 1276B-1277A.
42. Saint Symeon the new Theologian, Catechism 32.
43. Basil the Great, Canonical epistle 1 (188), ch. 1, P.G. 32, 665A.
44. V. Stefanidou, Ecclesiastical History, Athens 1970, 22, p. 343-344.
45. Concerning ecclesiastical communion and the memorial and the 15th sacred canon of the 1st and 2nd holy synod, related to them. Holy Mountain 1993, p. 62.
46. Jn. Karmiris, The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox and Catholic Church, Graz ..1968, vol. 2, p. 1024 (1104).
47. Saint Cyrill of Alexandria, letter 79, P.G. 77, 341A.
48. Letter 72, P.G. 77, 345B.
49. Op. cit. P.G. 77, 345D.
50. Op. cit. P.G. 77, 344B.
51. Letter 49, book 1, P.G. 99, 1085C.
52. Saint Nikodemos the Haghiorite Rudder, Athens 1970, p. 305. English editor note: "As for Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, and those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy, the Nestorians, and Nestorius, and Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the other exarchs of such heresies, and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of holy Communion." (The Rudder, p. 401)
53. Letter 40, book 1, P.G. 99, 1052C.
54. Saint Photios, Letter 2, book 1: P.G. 102, 605C.
55. Saint Photios, Letter 13 book 1: P.G. 102, 724-725.
56. F. Vafeidou, op. cit. 112, 1.
57. Op. cit. 136, 1.
58. K. N. Satha, Library of the Middle Ages, Venice 1873, vol. 2, p. 85.
59. V. Stefanidou, op. cit. 23, p. 384, Feida, Ecclesiastical History, Athens 1994, vol. 2, p. 588.
60. F. Vafeidou, op. cit. 146, 4.
61. Op. cit. 149, 2.
62. The discovered texts, Thessalonica 1991, p. 400.
63. V. Stefanidou, op. cit. 51, 52.
64. Evangelical Trumpet, in Athens 1867, p. 327.
65. Theodoretus monk, Eucharistic participation in the Holy Mountain, 1972, p. 35-37.
66. Op. cit.
67. Saint Nikodemos the Haghiorite, Christoetheia, in Chios 1887, p. 377.
68. Rudder, Athens 1970, footnote on the 46th apostolic canon, p. 56.
69. Op. cit. p. 12.
70. Op. cit. p. 719.
71. Op. cit. interpretation of the 22nd of the 6th, p. 238.
72. Op. cit. footnote 6, p. 696.
73. Op. cit. footnote on the 124th of the synod in Carthage, p. 527.
74. Op. cit. footnote on the 46th apostolic canon p. 53.
75. Concerning constant communion, Volos 1961, part 3, objection, 12, p. 117.
76. Constantine Oikonomos of the Okonomons, The preserved ecclesiastical writings, Athens 1864, vol. 2, p. 246.
81. Eph. 3:9.
82. Periodical "Church G.O.C. (Genuine Orthodox Christians) of Greece", Athens, vol. 1, p. 15.
83. Periodical "The voice of Orthodoxy", Athens, issue 880, p. 10.
84. Periodical "Ecclesiastical tradition", Athens, issue 104, p. 39.
85. Periodical "Church G.O.C. Greece, Athens, issue 1, p. 24.
86. Periodical "Preacher of genuine Orthodox" Athens, issue 214, p. 214-265.
87. S. Karamitsou, The ordinations of the G.O.C. from a canonical viewpoint, Athens 1997, p. 19.
88. Synodical epistle, P.G. 87, 3, 314A.
89. F. Vafeidou, op. cit. 74, 1.
90. V. Stefanidou, op. cit. 14, p. 242.
91. P.G. 91, 332B-333A.
92. Op. cit.
93. As the biographers of Saint Symeon Metaphrastes, Nikodemos, Agapios, mention, Life and struggles of Saint...Maximus, P.G. 90, 68-110.
94. Life and struggles of Saint Maximus, P.G. 90, 73D-76A.
95. Dialogue...concerning the ecclesiastical dogmas, P.G. 91, 333A.
96. Religious and ethical encyclopedia, Athens 1962-1968, vol. 11, p. 103.
97. P. Christou, Hellenic Patrology, Thessalonica 1992, vol. 5, p. 260.
98. Op. cit. p. 268.
99. F. Vafeidou, op. cit. .74, 2.
100. Dialogue...concerning the ecclesiastical dogmas, P.G. 91, 333A.
101. Religious and ethical encyclopedia, Athens 1962-1968, vol. 11, p. 103
102. Dialogue...concerning the ecclesiastical dogmas, P.G. 91, 333B.
103. Dositheos of Jerusalem, op. cit. book 6, ch. 6:4.
104. F. Stefanidou, op. cit. 14: p. 244.
105. Maximus the Confessor, letter 19, .P.G. 91, 592
106. Op. cit.
107. Synodical epistle P.G. 87, 3, 3148A.
108. Op. cit. .87, 3, 3200B.
109. Theodoretus monk, Orthodoxy and heresy, Athens 1982, p. 63.
110. Dositheos of Jerusalem, op. cit. book 6, ch. 7:9.
111. A. D. Kyriakou, Ecclesiastical History, 101.
112. Op. cit.
113. Maximus the Confessor, Explanation of the movement...during secretus, ch. 1, P.G. 90, 110C.
114. Maximus the Confessor, Concerning what was done...discussed, ch. 33, P.G. 90, 172B.
115. 1 Cor. 1:10.

Originally posted here from a translation of the original article published by St. Gregory Monastery in Greek.

Fr. Seraphim Rose's 25th Anniversary of Repose

September 2nd marks the 25th anniversary of the repose of (blessed) Serpahim Rose of Platina. I posted a short bio and commentary on the anniversary last year which can be read here. He was a remarkable man, and I suspect an uncanonized saint. May his memory be eternal!

Odds & Ends...

The forthcoming election to fill the vacant Patriarchal throne of the Romanian Orthodox Church has fallen under the shadow of the past. Government files from the communist era containing the names of clergy who allegedly collaborated with the secret police have become a matter of contention. There is a debate going on as to what impact this will have on the election and some of those considered possible successors to the late Patriarch.

Read the story here.

The worst fires in modern Greek history have killed dozens of people and caused massive damage. Relief from all over the world is poring into the Hellenic Republic. Special collections are being taken up in most Greek Orthodox parishes in the United States to help the victims.

Read the story here.

Patriarch +Alexeii II has expressed support for Pope +Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum which effectively lifts most restrictions on the use of the classical liturgical rite of the Roman Catholic Church (commonly called the Tridentine Mass).

"We strongly adhere to tradition," Patriarch Alexei said in an August interview with the Italian newspaper Il Giornale "The recovery and honoring of an ancient liturgical tradition is a development that we can welcome."

Read the rest here.

An icon believed to be miraculous by many Orthodox Christians will be brought to the cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in San Francisco this month for public exhibition and veneration. The Sretensky Monastery Choir is accompanying the icon whose trip is in honor of the recent end of the great schism in the Russian Church that dated to the Communist Revolution.

The "Reigning Woman" icon is so named because it pictures the mother of Jesus in a throne, wearing the earthly garb of imperial Russia and holding a scepter -- the queen of heaven and earth.

Legend has it the icon appeared to a peasant girl in her dreams. Eudocia Adrianova and her rector found it covered with soot in the basement room of a church in Kolomenskoe, outside Moscow in 1917. The same day, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated.

"People started streaming to this church, which was not known outside the village before," said tour manager Anastasia Boudanoque. "Miracles have been documented of people touching the icon, diseases cured."

Unusually large at 5 feet, 6 inches tall, "It is a very impressive piece of art on thick board," Boudanoque said. "It's quite colorful." Its inscription is in Church Slavonic.

Scholars believe the icon first decorated the Ascension Convent of the Moscow Kremlin, but was spirited to Kolomenskoe in 1812 when Napoleon invaded.

It would be moved again, and again, and again.

Information about the exhibition and services surrounding the icon's visit can be found here.

The WCC (an organization I generally have little use for) has issued a statement of support for HH +Bartholomew the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome. This support is in the face of an order summoning the Patriarch to appear before the court and explain why he is continuing to use the title "Ecumenical" when the courts have prohibited him from doing so. This of course raises all kinds of questions about Turkey's ambitions to join the European Union.

Read the rest here.

Women priests leaving the Episcopal Church?

Drell's Descants has posted a request for information from Alice Linsley about female clergy who have left the Episcopal Church. If you know of any please contact Alice with ...

The women’s first name only
Whether she was a priest or deacon
The state in which she resides
The year she set aside her orders
The church with which she has affiliated.

She is conducting a survey and hopes to post the results.

Feast Commemorating the Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist

Today is the feast of the beheading of the Forerunner St. John the Baptist. Although called a feast it is in fact a day of strict fasting within the Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox Christians observe certain pious customs on this day including avoiding the use of cutlery and plates for whatever food they do eat during the day.

More can be read here.

Quote of the day...

In an age when we see so much evidence of society becoming more and more self centered some people still remember that others inhabit this planet. It may be a bit corny but I got a warm fuzzy from the below quote.

"I would take all the money (lump sum) in cash and fly over Calcutta India, or Rio, and dump the cash out the window. I would keep enough to pay for the flights."
-Bill Boga on what he would do if he won the mega millions lottery ($250 million)

From the New York Times.

Relics of the Holy Royal Passion Bearers Are Believed Found

Various news services are reporting that the long missing remains of blessed Alexei, the son and heir of Russia's last Czar Nicholas II may have been found along with those of one of the Imperial Grand Duchesses (probably Maria). The remains of the rest of the Imperial Family along with several servants were discovered and reburied in the Romanov crypt in St. Petersburg some years ago. The Royal Family was glorified (canonized) by the Russian Orthodox Church for the heroic and Christian manner in which they lived and bore the suffering of their final time on Earth while in Communist captivity. The Russian Church Abroad also recognizes them as saints although they tend to refer to them as martyrs.

Read the rest here.

Hat tip to Fr. Joseph.

Evangelicals swimming the... Bosporous??

New Republic has an extremely good essay on the remarkable movement of Evangelical Protestants (including some big names) into the Orthodox Church. When one reads of Evangelicals coming to grips with Church history and by extension the realization that Protestantism bears little resemblance to the Church of the first and second centuries, the story usually ends with them in the Roman Catholic Church. However in growing numbers, they are discovering Orthodoxy. While I could quibble with a few points in it*, the article sheds some light on this oft ignored trend in the migration of Evangelical Christians to Apostolic Christianity.

When Wilbur Ellsworth ministered at First Baptist, a typical Sunday service--held inside the church's immense but unadorned white-walled, burgundy-carpeted sanctuary--went something like this: Wearing a suit and tie, Ellsworth would stand at a pulpit and preach. Aside from occasionally rising in prayer and joining the church choir and orchestra in some traditional Protestant hymns, the congregants would largely refrain from any activity during the one-hour-and-15-minute service--except for once a month, when they would receive communion.

The service Ellsworth now leads at Holy Transfiguration, by contrast, has an entirely different feel. Wearing his priestly vestments and standing inside the church's small sanctuary--which boasts yellow walls covered with hundreds of tiny iconic pictures of saints and Oriental rugs on the floor--Ellsworth conducts much of the service from behind the iconostasis (or icon wall) where he is out of view of the congregation. The congregants stand for most of the two-hour service, constantly prostrating and crossing themselves, and the only music is rhythmic Byzantine chanting. At the end of the service, they file up to the front of the sanctuary--as they do every Sunday--and take communion. It's easy to see how, for someone reared in an evangelical church, the Orthodox Church might seem like something not just from another culture, but another world.

And yet it is precisely that otherworldliness that is part of what is attracting a growing number of evangelicals to the Orthodox Church. Since the late nineteenth century, when fundamentalism emerged as a response to the increasing cosmopolitanism of mainline Protestant denominations, evangelicalism has been an anti-modern movement. But, at the same time, with its belief in the importance of saving lost souls, evangelicalism hasn't been able to completely divorce itself from modern culture--and, in the latter half of the twentieth century, it began to increasingly try to employ or co-opt aspects of the modern world in its efforts to lure "seekers" and others to the faith. As Ellsworth explains, one of the principal attractions of the Orthodox Church for him is its solidity--and lack of interest in integrating modern life. "There is, in the Orthodox Church, an enormous conservatism," he marvels. "There is not going to be a radical change in the worship life of the church next week."

... But it wasn't just the foreignness of the Orthodox Church; it was its bigness that appealed to DeRenzo, as well. Indeed, as she continued to talk, it became clear that, as an evangelical, she had felt very small and alone. It was a surprising sentiment to hear from someone about the evangelical movement. After all, ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, American evangelicals have arguably been the most politically powerful religious group in the country. But perhaps the most telling revelation of the Orthodox conversion trend is that this political power has not translated into a sense of spiritual power--or belonging. For these converts, it seems, the Orthodox Church has solved the unbearable lightness of being evangelical. "When I was in [an evangelical church], I was thinking, This is great, I love this,'" DeRenzo said. "But I thought, and I don't mean to be morbid, but eventually some day this pastor is going to die or I'm going to move away, so if this is the only place in the world where the truth is, that's tragic." DeRenzo paused and looked around the sanctuary at the icons and the candles. She went on, "Coming to the Orthodox Church means that I am in communion with that church no matter where I am in the world, that I can go into that church wherever I am and have the same liturgy and celebrate the same way. I'll be in communion with other people. And that is so huge. That hugeness is so exciting."

Read the rest here.

*The only significant point I took issue with was that the number of Orthodox in America quoted in the article is almost certainly far below the real figure. Most authoritative sources indicate there are a little over 6 million self identified Orthodox Christians in the United States and Canada (mostly in the USA). In fairness, it is unlikely that more than half are regular church goers. But even if you cut that number (6+ million) by 2/3 you are still going to wind up with a number roughly twice what was quoted in the article. It is perfectly fair to note that we are not the biggest church in the United States. But we do have respectable numbers (confused somewhat by the unfortunate jurisdictionalism prevalent here).

What's in a name?

From the I am really not making this up file...

Referring to God as Allah will bring Christians and Muslims closer together, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Breda in the Netherlands said last week. Speaking on Dutch television on Aug 13, the Rt Rev Tiny Muskens urged Christians to call God Allah and predicted that within 100 years the name would be used in Dutch churches.

Read the rest here.

Orthodox Western Saints

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has proclaimed a new feast to be kept on the third Sunday after Pentecost (old calendar). The feast day will honor the Orthodox (which is to say pre 1054) saints of Great Britain and Ireland. It was also decreed that their names were to be included in the menology (saints calendar) following a study of their history and exploits. Aside from the significance of this nod to the Orthodox West it will also have the practical effect of adding some names available for baptism that are a little less Slavic/Byzantine for those not from a culturally Eastern background. Thus instead of naming your kid Boris you can give him a more normal name that won't get him beaten up at school... like Aristobulus, Byrinus or Cadfarch. :-)

From Interfax via Directions to Orthodoxy

On whining about church

Rod Dreher (aka the Crunchy Con) has posted a rather thoughtful article on people who spend all or a good deal of their time whining about their church and looking for its faults. I highly recommend it.

Hat tip to the Young Fogey.

Sharing the cup: Orthodoxy and inter-communion

There is an interesting thread going on over at the Byzantine Forum. The topic began with someone posting to the effect that he is Orthodox but lives in an area where there are no Orthodox parishes within a reasonable radius to him. He has thus been attending an Eastern Rite Catholic parish. Quickly thereafter someone posted a note basically welcoming him to the catholic Church ands stated that going back and forth between the Orthodox and Catholic Church aught not to present an issue. My reply to this and the subsequent discussion it has provoked can be found here (page 6 of the thread). However I think my most recent post sums up the point I have been attempting to make in response to the claims that inter communion has been tolerated in some instances.

Originally Posted By: Matt
Ad Orientum,

The Orthodox churches are self-governing. It is up to the Antiochian Orthodox Church to decide how, or whether, to apply church cannons. There is not some universal agreed upon way of applying them. Some "Super Orthodox" still follow the prohibition of praying with schismatics and heretics. Wanna know how closely that is followed by the Orthodox churches and believers? Even at St. Tikon's (the "conservative" Orthodox seminary) I believe it is usually the "spirit" of the cannon that is appealed to rather then the "letter". Moreover, it is quite possible that some Antiochians do not believe the Melkites are heretics and schismatics as you seem to suggest. If such is the case then Antiochian actions seem even more justified.

Also, if the Melkites are not Orthodox because they are not in communion with your bishop then what of the old-calendarists? Are they also out of your Orthodox circle? What about seemingly random folks like "Patriarch Photios" (aka Joseph Farrel)? Heck, some Eastern Orthodox now believe the Copts are Orthodox and you haven't been in communion with them for 1500 years. I just don't think your system works.

In any event, I hope I am not coming off to harshly.

All the best

My Reply:

Matt,
Again I do not dispute your point that there have been instances of inter communion. The question is whether or not it is proper and correct. You correctly point out that each (canonical) Orthodox Church is self governing. And yes that means the Antiochians have very broad rights in determining whom they are in communion with. So let me ask the question. Is the Antiochian Patriarchate in communion with Rome? Have they formally repudiated the Council of Constantinople of 1484? If they have then I missed the memo.

You ask if certain groups are "Orthodox" or not. My answer in most cases is that I leave that up to God and the legitimate hierarchs of The Church to determine. The question I would ask is; are they in communion with me via my bishop? If the answer is yes then there is no problem. If the answer is no than we have a problem which may or may not (there are many reasons for not being in communion) touch on matters intrinsic to The Faith.

You say that each Orthodox Church can decide how or when to apply Church Canons. Thats a very broad statement that I am not able to fully agree with. Yes, there is such a thing as oikonomia which is far better understood and more widely practiced in Orthodoxy than in the Latin Church. But economy is not carte blanche to disregard the immemorial disciplines of The Church. If some in the Antichian Church are communing in the Melkite/Latin Church then the question which needs to be asked is; is this with the blessing of their bishop?

If the answer is yes than I am constrained to express my respectful disagreement with that policy. But beyond that it is indeed up to their Synod to determine if anything improper is going on. If they are doing so without the blessing of their bishop than it is a serious sin which by default places the offending party outside communion with his/her own bishop. While Orthodoxy is not quite as legalistic as some might think neither are we a do it yourself church either.

Finally another question looms. Even if there have been some instances of inter-communion sanctioned (or at least tolerated) by one or two bishops mostly in Lebanon, what are the broader implications? My answer is very few. Even after 1484 there were isolated cases of inter-communion between Orthodox and Latins. But they were "isolated." They were, and I would argue, are today extremely rare.

You refer to the Church Canons prohibiting praying with schismatics and heretics. And you correctly note that few outside of the Old Calendarist sects practice akria (a strict application of the letter of the law as opposed to oikonomia). But as far as I know all of the canonical Orthodox prohibit communion with non-Orthodox. That for us is the litmus test of your relationship to The Church. Are we in communion with one another? Is it possible that there have been aberrations and tolerances or abuses of this canon? It is more than possible. It is certain. But thats not to be seen as restoration of communion. If any Orthodox jurisdiction wishes to restore communion with Rome they are free to do so. But actions can have consequences.

This is where I note my objection to your assertion that each jurisdiction has absolute authority to determine if, when, or in what manner they will obey Church Canons. If a jurisdiction strays too far from what the rest of the Orthodox world is prepared to accept they may find themselves isolated to one degree or another. Orthodoxy (despite some superficial similarities in ecclesiology) is not the Anglican Communion where one jurisdiction can do whatever it wants and the rest just have to lump it. Orthodox jurisdictions have severed communion with one another for far less significant things than permitting open communion. While I will not make concrete predictions I think that any Orthodox jurisdiction that chose to restore communion with Rome before there was a consensus within The Church as a whole that the time was right, would find itself quickly isolated. That isolation would likely (IMO) also extend to communion with the other Orthodox Churches.

This brings us back to my litmus test. Is the church / parish you wish to commune in itself "in communion" with your bishop? If the answer is "no" then do not do it, unless it is your intention to sever communion with him.

ICXC
John

Memory Eternal: Brooke Astor

Brooke Astor, the Grande Dame of New York High Society and one of the great philanthropists of the second half of the last century has reposed. When her husband Vincent Astor (heir to the great fur and New York real estate fortune founded by John Jacob Astor) died she became the head of New York Society and spent the next forty plus years raising and giving away vast fortunes in money for the poor. She was also among the greatest patrons of the arts and humanities in the city's history.

With her passing New York has lost an icon and true class act as also one of the last living links to pre-war society and the very different values it embodied. Today one feels there is little sense of duty or noblesse oblige on the part of the wealthy but rather one of entitlement. Her life after Vincent's death was a testament to the productive use of great wealth. In this respect one can only hope that someone will pick up the torch she so nobly carried for half a century. Mrs. Astor was 105. May her memory be eternal.

Read her New York Times obituary here.

Odds & Ends... (mostly non-Orthodox)

Most of the religious news of late has been from non-Orthodox confessions. Given what tends to make news that's probably not a bad thing. Anyways here is a quick summary of some of the stories making the rounds...

CNA reports that Professor Gregorio Peces-Barba, a leading Spanish socialist and staunch anti-clericalist has written a blistering attack on the Roman Catholic Church. He accuses the Roman Church of working to undermine the sovereignty of the Spanish Parliament and of opposing a progressive (read radical liberal) education program authored in part by Peces-Barba. In his article he compares the Roman Church to the regime in Iran and makes none too thinly veiled threats against the church if they do not accept the radical left agenda being pushed by Spain's socialists.

The Telegraph reports that in the CofE women priests will at least equal male clergy by 2025. This of course presupposes that the CofE will still exist in 2025. Read the story here.

The former Episcopal Bishop of Ft. Worth (TX) Clarence Pope has opined in a recent interview that the Catholic Movement within Anglicanism is now dead. He felt this to be especially true within the Episcopal Church. Given that situation he felt that as a matter of conscience he could no longer remain a member of TEC and that it was time for him to go. He has since entered communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict XVI has begun penning the first draft of his second encyclical letter while on vacation. (When I go on vacation I prefer lying on a beach, which aside from being Orthodox is one reason I will never be Pope.) The new letter seems set to again confound his liberal critics who have been atwitter lately with claims that B-16 has finally run up his true colors with his Motu Proprio and the recent CDF "we are THE CHURCH" memo. According to the London Times (via Rocco Palmo), the new encyclical appears to be focused on social justice issues following in the footsteps of Popes +Paul VI and John +XXIII as also +Leo XIII. He is expected to make a case for a more humane global economy that will protect against discrimination and exploitation of the poor. Additionally he supposedly will specifically condemn the use of various schemes by the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes such as off shore bank accounts and tax havens.

Again via the Telegraph we learn that of the more than 800 Anglican bishops worldwide invited to next years Lambeth conference only a little over 200 have responded before the deadline. At least 6 archbishops have already sent their regrets and a significant number of others appear to be holding out until it becomes clear if the Americans (The Episcopal Church) will be showing up. If they come it is likely that there will be a mass rejection of invitations from the rest of the world wide Anglican Communion which although divided on many issues is overwhelmingly opposed to the pro-homosexual positions adopted by TEC. It is not beyond possibility that more than half of the bishops would decline to come. Further evidence of the death of Anglicanism.

Apparently inspired by the wonderful success being seen in the Episcopal Church with their abandonment of elemental Christianity, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) took a big step in following TEC's lead. They adopted a resolution calling on bishops to refrain from disciplining homosexual clergy in committed relationships.

Orthodox worship and the language of the people

"In peace let us pray to the Lord!"

Given the recent news about the liberalization of the pre-Vatican II Mass (Tridentine) a recent article by Fr.Stanley Harakas may be of interest. He writes in part...

In reference to worship, the early Church in the East adopted a principle of worship in the language of the people -- not a single sacred language inaccessible to the average person. So there was variety of languages, but basically, one Divine Liturgy. In this the Orthodox Church followed the lead of St. Paul, who in discussing the uttering of incomprehensible "tongues" in worship, declared in his first letter to the Christians in Corinth, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. (1 Corinthians 14:14-15).

Like two trains traveling in opposite directions on parallel tracks, the Roman Church is returning to its Latin past, with the hope of recapturing a sense of sacred transcendence in its now popularized worship, while the Orthodox Church is in many ways traveling its historic track of worship toward as fuller practice of worship in the language of the people, while through its rich worship practices, allowing contemporary worshipers to sense the holiness, sacredness and other worldliness of the Kingdom of God.

But there is a rub in all this for the Orthodox. Though we use many different languages in our worship, Greek, Slavonic, Arabic, Romanian and other traditional languages, for many Orthodox these function just like Latin does for the Roman Catholics. It is the language, precisely because it is not understood, because it is exotic, and because of the lack of understanding, that carries for many people the sense of the holy, and not what actually is said and done in worship! Language becomes a barrier to true worship, that is, worship that invites the Orthodox Christian to say with St. Paul "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also."

What this seems to point to for the Orthodox is the restoration of the fundamental principle of Orthodox worship, that worship take place in a language understood by the worshippers. However, like the Roman Catholics, but moving in the opposite direction, we have to relearn our tradition, and to do it in a way that accommodates all the faithful Orthodox Christians.

Read the rest here.

Feeling a draft in the air?

Lt. General Douglas Lute, a senior war advisor to President Bush opened a can of worms a couple days ago by suggesting in an interview with NPR that a return to military conscription should be considered.

If we are to remain in Iraq then I concur.

The United States all volunteer military was not designed for a prolonged war fought on two fronts (Afghanistan and Iraq), while also remaining in a ready to respond condition in other potential hot spots such as the Korean Peninsula. The all volunteer military has been strained far beyond what was envisioned when it was designed. Barring a swift withdrawal from Iraq it is very unlikely that we can continue to meet operational commitments with the current force structure. And at present I see no reasonable hope for the pacification of Iraq in less than five years. It is very likely that the current surge will be shown to be inadequate although a step in the direction we will need to go in if we remain serious about suppressing the islamo-fascists there.

What we as a nation now need to do is to decide whether or not Iraq is a war worth continuing or not. And part of the answer to that question will have to be based on an honest and realistic assessment of the measures likely necessary to continue the war. I believe those measures include (but are not necessarily limited to)...

1. A surge to about 400-500 thousand men probably for a period of 2-3 years with a very slow draw down to take place over a period of 3-5 years thereafter.
2. Sealing the borders between Iraq and Iran and Syria.
3. A universal ban on private ownership and possession of firearms in Iraq.
4. Martial Law in Iraq and the suspension of Habeas Corpus with large scale detentions of suspect groups and individuals.
6. Introduction of military conscription (the draft) to sustain these operations while maintaining a military force that is a credible deterrent to other would be trouble makers in the world.
6. Adding 2-3 divisions to the regular army to permit this surge and relive pressure from the National Guard and Army Reserve who will need time to rebuild.
7. Substantial tax increases to pay for a war which has thus far been largely financed on the national credit card.

It is time to stop burying our head in the sand and as the younger generation is wont to say, do a "reality check" about the costs of "victory" in Iraq. War is not a game. And it can not be fought on the cheap. It is also time to stop expecting that a military force designed to fight the opening stages of the Third World War against the Evil Empire in Europe (but was never expected to continue for a long time without a draft) can continue a war of occupation on the other side of the world for what will ultimately almost certainly be 10 years or longer on an all volunteer basis. The Army is already strained to the breaking point and the National Guard has been so taxed that a significant chunk of it is no longer combat effective.

I strongly suspect that the very idea of a military draft in support of a war of occupation on the other side of the world would be so unpopular that it will effectively compel the United States to end its involvement in Iraq, at least on a major scale. Whether or not that is a good thing, is debatable. There is a growing sense even within the political right that Iraq has gone beyond the point where it is cost effective to continue. And there is a near universal consensus that it was horribly mismanaged and bungled from the word “go.”

Of course what only the neo-con hawks who got us into this mess, seem to be willing to talk about is the question of what will happen if/after we leave. Which only goes to prove the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This is of course the great weakness in the liberal / neo-isolationist “get out now” theme. Irrespective of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place, we are there now. And just leaving will have very real consequences for the United States, the region and perhaps most urgently for the people that will be left to the not so tender mercies of the new management in Iraq. Those are consequences which the neo-isolationists do not want to discuss.

All of which makes me ponder the mental faculties of those who are running for president. Whoever gets the job next year is going to have to fix this mess. I do not pretend to have all of the answers. And I am deeply conflicted about what to do in Iraq; i.e. stay or pull out. But I am going to go out on a limb and make one prediction. Based on where we were before we went into Iraq and where we are now, history is not going to be kind in its judgment of the presidency of George W. Bush.

Some news from the OCA

The report on the recent meeting of the Holy Synod has been published. Some of it is pretty routine stuff but there are a few interesting items (beyond those dealing with the recent scandal) that I think are worth highlighting.

1. The Holy Synod discussed, and plans further detailed discussion in October, of the OCA's membership in the National Council of Churches (NCC). This was apparently brought on by a letter from Archbishop +Nathaniel. Unfortunately the details of that letter were not posted. The NCC is of course a very liberal (both politically and theologically) Protestant ecumenical group whose positions are for the most part incompatible with Orthodoxy. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese withdrew from the NCC recently. Let us pray the OCA follows them out the door.

2. Reading between the lines it appears that the bishops are concerned that Met. +Herman may have been overstepping the bounds of his office. The web version refers in the most general terms to a discussion on the role of the Metropolitan as first among equals. There was talk of conference calls to resolve issues that required input from other bishops.

3. Alaska was briefly discussed. Again no real details on the OCA website. Those interested in what is prompting this can go here.

4. The Holy Synod sent what sounded like proforma congratulations to the Russian Church on its reconciliation with the Church Abroad. Of course what the reunion portends for the future between ROCOR and the OCA remains to be seen. Sadly the two jurisdictions have at times had a very chilly relationship.

Quote of the day...

“We guarantee freedom of conscience and religion. The government shall protect canonical Orthodoxy from nationalistic expansion and legislatively forbid the work of totalitarian sects … The moral and spiritual values of the people of Ukraine shall be protected.”
- Platform of the Ukrainian Communist Party

Hat tip to The Young Fogey

Hang on...

The scene on Wall Street in October 1929

On Thursday the stock market plunged almost 400 points in growing worries over the credit bubble that has been expanding for years. This was after the European Central Bank injected well over $100 Billion and the United States Federal Reserve another $25 Billion or so into the banking system to prevent a severe crisis in credit. The latest plunge (and the extraordinary responses from the governments) came after reports surfaced that a leading French financial institution was holding a significant amount of likely bad debt traceable to the sub prime mortgage industry. Investors on both sides of the Atlantic and in Asia (the sell off was world wide) are worried that the Central Bank and the Fed know more than they are admitting. Which is to say there is likely more bad news coming down the pike. The last time there was this kind of intervention by the ECB was on 09-12-01, the day after the World Trade Center was attacked.

Oh... Friday is President Herbert Hoover's birthday.

Update: As I prepare to retire for the night reports are coming in that Asian financial markets are seeing steep sell offs in Friday morning trading. The Bank of Japan injected one trillion yen (about $8.1 billion) into the system to stabilize interest rates in short term loans between banks. The Nikkei Index (the Tokyo Stock Exchange) is down by just under 500 points or about 2.7% and the Korean Composite Stock Price Index is off by a little over 3%.

For those who like their debates HOT...

I respectfully point you to what is likely to become a very spirited (though I pray not polemic) debate over at Energetic Procession. The topic raised is in response to the recent letter from the CDF regarding non (Roman) Catholic churches. The official position is that the Orthodox Church is schismatic and therefor "deficient" or defective in some way, but we remain a "true and particular church" with "valid" sacraments. This is based on the peculiar position of the Latin Church which has to some degree separated the sacraments from The Church. That is to say they may operate independently of The Church provided "valid" apostolic lines etc. are maintained. This is quite different from the traditional Orthodox position which is that there are no Mysteries outside The Church.

Even so it is worth noting that Orthodoxy has never spoken definitely on the current nature of the Roman Church; thus the opinions expressed on this subject are essentially theologumen pending an authoritative decision. Of course this has in no way impeded the discussion of the "do Rome's sacraments retain grace or not" debate over the years. While I am not planning on joining the fray some of the points being made are bound to be worth reading for those who don't mind mind a little hot sauce on their debates.

For anyone interested in my own views they remain pretty much unchanged from what I wrote here.

A Verdict

The spiritual court trying Fr. Robert S. Kondratick the former OCA Chancellor has returned its verdict. (The announcement of the verdict was briefly delayed probably out of consideration for the recent repose of Fr. Kondratick's mother.) It was the court's recommended that he be deposed from the priesthood for his misconduct while serving as chancellor, which he continues to deny. This recommendation was confirmed by the Holy Synod and took effect on July 31 2007. While this is an important step in the process of putting the OCA's house in order, it is also a very sad and even tragic moment as well. Although I have on this page been a critic of Fr. Bob's I would ask for prayers for him as he deals with this new challenge in life.

Comments Off

Moscow-Rome detente

Relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church continue to warm. Among the signs of the improving relations two stand out. The first (via Rocco Palmo) is that the Russian Orthodox Church is planning a symposium this fall on Pope +Benedict's encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est. The second is that Cardinal Roger Etchegaray the vice dean of the College of Cardinals, has been quoted in the Russian news service Interfax affirming progress towards the long rumored meeting between the Pope and Patriarch +Alexeii of Moscow. While care was taken to make it clear that no meeting is imminent the very fact that there has been talk of a meeting from high level officials of the Roman Church without swift and heated denials from Moscow suggests that things are at least moving.

What's wrong with these pictures?

These pictures (originally posted at Rorate Caeli) are from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Poland.

Economics and the Gold Standard

I enthusiastically refer the reader to the posted proposals for the reform of our economy (and society) posted by Owen the Ochlophobist. I am on board with most of them and really only object to one, his proposal to return the currency to the Gold Standard.

I used to be a huge fan of gold as a store of value to back money. However, over time I have come to the unhappy conclusion that an inflexible currency is a bad idea. It was almost certainly a contributing factor to the severity of the depression in the early 30's when the Hoover Administration refused to take the country off the GS. As the economic crisis gathered steam most people sought something safe to put their money in and gold was an obvious choice. Since money was backed by gold what happened is that people began to sit on their money. Thats not something you want happening in a period of economic trouble.

After the Bank of England took the pound off the GS in 1931 a run on currency occurred in the United States where money was still backed by specie. President Hoover was confronted with a major choice. He either had to take the country off the GS or sharply curtail the supply of money to prevent the out flow of specie. The alternative was to watch our nations gold reserves disappear, and with it our limited supply of money which was being hoarded. Unfortunately he chose to exert pressure on the Federal Reserve to tighten the amount of money in circulation. Interest rates were raised drastically and credit all but disappeared. The result was that what in the summer of 1931 was a serious economic crisis had by the summer of 1932 become a full blown catastrophe of epic proportions.

More than a few people today continue to feel that reviving the GS is a good idea. At least one candidate for president (Ron Paul) is a strong supporter of it. And as I said I was once an enthusiastic believer. But almost no serious economists believe it's a good idea anymore. A short and fairly readable (you won't need a PHD in economics) essay against the Gold Standard can be found here.