Part One
1. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all Ages. Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the Heavens and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became Man.
And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, He suffered and was buried.
And on the third day He arose, according to the Scriptures.
And ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.
And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; Who spake through the Prophets.
In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.
2. In addition to this, I embrace and accept the Holy Seven Œcumenical Synods, convened for the purpose of safeguarding the Orthodox dogmas of the Church, and the local Synods that they endorsed and confirmed.
3. I espouse all of the definitions of the right Faith set forth by the Holy Fathers, under the guidance of the illuminating Grace of the All-Holy Spirit, as well as the Sacred Canons, which those blessed men handed down to the Church for the governance of the Holy Church of Christ and the good ordering of morals, composing them in accordance with the Apostolic Traditions and the intent of the Divine teaching of the Gospels.
4. All that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox professes and teaches, this do I, too, profess and believe, adding nothing, subtracting nothing, changing nothing, either of the dogmas or the traditions, but abiding by these and accepting them with fear of God and in good conscience; all that She condemns as heterodox teaching and repudiates, this do I, too, condemn and repudiate forever.
5. I offer ready obedience in ecclesiastical matters to the Holy Synod, as the highest authority of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, which constitutes the continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in Greece, and to the canonical Bishops and Presbyters under Her, and which is in communion of Faith and of the Mysteries with the local Genuine Orthodox Churches everywhere.
6. I believe and confess that the Orthodox Faith is not “of men,” but derives from the revelation of Jesus Christ, preached by the Holy Apostles, confirmed by the Holy Œcumenical Synods, handed down by the most wise Œcumenical Teachers, and authenticated by the blood of the Holy Martyrs.
7. I accept, along with the decisions of the Holy Seven Œcumenical Synods, those of the First-Second Synod of 861; in addition to these, I unwaveringly espouse the decisions of the Holy Synod convened by St. Photios in Constantinople, in 879-880, as well as the Synodal Tome of the Synod of Blachernae in Constantinople, in 1351, at the time of St. Gregory Palamas and the Holy Patriarch Kallistos I, in the firm belief that these Synods possess Œcumenical and Catholic validity and authority in the Orthodox Church.
8. Moreover, I give assent and credence to the decisions of the Holy Pan-Orthodox Synods convened in 1583, 1587, and 1593, which abhorred and condemned the introduction into the Orthodox Church of the so-called Gregorian (New) Calendar promulgated by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.
9. In furtherance thereof, I accept and acknowledge as Œcumenical and Catholic documents of the Orthodox Faith both the Patriarchal Tome of 1756 concerning Baptism of the heterodox and the Synodal Encyclical of 1848 of the Most Holy Patriarchs of the East, as well as the Synodal Decree of 1872, which condemned phyletism, and also the Synodal Encyclical Epistle of 1895, which constitutes the final Genuine Orthodox Ecclesiological Proclamation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople prior to its entrance into Ecumenist Apostasy.
Part Two
1. I regard ecumenism as a syncretistic pan-heresy, and participation in the so-called ecumenical movement, which was inaugurated at the beginning of the twentieth century, as a denial of the genuine Catholicity and uniqueness of the Orthodox Church, firmly believing that one who agrees with and participates in any heresy whatsoever is lapsed in the Truth of the Faith and the Unity of the Church, and is, as a result, out of communion with Genuine Orthodoxy, since “those who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ either” (St. Gregory Palamas), as being deprived of Her sanctifying and deifying Grace.
2. Likewise, I reject and in no way accept the 1920 Proclamation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere,” on the ground that it contains a complete plan for implementing the heresy of ecumenism in practice and that it anticipates the calendar reform prepared by the so-called Pan-Orthodox Congress of 1923 and put into effect in Greece in 1924, thereby violating the decisions of the three Pan-Orthodox Synods of the sixteenth century..
3. In consequence of the foregoing, I also regard those Orthodox who took part in the foundation of the World Council of Churches in 1948 and who since then have been active and functioning members thereof, thus cultivating inter-Christian and interfaith ecumenism, as lapsed in the Faith.
4. I reject and in no way endorse the so-called Pan-Orthodox Consultations (1961 to the present), which facilitated the reprehensible, invalid, and meaningless “Lifting of the Anathemas Between the Eastern and the tern Church” in 1965, which, moreover, introduced also the lifting in practice of non-communion in prayer and the mysteries between Ecumenists of many different stripes, and which have since then been paving the way, from an ecumenist perspective, for the convocation of the so-called Great Pan-Orthodox Synod, with a view to the complete acceptance, ratification, and dogmatization of the syncretistic heresy of ecumenism.
5. Finally, I accept the Synodal Decisions of the local Genuine Orthodox Churches, which condemned syncretistic ecumenism: that is, those of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (1983), of the [Genuine Orthodox] Church of Greece (1998), and of [the Genuine Orthodox Church of] Romania, at the same time deeming those who have co-signed ecumenist declarations, and also those who in any way commune with them—clergy and laity—or who accept, or tolerate, or are indifferent to, the outlook of their Ecumenist Shepherds, as being fallen, with them, from the Genuine Orthodox Church.
(Approved by the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of May 13/26, 2016)
•
Dogmatic and Canonical Issues
•
I. Basic Ecclesiological Principles
II. Ecumenism: A Syncretistic Panheresy
III. Sergianism: An Adulteration of Canonicity
IV. So-Called Official Orthodoxy
V. The True Orthodox Church
VI. The Return to True Orthodoxy
VII. Towards the Convocation of a Major Synod of the True Orthodox Church
June 2014
A text drawn up by the
True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Romania
and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
The True Orthodox Church
and the Heresy of Ecumenism
Dogmatic and Canonical Issues
I. Basic Ecclesiological Principles
The True Orthodox Church has, since the preceding twentieth century, been struggling steadfastly in confession against the ecclesiological heresy of ecumenism[1] and, as well, not only against the calendar innovation that derived from it, but also more generally against dogmatic syncretism,[2] which, inexorably and methodically cultivating at an inter-Christian[3] and inter-religious[4] level, in sundry ways and in contradiction to the Gospel, the concurrency, commingling, and joint action of Truth and error, Light and darkness, and the Church and heresy, aims at the establishment of a new entity, that is, a community without identity of faith, the so-called body of believers.
* * *
• In Her struggle to confess the Faith, the True Orthodox Church has applied, and continues to embrace and apply, the following basic principles of Orthodox ecclesiology:[5]
1. The primary criterion for the status of membership in the Church of Christ is the “correct and saving confession of the Faith,”[6] that is, the true, exact and anti-innovationist Orthodox Faith, and it is “on this rock” (of correct confession) that the Lord has built His Holy Church.[7]
2. This criterion is valid both for individual persons or believers and for entire local Churches.
3. The Catholicity of the Church of Christ, always with respect to Her Uniqueness, Holiness, and Apostolicity,[8] is Her qualitative and internal,[9] and not quantitative and external, hallmark;[10] it is Her fundamental attribute, which expresses, on the one hand, the integrity and the fullness of the Truth that She preaches, independently of Her demographic and geographical dimensions, and, on the other hand, the authenticity and completeness of the means provided for the healing and deification of fallen human nature.
4. It is on the basis of this correct confession that the Mysteriological (“Sacramental”) communion[11] of the faithful with Christ, and between one another, is founded, as a consummation of existing unity in faith, as a goal and an end, and not as a means to the attainment of this unity; that is to say, unity in correct confession is prior and communion in the Mysteries subsequent.
5. All pious Christians who hold to an Orthodox confession, if they are to be living members of the Church, ought without fail to be in Mysteriological communion with each other, since communion in Faith and communion in the Mysteries (“Sacraments”), indissolubly bound together in the life of the faithful, reify and establish the one and unique Body of Christ.
6. Unshakable abidance in correct confession, as well as the defense thereof at all costs, is a matter of the utmost soteriological[12] importance, and it is for this reason that our Holy Fathers valiantly confessed and defended our Holy Orthodox Faith in word and deed and with their blood, doing so on behalf of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in the name of Her very existence.
7. All those who preach or act contrary to correct confession are separated, as heretics, from the Truth of the Faith and are excluded from communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, be they individual persons or communities, even if they continue to function formally and institutionally as putative Churches and are addressed as such.
• “Those who do not belong to the Truth do not belong to the Church of Christ either; and all the more so, if they speak falsely of themselves by calling themselves, or calling each other, holy pastors and hierarchs; [for it has been instilled in us that] Christianity is characterized not by persons, but by the truth and exactitude of Faith” (St. Gregory Palamas).[13]
8. The unity of the Church in the Truth of the Faith and in communion of the Mysteries, bestowed from on high from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, is assuredly Christocentric and Eucharistic, and is experienced as a perennial assemblage and concelebration in space and time “with all the Saints,”[14] since it has as its guarantor the Orthodox (right-believing) Bishop, the bearer—by Divine Grace—of the “tradition of the Truth” (St. Irenæus of Lugdunum [Lyon]).[15]
9. Each Orthodox Bishop, as a “sharer in the ways and successor to the thrones” of the Holy Apostles, as Father of the Eucharistic Synaxis, as a Teacher of the Gospel of Truth, as a Servant (Minister) of love in truth, in the image and place of Christ, thus expresses, embodies, and safeguards the perennial Catholicity of the Church, that is, Her unity with Christ and, at the same time, Her unity in Christ with all of the local Churches which have existed, exist, and will exist as the One Body of Christ.
• “What is the ‘one body’? The faithful everywhere in the world who are, were, and will be” (St. John Chrysostomos).[16]
10. Every Bishop who proclaims “heresy publicly” and “barefacedly in Church”[17] and who teaches “another Gospel than that which we have received”[18] or is in syncretistic communion with those of other beliefs or religions, doing so persistently and continually, becomes a “false bishop and a false teacher” (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod), while those Bishops who commune with him, indifferent towards, tolerating, or accepting his mentality and these actual declarations of his, “are destroyed together with him” (St. Theodore the Studite), thereby ceasing to be canonical[19] or in communion[20] with the Church, since the Catholicity of the Church, Her unity, and Her genuine Apostolic Succession, which unfailingly guarantee the Bishop’s status as canonical and in communion with the Church, are founded on, flow from, and are safeguarded by the “correct and salvific confession of the Faith.”
II. Ecumenism: A Syncretistic Panheresy
1. Ecumenism, as a theological concept, as an organized social movement, and as a religious enterprise, is and constitutes the greatest heresy of all time and a comprehensive[21] panheresy;[22] the heresy of heresies and the pan-heresy of pan-heresies; an amnesty for all heresies, truly and veritably a pan-heresy; the most insidious adversary of the local Orthodox Churches, as well as the most dangerous enemy of man’s salvation in Christ, since it is impossible for Truth and Life in Christ to exist in unbreakable soteriological unity within its syncretistic boundaries.
2. Ecumenism came forth from the Protestant world (in the nineteenth century and onwards) and fosters the relativization[23] of truth, life, and salvation in Christ, in essence denying the Catholicity and uniqueness of the Church, since at its base there lie both the erroneous theory of an “invisible Church” with vague boundaries, members of which can supposedly belong to different “Confessions,” and a variant of this, that is, the so-called “branch theory,” according to which the different Christian “Confessions” are allegedly branches of the same tree of the Church, each branch possessing part of the Truth and thus putatively together constituting the whole of the Church.
3. In spite of the variety of theories that ecumenism has produced, its basic aim is the cultivation of syncretistic coexistence (concurrency) and coöperation (joint action)—but also, beyond that, of a fusion—initially of all Christian creeds and “Confessions” (inter-Christian ecumenism), and subsequently of all religions (interfaith ecumenism), that is, [the cultivation] of an approach contrary to the Gospel, leading inevitably to the establishment of a body of believers, a kind of pan-religion, which would pave the way for the advent of the tribulation of the last times, namely, the era of the “lawless one,”[24] the Antichrist.
4. By reason of its syncretistic character, ecumenism is closely akin to Freemasonry, which promotes itself as religiously tolerant, convivial, and open-minded towards heresies and religions, having proved to be, in practice, a religion—indeed, a super-religion—contributing directly and indirectly to the advancement of the ecumenist vision; that is, to the creation of an all-inclusive platform for every creed and religion, wherein revealed Truth will have been completely relativized and put on the same level as every human and demonic delusion and belief.
5. Ecumenism began to assail the Orthodox Catholic Church[25] with the sunset of the nineteenth century, through a Synodal Proclamation, in 1920, from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” It constitutes, by common consent, the “founding charter of ecumenism,” which it preaches “barefacedly,” since it characterizes the heresies of the West and everywhere else as, supposedly, “venerable Christian Churches,” no longer as “strangers and foreigners,” but as “kith and kin in Christ and ‘as fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, [and partakers of] the promise of God in Christ,’”[26] proposing, indeed, as the first step towards its implementation the use of a common calendar for the simultaneous concelebration of feasts by the Orthodox and the heterodox.
6. By way of implementing this ecumenist proclamation, following the uncanonical decisions of the anti-Orthodox Congress of Constantinople in 1923, what was essentially the so-called Gregorian [Papal] Calendar was adopted, as a soi-disant “Corrected (Revised) Julian Calendar,” even though, as soon as it originally appeared in the West (in 1582), the former was censured and condemned as a calamitous Papal innovation by three Pan-Orthodox Synods in the East (in 1583, 1587, and 1593), the decisions of which remain in force and weigh heavily upon those innovators who are in schism.
7. The calendar innovation, introduced in 1924 into the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Church of Romania, and later, gradually, into the other local Churches, conflicts with the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church, both in the manner of its implementation (unilaterally and uncanonically) and in terms of its purpose (ecumenistic and syncretistic), thereby assailing with a mortal blow the external manifestation and expression of the One Body of the Church throughout the world, which is also reified by way of a uniform Festal Calendar.
8. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, by means of Her supreme Synodal authority, expressed Her abiding and unchangeable will that Her unity be likewise manifested through the common celebration by all Christians of the greatest of the Feasts, namely, Holy Pascha [improperly called “Easter” in the West—trans.], decisively setting forth at the First Œcumenical Synod in 325 the eternal rule for determining Pascha, the Paschal Canon (i.e., the Paschalion).
9. This Synodal act, in essence profoundly ecclesiological and dogmatic, presupposed as the basis of what is called the determination of Holy Pascha the vernal equinox, which, as a date firmly fixed by the Church, would thenceforth be set by convention as the 21st of March by the Julian Calendar then in use, which was thereby consecrated as the Church Calendar and as the axis of the annual cycle of the Orthodox Festal Calendar. On this foundation, the harmonization of the calendars of the local Orthodox Churches, which were on different calendar systems, was gradually accomplished by the sixth century.
10. The Holy Fathers of the First Œcumenical Synod in Nicæa gave expression by Divine inspiration, but also prophetically, to the anti-syncretistic spirit of the Church: by “not keeping feast with the Jews” and, by extension, not aspiring to concelebrate with heretics, the external and visible unity of the one Body of the Church was preserved and the boundaries between Truth and heresy established, wholly in contrast, let it be said, to the reprehensible calendar reform of 1924, which aimed at concelebration with the heterodox of pan-heretical Papism and Protestantism, for the purpose of making visible the putative invisible unity that existed between them and Orthodoxy.
11. The Orthodox ecumenists,[27] and especially the more extreme among them, having suffered the pernicious effects of corrosive syncretism, think that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ has, supposedly, lost Her Catholicity, by reason of theological and cultural conflicts and divisions; they propose and aim at its reconstitution by way of a union by compromise of the divided parties, Orthodox and heretics, which would supposedly restore Eucharistic communion, without, of course, a common confession of Faith, evidently in line with the model of the Unia. Other, more moderate ecumenists are content to number the heterodox among the Orthodox, speaking “on behalf of the whole Body of the Church,” the heterodox supposedly being within the boundaries of the Church, since these ecumenists, as advocates of the “broad Church” or the “Church in a broad or in the widest sense,” do not deem the charismatic and canonical boundaries of the Church[28] equivalent, inasmuch as they find and acknowledge the existence of “Churches” and “Divine Grace” and “salvation” even outside the confines of the Truth and the True Orthodox Church (ecclesia extra ecclesiam, extra muros [a church outside the Church, outside the walls (of the Church)]).
12. The participation of the Orthodox ecumenists in the so-called World Council of Churches (1948 and on), and also in other ecumenist organizations, constitutes a denial in practice of the Orthodox Church as the fullness of Truth and salvation in Christ, insofar as a basic precondition for organizational participation in such inter-Confessional bodies is, in essence, the denial, albeit tacit, of the existence of authentic ecclesiastical Catholicity today, as well as a recognition of the necessity of reconstituting a putatively genuine Catholicity, that is, of the necessity, supposedly, of re-founding the Church.
13. At the core of these un-Orthodox and totally newfangled conceptions are so-called “Baptismal theology,” dogmatic syncretism, the abolition of the “boundaries” of the Church, the recognition of “ecumenical brotherhood,” the theory of “Sister Churches” [that is, of non-Orthodox Churches as “Sister Churches”—trans.], the so-called “theology of the two lungs of the Church,” the theory of the “one broad Church,” the “transcending of ancient heresiology,” in addition to sundry other misbeliefs that have gradually led the Orthodox ecumenists to a denial of the ecclesiological and soteriological exclusivity of the Orthodox Church and even to a synodal recognition of heterodox communities and their mysteries; to joint prayer with them and, indeed, at the very highest levels, to offering them the Mysteries; to the signing of joint statements and declarations towards a common witness with them; and, as well, to an acknowledgement of the need for common service to the world, as allegedly jointly responsible (Orthodoxy and heresy) for its salvation.
14. By means of all of these things, there has been a complete distortion of the meaning of evangelical love, exercised in the Truth and through the Truth; a profound and ever-deepening syncretistic hobnobbing has taken root; in the name of a spurious form of œconomy, an attitude of inclusivity and reciprocity towards heterodoxy is maintained; [and] there has come forth a mixture of things unmixable; there has emerged a truly substantial union between ecumenists of every stripe, a body of believers, not, of course, in the unique Truth of the Orthodox Catholic Church, but on the basis of a nebulous humanistic vision, without any missionary dimension or any calling of those in error to a return in repentance to the House of the Father, that is, to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
III. Sergianism: An Adulteration of Canonicity
1. Another phenomenon and movement akin to ecumenism, likewise possessing an ecclesiological dimension, is so-called Sergianism, which, in the unprecedented circumstances of the persecution of the Church in the former Soviet Union, through the agency of the fallen and compromised Sergius Stragorodsky (†1944), originally Metropolitan, and later Patriarch, of Moscow, surrendered to the atheistic Bolsheviks and their struggle against God an outwardly proper Church organization, so that, in the hands of the revolutionaries, it could become an unwitting tool in their unrelenting warfare against the very Church Herself, as the Bearer of the fullness of Truth in Christ.
2. Sergianism is not simply a Soviet phenomenon, for it caused severe damage to the local Orthodox Churches in the countries of Eastern Europe, where, after the Second World War, atheistic and anti-Christian Communist régimes were established.
3. The quintessence of Sergianism is the adoption of the delusion that deception could be used as a means to preserve the Тruth and, likewise, that collaboration with the enemies and persecutors of the Church was the way to ensure Her survival; in practice, however, the exact opposite occurred: the Sergianist Bishops became tools of the atheistic Communists for the purpose of exercising control over the Church, to the end of Her moral and spiritual enfeeblement and with a view to Her ultimate dismantlement and annihilation.
4. At the level of ecclesiology, Sergianism completely distorted the concept of Orthodox ecclesiastical canonicity, since in the realm of Sergianism, canonicity was essentially torn away from the spirit and the Truth of the authentic canonical tradition of the Church, assuming thereby a formal adherence to legitimacy, which could be used to justify any act of lawlessness committed by the ruling Hierarchy; in fact, ultimately, such a veneer of canonicity degenerated into an administrative technique for the subordination of the people of the Church to the Sergianist Hierarchy, regardless of the direction in which it led the faithful.
5. After the collapse of the anti-Christian régimes around the end of the preceding twentieth century, the very grave ecclesiological deviation of Sergianism, under the new conditions of political freedom, was preserved as a legacy of the past and, at the same time, changed its form.
6. Anti-Ecclesiastical Sergianism, having long ago incorporated within itself a worldly spirit, unscrupulousness, deception, and a pathological servility towards the powerful of this world, continues to betray the Church, now no longer for fear of reprisals from atheistic rulers, but for the sake of self-serving and secularist motives and under the cloak of supposed canonicity, still peddling the freedom of the Church in exchange for gaining the friendship of the powerful of this world, with all of the concomitant material benefits and, to be sure, prestigious social status.
7. Today, the virus of Sergianism, in this modified form, as neo-Sergianism or post-Sergianism, and also in other forms of state control over the Churches, affects to some degree a large part of the Episcopate of the official local Orthodox Churches around the world, thereby contributing to the promotion of an equally secularist and syncretistic ecumenism, under the cover of a false canonicity.
* * *
8. The faithful, both clergy and laity, who possess a healthy dogmatic and canonical conscience ought to maintain an authentic Patristic stand in the face of phenomena and movements that have ecclesiological and soteriological significance, such as ecumenism and Sergianism, and especially when these phenomena become systematically entrenched and widely disseminated, even if they do not achieve a clear doctrinal expression, yet penetrate and spread into the Body of the Church in an insidious and corrosive manner; that is, when they are actively adopted or passively allowed by all of the Bishops of one or more local Churches.
9. In such cases, the essence of the struggle against these anti-Evangelical, anti-Orthodox, and degenerative phenomena is not simply and solely an optional stand in the context of some putative œconomy, but there is, rather, an obligation to terminate forthwith ecclesiastical communion with a Bishop or a Hierarchy that introduces heresy into the Church in a conciliar manner, either by preaching it or by contributing to its dissemination through silence, passivity, or indifference (Canon XV of the First-Second Synod).
10. Walling off from fallen Shepherds, who are henceforth characterized as “false bishops” and “false teachers,” is a binding obligation for true Orthodox in a time of heresy, for the safeguarding of the uniqueness, unity, and Catholicity of the Church, for a confessional witness to the Faith, and also for a saving call to repentance, missionary in nature, directed towards those who have deviated and those who commune with them.
IV. So-Called Official Orthodoxy
1. The meaning of the term “official Orthodoxy” is closely connected with the concepts of “official Church” and “official local Churches.”
2. “Official Orthodoxy” is that peculiar ideology of the so-called official local Churches, representative of an ever more lukewarm Orthodoxy,[29] which, through the implementation of the ecclesiological and canonical innovations envisaged by the aforementioned Patriarchal Proclamation of 1920, has been led into a gradual estrangement from authentic Orthodoxy.
3. In 1924, the first major step towards the implementation of this premeditated and methodical alienation from authentic Orthodoxy was accomplished through the introduction of the Papal calendar into some of the local Churches, which in time was expanded to the point of acceptance, in certain cases, even of the Papal Paschalion, in open violation of the Decree of the First Œcumenical Synod.
4. “Official Church” is the name given by the faithful of the Russian Catacomb Church to the State Church, that is, the Church recognized by, and totally dependent on, the atheistic Soviet régime, which evolved into the notoriously Sergianist and ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate.
5. Today, the terms “official Church” and “official local Churches” denote the well-known historically formed local Churches, whose Hierarchical leadership officially accepts and participates synodally in the ecumenical movement, promotes, permits, or tolerates it as a theological concept and as a religious enterprise, hides under the cloak of supposed canonicity, as understood by Sergianism, and adopts—directly or indirectly—many other forms of apostasy from Orthodoxy (see such corrosive phenomena as the adulteration of the Mysteries, and especially of the rite of Baptism, liturgical reforms under the guise of “liturgical renewal,” the newly minted “post-Patristic theology,” which at an official level is effecting a profound infiltration of syncretistic ecumenism into university theological schools in particular, the loss of ecclesiastical criteria for the Glorification of Saints, various forms of secularization and alteration of the authentic ethos of the Church, the adoption of an anti-Patristic interpretation of ecclesiastical œconomy, etc.).
6. All of these so-called official Churches have now joined decisively, unwaveringly, and unrepentantly in the process of syncretistic apostasy of a Sergianist and ecumenist kind, an anti-ecclesiastical and uncanonical process synodally promoted or permitted by their Hierarchies, with which the True Orthodox Church, consistent with its ecclesiological principles regarding “false bishops” and “false teachers,” cannot have any prayerful, Mysteriological, or administrative communion whatsoever.
V. The True Orthodox Church
1. The True Orthodox Church includes within Her bosom and unites in the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit that major portion of the pious clergy and laity of the local Orthodox Churches who have reacted resolutely to the proclamation of the “ecclesiocidal” heresy of ecumenism and to its immediate practical applications, as well as to anti-ecclesiastical Sergianism, severing all communion with the innovating ecumenists and the Sergianists.
2. The faithful upholders in Russia of the legacy of the most holy Patriarch Tikhon (†1925) did not recognize the established Church or Sergianism (1927 and on), preferring to undergo persecutions and to take refuge in the catacombs, thereby showing forth Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith, while another part, which departed from Russia and formed an ecclesiastical administration in the diaspora, produced equally resplendent Confessors and Saintly figures, of worldwide reputation and distinction.
3. In Greece, Romania, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and elsewhere, close-knit groups of people rejected the calendar innovation of 1924 and the heresy of ecumenism, likewise preferring persecutions and producing Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith, thereby showing themselves faithful to the sacred Traditions of the Holy Fathers of the Church. In addition, through impressive and wondrous miracles, such as the appearance of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross in Athens (September 14, 1925 [Old Style]), our Lord encouraged and rewarded the Godly zeal of these, His genuine children.
4. After the introduction of the calendar innovation in Greece in 1924, those who abided by the Traditions of the Fathers began using the title “True Orthodox Christians,” and the Catacomb Orthodox Christians in Russia, the so-called Tikhonites, did the same.[30]
5. However, from place to place and from time to time various other appellations were used for those who rejected the calendar innovation of 1924 and the heresy of ecumenism, but who have also always situated themselves within the boundaries of the authentic mind and Evangelical ethos of the Church and, in addition, of lawful and canonical order,[31] possessing genuine and uninterrupted Apostolic Succession, and who assuredly in their totality make up the True Orthodox Church, which constitutes, in the wake of the constantly increasing departure of the ecumenists from the path of Truth, the authentic continuator of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in our contemporary era.
6. The Episcopal structure that is dogmatically necessary for the constitution and continuation of the local True Orthodox Churches was ensured, by the Grace of God, either by Hierarchs from among the innovators (New Calendarists) joining them, following a confession of Orthodoxy, of course, or by the Consecration of Bishops by a True Orthodox ecclesiastical authority in the diaspora, having indisputable Apostolic Succession, and thus the Apostolic Succession and canonicity of the True Orthodox Church is proven and assured, unquestionable and incontrovertible, and confirmed by signs from God.
VI. The Return to True Orthodoxy
1. In the acceptance[32] of repentant heretics and schismatics, the Œcumenical and local Synods of the Church have, from time to time, in addition to the principle of exactitude, applied the so-called principle of œconomy, to wit, a canonical and pastoral[33] practice, according to which it is possible for there to be a temporary divergence from the letter of the Sacred Canons, without violating their spirit.
2. Nevertheless, œconomy assuredly can never and in no circumstance whatever permit the pardoning of any sin or any compromise concerning the “correct and saving confession of the Faith,”[34] since œconomy aims clearly and solely, in a spirit of charitable accommodation, at facilitating the salvation of souls, for whom Christ died.
3. The application of œconomy in the reception of heretics and schismatics into communion with the Church in no way betokens that the Church acknowledges the validity and the reality of their mysteries, which are celebrated outside Her canonical and charismatic boundaries.[35]
4. The Holy Orthodox Church has never recognized—in an absolute sense and, as it were, from a distance—either by exactitude or by œconomy, mysteries performed outside Her,[36] since those who celebrate or who partake of these mysteries remain within the bosom of their heretical or schismatic community.
5. Through the application of œconomy exclusively and solely in the reception of individual persons or communities outside Her in repentance,[37] the Orthodox Church accepts merely the external form of the mystery of heretics or schismatics—provided, of course,[38] that this has been preserved unadulterated, especially as regards Baptism—but endows this form with life through the Grace of the Holy Spirit that exists in Her by means of the bearers of Her fullness in the Truth of Christ, namely, Orthodox Bishops.
6. More specifically, with regard to the Mysteries celebrated in the so-called official Orthodox Churches, the True Orthodox Church does not provide assurance[39] concerning their validity or concerning their soteriological efficacy, in particular for those who commune “knowingly” [wittingly][40] with syncretistic ecumenism and Sergianism, even though She does not in every instance repeat their external form for those entering into communion with Her in repentance, in anticipation of the convocation of a Major Synod of True Orthodoxy, in order to place a seal on what has already occurred at a local level.[41]
7. It is in any event certain that when the purity of the dogma of the Church is assailed and the irrefragable bond between confession, Catholicity, and communion is thereby weakened or even completely broken, the Mysteriological and soteriological consequences, clearly foreseen by the Apostolic, Patristic, and Synodal Tradition, are very serious and very grave.[42]
8. Taking into account that St. Basil the Great, although he declares himself in favor of exactitude, nonetheless accepts the use of œconomy with regard to certain heretics and schismatics (First Canon), it is important to note that the Holy Orthodox Church has synodally sanctioned the use of œconomy for “those who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved,” as is evident in the famous Canon XCV of the Holy and Œcumenical Quinisext Synod (the Synod in Trullo), whereby different heretics and schismatics are accepted in a variety of ways, whether solely through repentance, a certificate of faith (λίβελλος), and Confession, as are the Nestorians and Monophysites who were already condemned centuries before, through Chrismation, or through Baptism.
* * *
9. In awareness of all the foregoing, and of the particular conditions in each local Church, the True Orthodox Church deals with especial care with any clergy or laity from the so-called official Orthodox Churches who desire to enter into communion with Her, being concerned—in the exercise by Her of pastoral solicitude for them—about what is absolutely essential, namely, that they proceed in their choice freely, conscientiously, and responsibly.
10. As a general rule, monastics and laity from these Churches, who have definitely been baptized according to the Orthodox rite,[43] are received into communion through anointing (Χρῖσμα) by means of a special order, in conjunction, to be sure, with the Mystery of sacred Confession, while clergy submit a written petition and, as long as this is approved, are received into communion in the same way, and also through a special Order of the Imposition of Hands (Χειροθεσία), specifically compiled for such cases.
11. It is understood that, commensurate with idiosyncrasies in different places and in different cases, for the application of a more lenient or a stricter order, a decision is to be made by the local Bishop on the basis of synodally determined criteria or by a competent Synod, according to St. Cyprian of Carthage:
• “In this matter we do not coerce or impose a law on anyone, since every Prelate has freedom of will in the administration of the Church and will have to account for his actions before the Lord.”[44]
12. A Major General Synod, of Pan-Orthodox authority, would be able to decree the general criteria and the preconditions for the exercise of the practice of receiving those who return to the True Orthodox Church from various newfangled schismatic and heretical communities.
VII. Towards the Convocation of a Major Synod of the True Orthodox Church
1. In the preceding twentieth century, True Orthodox Hierarchs, whenever this could be brought to fruition, issued Synodal condemnations, at a local level, both of ecumenism and of Sergianism, and also of Freemasonry.
2. By way of example, we cite the condemnations of ecumenism by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1983, and also by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece in 1998; as well, the condemnation of Sergianism by the Catacomb Church in Russia, and also by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad at different times; and finally, the condemnation of Freemasonry by the Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece in 1988.[45]
3. These Synodal censures, especially of the heresy of ecumenism, are assuredly important steps in the right direction towards the convocation of a General Synod of True Orthodox, which, with expanded authority, will arrive at decisions concerning the calendar innovation and syncretistic ecumenism, which contradicts the Gospel.
4. What is necessary today, on the basis of a common and correct confession of the Faith, is the union in a common Body of all the local Churches of the True Orthodox, for the purpose of creating the antecedent conditions for assembling and convoking a Major General Synod of these Churches, Pan-Orthodox in scope and authority, in order to deal effectively with the heresy of ecumenism, as well as syncretism in its divers forms, and also for the resolution of various problems and issues of a practical and pastoral nature, which flow therefrom and which concern the life of the Church in general, and of the faithful in particular, so that the bond of peace and love in Christ might be ensured.
5. This necessity becomes comprehensible from the fact that the True Church, as the actual Body of Christ, is by Her very nature Catholic in the fullness of Truth, Grace, and salvation, and that through Her Bishops She puts forth Synodal declarations in the face of heterodox teachings and the global scandal that derives therefrom; thus, She ought to pursue, on the one hand, the articulation of the Truths of the Faith, for the delineation of the Truth in contrast to falsehood, and on the other hand, the denunciation and condemnation of the error and corruption that stem from heresy and heretics, for the protection of the Flock, confirming and proclaiming the already existing degradation of heretics.
6. Thus, in a Major General Synod of the True Orthodox Church it is necessary that there be proclaimed to all of creation, on the one hand, the Sole Hope that exists among us in the True Church as the only way out of all impasses “for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation,”[46] and, on the other hand, the complete and definitive antithesis between Orthodoxy and syncretism of an ecumenist and a Sergianist bent as mutually exclusive, unto the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the intercessions of the Mother of God, the Apostles, and the Fathers.
7. May we be counted worthy, in the near future, following the Holy Fathers and the Holy Synods, preserving free from innovation the Faith once for all delivered to us,[47] to proclaim, with the Fathers of the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1848:
“‘Let us hold fast the Confession’[48] which we have received unadulterated..., abhorring every novelty as a suggestion of the Devil. He who accepts a novelty reproaches with deficiency the Orthodox Faith that has been preached. But this Faith has long since been sealed in completeness, not admitting either diminution or increase, or any alteration whatsoever; and he who dares to do, advise, or think of such a thing has already denied the faith of Christ.”[49]
X
Unto the Bestower of the Beginning and the End,
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
the one Godhead of All,
be glory, dominion, and honor,
now and ever,
and unto the infinite ages of ages.
Amen!
[1] “Ecumenism”: the terms “ecumenism” and “ecumenical movement” are derived from the Greek word Οἰκουμένη, which is based on the words οἶκος (house) and οἰκῶ (I inhabit). • The word οἰκουμενικός, -ή, -όν was introduced into ecclesiastical parlance in the era of the Fathers with an Orthodox meaning (Œcumenical Synod, Œcumenical Father, the Œcumenical Symbol of Faith, etc.). • In the twentieth century, there appeared the technical terms “ecumenism” and “ecumenical movement,” which lack any Orthodox meaning, since they are connected with the endeavor to unify divided Christians throughout the world (the Οἰκουμένη), on the basis of an erroneous and heretical ecclesiology.
[2] “Syncretism” (συγκρητισμός): from the verb συνκρητίζω (συν-κρητίζω, Κρὴς-Κρητικός). Although they had differences among themselves, the ancient Cretans would join forces against a common enemy in times of war. • The term “syncretism” denotes a commingling of elements of differing provenance (religions, forms of worship, ideologies, doctrines, confessions, etc.) for the purpose of bringing forth something new without any real or essential union.
[3] “Inter-Christian”: that which pertains to two or more Christian Confessions, which are engaged in syncretistic dialogue for the purpose of union.
[4] “Inter-religious”: that which pertains to two or more religions, which are engaged in syncretistic dialogue for the purpose of union.
[5] “Ecclesiology”: that branch of dogmatic theology which inquires into matters pertaining to the nature and essence of the Church, as the Body of Christ.
[6] On the Life and Contest of Our Holy Father Maximos the Confessor, §24, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XC, col. 93D.
[7] Cf. St. Matthew 16:18.
[8] This reference to the Catholicity, Uniqueness, Holiness, and Apostolicity of the Church is based upon the relevant article of the Symbol of Faith: “In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” These are the principal attributes of the Orthodox Church.
[9] “Internal”: a hallmark which pertains to the inner nature or essence of the Church, Her relationship with Christ, through the Father, in the Holy Spirit.
[10] “A qualitative and internal, and not a quantitative and external, hallmark”: the point of the antitheses “qualitative-quantitative” and “internal-external” is to emphasize the qualitative dimension of Catholicity, since it is confessed in the Symbol of Faith that the True and Unique Church is Catholic, primarily because She contains the revealed Truth and the means of salvation (the qualitative and internal dimension) in their entirety, and consequently in this case the concept of the Catholicity of the Church is completely identical to the concept of Orthodoxy (right belief, right outlook [φρόνημα], right Faith).
[11] “Mysteriological (‘Sacramental’) communion”: the communion of the faithful with Christ and between one another through the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist.
[12] “Soteriology”: that branch of dogmatic theology which deals with the salvation of mankind by our Savior Jesus Christ. • “Soteriological”: that which pertains to soteriology, the salvation of mankind.
[13] “Refutation of the Letter of Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” §3, in Panagiotes K. Chrestou (ed.), Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα [The works of Gregory Palamas], Vol. II (Thessalonike: 1966), p. 627—trans.
[14] “A perennial assemblage and concelebration in space and time ‘with all the Saints’”: it has been very aptly observed that “the Divine Liturgy is the presence of our Lord Christ with all the Saints; at every Divine Liturgy Christ comes into our midst, and with Him ‘the company of the Saints is present inseparably’”; “the presence of the Triune God endows the Eucharistic Synaxis of the Church with Her true dimensions: She is a Eucharistic Œcumenical Synod, which is solemnized within the Church; the whole of creation, the visible and the invisible world, concelebrates the Eucharistic Offering and together glorifies the Triune God”; “the Divine Liturgy is a Eucharistic Œcumenical Synod”; “at the Divine Liturgy Christ is present in the midst of His Church; together with Christ are our Lady, the Theotokos, the Holy Angels, all the Saints, and our reposed and living brethren, those afar off and those near” (Hieromonk Gregorios, Ἡ Θεία Εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ Θεία Κοινωνία [The Divine Eucharist and Divine Communion] [Athens: Ekdoseis “Domos,” 2001], pp. 133 ff.).
[15] Against Heresies, III.4.1, Patrologia Græca, Vol. VII, col. 855B—trans.
[16] “Homily X on Ephesians,” §1, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LXII, col. 75—trans.
[17] Canon XV of the First-Second Synod—trans.
[18] Cf. Galatians 1:8 —trans.
[19] “Canonical”: a Bishop is, and is called, “canonical” when his Consecration, his pastoral and synodal activity, and also his mentality (φρόνημα), are consonant with the Dogmas and the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church. It is [only] in these terms that we can speak about a Bishop’s “canonicity.”
[20] “In communion with the Church”: a Bishop who is “canonical” is also “in communion with the Church”; that is, he is in communion in the Faith and in the Mysteries with the Orthodox clergy and people. It is [only] in these terms that we can speak about a Bishop being “in communion with the Church.”
[21] “Most comprehensive”: a heresy is called “comprehensive” or “most comprehensive” when it encompasses or includes a multitude of other heresies. • Anglicanism is characterized by its “comprehensiveness,” since within its fold there converges and coexists a variety of confessional and dogmatic tendencies.
[22] “Panheresy”: a heresy which encompasses all heresies.
[23] “Relativization” (σχετικοποίησις): from the verb σχετικοποιῶ: to regard something as relative, uncertain, non-absolute, changeable, transitory. • “Relativization of the truth”: a denial of the absolute Truth in Christ.
[24] II Thessalonians 2:8—trans.
[25] “Orthodox Catholic Church”: the Catholic Church is absolutely identical with the One and Unique Church, to wit, the Orthodox Church, which assuredly has no relation whatsoever with Papism, which today is commonly called the “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic Church.” • See also note 9, “A qualitative and internal, and not a quantitative and external, hallmark.”
[26] Cf. Ephesians 3:6—trans.
[27] “The Orthodox ecumenists”: ecumenists who come from the Orthodox Church and who participate, and are enrolled, in the heretical ecumenical movement.
[28] “The charismatic and canonical boundaries of the Church”: • See note 34.
[29] “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of My mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16). The word “lukewarm” does not refer, here, simply to lukewarmness of practice, but to lukewarmess in faith and dogma. Such lukewarmness in Orthodoxy assuredly constitutes heresy, since there is no middle way between Truth and falsehood, between Orthodoxy and heresy. A slight divergence from dogmatic truth is already false and heretical, and he who diverges even to the smallest extent from Orthodoxy places himself in the realm of heresy.
[30] The Tikhonites too began to use the term “True Orthodox Christians,” without having any communication with their True Orthodox brethren in Greece.
[31] “Lawful and canonical order”: that order which is in conformity with the laws of the Orthodox ecclesiastical Tradition and the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Synods. • See also note 18, “Canonical.”
[32] “Acceptance”: the acceptance of heretics means that the Church accepts within Her bosom heretics who assuredly return to Her with an acknowledgment and a spirit of repentance.
[33] “Pastoral practice”: a practice on the part of Shepherds, who care, in Christ and in the fear of God, for the salvation of the reason-endowed flock of the Church.
[34] “The correct and saving confession of the Faith”: that is, œconomy is not permitted—“there is no room for accommodation”—in what pertains to matters of Faith.
[35] “The charismatic and canonical boundaries of the Church”: the “canonical boundaries” are defined by the Dogmas and the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church (see note 18, “Canonical”), while the “charismatic boundaries” are defined chiefly by the Sacred Mysteries, through which the Grace of God acts upon the faithful. In the Orthodox Church, these two boundaries are not separated but deemed equivalent. These terms are mentioned here precisely in order to emphasize their equivalence, since the ecumenists consider the charismatic boundaries of the Church to be broader than Her canonical boundaries; that is, they recognize Mysteriological Grace also in various heretical communities (see §§II.2 and II.11 earlier on in this document).
[36] “In an absolute sense and, as it were, from a distance”: the Orthodox Church has never recognized the ontologically non-existent mysteries of heretics, either “in an absolute sense,” that is, in and of themselves (self-sufficiently and independently), or “from a distance,” that is, insofar as the heretics remain distant from Her. When, however, the purveyors of these heretical mysteries are going to enter and be united with Her Body, then the issue of their correct form arises, exclusively and solely for the sake of the Church giving content to those mysteries, which were thitherto empty and devoid of substance or Grace (see the following section VI.5 in this document).
[37] “In repentance”: reception into the Church in repentance certainly does not signify, here, the mode of reception, that is, only through the Mystery of Repentance and Confession, but refers to the spirit and disposition of a schismatic or heretic who is conscious of his error, repents, and is incorporated into the True Church.
[38] “Accepts”: the issue of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the external form of a so-called mystery of heretics or schismatics rests with the pastoral discretion of the Bishop; that is to say, such acceptance is not obligatory, but optional.
[39] “Provide assurance”: that is, assert as sure and indisputable, assert emphatically and absolutely, certify, guarantee. • The meaning of this paragraph should be sought in conjunction with that of the preceding five paragraphs, and not in isolation.
[40] “Knowingly”: the Seventh Œcumenical Synod anathematizes those who commune with heretics “knowingly,” that is, even though they realize that they are heretics.
[41] “At a local level”: by this is meant whatever has been properly and correctly done by local Synods of True Orthodox Churches. This paragraph is to be interpreted and elucidated as follows: When it so happens that the True Orthodox Church, in the case of those returning and entering into Her, does not repeat the external form of the Mysteries of the so-called official Orthodox Churches, She does not indicate thereby that She affirms their Mysteriological, internal, or soteriological validity.
[42] With regard to the innovating ecumenists, the rupture of the “bond between confession, Catholicity, and communion” mentioned here is already a fact and a reality, with all that follows therefrom.
[43] “According to the Orthodox rite”: Orthodox Baptism is performed through three immersions and emersions in a font, “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (St. Matthew 28:19).
[44] “Letter to Pope Stephen,” in Concilia ad regiam exacta, Vol. I (Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Impensis Societatis Typographicæ Librorum Ecclesiasticorum iussu Regis constitutæ, 1671), col. 741—trans.
[45] The Synodal condemnations referred to in this paragraph are, of course, already wholly worthy of honor and accepted by the True Orthodox, and form the basis for the decisions of the anticipated Major Synod.
[46] Hebrews 1:14—trans.
[47] Cf. St. Jude 1:3.
[48] “Let us hold fast the Confession” (Hebrews 4:14): let us hold fast the Confession of the Faith, “let us lay hold of it, hold it securely” (Zigabenos).
[49] “Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East to Pope Pius IX [1848],” §20, in Ioannes Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς ᾿Ορθοδόξου Καθολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας [The Dogmatic and Credal Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church], 2nd ed. (Graz: Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1968), p. 922 [1002]—trans.
A report by His Grace, Bishop Gregory of Christianoupolis given at the 5th Pan–Hellenic Clergy Synaxis
The criteria for Sainthood according to Orthodox Tradition is a sensitive issue, but it is also a key issue. The criteria are sensitive, because they are theological rather than moralist and humanist. This means that they can be distorted in ways that often are not immediately apparent. It is a key issue because the knowledge and deeper awareness of the criteria for Sainthood characterize modern man on the one hand; if one takes part in Orthodox Tradition, and on the other hand it characterizes the Church; if it is real or not.
We will develop the subject in thematic units, in order to facilitate understanding. In the first part traits or criteria for Sainthood and the presumption of Sainthood will be formulated, and in the second part, we will examine how and to what degree an Orthodox Christian can be sanctified.
Attributes or criteria of Sainthood.
The first criterion of Sainthood is that the person has joined has joined himself to the Church through Holy Baptism. We recall the passage contained in the Gospel according St. Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16) and in the Gospel according St. John: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). But there were also cases where martyrdom suffices. A “baptism of blood” was even considered a reason for Sainthood for the believers. St. John Chrysostom, referring to the martyr Lucian stresses: “Just as those who are baptized are washed in water, so those who suffer martyrdom are washed in their own blood.” (St. John Chrysostom to St. Lucian PG 50, 552).
Another criterion is the Orthodox mindset. The preservation and transmission of the Apostolic Tradition and the preservation of the legacy intact and unaltered is a crucial theme of salvation. St. Basil, in his letter to the Church of Antioch, says that he preaches only that which was received and taught by the Holy Fathers.
“As to creed, we accept no newer creed written for us by others, nor do we ourselves make bold to give out the product of our own intelligence, lest we make the words of our religion the words of man; but rather that which we have been taught by the holy Fathers do we make known to those who question us.” (St. Basil the Great, To the church of Antioch, Letter 140)
The virtuous life is also an important feature. The virtuous life is an influential catalyst in the liturgical life as a model for the fullness of the Church as a noetic compass. There are many examples of saints who imitated other saints in virtue, even in martyrdom.
Another criterion is the presence of miracles. Miracles have been recorded in the New Testament as a characteristic trait of the Apostles and generally of those who believe in Christ. The Lord, before His Ascension, addressing the Apostles gave them the power to heal the world. This is also shown in the Acts of the Apostles, starting with the Apostle Peter preaching and performing miracles.
The question arises: are miracles in and of themselves a criterion for sainthood? The answer is “no.” The words of the Lord are clear: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. 7:22–23)
Another feature is exceptional services offered to the Orthodox Church. Typical examples are St. Constantine Equal to the Apostles, who with the Edict of Milan introduced religious tolerance and stopped the persecution of Christians, and the Empress Theodora, who restored the holy icons.
Outstanding service to the Orthodox Church is not in and of itself an attribute to Sainthood. But in the case of St. Constantine there exists the visionary experience of the Holy Cross. His election by the Lord is shown by the hymn “having beheld the sign of the Cross in Heaven… Wherefore, having received the knowledge of the Spirit” and “like Paul, having received the call not from men.” The saint’s holy relics also constitute concrete evidence of Sainthood “whose reliquary doth pour forth healings.” (from the service for the Saint found in the Menaion on May 21st) Something similar happens with the relics of Saint Theodora, which is preserved in the Metropolitan church of Corfu.
Another criterion of Sainthood is incorrupt relics, which are fragrant and miraculous. Although such relics point towards Sainthood, they are not necessarily a criterion for Sainthood. In some cases, the liturgical practice proved that it can be a result of excommunication or cursedness, or disregard of the Holy Canons. A typical example is the so–called Third Synod of Moscow in 1666, in which involved five bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarch Paisios of Alexandria, Patriarch Makarios of Antioch and hierarchy from the Church of Jerusalem, Georgia and Serbia also took part in addition to the Russian hierarchs. This Synod decided:
“Let no one dare henceforth to honor and revere the bodies of the dead which even in these times are found whole and incorrupt as being holy, without a credible witness and Synodical Approval; for many bodies are found whole and un-decayed, not because of holiness, but because they were under the ban and curse of a bishop or priest when they died, or because they transgressed and despised the divine and sacred cannons, they are found whole and un-decayed.” (Delekane, Patriarchal Documents, Vol. 3 Constantinople, 1905, pp. 136-137)
Let us not give examples of modern individuals, who go around with various so–called relics of modern pseudo–saints, which they have managed to get to be fragrant and to stream myrrh by artificial means, deceiving the believers.
In summary, the traits or criteria for individuals to be canonized as saints of the Church are:
a) Holy Baptism
b) An Orthodox mindset
c) A virtuous life
d) Exceptional service and offering to the Church
e) Miracles
f) Holy Relics.
These are the attributes or criteria of Sainthood. But they are not by themselves all together or separately the criteria of Sainthood. The criterion of Sainthood is the deification of the person, that is, that the Saint has seen the glory of God and has known the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.
The God–seeing saints are characterized as kings and lords, not with the secular meaning but that they reign over their passions, which have been transformed in Christ, and have kept unchanged the likeness of the divine image. St. John of Damascus says:
“But I call gods and kings and lords, not them who are such by nature, but them who are kings and lords of the passions and have preserved the likeness of the divine image unmarred as when as I was created (for the image of the king is also called king); and being united to God by choice and having accepted Him to dwell in them through this communion they have become by grace what He is by nature.” (PG 94, 1164 b)
The God–seeing saints are united with God in soul and body. This union is not moral, psychological and communal, it is theological. This means that the grace of God passes from the soul to the body of the saint “for by the mind has God dwelt in the bodies” (PG 94 1164 c).
This explains the incorruptibility of holy relics. Death, which is found in man’s own cells, is defeated because the grace of God dwells in the nous and through the nous it passes also to the body. This also explains the boldness which the Saint has before God because he prays for those faithful who pray in repentance: “they have stood before God with boldness” (PG 94 1164–1165 d).
The relics of these Saints are alive, they are not dead, and that is why they work miracles. The saints have been united with the Cause of life, Christ Himself and they show their presence within the Church through their indestructibility, streaming of myrrh, and miracles. It would not be wrong to say that the authentic, modern missionaries who express the will of God are the holy relics of the Saints. An example of the expression of the will of God is the relics of St. Euphymia, which revealed the Orthodox Tomos to the Holy Fathers during the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451 AD) and confirmed the true Orthodox positions.
The miracles which are performed are actually God’s miracles performed through the holy relics. The reason is that God’s grace dwells within the holy relics and it enlivens them and enables them to heal diseases, and to cause temptations and demons to flee. Another reason relics are miraculous is that the faithful approach them with fervent and steadfast faith.
In conclusion, the criterion of sanctity is the deification of the person. The saint has been united with God and his holy relics remain incorruptible, fragrant and miraculous, where God wills for it to be so. But the question remains: how can we determine that a modern man meets the criteria of Sainthood which allow his classification in the choir of the Saints? Before we answer, I would like to make two points:
First point:
The first point: the Church as a body, from Apostolic Fathers and the post–Apostolic Fathers did not officially proclaim, canonize or recognize saints.
The common conscience of the fullness of the Church, based on the laity, formed an opinion and noted that the Martyr in question is a Saint. This had a local character. The living Christians knew the Martyr, the manner of his martyrdom and burial. The entombed Saint’s relics began to work miracles and then were revealed to be incorrupt, to stream myrrh or even to be fragrant depending on the situation. Then the consciousness of the people became the voice of God, the Saint’s reputation became known in neighboring churches as well until he became known as a Saint world–wide. This was done without any formality until the 11th century.
However, since that century when new persons were canonized as Saints in the conscience of the Church, either the Patriarch or the Synod took the initiative to introduce the celebration of the Saint’s memory in a more formal way throughout the Church “to the ends of the earth.” From this point in time it is suggested that the process has been influenced by the West. In 993 AD Pope John IV first canonized a Saint, and Pope Alexander III (1159–1181) argued that the canonization of a Saint is the exclusive right of the Holy See. (VERGOTI C. Hagiographical Manual Thessalonica 1992 p 134). Since that time many great Saints have been officially recognized by the Orthodox Church. However, it is noteworthy that the number of Saints that have been registered as such in the minds of the people is by far greater than those who received official conciliar recognition.
Therefore the Church, – at least for the first ten centuries – had no rite or process for canonizing Saints but left the inclusion of a person in the list of Saints of the Orthodox Church to the conscience of the Orthodox clergy and laity and then afterwards listed the true Martyrs and Saints among the Saints of the Orthodox Church.
Second point:
The Church can distinguish those points which testify with certainty that a person is a Saint, thus shows that it is a true Church. On the contrary, a Church which recognizes Saints according to moralist criteria shows that it is secularized and – intentionally or otherwise – distorts the list of Saints.
The distinction between Apostles and false–apostles, Prophets and false–prophets, the Righteous and the pseudo–righteous, Saints and pseudo–saints is a simple yet simultaneously difficult one. In this case there occurs exactly what occurs in the other sciences. That is, just as the doctor can discern the quack physician from the true physician, the architect can discern the pseudo–architect from the true architect, so the saint who has the grace of God, can discern the pseudo–saint from the true Saint. This is a simple part of the matter. The difficulty is whether we today we are holy enough to discern the Saints from the pseudo–saints.
The Church which canonizes someone as a “Saint” when they are not, thereby exhibits that it has lost of the true criteria of Orthodox spirituality. In other words it identifies Saints with non–saints; it identifies the Saints of God who heal, with the good people who follow other religions or doctrines. The experience of Orthodox spirituality is then distorted, changed or converted into a demonic spirituality with terrible consequences for man.
There are two main consequences. The first concerns the one who is honored as an alleged Saint. When one is honored as a “Saint” while he is not in fact a Saint but rather has need of the mercy of God, such a one is not helped by the faithful in our prayers. We ask for the “Saint’s” intercessions and we no longer pray for his salvation. So, rather than helping such a one, in need of God’s mercy, we deprive him of what we could offer him. The second consequence concerns the believer. The faithful then pray to a person to whom they should not pray. There is even a risk of falling into demonic situations which increase the error, and then a vicious cycle begins: while one is praying to a pseudo–saint, instead of being healed and being guided into simplicity and holiness, he becomes complex and can in extreme cases can be driven to depression, and sickness of soul.
Therefore, the canonization of a person in the list of Saints of our Church is a subject which concerns the criteria of spirituality and sanctity. We can report today on the criteria for Sainthood with relative ease, but we can just as easily gloss over the criteria of Orthodox spirituality. Can we discern a saint today? If yes, then we have the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. If not, then we are deprived of Grace, and it is advisable to direct ourselves toward Saints who have already been listed in the diptychs of our Church.
The Church is a factory which produces Saints. The Church that does not produce Saints is not a Church. The Church that produces Saints is the authentic continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The “Church” that distorts the criteria for Sainthood, distorts the list of Saints and reduces the Saints to good people, and equates Christ with every other religious leader, is not the Church of Christ.
We rejoice that even today God reveals Saints in our Church in a peaceful way. It is our consolation, stimulating and strengthening us to continue the good fight. I feel that our Holy Synod under the presidency of His Beatitude Archbishop Kallinikos of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Athens and all Greece so far has acted wisely. It allows the people and the clergy together with the Bishop to recognize contemporary Saints and to register them in the diptychs of our Church just like the early Christians. It does not making use of tactics and propaganda, but allows God to reveal His Saints. One example is St. Pachomios of Chios († 1905)
We regret however that the “official” Church today – intentionally or otherwise – has altered the criteria of Sainthood and has secularized itself to such a great degree that it has departed from the path of Orthodox Tradition. I will mention the case of Metropolitan Chrysostom (Kalaphates) of Smyrna (1867–1922), whom the “official” Church recognized him as a “saint” in 1992. This is an action which shows the degree to which they have distorted the criteria for Sainthood. Undoubtedly Chrysostom of Smyrna was an ethnomartyr. But nevertheless we cannot support his Sainthood, because he does not meet the essential criteria for Sainthood. On the one hand, there was no sign by God attesting to his sanctity, and on the other hand there are several Freemasonic publications which confirm that he was a member of a Masonic Lodge.
Another sad point is that the “official” Church keeps propagandizing new modern persons of last few decades as “Saints.” They do this through radio and television programs, brochures, books and the internet. These persons who are promoted as “Saints” have really shown in their lives they lived a spiritual life which – dare we say it – was also exemplary in certain circumstances. However, they are not Saints because there is no proof of their sanctity from God. There are no fragrant, incorrupt Holy Relics. Also, in some instances there is a question of their Confession of Faith which their lives exhibit. Therefore they have endeavored to make a Saints out of those who are simply good people. These are diversions from Orthodox Tradition and its criteria for Sainthood.
In continuation, I would like to expose some historical facts which show what point man can reach when he has separated from Orthodox Tradition and its criteria for Sainthood. Great care is also required, because the “official” Church has united itself in spirit with the Papacy and sadly – intentionally or otherwise – has corrupted and distorted what until now has been uncorrupted in the Orthodox world. The following figures show how much damage the Westerners have caused, in whom some of the hierarchy of the “official” Church today trust.
In the course of church history the first people who fought against the relics of the saints were the iconoclasts, then in continuation the Paulicians and Bogomils, who denied the incarnation of Christ, the Cross and the Holy Icons, and later the Protestants, who proclaiming that they believe in a purer and more spiritual Christianity which is closer to the dictates of the Gospel, without the “trappings” of Holy Tradition. However, they could not erase the respect and veneration for Holy Relics from the souls of the faithful.
However, the devil uses ten thousand ways to tarnish the pure feelings of the people. So, starting from Palestine and Egypt, and moving to Rome a dense network of tradesmen spread abroad who pillaged everything to buy and sell relics. The Crusaders took part in this trade as well as some monks and pseudo–monks.
What is interesting is that the Franks were trading nonexistent things like the sighs of St. Joseph the Betrothed, the tears of Christ and His footprints, and feathers from the wings of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel. In a French list from 970 AD, among the relics were the wood and other materials with which the Apostle Peter pitched the tents along with the Apostles James and John at the site of the Transfiguration, and seeds which were sowed the Gospel parable (Airgain, L ‘Hagiographe p. 190). This commerce was such that it reached the point of impiety. The records speak for themselves. There are recorded 26 heads of St. Julian, 10 of St. John the Baptist, 6 of St. Andrew and 17 hands, 30 bodies of St. Pancratios, 3 bodies and 6 heads of St. Ignatius of Antioch, even though – as is known – St. Ignatius was eaten by lions (Saints, the Friends of God P.B. Paschou p. 151).
In our days we must be especially careful, as never before. We must be a part of the factory which produces Saints, which is the Church headed by Christ and His friends, the Saints. Then we can labour correctly to treat our soul, praying that we will be able to discern a modern Saint from a pseudo–saint, and to feel the grace of God guide us unto salvation through intercessions of the All–Holy Theotokos and all the Saints.