PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 17 October at 15:17 - Around 76000 files indexed.
HERESIES, SCHISMS AND UNCANONICAL ACTS REQUIRE A LIVING SYNODICAL JUDGMENT An Introduction to Councils and Canon Law The Orthodox Church, since the time of the Holy Apostles, has resolved quarrels or problems by convening Councils. Thus, when the issue arose regarding circumcision and the Laws of Moses, the Holy Apostles met in Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter 15). The Holy Fathers thus imitated the Apostles by convening Councils, whether general, regional, provincial or diocesan, in order to resolve issues of practice. These Councils discussed and resolved matters of Faith, affirming Orthodoxy (correct doctrine) while condemning heresies (false teachings). The Councils also formulated ecclesiastical laws called Canons, which either define good conduct or prescribe the level of punishment for bad conduct. Some canons apply only to bishops, others to priests and deacons, and others to lower clergy and laymen. Many canons apply to all ranks of the clergy collectively. Several canons apply to the clergy and the laity alike. The level of authority that a Canon holds is discerned by the authority of the Council that affirmed the Canon. Some Canons are universal and binding on the entire Church, while others are only binding on a local scale. Also, a Canon is only an article of the law, and is not the execution of the law. For a Canon to be executed, the proper authority must put the Canon in force. The authority differs depending on the rank of the person accused. According to the Canons themselves, a bishop requires twelve bishops to be put on trial and for the canons to be applied towards his condemnation. A presbyter requires six bishops to be put on trial and condemned, and a deacon requires three bishops. The lower clergy and the laymen require at least one bishop to place them on ecclesiastical trial or to punish them by applying the canons to them. But in the case of laymen, a single presbyter may execute the Canon if he has been granted the rank of pneumatikos, and therefore has the bishop’s authority to remit sins and apply penances. However, until this competent ecclesiastical authority has convened and officially applied the Canons to the individual of whatever rank, that individual is only “liable” to punishment, but has not yet been punished. For the Canons do not execute themselves, but they must be executed by the entity with authority to apply the Canons. The Canons themselves offer three forms of punishment, namely, deposition, excommunication and anathematization. Deposition is applied to clergy. Excommunication is applied to laity. Anathematization can be applied to either clergy or laity. Deposition does not remove the priestly rank, but is simply a prohibition from the clergyman to perform priestly functions. If the deposition is later revoked, the clergyman does not require reordination. In the same way, excommunication does not remove a layman’s baptism. It only prohibits the layman to commune. If the excommunication is later lifted, the layman does not require rebaptism. Anathematization causes the clergyman or layman to be cut off from the Church and assigned to the devil. But even anathematizations can be revoked if the clergyman or layman repents. There Is a Hierarchy of Authority in Canon Law The authority of one Canon over another is determined by the power of the Council the Canons were ratified by. For example, a canon ratified by an Ecumenical Council overruled any canon ratified by a local Council. The hierarchy of authority, from most binding Canons to least, is as follows: Apostolic Canons (Universal) refer to those compiled by the Holy Apostles and their immediate successors. These Canons were approved and confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council and again by the Quinisext Council. Not even an Ecumenical Council can overrule or overthrow an Apostolic Canon. There are only very few cases where Ecumenical Councils have amended the command of an Apostolic Canon by either strengthening or weakening it. But by no means were any Apostolic Canons overruled or abolished. For instance, the 1st Apostolic Canon which states that a bishop must be ordained by two or three other bishops. Several Canons of the Ecumenical Councils declare that even two bishops do not suffice, but that a bishop must be ordained by the consent of all the bishops in the province, and the ordination itself must take place by no less than three bishops. This does not abolish nor does it overrule the 1st Apostolic Canon, but rather it confirms and reinforces the “spirit of the law” behind that original Canon. Another example is the 5th Apostolic Canon which states that Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are not permitted to put away their wives by force, on the pretext of reverence. Meanwhile, the 12th Canon of Quinisext advises a bishop (or presbyters who has been elected as a bishop) to first receive his wife’s consent to separate and for both of them to become celibate. This does not oppose the Apostolic Canon because it is not a separation by force but by consent. The 13th Canon of Quinisext confirms the 5th Apostolic Canon by prohibiting a presbyters or deacons to separate from his wife. Thus the 5th Apostolic Canon is not abolished, but amended by an Ecumenical Council for the good of the Church. After all, the laws exist to serve the Church and not to enslave the Church. In the same way, Christ declared: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (Mark 2:27).” Ecumenical Canons (Universal) are those pronounced by Imperial or Ecumenical Councils. These Councils received this name because they were convened by Roman Emperors who were regarded to rule the Ecumene (i.e., “the known world”). Ecumenical Councils all took place in or around Constantinople, also known as New Rome, the Reigning City, or the Universal City. The president was always the hierarch in attendance that happened to be the first‐among‐equals. Ecumenical Councils cannot abolish Apostolic Canons, nor can they abolish the Canons of previous Ecumenical Councils. But they can overrule Regional and Patristic Canons. Regional Canons (Universal) refer to those ratified by Regional Councils that were later confirmed by an Ecumenical Council. This approval gave these Regional Canons a universal authority, almost equal to Ecumenical Canons. These Canons are not only valid within the Regional Church in which the Council took place, but are valid for all Orthodox Christians. For this reason the Canons of these approved Regional Councils cannot be abolished, but must be treated as those of Ecumenical Councils. Patristic Canons (Universal) refer to the Canons of individual Holy Fathers that were confirmed by an Ecumenical Council. Their authority is only lesser than the Apostolic Canons, Ecumenical Canons and Universal Regional Canons. But because they were approved by an Ecumenical Council, these Patristic Canons binding on all Orthodox Christians. Pan‐Orthodox Canons (Universal) refer to those ratified by Pan‐ Orthodox Councils. Since Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453, there could no longer be Imperial or Ecumenical Councils, since there was no longer a ruling Emperor of the Ecumene (the Roman or Byzantine Empire). But the Ottoman Sultan appointed the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as both the political and religious leader of the enslaved Roman Nation (all Orthodox Christians within the Roman Empire, regardless of language or ethnic origin). In this capacity, having replaced the Roman Emperor as leader of the Roman Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarch took the responsibility of convening General Councils which were not called Ecumenical Councils (since there was no longer an Ecumene), but instead were called Pan‐Orthodox Councils. Since the Ecumenical Patriarch was also the first‐among‐equals of Orthodox hierarchs, he would also preside over these Councils. Thus he became both the convener and the president. The Primates of the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches were also invited, along with their Synods of Bishops. If the Ecumenical Patriarch was absent or the one accused, the Patriarch of Alexandria would preside over the Synod. If he too could not attend in person, then the Patriarchs of Antioch or Jerusalem would preside. If no Patriarchs could attend, but only send their representatives, these representatives would not preside over the Council. Instead, whichever bishop present who held the highest see would preside. In several chronologies, the Pan‐Orthodox Councils are referred to as Ecumenical. In any case, the Canons pertaining to these Councils are regarded to be universally binding for all Orthodox Christians. National Canons (Local) are those valid only within a particular National Church. The Canons of these National Councils are only accepted if they are in agreement with the Canons ratified by the above Apostolic, Ecumenical, Regional, Patristic and Pan‐Orthodox Councils. Provincial Canons are those ratified by Councils called by a Metropolitan and his suffragan bishops. They are only binding within that Metropolis. Prefectural Canons are those ratified by Councils called by a single bishop and his subordinate clergy. They are only valid within that Diocese. Parochial Canons are the by‐laws of a local Parish or Mission, which are chartered and endorsed by the Rector or Founder of a Parish and the Parish Council. These by‐laws are only applicable within that Parish. Monastic Canons are the rules of a local Monastery or Monastic Order, which are chartered by the Abbot or Founder of the Skete or Monastery. These by‐laws are only applicable within that Monastery. Sometimes Canons are only recommendations explaining how clergy and laity are to conduct themselves. Other times they are actually penalties to be executed upon laity and clergy for their misdeeds. But the penalties contained within Canons are simply recommendations and not the actual executions of the penalties themselves. The recommendation of the law is one thing and the execution of the law is another. Canon Law Can Only Be Executed By Those With Authority For the execution of the law to take place it requires a competent authority to execute the law. A competent authority is reckoned by the principle of “the greater judges the lesser.” Thus, there are Canons that explain who has the authority to judge individuals according to the Canons. A layman can only be judged, excommunicated or anathematized by his own bishop, or by his own priest, provided the priest has the permission of his own bishop (i.e., a priest who is a pneumatikos). This law is ratified by the 6th Canon of Carthage, which has been made universal by the authority of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Canon states: “The application of chrism and the consecration of virgin girls shall not be done by Presbyters; nor shall it be permissible for a Presbyter to reconcile anyone at a public liturgy. This is the decision of all of us.” St. Nicodemus’ interprets the Canon as follows: “The present Canon prohibits a priest from doing three things… and remission of the penalty for a sin to a penitent, and thereafter through communion of the Mysteries the reconciliation of him with God, to whom he had become an enemy through sin, making him stand with the faithful, and celebrating the Liturgy openly… For these three functions have to be exercised by a bishop…. By permission of the bishop even a presbyter can reconcile penitents, though. And read Ap. c. XXXIX, and c. XIX of the First EC. C.” Thus the only authority competent to judge a layman is a bishop or a presbyter who has the permission of his bishop to do so. However, those who are among the low rank of clergy (readers, subdeacons, etc) require their own local bishop to try them, because a presbyter cannot depose them. A deacon can only be judged by his own local bishop together with three other bishops, and a presbyter can only be judged by his own local bishop together with six other bishops. The 28th Canon of Carthage thus states: “If Presbyters or Deacons be accused, the legal number of Bishops selected from the nearby locality, whom the accused demand, shall be empaneled — that is, in the case of a Presbyter six, of a Deacon three, together with the Bishop of the accused — to investigate their causes; the same form being observed in respect of days, and of postponements, and of examinations, and of persons, as between accusers and accused. As for the rest of the Clerics, the local Bishop alone shall hear and conclude their causes.” Thus, one bishop is insufficient to submit a priest or deacon to trial or deposition. This can only be done by a Synod of Bishops with enough bishops present to validly apply the canons. The amount of bishops necessary to judge and depose a priest are seven (one local plus six others), and for a deacon the minimum amount of bishops is four (one local plus three others). A bishop must be judged by his own metropolitan together with at least twelve other bishops. If the province does not have twelve bishops, they must invite bishops from other provinces to take part in the trial and deposition. Thus the 12th Canon of Carthage states: “If any Bishop fall liable to any charges, which is to be deprecated, and an emergency arises due to the fact that not many can convene, lest he be left exposed to such charges, these may be heard by twelve Bishops, or in the case of a Presbyter, by six Bishops besides his own; or in the case of a Deacon, by three.” Notice that the amount of twelve bishops is the minimum requirement and not the maximum. The maximum is for all the bishops, even if they are over one hundred in number, to convene for the sake of deposing a bishop. But if this cannot take place, twelve bishops assisting
ARE THE HOLY CANONS ONLY VALID FOR THE APOSTOLIC PERIOD AND NOT FOR OUR TIMES? In his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos writes: “After this, I request of you the avoidance of disorder and scandal regarding this issue, and to recommend to those who confess to you, that in order to approach Holy Communion, they must prepare by fasting, and to prefer approaching on Saturday and not Sunday. Regarding the Canon, which some people refer to in order to commune without fasting beforehand, it is correct, but it must be interpreted correctly and applied to everybody. Namely, we must return to those early apostolic times, during which all of the Christians were ascetics and temperate and fasters, and only they remained until the end of the Divine Liturgy and communed. They fasted in the fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune. The rest did not remain until the end and withdrew together with the catechumens. As for those who were in repentance, they remained outside the gates of the church. If we implemented this Canon today, everyone would have to go out of the church and only two or three worthy people would remain inside until the end to commune. And if the Christians of today only knew how unworthy they are, who would remain inside the church?” From the above explanation by Bp. Kirykos, one is given the impression that he believes and commands: a) that Fr. Pedro is to forbid laymen to commune on Sundays during Great Lent in order to ensure “the avoidance of disorder and scandal regarding this issue,” despite the fact that the canons declare that it is those who do not commune on Sundays that are causers of disorder, as the 9th Canon of the Holy Apostles declares: “All the faithful who come to Church and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay for the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated as causing disorder in the Church;” b) that Fr. Pedro is to advise his flock “to prefer approaching on Saturday and not Sunday,” thereby commanding his flock to become Sabbatians; c) that the Canon which advises people to receive Holy Communion every day even outside of fasting periods is “correct” but must be “interpreted correctly and applied to everybody,” which, in the solution that Bp. Kirykos offers, amounts to a complete annulment of the Canon in regards to laymen, while enforcing the Canon liberally upon the clergy; d) that “we must return to those early apostolic times,” as if the Orthodox Church today is not still the unchanged and unadulterated Apostolic Church as confessed in the Symbol of the Faith, “In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” with the same Head, the same Body, and the e) f) g) h) same requirement to abide by the Canons, but that we are supposedly some kind of fallen Church in need of “return” to a former status; that supposedly in apostolic times “all of the Christians were ascetics and temperate and fasters, and only they remained until the end of the Divine Liturgy and communed,” meaning that Communion is annulled for later generations supposedly due to a lack of celibacy and vegetarianism; that supposedly only the celibate and vegetarians communed in the early Church, and that “the rest did not remain until the end and withdrew together with the catechumens,” as if marriage and eating meat amounted to a renunciation of one’s baptism and a reversion to the status of catechumen, which is actually the teaching and practice of the Manicheans, Paulicians and Bogomils and not of the Apostolic Church, and the 9th Apostolic Canon declares that if any layman departs with the catechumens and does not remain until the end of Liturgy and does not commune, such a layman is to be excommunicated, yet Bp. Kirykos promotes this practice as something pious, patristic and acceptable; that Christians who have confessed their sins and prepared themselves and their spiritual father has deemed them able to receive Holy Communion, are supposedly still in the rank of the penitents either due to being married or due to being meat‐eaters, as can be seen from Bp. Kirykos’ words: “If we implemented this Canon today, everyone would have to go out of the church and only two or three worthy people would remain inside until the end to commune. And if the Christians of today only knew how unworthy they are, who would remain inside the church?” that we are not to interpret and implement the Holy Canons the way they are written and the way the Holy Orthodox Church has always historically interpreted and implemented them, but that these Canons supposedly need to be reinterpreted in Bp. Kirykos’s own way, or as he says, “interpreted correctly and applied to everybody,” and that “if we implemented this Canon today, everyone would have to go out of the church.” All of the above notions held by Bp. Kirykos can be summed up by the statement that he believes the Canons only apply for the apostolic era or the time of the early Christians, but that these Canons are now to be reinterpreted or nullified because today’s Christians are not worthy to be treated according to the Holy Canons. He also believes that to follow the advice of the Holy Canons is a cause of “disorder and scandal,” despite the fact that the very purpose of the Holy Canons is to prevent disorder and scandal. These notions held by Bp. Kirykos are entirely erroneous, and they are another variant of the same blasphemies preached by the Modernists and Ecumenists who desire to set the Holy Canons aside by claiming that they are not suitable for our times. Bp. Kirykos’ incorrect notions regarding the supposed inapplicability of the Holy Canons in our times are notions that the Rudder itself condemns. For in the Holy Rudder (published in the 17th century), St. Nicodemus of Athos included an excellent introductory note regarding the importance of the Holy Canons, and that they are applicable for all times, and must be adhered to faithfully by all Orthodox Christians. This introductory note by St. Nicodemus, as contained in the Holy Rudder, is provided below. PROLEGOMENA IN GENERAL TO THE SACRED CANONS What Is a Canon? A canon, according to Zonaras (in his interpretation of the 39th letter of Athansius the Great), properly speaking and in the main sense of the word, is a piece of wood, commonly called a rule, which artisans use to get the wood and stone they are working on straight. For, when they place this rule (or straightedge) against their work, if this be crooked, inwards or outwards, they make it straight and right. From this, by metaphorical extension, votes and decisions are also called canons, whether they be of the Apostles or of the ecumenical and regional Councils or those of the individual Fathers, which are contained in the present Handbook: for they too, like so many straight and right rules, rid men in holy orders, clergymen and laymen, of every disorder and obliquity of manners, and cause them to have every normality and equality of ecclesiastical and Christian condition and virtue. That the divine Canons must be kept rigidly by all; for those who fail to keep them are made liable to horrible penances “These instructions regarding Canons have been enjoined upon you by us, O Bishops. If you adhere to them, you shall be saved, and shall have peace; but if you disobey them, you shall be sorely punished, and shall have perpetual war with one another, thus paying the penalty deserved for heedlessness.” (The Apostles in their epilogue to the Canons) “We have decided that it is right and just that the canons promulgated by the holy Fathers at each council hitherto should remain in force.” (1st Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) “It has seemed best to this holy Council that the 85 Canons accepted and validated by the holy and blissful Fathers before us, and handed down to us, moreover, in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should remain henceforth certified and secured for the correction of souls and cure of diseases… [of the four ecumenical councils according to name, of the regional councils by name, and of the individual Fathers by name]… And that no one should be allowed to counterfeit or tamper with the aforementioned Canons or to set them aside.” (2nd Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) “If anyone be caught innovating or undertaking to subvert any of the said Canons, he shall be responsible with respect to such Canon and undergo the penance therein specified in order to be corrected thereby of that very thing in which he is at fault.” (2nd Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council) “Rejoicing in them like one who has found a lot of spoils, we gladly embosom the divine Canons, and we uphold their entire tenor and strengthen them all the more, so far as concerns those promulgated by the trumpets of the Spirit of the renowned Apostles, of the holy ecumenical councils, and of those convened regionally… And of our holy Fathers… And as for those whom they consign to anathema, we anathematize them, too; as for those whom they consign to deposition or degradation, we too depose or degrade them; as for those whom they consign to excommunication, we too excommunicate them; and as for those whom they condemn to a penance, we too subject them thereto likewise.” (1st Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council) “We therefore decree that the ecclesiastical Canons which have been promulgated or confirmed by the four holy councils, namely, that held in Nicaea, and that held in Constantinople, and the first one held in Ephesus, and that held in Chalcedon, shall take the rank of laws.” (Novel 131 of Emperor Justinian) “We therefore decree that the ecclesiastical Canons which have been promulgated or confirmed by the seven holy councils shall take the rank of laws.” (Ed. note—The word “confirmed” alludes to the canons of the regional councils and of the individual Fathers which had been confirmed by the ecumenical councils, according to Balsamon.) “For we accept the dogmas of the aforesaid holy councils precisely as we do the divine Scriptures, and we keep their Canons as laws.” (Basilica, Book 5, Title 3, Chapter 2) “The third provision of Title 2 of the Novels commands the Canons of the seven councils and their dogmas to remain in force, in the same way as the divine Scriptures.” (In Photius, Title 1, Chapter 2) “I accept the seven councils and their dogmas to remain in force, in the same way as the divine Scriptures.” (Emperor Leo the Wise in Basilica, Book 5, Title 3, Chapter 1) “It has been prescribed by the holy Fathers that even after death those men must be anathematized who have sinned against the faith or against the Canons.” (Fifth Ecumenical Council in the epistle of Justinian, page 392 of Volume 2 of the Conciliars) “Anathema on those who hold in scorn the sacred and divine Canons of our sacred Fathers, who prop up the holy Church and adorn all the Christian polity, and guide men to divine reverence.” (Council held in Constantinople after Constantine Porphyrogenitus, page 977 of Volume 2 of the Conciliars) That the divine Canons override the imperial laws “It pleased the most divine Despot of the inhabited earth (i.e. Emperor Marcian) not to proceed in accordance with the divine letters or pragmatic forms of the most devout bishops, but in accordance with the Canons laid down as laws by the holy Fathers. The council said: As against the Canons, no pragmatic sanction is effective. Let the Canons of the Fathers remain in force. And again: We pray that the pragmatic sanctions enacted for some in every province to the detriment of the Canons may be held in abeyance incontrovertibly; and that the Canons may come into force through all… all of us say the same things. All the pragmatic sanctions shall be held in abeyance. Let the Canons come into force… In accordance with the vote of the holy council, let the injunctions of Canons come into force also in all the other provinces.” (In Act 5 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) “It has seemed best to all the holy ecumenical council that if anyone offers any form conflicting with those now prescribed, let that form be void.” (8th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Council) “Pragmatic forms opposed to the Canons are void.” (Book 1, Title 2, Ordinances 12, Photius, Title 1, Chapter 2) “For those Canons which have been promulgated, and supported, that is to say, by emperors and holy Fathers, are accepted like the divine Scriptures. But the laws have been accepted or composed only by the emperors; and for this reason they do not prevail over and against the divine Scriptures nor the Canons.” (Balsamon, comment on the above chapter 2 of Photius) “Do not talk to me of external laws. For even the publican fulfills the outer law, yet nevertheless he is sorely punished.” (Chrysostom, Sermon 57 on the Gospel of Matthew)
OEM naziv Model štampača Broj strana Cena C3906A 92298A Q92274A C3903A C3909A HP Laser Jet 5L/ 6L/ 5ML/ 6LXI/ 3100/ 3150/ Canon LBP 440 HP Laser Jet 4/ 4M/ 4MX/ 5/ 5N/ 5M HP Laser Jet 4L, 4P, 4ML, 4MP;
Select Mail-In Rebate Receive an American Express® Reward Card by mail with purchase of select Canon Product(s) shipped from and sold by Authorized Canon Dealers (A list of Canon Authorized Dealers is available at http://rebates.usa.canon.com )(Limit 1 Claim per lens per household – Claim form may include separate purchases of different lenses) Offer valid on purchases made between March 2, 2014 and March 29, 2014 READ You have the option to Pre-submit this rebate form online and print it for mailing with your required documentation.
TOTALE 20.000 EURO KIT TIPO FOTOGRAFO CANON CANON EOS 1Ds Mark III (body) + Batteria LP-E4, Carica batterie LC-E4, Adattatore corrente, Cavo AV, Cavo USB, Cinghia Totale:
13”/330 mm (per second) 16.7-million Colour RGB (24-bit) 256 colour RGB adaptive indexed color palette (8-bit) 256-level Grayscale (8-bit) Black and White (1-bit) Printer Type 6 Colour - 44”/117.6 mm Print Technology Canon Bubblejet on Demand 6 colours integrated type (6 chips per print head x 1 print heads) Number of Nozzles 2,560 nozzles x 6 colours, 1 print head Print Resolution 2400 dpi x 1200 dpi Nozzle Pitch 1200 dpi x 2 Line Accuracy ±0.1 % or less Ink Droplet Size 4 Picoliter Ink Capacity Bundled Starter Ink:
DEMANDING A STRICT FAST ON SATURDAYS IS THE FIRST HERESY OF THE PAPISTS In his two letters to Fr. Pedro, in several other writings on the internet, as well as through his verbal discussions, Bp. Kirykos presents the idea that a Christian is forbidden to ever commune on a Sunday, except by “economia,” and that if per chance a Christian is granted this “economia,” he would nevertheless be compelled to fast strictly without oil on the Saturday, that is, the day prior to receiving Holy Communion. For instance, outside of fasting periods, Bp. Kirykos, his sister, Vincentia, and the “theologian” Mr. Eleutherios Gkoutzidis insist that laymen must fast for seven days without meat, five days without dairy, three days without oil, and one day without even olives or sesame pulp, for fear of these things containing oil. If someone prepares to commune on a Sunday, this means that from the previous Sunday he cannot eat meat. From the Tuesday onwards he cannot eat dairy either. On the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday he cannot partake of oil or wine. While on the Saturday he must perform a xerophagy in which he cannot have any processed foods, and not even olives or sesame pulp. This means that the strictest fast will be performed on the Saturday, in violation of the Canons. This also means that for a layman to ever be able to commune every Sunday, he would need to fast for his entire life long. Yet, Bp. Kirykos and his priests exempt themselves from this rule, and are allowed to partake of any foods all week long except for Wednesday and Friday. They can even partake of all foods as late as midnight on Saturday night, and commune on Sunday morning without feeling the least bit “unworthy.” But should a layman dare to partake of oil even once on a Saturday, he is brushed off as “unworthy” for Communion on Sunday. Meanwhile during fasting periods such as Great Lent, since Monday to Friday is without oil anyway, Bp. Kirykos, Sister Vincentia and Mr. Gkoutzidis believe that laymen should also fast on Saturday without oil, and even without olives and sesame pulp, in order for such laymen to be able to commune on Sunday. Thus again they require a layman to violate Apostolic, Ecumenical, Local and Patristic Canons, and even fall under the penalty of excommunication (according to these same canons) in order to be “worthy” of communion. What an absurdity! What a monstrosity! A layman must become worthy of excommunication in order to become “worthy” of Communion! The 9th Canon of the Holy Apostles advises: “If any clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday (except for one only), let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.” The term “fasting” refers to the strict form of fasting, not permitting oil or wine. The term “except for one” refers to Holy and Great Saturday, the only day of the year upon which fasting without oil and wine is expected. But it was not only the Holy Apostles who commanded against this Pharisaic Sabbatian practice of fasting on Saturdays. But this issue was also addressed by the Quintisext Council (Πενδέκτη Σύνοδος = Fifth‐and‐Sixth Council), which was convened for the purpose of setting Ecclesiastical Canons, since the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils had not provided any. The reason why this Holy Ecumenical Council addressed this issue is because the Church of Old Rome had slowly been influenced by the Arian Visigoths and Ostrogoths who invaded from the north, by the Manicheans who migrated from Africa and from the East through the Balkans, as well as by the Jews and Judaizers, who had also migrated to the West from various parts of the East, seeking asylum in Western lands that were no longer under Roman (Byzantine) rule. Thus there arose in the West a most Judaizing practice of clergy forcing the laymen to fast from oil and wine on every Saturday during Great Lent, instead of permitting this only on Holy and Great Saturday. Thus, in the 55th Canon of the Fifth‐and‐Sixth Ecumenical Council, we read: “Since we have learned that those in the city of the Romans during the holy fast of Lent are fasting on the Saturdays thereof, contrary to the ecclesiastical practice handed down, it has seemed best to the Holy Council for the Church of the Romans to hold rigorously the Canon saying: If any clergyman be found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday, with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, a layman, let him be excommunicated.” Thus the Westerners were admonished by the Holy Ecumenical Council, and requested to refrain from this unorthodox practice of demanding a strict fast on Saturdays. Now, just in case anyone thinks that a different kind of fast was observed on the Saturdays by the Romans, by Divine Economy, the very next canon admonishes the Armenians for not fasting properly on Saturdays during Great Lent. Thus the 56th Canon of the Fifth‐and‐Sixth Council reads: “Likewise we have learned that in the country of the Armenians and in other regions on the Saturdays and on the Sundays of Holy Lent some persons eat eggs and cheese. It has therefore seemed best to decree also this, that the Church of God throughout the inhabited earth, carefully following a single procedure, shall carry out fasting, and abstain, precisely as from every kind of thing sacrificed, so and especially from eggs and cheese, which are fruit and produce from which we have to abstain. As for those who fail to observe this rule, if they are clergymen, let them be deposed from office; but if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated.” Thus, just as the Roman Church was admonished for fasting strictly on the Saturdays within Great Lent, the Armenian Church is equally admonished for overly relaxing the fast of Saturdays in Great Lent. Here the Holy Fifth‐and‐Sixth Ecumenical Council clearly gives us the exact definition of what the Holy Fathers deem fit for consumption on Saturdays during Great Lent. For if this canon forbids the Armenians to consume eggs and cheese on the Saturdays of Great Lent, whereas the previous canon forbids the Westerners to fast on the Saturdays of Great Lent, it means that the midway between these two extremes is the Orthodox definition of fasting on Saturdays of Great Lent. The Orthodox definition is clearly marked in the Typicon as well as most calendar almanacs produced by the various Local Orthodox Churches, including the very almanac as well as the wall calendar published yearly by Bp. Kirykos himself. These all mark that oil, wine and various forms of seafood are to be consumed on Saturdays during Great Lent, except of course for Holy and Great Saturday which is marked as a strict fast without oil, in keeping with the Apostolic Canon. Now, if one is to assume that partaking of oil, wine and various seafood on the Saturdays of Great Lent is only for those who are not planning to commune on the Sundays of Great Lent, may he consider the following. The very meaning of the term “excommunicate” is to forbid a layman to receive Holy Communion. So then, if people who partake of oil, wine and various permissible seafood on Saturdays during Great Lent are supposedly forbidden to commune on the Sundays of Great Lent, then this means that the 55th Canon of the Fifth‐and‐Sixth Council would be entirely without purpose. For if those who do partake of such foods on Saturdays are supposedly disqualified from communion on Sundays, then what is the purpose of also disqualifying those who do not partake of oil on Saturdays from being able to commune on Sundays, since this canon requires their excommunication? In other words, such a faulty interpretation of the canons by anyone bearing such a notion would need to call the Holy Fathers hypocrites. They would need to consider that the Holy Fathers in their Canon Law operated with a system whereby “you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t!” Thus, according to this faulty interpretation, if you do partake of oil and wine on Saturdays of Great lent, you are disqualified from communion due to your consumption of those foods. But if you do not partake of these foods on Saturday you are also disqualified from communion on Sunday, for this canon demands your excommunication. In other words, whatever you do you cannot win! Fast without oil or fast with oil, you are still disqualified the next day. So how does Bp. Kirykos interpret this Canon in order to keep his Pharisaical custom? He declares that “all Christians” are excommunicated from ever being able to commune on a Sunday! He demands that only by extreme economy can Christians commune on Sunday, and that they are to only commune on Saturdays, declaring this the day “all Christians” ought to “know” to be their day of receiving Holy Communion! Thus the very trap that Bp. Kirykos has dug for himself is based entirely on his inability to interpret the canons correctly. Yet hypocritically, in his second letter to Fr. Pedro he condemns others of supposedly “not interpreting the canons correctly,” simply because they disagree with his Pharisaical Sabbatianism! But the hypocrisies continue. Bp. Kirykos continuously parades himself in his printed periodicals, on his websites, and on his various online blogs, as some kind of “confessor” of Orthodoxy against Papism and Ecumenism. He even dares to openly call himself a “confessor” on Facebook, where he spends several hours per day in gossip and idletalk as can be seen by his frequent status updates and constant chatting. This kind of pastime is clearly unbecoming for an Orthodox Christian, let alone a hierarch who claims to be “Genuine Orthodox” and a “confessor.” So great is his “confession,” that when the entire Kiousis Synod, representatives from the Makarian Synod, the Abbot of Esphigmenou, members from all other Old Calendarist Synods in Greece, as well as members of the State Hierarchy, had gathered in Athens forming crowds of clergy and thousands of laity, to protest against the Greek Government’s antagonism towards Greek culture and religion, our wonderful “confessor” Bp. Kirykos was spending that whole day chatting on Facebook. The people present at the protest made a joke about Bp. Kirykos’s absence by writing the following remark on an empty seat: “Bp. Kirykos, too busy being an online confessor to bother taking part in a real life confession.” When various monastics and laymen of Bp. Kirykos’s own metropolis informed him that he should have been there, he yelled at them and told them “This is all rubbish, I don’t care about these issues, the only real issue is the cheirothesia of 1971.” How lovely. Greece is on the verge of geopolitical and economical self‐destruction, and Bp. Kirykos’s only care is for his own personal issue that he has repeated time and time again for three decades, boring us to death. But what does Bp. Kirykos claim to “confess” against, really? He claims he confesses against “Papo‐Ecumenism.” In other words, he views himself as a fighter against the idea of the Orthodox Church entering into a syncretistic and ecumenistic union with Papism. Yet Bp. Kirykos does not realize that he has already fallen into what St. Photius the Great has called “the first heresy of the Westerners!” For as indicated above, in the 55th Canon of the Fifth‐and‐ Sixth Ecumenical Council, it was the “Church of the Romans” (that is what became the Papists) that fell into the unorthodox practice of demanding laymen to fast strictly on Saturdays during Great Lent, as a prerequisite to receiving Holy Communion on the Sundays of Great Lent. This indeed was the first error of the Papists. It arrived at the same time the filioque also arrived, to wit, during the 6th and 7th centuries. This is why St. Photius the Great, who was a real confessor against Papism, calls the error of enforced fasting without oil on Saturdays “the first heresy of the Westerners.” Thus, let us depart from the hypocrisies of Bp. Kirykos and listen to the voice of a real confessor against Papism. Let us read the opinion of St. Photius the Great, that glorious champion and Pillar of Orthodoxy! In his Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs (written in 866), our Holy Father, St. Photius the Great (+6 February, 893), Archbishop of the Imperial City of Constantinople New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, writes: St. Photius the Great: Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs (866) Countless have been the evils devised by the cunning devil against the race of men, from the beginning up to the coming of the Lord. But even afterwards, he has not ceased through errors and heresies to beguile and deceive those who listen to him. Before our times, the Church, witnessed variously the godless errors of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Discorus, and a foul host of others, against which the holy Ecumenical Synods were convened, and against which our Holy and God‐ bearing Fathers battled with the sword of the Holy Spirit. Yet, even after these heresies had been overcome and peace reigned, and from the Imperial Capital the streams of Orthodoxy flowed throughout the world; after some people who had been afflicted by the Monophysite heresy returned to the True Faith because of your holy prayers; and after other barbarian peoples, such as the Bulgarians, had turned from idolatry to the knowledge of God and the Christian Faith: then was the cunning devil stirred up because of his envy. For the Bulgarians had not been baptised even two years when dishonourable men emerged out of the darkness (that is, the West), and poured down like hail or, better, charged like wild boars upon the newly‐planted vineyard of the Lord, destroying it with hoof and tusk, which is to say, by their shameful lives and corrupted dogmas. For the papal missionaries and clergy wanted these Orthodox Christians to depart from the correct and pure dogmas of our irreproachable Faith. The first error of the Westerners was to compel the faithful to fast on Saturdays. I mention this seemingly small point because the least departure from Tradition can lead to a scorning of every dogma of our Faith. Next, they convinced the faithful to despise the marriage of priests, thereby sowing in their souls the seeds of the Manichean heresy. Likewise, they persuaded them that all who had been chrismated by priests had to be anointed again by bishops. In this way, they hoped to show that Chrismation by priests had no value, thereby ridiculing this divine and supernatural Christian Mystery. From whence comes this law forbidding priests
The Position of Bp. Kirykos Regarding Re‐Baptism Differs From the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils In the last few years, Bp. Kirykos has begun receiving New Calendarists and even Florinites and ROCOR faithful under his omophorion by re‐baptism, even if these faithful received the correct form of baptism by triple immersion completely under water with the invocation of the Holy Trinity. He also has begun re‐ordaining such clergy from scratch instead of reading a cheirothesia. But this strict approach, where he applies akriveia exclusively for these people, is different from the historical approach taken by the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council declares that Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Cathars, Aristeri, Quartodecimens and Apollinarians are to be received only by a written libellus and re‐chrismation, because their baptism was already valid in form and did not require repetition. The Canon reads as follows: “As for those heretics who betake themselves to Orthodoxy, and to the lot of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom; viz.: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, those calling themselves Cathari, and Aristeri, and the Quartodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we accept when they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the catholic and apostolic Church of God, and are sealed first with holy chrism on their forehead and their eyes, and nose, and mouth, and ears; and in sealing them we say: “A seal of a free gift of Holy Spirit”…” The same Canon only requires a re‐baptism of individuals who did not receive the correct form of baptism originally (i.e. those who were sprinkled or who were baptized by single immersion instead of triple immersion, etc). The Canon reads as follows: “As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who do some other bad things, and (those belonging to) any other heresies (for there are many heretics here, especially such as come from the country of the Galatians: all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcize them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus do we catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen to the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.” Thus it is wrong to re‐baptize those who have already received the correct form by triple immersion. The Holy Fathers advise in this Holy Canon that only those who did not receive the correct form are to be re‐baptized. Now then, if the Holy Second Ecumenical Council declares that such heretics as Arians, Macedonians, Quartodecimens, Apollinarians, etc, are to be received only by libellus and chrismation, how on earth does Bp. Kirykos justify his refusal to receive Florinites and ROCOR faithful by chrismation, but instead insists upon their rebaptism as if they are worse than Arians? The 95th Canon of the Quinisext (Fifth‐and‐Sixth) Ecumenical Council declares that those baptized by Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites are to be received into the Orthodox Church by a simple libellus and anathematization of the heresies, without needing to be re‐baptized, and even without needing to be re‐chrismated! The Canon reads: As for Nestorians, and Eutychians (Monophysites), and Severians (Monothelites), 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. Now then, if the Quinisext Ecumenical Council allows even Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites to be received by mere libellus, without requiring to be baptized or even chrismated, and following this mere libellus they are immediately free to receive Holy Communion, how is Bp. Kirykos’s approach patristic, if he requires the re‐baptism of even Florinites and ROCOR faithful?!!! Is Bp. Kirykos not trying to outdo the Holy Fathers in his attempt to be “super‐Orthodox”? Can such an approach taken by Bp. Kirykos be considered Orthodox if the Holy Fathers in their Canons request otherwise? Are the Canons of Ecumenical Councils invalid for Bp. Kirykos? Certainly the Latins (Franks, Papists) are unbaptised, because their baptisms consist of mere sprinklings instead of triple immersion. Likewise, various New Calendarists are also unbaptised if they were not dunked completely under the water three times. But can such be said for those Orthodox Christians, and even Genuine Orthodox Christians (be they Florinite, ROCOR or otherwise), who do have the correct form of baptism? In the Patriarchal Oros of 1755 regarding the re‐baptism of Latins, the Orthodox Patriarchs make it quite clear that their reason for requiring the re‐ baptism of Latins is because the Latins do not have the correct form of baptism, but rather sprinkle instead of immersing. The text of the Patriarchal Oros actually refers to the Canons of the Second and Quinisext Councils as their reasons for re‐baptizing the Latins. The relevant text of the Patriarchal Oros of 1755 is as follows: “...And we follow the Second and Quinisext holy Ecumenical Councils, which order us to receive as unbaptized those aspirants to Orthodoxy who were not baptized with three immersions and emersions, and in each immersion did not loudly invoke one of the divine hypostases, but were baptized in some other fashion...” Thus we see in the above Patriarchal Oros of 1755, that even as late as this year, the Orthodox Church was carrying out the very principles of the Second and Quinisext Ecumenical Councils, namely that it is only those who were baptized by some obscure form other than triple immersion and invocation of the Holy Trinity, that were required to be re‐baptized. How then can the positions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Pan‐Orthodox Councils be compared to the extremist methods of Bp. Kirykos and his fellow hierarchs of late? Is Bp. Kirykos’ current practice really Orthodox? Is it possible to preach contrary to the teachings of the Ecumenical and Pan‐Orthodox Councils and yet remain Orthodox? And as for those who believe that there is nothing wrong with being strict, let them remember that the Pharisees were also strict, but it was they who crucified the Lord of Glory! The Orthodox Faith is a Royal Path. Just as it is possible to fall to the left (as the New Calendarists and Ecumenists have done), it is also quite possible to fall to the right and spin off on a wrong turn far away from the tradition of the Holy Fathers. It is this latter type of fall that has occurred with Bp. Kirykos. In fact, even Bp. Matthew of Bresthena was quite moderate compared to Bp. Kirykos. For Bp. Matthew of Bresthena knew the Canons quite well, and required New Calendarists to be received only by chrismation, or in some cases by only a libellus or Confession of Faith.
Canon EF Lens 85mm 1.8 Convergence of mobile, photography and computing markets in one device As a Travel Camera Sony Full Frame Mirrorless Beats Canon Full Frame Will Interchangeable Lens Camera Survive Advance of Mobile Photography?
EDWARD VIJAYAVARGIYA ASSISTANT CAMERA | CAMERA DEPARTMENT Date Title Type Production Position DoP Equipment December 2015 Instrument Documentry Edition Worldwide Camera Operator Sam Goldwater November 2015 ODO Jeans Online Promo Independent Gaﬀer Natalja Safronova Red Epic Dragon, Scarlet Dragon Red Scarlet Dragon October 2015 Aidan Cocker - Get Money Music Video GrayScale Productions Focus Puller Anthony Dias Red Epic Dragon September 2015 Rugby Union Series Documentry Vice Media Focus Puller Sam Goldwater Red Scarlet Dragon July 2015 Samsung Rugby Promo Commercial Vice Media Focus Puller Sam Goldwater Red Scarlet, Phantom Flex July 2015 The Banksy Job (Dailies) Feature Daylight Robery Focus Puller Anthony Dias Red Epic Dragon July 2015 The Guitar Short Film Eye to Eye Productions Clapper Loader Sam Goldwater Arri Amira July 2015 Glue (Dailies) TV Series Eleven Film DIT Angus Hudson F55, Scarlet Dragon, Alexa July 2015 Aidan Cocker - Been There Music Video GrayScale Productions Focus Puller Anthony Dias Red Epic Dragon June 2015 Taya - Got me Wondering Music Video Agile Films Camera Assistant Craig Bilham Canon 5D MK III March 2015 Goodmans Radios Promo Commercial Black Dog Films RSA Clapper Loader Alberto Balasz Arri Alexa January 2015 Nikon Picture Perfect Series Documentry Vice Media Camera Assistant Sam Goldwater Red Scarlet December 2014 Wok TV Pilot TV Pilot Focus Puller Anthony Dias Arri Amira December 2014 Fast Lane - Wastes Music Video Running Films Clapper Loader Scott Sanford Red Epic November 2014 Kasper Bjork - Apart Music Video Caviar Content Clapper Loader Andrew Fletcher Arri Alexa XT November 2014 Darkside - Gone Too Soon Music Video Independent Clapper Loader Alberto Balasz Red Epic Dragon October 2014 Julius Short NFTS Focus Puller Krzysztof Trojnar Arriflex SR3 September 2014 Dr.
SPIRITUAL PATH REMEMBERING SACRED TRADITION AND REFERRING TO THE HOLY FATHERS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH Canons of the Holy Apostles 8. If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else in the sacerdotal list, fail to partake of communion when the oblation has been offered, he must tell the reason, and if it is good excuse, he shall receive a pardon. But if he refuses to tell it, he shall be excommunicated, on the ground that he has become a cause of harm to the laity and has instilled a suspicion as against the offerer of it that the latter has failed to present it in a sound manner. Interpretation. It is the intention of the present Canon that all, and especially those in holy orders, should be prepared beforehand and worthy to partake of the divine mysteries when the oblation is offered, or what amounts to the sacred service of the body of Christ. In case any one of them fail to partake when present at the divine liturgy, or communion, he is required to tell the reason or cause why he did not partake: then if it is a just and righteous and reasonable one, he is to receive a pardon, or be excused; but if he refuses to tell it, he is to be excommunicated, since he also becomes a cause of harm to the laity by leading the multitude to suspect that that priest who officiated at liturgy was not worthy and that it was on this account that the person in question refused to communicate from him. 9. All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy Communion must be excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a breach of order. (Canon LXVI of the 6th; c. II of Antioch; cc. Ill, XIII of Tim.). Interpretation. Both exegetes of the sacred Canons — Zonaras, I mean, and Balsamon — in interpreting the present Apostolical Canon agree in saying that all Christians who enter the church when the divine liturgy is being celebrated, and who listen to the divine Scriptures, but do not remain to the end nor partake, must be excommunicated, as causing a disorder to the church. Thus Zonaras says verbatim: “The present Canon demands that all those who are in the church when the holy sacrifice is being performed shall patiently remain to the end for prayer and holy communion.” For even the laity then were required to partake continually. Balsamon says: “The ordainment of the present Canon is very acrid; for it excommunicates those attending church but not staying to the end nor partaking.” Concord. Agreeably with the present Canon c. II of Antioch ordains that all those who enter the church during the time of divine liturgy and listen to the Scriptures, but turn away and avoid (which is the same as to say, on account of pretended reverence and humility they shun, according to interpretation of the best interpreter, Zonaras) divine communion in a disorderly manner are to be excommunicated. The continuity of communion is confirmed also by c. LXVI of the 6th, which commands Christians throughout Novational Week (i.e., Easter Week) to take time off for psalms and hymns, and to indulge in the divine mysteries to their hearts’ content. But indeed even from the third canon of St. Timothy the continuity of communion can be inferred. For if he permits one possessed by demons to partake, not however every day, but only on Sunday (though in other copies it is written, on occasions only), it is likely that those riot possessed by demons are permitted to communicate even more frequently. Some contend that for this reason it was that the same Timothy, in c. Ill, ordains that on Saturday and Sunday that a man and his wife should not have mutual intercourse, in order, that is, that they might partake, since in that period it was only on those days, as we have said, that the divine liturgy was celebrated. This opinion of theirs is confirmed by divine Justin, who says in his second apology that “on the day of the sun” — meaning, Sunday — all Christians used to assemble in the churches (which on this account were also called “Kyriaka,” i.e., places of the Lord) and partook of the divine mysteries. That, on the other hand, all Christians ought to frequent divine communion is confirmed from the West by divine Ambrose, who says thus: “We see many brethren coming to church negligently, and indeed on Sundays not even being present at the mysteries.” And again, in blaming those who fail to partake continually, the same saint says of the mystic bread: “God gave us this bread as a daily affair, and we make it a yearly affair.” From Asia, on the other hand, divine Chrysostom demands this of Christians, and, indeed, par excellence. And see in his preamble to his commentary of the Epistle to the Romans, discourse VIII, and to the Hebrews, discourse XVIII, on the Acts, and Sermon V on the First Epistle to Timothy, and Sermon XVII on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his discourse on those at first fasting on Easter, Sermon III to the Ephesians, discourse addressed to those who leave the divine assemblies (synaxeis), Sermon XXVIII on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, a discourse addressed to blissful Philogonius, and a discourse about fasting. Therein you can see how that goodly tongue strives and how many exhortations it rhetorically urges in order to induce Christians to partake at the same time, and worthily, and continually. But see also Basil the Great, in his epistle to Caesaria Patricia and in his first discourse about baptism. But then how can it be thought that whoever pays any attention to the prayers of all the divine liturgy can fail to see plainly enough that all of these are aimed at having it arranged that Christians assembled at the divine liturgy should partake — as many, that is to say, as are worthy? 10. If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself. Interpretation. The noun akoinonetos has three significations: for, either it denotes one standing in church and praying in company with the rest of the Christians, but not communing with the divine mysteries; or it denotes one who neither communes nor stands and prays with the faithful in the church, but who has been excommunicated from them and is excluded from church and prayer; or finally it may denote any clergyman who becomes excommunicated from the clergy, as, say, a bishop from his fellow bishops, or a presbyter from his fellow presbyters, or a deacon from his fellow deacons, and so on. Accordingly, every akoinonetos is the same as saying excommunicated from the faithful who are in the church; and he is at the same time also excommunicated from the Mysteries. But not everyone that is excommunicated from the Mysteries is also excommunicated from the congregation of the faithful, as are deposed clergymen; and from the peni‐ tents those who stand together and who neither commune nor stay out of the church like catechumens, as we have said. In the present Canon the word akoinonetos is taken in the second sense of the word. That is why it says that whoever prays in company with one who has been excommunicated because of sin from the congregation and prayer of the faithful, even though he should not pray along with them in church, but in a house, whether he be in holy orders or a layman, he is to be excommunicated in the same way as he was from church and prayer with Christians: because that common engagement in prayer which he performs in conjunction with a person that has been excommunicated, wittingly and knowingly him to be such, is aimed at dishonoring and condemning the excommunicator, and traduces him as having excommunicated him wrongly and unjustly.
OPEN RESPONSE to the Letter of Mr. Anthonios Markou (Translation from the original Greek) Dear brother in Christ Anthony, With much grief I read your letter to brother Theoharis. I was grieved because you said other things when I visited you with Father Pedro, his wife Lucia and Theoharis, and now you write other things in your letter. Do you know about the truth? Of course, you know. Do you know about Orthodoxy? Of course, you know. Do you know about the Holy Fathers? Of course, you know. Do you know about the canonical order of the Church? Of course, you know all these things. But how do you ignore them now? On the first paragraph of your letter you write: “Theoharis, my child, I send you this message in order to express my sadness. Iʹd ask you if you are ashamed of your behaviour, but shame is a virtue and I don’t think you have it...” Brother Anthony, Theoharis is a golden child, and very shy. Whoever knows him very well knows that a pure and God‐fearing lad like Theoharis is rare to find in today’s society. Although he grew up as Evangelical (Protestant) and comes from a third‐generation Evengalical Greek family, he decided to investigate matters of Faith and was baptized five years ago in the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile. The fact that Theoharis went from being an Evangelical to discovering Genuine Orthodoxy is a small miracle. The fact he remained and lives as a chaste lad, a zealot for things divine, a struggler for Patristic Piety, and with temperance and respect, is the greater miracle. Admiration and high esteem is due. If only there were others like Theoharis in Greece and in the world in general, Orthodoxy would also shine! There wouldn’t be today’s chaos we see among the “GOC” of whichever faction. The truth must be said. Theoharis is very shy. He has the virtue of shame, and those who know him can verify this truth. And for this reason he couldn’t endure the disgracefulness of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis! Those who do not have the virtue of shame are those who accept Bp. Kirykos’ scandals and especially those who give excuses in order for the scandals to continue! So if there is any lack of shame, it does not concern Theoharis, but rather Bp. Kirykos himself and those profane people, yourself among them, who justify his scandals! In your letter you continue: “...Come on, my child, one year near Bishop Kirykos (he gave you hospitality, as he could, he gave you shelter, and he fed you) and your thanks is your scandalization, that he sleeps in the same building with sister Valentina? Did you understand this so long near him? I known him for almost 40 years, as a person he has his faults, but nobody has ever accused him of immorality...” First, brother Anthony, I want to thank you because by writing the sentence “...he sleeps in the same building with sister Valentina...” you testify in writing the sad REALITY that was also told to us by the nun Vikentia (Kirykos’ sister according to the flesh), which she said with many tears. Now she may deny that she told us these things, but she didn’t tell them to just one person. She told them to several people: two from Australia, one from the Unites States, two from Canada, others from Larissa, others from various parts of Greece and abroad. She didn’t tell them with a smile, she told them with tears and pain, because these are indeed very sad things. Now if she is in denial, it is in order for her to escape from her brother. But since Presbytera (Matushka) Antonina and five different families in Menidi who are really scandalized by Valentina’s case, told us the same thing, and since we saw with our own eyes that Kirykos actually lives and sleeps with Valentina, how can it be possible to act as if all is “milk and honey?” And what exactly was revealed by Nun Vikentia, Presbytera Antonina, the five families, various monks, the former novices of Koropi, and other people who are witnesses and know all these things first‐hand? That Bp. Kirykos SLEEPS (as you wrote) in the same building with a woman, Ms. Valentina, who is not blood‐related to him, she is not even a nun, but a simple unmarried laywoman, who for 22 years acts as Kirykos’ “housemaid,” and for several of these years “sleeps” with him, earlier at Kalithea, at Peristeri, at Koropi (until Valentina was expelled by nun Vikentia when the latter entered Koropi Monastery and “found them together,” as she said), and now the couple lives and even sleep day and night at the “Hermitage of Our Lady of Paramythia (Consolation)” in Menidi, where the walls were built very high, and the doors are always locked, so only God knows what happens inside this “hermitage.” Let us note here that when Ms. Valentina started collecting thousands of euros in order to build the actual building at Menidi, she used the idea that a NURSING HOME would be built to aid the community. You cannot ignore this truth that the people happily gave their donations because it was for a nursing home! If only these unfortunate souls knew that the the term “nursing home” was only a ploy used by Kirykos and Valentina to raise money! If they told the Pontians of Menidi “We are building a house so Kirykos can sleep there together with his housemaid,” would the Pontians have given their money? Of course not! They would not have given a single cent! But some old people are naïve and just don’t understand. One old man from Menidi used to smoke. At confession, Kirykos told him “Stop smoking.” Τhe old man came back after a few months and told Kirykos: “I want to thank you for telling me to stop smoking! Now I feel very well! To thank you, I made two chairs: one for you, and one… for your wife!” (!!!). How was the wretched man to know that Valentina is not Bishop Kirykos’ wife, but she simply “sleeps in the same building” with him, as you have just written it? In any case the poor people were cheated. They gave thousands upon thousands of euros, but when the work was finished and they expected some old people to move into the nursing home… What a strange surprise! Kirykos nestled there himself… with his Valentina! And you cannot deny this fact because the day Valentina started moving her belongings in there, the tears of the other women were heard throughout Menidi! Because their offerings, their money, their hard work, etc., for the “nursing home” was all lost! They realized that there was never a “nursing home,” but only disorder and deceit! If it were a proper Convent it would be another thing. But Bp. Kirykos tonsured a new nun (Nun Kyranna) in December 2009, but instead of living at the “hermitage” as it should be, this nun continues living in the house of her daughter (Barbara). And who lives at the “hermitage?” Kirykos with his Valentina! He has kept Valentina as a laywoman for 22 years, and she dresses as a presbytera (priest’s wife). She dresses as the presbytera of Bishop Kirykos! Even if she were a nun, this “blessed” woman it is not allowed to live alone with the Bishop if there are not other nuns living there. And even if there were other nuns, the bishop must sleep outside, in another place, as is the norm in other Old Calendarist Convents. For example, at the Convent of Our Lady of Axion Estin (It is Truly Meet), in Methoni, Pieria, His Grace, Bishop Tarasios, sleeps in a completely different building and far from the nuns. And these nuns are many, and not just one, and they are truly nuns, and not laywomen serving as “housemaids.” This canonical order is neglected in the person of Bishop Kirykos Kontogiannis, who claims to be an exceptional zealot and a “super” confessor! But his claims are all talk, and he puts nothing into practice. Brother Anthony, it is not a matter of “shame.” It is a matter of Holy Canons. It is a matter of Ecclesiastical Tradition and Order. It is a matter of Orthopraxia. It is a matter of Orthodoxia. The 1923 “Pan‐Orthodox” (rather Pan‐ heretical) Conference by Meletios Metaxakis did not require only a change of the calendar, but also other even worse cacodoxies, such as the marriage of bishops, etc. If we disavow the change of calendar, how can we accept the marriage of bishops? And indeed, in the Apostolic times, Bishops were married, but legally! They did not have a laywoman residing with them that “sleeps in the same building” (as you wrote) and plays the “housemaid.” And if perchance this disorder was taking place, the bishop would be defrocked immediately! They would not permit the scandal to continue for 22 years! Even if nothing happens between Bishop Kirykos and Ms. Valentina (God knows!), even if she is simply “the bishop’s housemaid,” the fact that Bishop Kirykos “sleeps in the same building with sister Valentina” (as you expressed it) makes Bishop Kirykos liable not only to deposition but also to excommunion! We quote the relevant Sacred Canons. Canon 3 of the First Ecumenical Council writes: “The great Council has forbidden generally any Bishop or Presbyter or Deacon, and anyone else at all among those in the clergy, the privilege of having a subintroducta [i.e., housemaid]. Unless she is either a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or a person above suspicion.” The interpretation of St. Nicodemus: “Men in holy orders and clergymen ought not to cause the laity any suspicion or scandal. On this account the present Canon ordains that this great Council—the First Ecumenical, that is to say—has entirely forbidden any bishop or presbyter or deacon or any other clergyman to have a strange woman in his house, and to live with her, excepting only a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or other persons that do not arouse any suspicion.” (The Rudder in English, O.C.I.S., p. 165) Do you see, brother Anthony, what the Holy First Ecumenical Council writes? Valentina is neither a nun, nor an aunt, nor any person who does not give suspicion. On the contrary, she is not related at all to Bishop Kirykos. But for 22 years she works as a “housemaid” of the then hieromonk and later bishop. And for some of these years they were living together, alone, earlier at Kallithea, at Peristeri, at Koropi, and now at Menidi. Bishop Kirykos has a real sister according to the flesh, namely, nun Vikentia, who lives at Koropi, at Kirykos’ so‐ called “Episcopal House.” But Kirykos does not live with his real sister, rather he sleeps and lives with his fake presbytera (or rather episkopissa) Valentina at Menidi! He goes to Koropi only when a stranger comes, so it may “appear” that he supposedly lives there. Bishop Kirykos argues that he is fighting for the Old Calendar for the preservation of the resolutions of the First Ecumenical Council. If that is the case, how does he ignore the 3rd Canon of the same Council? How does he disregard it, while simultaneously posing to be “super” canonical? Canon 5 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council writes: “Let no one on the sacerdotal list acquire a woman or housemaid except persons mentioned in the Canon as being above suspicion, but let him safeguard his reputation in this respect. Let even eunuchs safeguard themselves in this very same situation too, by providing themselves with a blameless character. As for those who transgress this injunction, if they are Clergymen, let them be deposed from office; but if they are laymen let them be excommunicated.” The interpretation of St. Nicodemus: “What the present Canon decrees is the following. Let none of those in holy orders who are living modestly have a woman staying in their house, or a servant girl, unless she be among those specified in a Canon as being above suspicion—this refers to c. III of the First Ec. C.—such persons being a mother and a sister and an aunt; so as to keep himself from becoming liable to incur blame form either the father or the mother in relation to the laity. Anyone among persons that transgresses this Canon, let him be deposed from office. Likewise eunuchs, too, must keep themselves safe from any accusation against them, and therefore let them not dwell together with suspicious persons. In case they dare to do this, if they are clergymen (as having been involuntarily, that is to say, or by nature made eunuchs), let them be deposed from office; but if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated. Read also c. III of the First Ec. C.” (The Rudder in English, O.C.I.C., p. 298) Do you see, then, brother Antony, that bishop Kirykos is worthy of deposition? It is not enough that he was deposed by the Synod of the “Five,” it is not enough that he was deposed by the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas, but even now Kirykos’ own “Pan‐Orthodox Synod,” if only it really loved and appreciated the Sacred Canons, would also consider Kirykos liable to deposition! Kirykos knows how to open the Rudder (Pedalion) on the heads of other Bishops of various factions. He never opens the Rudder on his own head. And this is because he is not a Christian but a Pharisee, and this Phariseeism drove him to his current condition of delusion and schismatoheresy. Canon 18 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council writes: “Be ye unoffending even to outsiders, says the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:32). But for women to be dwelling in bishoprics, or in monasteries, is a cause for everyone’s taking offense. If, therefore, anyone
Setting Son Arri Alexa Short Film Love and Socialism * (Shot in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam) Canon T3i Short Documentary 2 0 1 4 Ketchup and Blood 35mm Film Panavision GIII Short Film Bob Contemplates Ending It All Canon C300 Television pilot Hide and Seek Super 16mm Film Arri SRII Short Film Love and Capitalism Part 2 * RED Dragon Documentary Love and Capitalism * Super 16mm Film Aaton XTR Documentary Guff Butt Super 16mm Film Arri SRII Short Film 2 0 1 3 Pythian Games Canon C300 Short Film Dream Sequence ** Super 16mm Film Aaton A Minima Short Film Chase Sequence ** Super 16mm Film Aaton A Minima Short Film Wilton 85th Anniversary ** Canon C100 Documentary Dead Girls Canon C100 Feature Length Film Calamari Canon 5D Mark ii Short Film [ N O N P R O F I T / V O L U N T E E R ] Chicago International Film Festival Chicago, IL 2011, 2012 Worked over 50 hours per year helping to facilitate international filmmakers at screenings, panels and networking events.
are Not Accepted CE340A, CE341A, CE342A or CE343A CE390A CE740A, CE741A, CE742A or CE743A CF214A or CF214X 0.25 0.25 NEC EMPTY CARTRIDGES BELOW 0.25 S2522 toner 0.25 CF280A 0.25 S3522 drum 0.25 CF280X 0.25 1260 or 1260N (20-100 toner) 0.25 CF281A 0.25 20-125 drum 0.25 CF281X 0.25 1400 or 1800 (20-150 toner) 0.25 CF283A 0.25 PITNEY BOWES EMPTY CARTRIDGES BELOW 0.25 1630 Toner CF283X 0.25 http://kidsrecycling.wix.com/inkandtoner CF310A, CF311A, CF312A or CF313A CF320A, CF320X, CF321A, CF322A or CF323A email@example.com 0.25 IBM EMPTY CARTRIDGES BELOW 0.25 Infoprint 1130 0.25 CF325X 0.25 Infoprint 20 0.25 CF330X 0.25 Infoprint 1332 0.25 0.25 Infoprint 1412 or Infoprint 1422 0.25 0.25 Infoprint 1532 0.25 0.25 Infoprint 1570 or Infoprint 1572 0.25 CF385A (Drum) 0.25 Infoprint 1612/1622, Infoprint 1811 or Infoprint 1832 0.25 Q1338A 0.25 BROTHER LASER EMPTY CARTRIDGES BELOW Q1339A Q5942A or Q5942X 0.25 TN 221 or TN 225 (any) 0.25 Q2610A 0.25 0.25 Q5945A 0.25 TN 331 or TN 336 (any) TN 420 or TN 450 Q5949X 0.25 TN 460 0.25 0.25 TN 540, TN 550, TN 570, TN 580, TN 620 or TN 650 0.25 0.25 TN 630 or TN 660 0.25 0.25 TN720, TN750 or TN780 0.25 0.25 DR 221CL(Drum) 0.25 CF331A, CF332A or CF333A CF350A, CF351A, CF352A or CF353A CF380A, CF380X, CF381A, CF382A or CF383A Q5950A Q5951A, Q5952A, Q5953A or Q6001A, Q6002A or Q6003A Q6003A 0.25 http://kidsrecycling.wix.com/inkandtoner Q6470A Q6471A, Q6472A or Q6473A 0.25 firstname.lastname@example.org DR 310CL (Drum) 0.25 DR 400 (Drum) 0.25 Q6511X 0.25 DR 420 (Drum) 0.25 Q7551A, Q7551X or Q7553X 0.25 DR 500 (Drum) 0.25 Q7553A 0.25 DR 510 (Drum) 0.25 Q7561A, Q7562A, Q7563A, DR 520 (Drum) 0.25 Q7581A, Q7582A or Q7583A HEWLETT PACKARD EMPTY INKJET CARTRIDGES DR 630 (Drum) BELOW DR 620 (Drum) or #21 Black 0.25 DR 720 (Drum) 0.25 0.25 0.25 #22 Color 0.25 BROTHER EMPTY INKJET CARTRIDGES #27 Black 0.25 LC 75 0.25 #28 Color 0.25 LC 101, LC 103 or LC 105 0.25 #45 Black or #56 Black 0.25 LC 109 0.25 #57 Color 0.25 #60XL Black 0.25 CANON EMPTY COPIER, LASER PRINTER and LASER FAX CARTRIDGES BELOW D1120, D1150 or D1170 (Toner 0.25 #120) #60 Color 0.25 Model 106 0.25 #60XL Color 0.25 Model 119 (MF 5850) 0.25 0.25 ImageClass 7280 Cartridge #105 0.25 0.25 Canon 125 0.25 0.25 Canon 126 0.25 0.25 Canon 131 or Canon 137 (any 0.25 0.25 Canon MF4570 Cartridge #128 0.25 #61 Black (Must be dated 04/14 or newer) #61XL Black (Must be dated 04/14 or newer) #61 Color (Must be dated 04/14 or newer) #61XL Color (Must be dated 04/14 or newer) #62 Black or Color http://kidsrecycling.wix.com/inkandtoner email@example.com #62XL Black or Color #74XL or #75XL Color #78 Color (Blue label only) 0.25 CANON EMPTY INKJET CARTRIDGES BELOW 0.25 CL211 or CL211XL 0.25 0.25 CL241 0.25 #93 Color 0.25 CL241XL 0.25 0.25 CL246 or CL246XL 0.25 0.25 CL511, CL513 or PG225 0.25 0.25 PG210XL 0.25 #95 Color or #97 Color #564XL Color Only (Must be expire dated at least 2015 or newer ) #901 Black #901 Color or #901XL Black 0.25 #901XL or #932XL 0.25 #934, #934XL, #935 or #935XL (any) #933XL or #951XL (any) PG240, PG240XL, PG240XXL or PG250 PG250XL PG245, PG245XL, PG510 or PG512 0.25 PGi 1200XL (any) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 12A4715 0.25 PGi 2200XL 0.25 (any) SHARP EMPTY COPIER and LASER CARTRIDGES BELOW AL100 TD or 0.25 AL110 TD (toner) AL100 DR or AL150DR (drum) 0.25 AL160 TD (toner) AL160 DR (drum) 0.25 AR150 TD or AR 200TD 0.25 (Toner Only) FO45 Drum or 0.25 FO55 Toner (ND) 12A6735 (T520) 0.25 FO55 drum (DR) 12A6765 (T620) 0.25 RICOH EMPTY LASER CARTRIDGES BELOW 12A6860 (T620) or 12A6865 (T620) 12A7460 (T630) 12A7462 (T630) 12A7468 (T630) 0.25 Aficio CL4000 Type 145 C21 SF (any color) Type 140 #970 Black 0.25 #970XL Black 0.25 #971XL (any color) 0.25 #980 (any color) 0.25 LEXMARK EMPTY LASER CARTRIDGES BELOW 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
3 The Canon From Greek kanon, “measuring stick.” Religious texts authoritative for members of a given religion.
ARE CHRISTIANS MEANT TO COMMUNE ONLY ON A SATURDAY AND NEVER ON A SUNDAY? In the second paragraph of his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos writes: “Also, all Christians, when they are going to commune, know that they must approach Holy Communion on Saturday (since it is preceded by the fast of Friday) and on Sunday only by economia, so that they are not compelled to break the fast of Saturday and violate the relevant Holy Canon [sic: here he accidentally speaks of breaking the fast of Saturday, but he most likely means observing a fast on Saturday, because that is what violates the canons].” The first striking remark is “All Christians.” Does Bp. Kirykos consider himself to be a Christian? If so, why does he commune every Sunday without exception, seeing as though “all Christians” are supposed to “know” that they are only allowed to commune on a Saturday, and never on Sunday, except by “economia.” Or perhaps Bp. Kirykos does not consider himself a Christian, and for this reason he is exempt of this rule for “all Christians.” It makes perfect sense that he excludes himself from those called Christians because his very ideas and practices are not Christian at all. Is communion on Saturdays alone, and never on Sundays, really a Christian practice? Is this what Christians have always believed? Was Saturday the day that the early Christians ʺbroke breadʺ (i.e., communed)? Let us look at what the Holy Scriptures have to say. St. Luke the Evangelist (+18 October, 86), in the Acts of the Holy Apostles, writes: “And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow (Acts 20:7).” Thus the Holy Apostle Paul would meet with the faithful on the first day of the week, to wit, Sunday, and on this day he would break bread, that is, he would serve Holy Communion. St. Paul the Apostle (+29 June, 67) also advises in his first epistle to the Corinthians: “On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the collections be not then to be made (1 Corinthians 16:2).” Thus St. Paul indicates that the Christians would meet with one another on the first day of the week, that is, Sunday, not only for Liturgy, but also for collection of goods for the poor. The reason why the Christians would meet for prayer and breaking of bread on Sunday is because our Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead on one day after the Sabbath, on the first day of the week, that is, the Lordʹs Day or Sunday (Matt. 28:1‐7; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). Another reason for the Christians meeting together on Sundays is because the Holy Spirit was delivered to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, which was a Sunday, and this event signified the beginning of the Christian community. That Pentecost took place on a Sunday is clear from Godʹs command in the Old Testament Scriptures: “You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord (Leviticus 23:16).” The reference to “fifty days” and “seventh Sabbath” refers to counting fifty days from the first Sabbath, or seven weeks plus one day; while “the day after the seventh Sabbath” clearly refers to a Sunday, since the day after the Sabbath day (Saturday) is always the Lord’s Day (Sunday). It was on the Sunday of Pentecost that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Thus we read: “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance (Acts 2:1‐4).” A final reason for Sunday being the day that the Christians met for prayer and breaking of bread was in order to remember the promised Second Coming or rather Second Appearance (Δευτέρα Παρουσία) of the Lord. The reference to Sunday is found in the Book of Revelation, in which Christ appeared and delivered the prophecy to St. John the Theologian on “Kyriake” (Κυριακή), which means “the main day,” or “the first day,” but more correctly means “the Lordʹs Day.” (Revelation 1:10). For the above three reasons (that Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the Pentecost and the Second Appearance) the Apostles themselves, and the early Christians immediately made Sunday the new Sabbath, the new day of rest, and the new day for Godʹs people to gather together for prayer (i.e., Liturgy) and breaking of bread (i.e., Holy Communion) Thus we read in the Didache of the Holy Apostles: “On the Lordʹs Day (i.e., Kyriake) come together and break bread. And give thanks (i.e., offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 14).” Thus the Christians met together on the Lord’s Day, that is, Sunday, for the breaking of bread and giving of thanks, to wit, the Divine Liturgy and Holy Eucharist. St. Barnabas the Apostle (+11 June, 61), First Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the Epistle of Barnabas, writes: “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead (Barnabas 15).” The eighth day is a reference to Sunday, which is known as the first as well as the eighth day of the week. How more appropriate to keep the eighth day with joyfulness other than by communing of the joyous Gifts? St. Ignatius the God‐bearer (+20 December, 108), Bishop of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, insists that the Jews who became Christian should be “no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our Life rose again (Magnesians 9).” What could commemorate the Lord’s Day as the day Life rose again, other than by receiving Life incarnate, to wit, that precious Body and Blood of Christ? For he who partakes of it shall never die but live forever! St. Clemes, also known as St. Clement (+24 November, 101), Bishop of Rome, in the Apostolic Constitutions, also declares that Divine Liturgy is especially for Sundays more than any other day. Thus we read: “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church: In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the nations (Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 30).” The reference to “pure sacrifice” is the oblation of Christ’s Body and Blood; “giving thanks to God” is the celebration of the Eucharist (εὐχαριστία = giving thanks). The Apostolic Constitutions also state clearly that Sunday is not only the most important day for Divine Liturgy, but that it is also the ideal day for receiving Holy Communion. It is written: “And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food? (Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 59).” The “gift of the holy food” refers to Holy Communion. The Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church also distinguish Sunday as the day of Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion. The 19th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council mentions the importance of Sunday as a day for gathering and preaching the Gospel sermon: “We declare that the deans of churches, on every day, but more especially on Sundays, must teach all the clergy and the laity words of truth out of the Holy Bible…” The 80th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council states that all clergy and laity are forbidden to be absent from Divine Liturgy for three consecutive Sundays: “In case any bishop or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the list of the clergy, or any layman, without any grave necessity or any particular difficulty compelling him to absent himself from his own church for a very long time, fails to attend church on Sundays for three consecutive weeks, while living in the city, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be removed from communion.” Take note that if one attends Divine Liturgy for three consecutive Saturdays, but not on the Sundays, he still falls under the penalty of this canon because it does not reprimand someone who simply doesn’t attend Divine Liturgy for three weeks, but rather one who “fails to attend church on Sundays.” The reference to “church” must refer to a parish where Holy Communion is offered every Sunday, for an individual who does not attend for three consecutive Sundays cannot be punished by being “removed from communion” if this is not even offered to begin with. Also, the fact that this is the penalty must mean that the norm is for the faithful to commune every Sunday, or at least every third Sunday. The 9th Canon of the Holy Apostles declares that: “All those faithful who enter and listen to the Scriptures, but do not stay for prayer and Holy Communion must be excommunicated, on the ground that they are causing the Church a breach of order.” The 2nd Canon of the Council of Antioch states: “As for all those persons who enter the church and listen to the sacred Scriptures, but who fail to commune in prayer together and at the same time with the laity, or who shun the participation of the Eucharist, in accordance with some irregularity, we decree that these persons be outcasts from the Church until, after going to confession and exhibiting fruits of repentance and begging forgiveness, they succeed in obtaining a pardon…” Both of these canons prove quite clearly that all faithful who attend Divine Liturgy and are not under any kind of penance or excommunication, must partake of Holy Communion. Thus, if clergy and laity are equally expected to attend Divine Liturgy every Sunday, or at least every third Sunday, they are equally expected to Commune every Sunday, or at least every third Sunday. Should they fail, they are to be excommunicated. St. Timothy of Alexandria (+20 July, 384), in his Questions and Answers, and specifically in the 3rd Canon, writes: “Question: If anyone who is a believer is possessed of a demon, ought he to partake of the Holy Mysteries, or not? Answer: If he does not repudiate the Mystery, nor otherwise in any way blaspheme, let him have communion, not, however, every day in the week, for it is sufficient for him on the Lord’s Day only.” So then, if even those who are possessed with demons are permitted to commune on every Sunday, how is it that Bp. Kirykos advises that all Christians are only permitted to commune on a Saturday, and never on a Sunday except by extreme economia? Are today’s healthy, faithful and practicing Orthodox Christians, who do not have a canon of penance or any excommunication, and who desire communion every Sunday, forbidden this, despite the fact that of old even those possessed of demons were permitted it? The above Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church are the Law of God that the Church abides to in order to prevent scandal or discord. Let us now compare this Law of God to the “traditions of men,” namely, the Sabbatian, Pharisaic statement found in Bp. Kirykos’s first letter to Fr. Pedro: “… I request of you the avoidance of disorder and scandal regarding this issue, and to recommend to those who confess to you, that in order to approach Holy Communion, they must prepare by fasting, and to prefer approaching on Saturday and not Sunday.“ Clearly, Bp. Kirykos has turned the whole world upside down, and has made the Holy Canons and the Law of the Church of God as a matter of “discord and scandal,” and instead insists upon his own self‐invented “tradition” which is nowhere to be found in the writings of the Holy Fathers, in the Holy Canons, or in the Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy. The truth is that Bp. Kirykos himself is the one who introduced “disorder and scandal” when he trampled all over the Holy Canons and insisted that his priest, Fr. Pedro, and other laymen do likewise! The truth is that Fr. Pedro and the laymen supporting him are not at all causing “disorder and scandal” in the Church, but they are the ones preventing disorder and scandal by objecting to the unorthodox demands of Bp. Kirykos. Throughout the history of the Orthodox Church, Sunday has always been the day of Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion. This was declared so by the Holy Apostles themselves, was also maintained in the post‐apostolic era, and continues even until our day. Nowhere in the doctrines, practices or history of Orthodox Christianity is there ever a teaching that laymen are supposedly only to commune on a Saturday and never on a Sunday. The only day of the week throughout the year upon which Liturgy is guaranteed to be celebrated is on a Sunday. The Liturgy is only performed on a few Saturdays per year in most parishes, and mostly only during the Great Fast or on the Saturday of Souls. Liturgy is more seldom on weekdays as the Liturgies of Wednesday and Friday nights have been made Pre‐sanctified and limited to only within the Great Fast. Liturgy is now only performed on weekdays if it is a feastday of a major saint. But Liturgy is always performed on a Sunday without fail, in every city, village and countryside, because it is the Lord’s Day. The purpose of Liturgy is to receive Holy Communion, and the reason for it being celebrated on the Lord’s Day without fail is because this is the day of salvation, and therefore the most important day of the week, especially for receiving Holy Communion. For, “This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it (Psalm 118:24).” What greater way to rejoice on the Lord’s Day than to commune of the very Lord Himself? The theory of diminishing Sunday as the day of salvation and communion, and instead opting for Saturday, is actually a heresy known as
Canon 600D Video Guide The Canon 600D is a well rounded DSLR ideal for shooting video. It features an 18MP CMOS sensor granting the ability to shoot Full HighDefinition video as well as a handy flip out screen that can be angled to suit your personal shooting style. Getting Started To start up the camera simply insert a charged battery and SD card into the camera. The battery port can be found on the right hand side of the camera base and the SD card slot on the right hand side of the camera body. Once you have inserted the battery and SD card simply find the camera’s power switch which is located on the top, right hand side of the camera body, and flick it to the ‘ON’ position. The camera should power on. Next turn the mode dial, located adjoining the power button to Video Mode, denoted by a video camera symbol. The screen should then display an image of your targeted frame. To start recording straight away, ensure the camera is set to auto focus, via the AFMF switch on the camera lens. Switch the camera to the AF position, point it at your targeted subject, half press the shutter button to focus your subject. When you are happy with the focus, simply press the record button which can be found on the back of the camera, denoted by an image of a two tone camera. The camera will then begin recording as shown by a red circle displayed on the top right hand side of the screen. To stop recording, simply press the record button a second time. Focus The Canon 600D boasts a range of features to help improve the sharpness and user control when shooting video. To get a more dynamic experience using the autofocus, you can use the directional control buttons on the rear of the camera body to move your AF point around the frame, giving you freedom to focus your subject automatically without requiring them to remain in the centre of the frame. This gives you more control when it comes to framing your shots. Alternatively, Manual Focus can be selected by moving the focus switch on the lens to MF. This mode gives you much more control over the focus and is ideal for making minor tweaks to the sharpness of the image. To use the manual focus, simply point the camera at your subject and using the focus ring located on your lens, turn it until you reach the required focus depth. The location of the focus ring may vary dependant on the specific lens you are using although in the case of the standard 1855 kit lens that is often sold with the camera, the focus ring can be found on the very end of the lens. When using manual focus, it can often be helpful to implement the digital zoom feature to ensure a clear sharp image. To do this press the digital zoom buttons which can be found in the far top right corner on the rear of the camera body. Zoom into the maximum depth to ensure the image is sharp, making adjustments where necessary until you are happy with the image, then simply press the digital zoom button again to return to your original framing. Exposure The Canon 600D as standard is set to implement automatic exposure when shooting video. However to gain more control over this feature, press the menu button to bring up a number of video shooting options. Select the first option of ‘Movie exposure’ and using the directional and ‘SET’ buttons, change this setting from Auto to Manual. Once this option is set, press the menu button again to return to the viewfinder screen and notice the exposure meter featured at the bottom of the screen. Half pressing the shutter will give you an exposure reading between 3 to +3. Ideally you should aim to get your exposure market directly between these two values at 0, unless you intend to shoot with a darker image although this often isn’t recommended. Using the Aperture, ISO and Shutter Speed settings, you can adjust the exposure of the shot to suit your desired needs. On the top of the camera, the selection wheel can be used to cycle through the various shutter speeds to dictate how long your camera will allow light into the sensor while you shoot. A higher shutter speed means your sensor is exposed longer and the shot becomes brighter whereas a lower shutter speed gives an adverse effect. Alternatively, to change the Aperture simply turn the selection wheel whilst holding the aperture button found on the rear of the camera body, denoted by the letters AV. The aperture dictates the size of the iris. I higher aperture means a smaller iris and in turn, less light being allowed to enter the find the sensor, making the image darker. The ISO settings can be changed by pressing the ISO button located on the top of the camera, which will then let the operator choose an ISO setting between 100 or 6400. The ISO dictates the sensitivity of the sensor to light. A higher ISO will mean brighter images but also carries the side effect of more grain, where as a lower ISO will develop a darker yet clearer image. Alternatively, AUTO may be selected to let the camera decide the best ISO setting for the scene. Frame Rate and Resolution The Canon 600D features full HD video recording and a selectable frame rate between 24fps and 50fps. The current settings can be found on the left side of the display when in video shooting mode. If the current settings aren’t showing, the INFO button will cycle through display information until the various settings are displayed. To select your desired shooting mode, simply press the Q button to bring up the selection tool. Using the directional buttons, cycle through the options until you reach the second from bottom setting displayed in the image. Press the set button to select the option and using the selection wheel, cycle through the various settings until you reach the desired option and press the SET button to select it. The most common setting to use would be 1920 25 as this shoots in full HD with at 25 fps which is the best standard for common PAL recording. However 1920 24, 1280 50 and 640 25 is also available for NTSC regions, higher speed HD recording and SD recording respectively. The Canon 600D’s sensor shoots video in progressive format in keeping with it’s Full HD standard. This feature cannot be changed. Audio The Canon 600D features limited audio settings using it’s internal microphone which can be overridden by an external mic, using the 3.5mm mic on the left side of the camera’s body. As standard, the camera records audio levels automatically but a manual feature is accessible via the settings menu. When opening the settings menu using the MENU button, use the directional buttons to navigate to the second tab and down to sound recording. From this menu, you may select sound recording to Auto, Manual or Disable. When using Manual, sound levels must be adjusted from this menu using the Rec. level setting and the Level meter at the bottom of the screen. External Hardware The Canon 600D records directly onto an SD card which can be inserted and removed as necessary. Due to the high write speeds of the camera only SD cards rated class 6 or higher will be functional alongside the camera. Canon 600D’s use a standardised EF lens fitting, meaning a number of lenses are available for use with the camera. Zoom lenses are considered more versatile however true focal lenghth lenses provide a cleaner, more high quality image.
CONCISE SUMMARY of the Soteriological Heresies of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis Bp. Kirykos tells his followers that those who have reacted against his policy regarding the issue of Holy Communion, supposedly teach that believers should eat meat and dairy products in preparation for Communion. But this slander is most ludicrous. He spreads this slander solely in order to cover up his two heretical letters to Fr. Pedro. The aforesaid letters were sent during Great Lent, during which not only is there no consumption of meat, but even oil and wine are not partaken save for Saturdays and Sundays only. Therefore, since the scandal occurred on the Sunday of Orthodoxy and continued further on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Cross (both of which fall in Great Lent), and since Fr. Pedro denounced Bp. Kirykos prior to the commencement of Holy Week, how can Bp. Kirykos’ slander be believed, regarding meat‐eating? In reality, it is Bp. Kirykos himself who blasphemes and preaches heresies without the slightest sign of repentance. Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that Christians should not commune on Sundays, but only on Saturdays. He destroys the Christian Soteriological meaning of Sunday as the day of Salvation and of Eternal Life, and he replaces it with the Saturday of the Jews! (Heresy = Sabbatianism) Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that fasting without oil makes a Christian “worthy” of Communion without any reference to the Mystery of Confession and the teaching of the Church that only God makes man worthy, because without God, no one is worthy. (Heresy = Pelagianism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that continuous Holy Communion was permitted to the early Christians supposedly because they were all ascetics and fasters, and that it was this fasting that made them “worthy to commune,” when in reality the early Christians lived among the world, and even the bishops were married, and they only knew of the fasts of Great Lent and of every Wednesday and Friday, whereas today’s Orthodox Christians have several more fasts (Dormition, Nativity, Apostles, etc). The Holy Apostles in their Canons forbid us to fast on Saturdays. The Synod of Gangra anathematizes those who call meat or marriage unclean or a reason of unworthiness to commune, as is written in the 1st and 2nd canons of that Synod. (Heresy of Bp. Kirykos = Manichaeanism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that if “by economy” he permits someone “lucky” to commune on a Sunday during Great Lent, that such a person must fast strictly on the Saturday prior, without oil, whereas the 64th Apostolic Canon forbids this, and the 55th Canon of the Quinisext Council admonishes the Church of Old Rome, in order for this cacodoxy and cacopraxy to cease. Additionally, St. Photius the Great in his “Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs” calls the act of fasting strictly on the Saturdays of Great Lent “the first heresy of the Westerners” (Heresy of Bp. Kirykos = Frankism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that laymen are unworthy due to the fact they are laymen, and that outside of the fasting periods they must prepare for Communion by fasting for 7 days without meat, 5 days without dairy, 3 days without oil or wine, 1 day without olives and sesame products. He demands this fast upon all laymen, whether married or virgins, whether old or young, and without allowing the spiritual father to judge those who confess to him with either a stricter or easier fast, according to one’s sins. In other words, their only sin causing the necessity for this long fast is the fact that they are laymen! Paradoxically, Bp. Kirykos himself eats eggs, cheese, milk, etc, as late as midnight on a Saturday night and then he serves the Liturgy and Communes on Sunday without feeling “unworthy.” He justifies his hypocrisy by saying “I am permitted to eat whatever I want because I am a Bishop!” Phew! In other words, he believes that his Episcopal dignity makes him “worthy” of communion without having the need to fast even for one day, whereas laymen need to fast for an entire week simply because they are laymen! This system was kept by the Pharisees, and they were condemned by the Lord because they placed heavy burdens on the shoulders of men, while they would not lift the weight of even a single finger. (Heresy = Pharisaism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that the Holy Canons do not apply in our times but that they are only for the Apostolic era. He preaches that back then the Church was “worthy” to commune but that now we are all fallen and because of this the Holy Canons must be interpreted differently, and not in the same context as they were interpreted by the Holy Fathers. In other words, Bp. Kirykos preaches that of one kind was the Apostolic Church, and of another kind are we today, and that “we must return.” In so saying, he forgets that the Lord’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church, and he blasphemes the verse in the Symbol of the Faith in which we confess that also we today, by God’s mercy, belong to the “One, Holy, Catholic and APOSTOLIC Church,” and that there is no such thing as another Church of the Apostolic times and a different Church today, but that there exists ONLY THE ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST, both then and now, with the same requirement to abide by the Holy Canons and to interpret them exactly how the Holy Fathers interpreted them. The only ones who believe in a first “Apostolic Church” and a later fall, and that “we must return,” are the Chiliasts and Ecumenists, these very heretics that Bp. Kirykos supposedly battles, yet he preaches their cacodoxies (Heresies = Chiliasm and Ecumenism).
Woodburn17sep16 Processing Report for Sabre mapping mission with Canon s110 17 September 2016 Survey Data >9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 200 m Fig.
In reference to the fast of Saturday. You wrote that in order to receive Communion on Sunday, entirely by exception and only by economy, strictly fasting on Saturday is an imperative rule, otherwise Your Holiness does not allow participation in Holy Communion, even referring to Bishop Matthew of Bresthena. The reference, however, to the above bishop shows to be inaccurate and very deceptive, because this bishop never left behind such a tradition, but on the contrary, as an Athonite ascetic he unswervingly implemented the Orthodox Tradition concerning Saturday and Sunday and the refrainment of fasting on these days. In order to reinforce Your assertion, You gave me, through Fr. Panteleimon of Croatia, a book entitled Concerning Holy Communion, by Archbishop Andrew of the G.O.C. of Athens and all Greece (Athens 1992), which is inaccurate and presents an arbitrary throng of excerpts of official texts of the Church, where it is quoted that “he who wishes to receive Communion on Sunday, is obliged to fast on Saturday identically as on Friday,” (footnote p. 40). The above, however, are absolutely contrary to the Holy Tradition of the Church, namely the 64th Apostolic Canon and the 55th Canon of the First‐Second Council, which states that “If any Clergyman is found fasting on Sunday, or on Saturday with the exception of one only, let him be deposed from office. If, however, he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.” According to Your Eminence’s view, are the faithful able to receive Communion on Feasts of the Lord or the Mother of God or in remembrance of Saints if these fall on a Monday or Tuesday? Should they then fast also on Sunday? Does Your ordered fast on Saturday only concern laymen? 2.