PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 12 July at 15:26 - Around 220000 files indexed.
Results for «confessor»:
Total: 19 results - 0.096 seconds
Photographs from the elevation of Fr. Pedro to spiritual father – confessor On 15/28 July, 2009, Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis tonsures Fr. Pedro to the rank of spiritual father – confessor. This means that from this moment Fr. Pedro has the sacred right and spiritual duty to confess and advise the faithful, and to guide them in Confession and Holy Communion. On the same day, Fr. Panteleimon was also elevated to the rank of confessor. Fr. Pedro (in the red phelonion) is tonsured as spiritual father ‐ confessor The newly‐tonsured confessors are given their epigonatia
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
INTRODUCTION The Scandal at Karea and the Justified Departure of Fr. Pedro Fr. Pedro was accepted into the G.O.C. Metropolis of Mesogaea (that of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis) in February, 2009. Fr. Pedro also received rebaptism, rechrismation, and reordination even though he had the form of the triple immersion and was a cleric of another old calendarist synod (of Russian succession), in accordance with the new practice of Bp. Kirykos to baptize everybody entering his synod without checking the manner or form of the first baptism. For one year, Bp. Kirykos himself and the clergy and laity of the metropolis were very pleased in all aspects with Fr. Pedro’s confession and practice. On 15/28 July, 2009, Fr. Pedro was elevated to the rank of spiritual father – confessor, thereby giving him the right to confess and advise the faithful. (In order to verify this event, two photographs of his elevation to the rank of confessor are found in the list of documents on the website.) On 19 September/2 October, 2009, Fr. Pedro was assigned as rector (officiating priest) of the parish of St. Spyridon in Karea, Athens. (In order to verify this fact, the certificate of his appointment as parish priest is found on the list of documents on the website.) In the meantime, Fr. Pedro noticed that in his parish, where he had responsibility before God and men, the Holy Canons were not being followed by the laity. The first anti‐canonical occurrence was that women would enter the holy altar. The second anti‐canonical occurrence was that some women were scandalized when they saw laypeople receiving Communion every Sunday during Lent, even though these laypeople had confessed and prepared themselves in accordance with the guidance of their spiritual father. First Fr. Pedro asked for the help of Bp. Kirykos. But since Bp. Kirykos did not have any concern or give any advice and did not show any interest in his complaint, Fr. Pedro, as spiritual father and officiating priest of the Holy Church [of St. Spyridon to which he had been appointed], asked a layperson of the parish to give some photocopies of the holy canons and patristic teachings regarding women not being permitted to enter the altar, women not being permitted to speak or teach inside the church, and concerning the frequent communion after confession and with a clean conscience as an Orthodox teaching which should not cause even one scandal but rather the devoutness and joy for their brethren in Christ who received the Lord. (The photocopies which the layperson distributed with the blessing of Fr. Pedro can be found among the documents on the website.) As a reaction to the above, on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross, Bp. Kirykos sent his FIRST BLASPHEMOUS LETTER to Fr. Pedro, in which Bp. Kirykos preaches at least five heresies. (A scan of this letter is found on the list of documents on the website). After a few days Fr. Pedro asked a lay theologian to telephone Bp. Kirykos and explain to him his doubt concerning the letter. But once Bp. Kirykos was informed that his letter was blasphemous and heretical, Bp. Kirykos began frantically screaming “Stop talking! Stop talking!” The next day Fr. Pedro received the SECOND BLASPHEMOUS LETTER of Bp. Kirykos, in which he dares to call the photocopies from the Rudder and the writings of St. Basil which were handed out at St. Spyridon’s parish as supposedly containing an “unorthodox mindset!” (A scan of this letter by Bp. Kirykos is found on the list of documents on the website). Two days later Fr. Pedro sent his FIRST RESPONSE to Bp. Kirykos, which Bp. Kirykos still has not responded to even though several weeks have passed. (A scan of this letter by Bp. Pedro can be found on the list of documents on the website). Bp. Kirykos invited Fr. Pedro to defend himself at a clerical meeting of the Metropolis but he forbade the presence of Fr. Pedro’s interpreter, Mr. Christos Noukas. This forbiddance is anti‐canonical because Bp. Kirykos cannot invite a priest to defend himself at a meeting without the priest having the means to express his positions (Fr. Pedro is of Brazilian descent and requires a translator to communicate in Greek). Fr. Pedro, seeing then that Bp. Kirykos was using a Caesaro‐Papist tactic, renounced him because of his many heresies and departed to another old calendarist synod in which he finds more seriousness towards the Orthodox dogmas and teachings, while in the person of Bp. Kirykos he saw a very small amount of seriousness, if not complete negligence. (Proof of the authenticity of the above can be found among the documents on the website.)
In reference to the Mystery of Holy Communion The Orthodox Church, guarding the ancient Apostolic tradition, does not only urge the participation in the preeminent Mystery, but requires, by the 8th and 9th Apostolic Canons, the 66th and the 80th canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council and the 2nd canon of the Council in Antioch, all of the faithful in church, laypeople and clergymen to partake of the common Chalice, under the penalty of excommunication and deposition. Only the prohibited, those who have fallen into mortal sins, are excluded from this Eucharistic participation, by the suggestion of their spiritual father and confessor, as the 102nd canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council dictates. The philokalic fathers, who were mockingly called Kollyvades by everyone, from their adversaries to their mortal enemies, were attempting to revive and teach this ancient, revered Apostolic Tradition on the Holy Mountain and were criticized and slandered and sent away from Athos and some of them were killed. So it is a valid apprehension as to why Your Eminence remains completely silent and openly ignores the now known book of the philokalic fathers, which is the book of Saints Makarios Notaras, formerly of Corinth, and Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, Concerning the Continuous Communion of the Immaculate Mysteries of Christ, which constitutes a summary and recapitulation of the teachings of the Holy and God‐bearing Fathers about the Mystery of Holy Communion, and as such proclaims both the synodal decision of Patriarch Neophytos of Constantinople from Maroneia, and the synodal decision of the Church of Greece in 1886. It is strange that this very well known book is absent from the sources and references about Holy Communion in the above mentioned book by Archbishop Andrew of the G.O.C., Concerning Holy Communion. The Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory V also invokes this ancient Apostolic Tradition by his synodal decision in the year 1819 which says that “the pious have the duty to approach and receive the life‐giving Body, for this reason they are called by the priest.” But also the Church of Greece, by its synodal decision in the year 1878, condemns the different teachings of Makrakis, among which are the abolition of the Mystery of Confession, and appeals to this ancient Apostolic Tradition by saying that “but not only does the Church by no means forbid the truly worthy to present themselves more frequently to Holy Communion, but indeed in every liturgy, by the sounding of ‘with the fear of God, faith and love draw near’ She calls them to present themselves to Holy Communion.” The previously mentioned bishop Matthew of Bresthena also invokes this Apostolic Tradition concerning frequent Communion in his book “The Mystery of Confession,” (Concerning Holy Communion, pp. 107‐ 111, Hieromonk Matthew, Spiritual Father, Pilgrim to the All‐holy and Life‐giving Tomb, Athonite, Cretan, Lavriotan, Athens 1933). All Holy Tradition speaks about the necessary preparation before Holy Communion, which concerns clergymen and laypeople, and consists of the continual cleansing of the heart and mind, by Repentance and Confession, by the obligatory complete fast from midnight and after and by the Pre‐Communion fast according to one’s strength, in accordance with the opinion of one’s spiritual father and confessor. Your Eminence, however, writes that the only necessary preparation and obligatory prerequisite for Holy Communion is fasting and nothing else. But the question easily arises of why the clergymen do not fast before Holy Communion, maybe because, according to Your view they have some privilege over laypeople? Why does Your Eminence completely silence the basic criterion of Holy Communion, which is the clean conscience, as the Church has believed from the beginning, and impose objective criteria for those who will receive Communion in the future? Who will inspect these, forbidding and allowing Holy Communion? Will someone give us a reference? Did the God‐bearing Holy Fathers, who did not establish a canon of obligatory fasting before Holy Communion, do this by oversight or mistake? By Your Eminence setting and imposing new canons and morals, under the pretext of devoutness and ascetic piety, do You consider that it is necessary to cover the void of what was unforeseen and omitted by the God‐bearing Holy Fathers? Does Your Eminence believe that the Holy God‐bearing Fathers have erred and that You are able to make an examination and correction of them? In Your Eminence’s reference to the unworthiness of the faithful, do You consider that we the clergymen and shepherds are worthy and holy and above any censure and criticism? Truly, if as You write, due to their unworthiness none of the faithful should remain in the church, then this means two things, either the congregation is not baptized Orthodox or we the clergymen and shepherds are unworthy of the Master’s calling and have no concern for the salvation of the logical sheep, which the Master Christ has entrusted to us, because we have not made them worthy of the grace of the All‐Holy Spirit so that they may continuously receive the life‐giving body and blood of the Lord, and rather the absence of our spiritual guidance will end up in our sure condemnation on the day of the just judgment. Therefore the faithful have every right not to call us shepherds and spiritual fathers, but oppressive wolves and stepfathers, because the total absence of love, indifference and contempt for the flock is what characterizes us. We, whose chief characteristics are lack of feeling and the strict observance of the letter of the law, as we exclusively understand it, present ourselves as managers of the power of Christ. We are only concerned with our personal interests and we offer the logical sheep of Christ as prey to the noetic wolf who is the ruler of this world, that is, the devil. Truly, which of us clergymen and shepherds, moved by pure love, and without ulterior motives and expedience, as our Lord, literally ran
The writings of Your Eminence freely result in the conclusion that the confessor and spiritual father in no way has the pastoral authority to judge and decide when and how the confessed believer should receive Holy Communion, but without Your Eminence providing the necessary proof. 6.
These medieval tapestries often depict wars or some stories that had a huge impact on Medieval England such as the battle of Hastings, Edward the Confessor sending Harold to Normandy, etc.
Confessor Cromwell Project Impurity(End Game) Acquired:
Your weapon has been your confessor and friend longer than any others, and so it has grown to be one of it's own, aiding you in combat against your foes.
THE PROFILE OF A CONTEMPORARY PHARISEE The Pharisees of Israel were meticulous in obeying the law. In fact, they came up with hundreds of their own laws, which were supposed to help them better obey God’s laws. They constantly opposed Jesus Christ, and sought to trap him. But the Pharisees are not a past phenomenon but also exist today. They are not only among the Jews, but even among the Christians, even among the “Genuine Orthodox Christians.” Thus we must beware of them, because they are truly the greatest enemies of Christ. We must remember that the harlots and the tax‐collectors were changed by Christ’s message and they truly became Christian. But the Pharisees not only refused to change, but it was they who judged Christ and demanded his crucifixion. We must never cease to forget this historical Christian truth. Pharisees lurking within Christianity were also the source for almost every heresy, including the heresies of Papism and Ecumenism. The following quote is from the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 23:1‐35): 1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 ʺThe teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Mosesʹ seat. A Pharisee is someone in the position of authority. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. The Pharisees does not practice what he preaches (otherwise known as hypocrite or actor). 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on menʹs shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. The demands of a Pharisee are burdensome. They offer no help or assistance. 5 ʺEverything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; A Pharisee makes sure you know how spiritual he is, much more spiritual than you! 6 they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; Pharisees live for prestige and recognition. Even if they only complete two years of theology they will dare to call themselves “theologians,” when the Church in her entire history only deems three people worthy of this title, namely St. John the Theologian, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Symeon the New Theologian. They will not only consider themselves “theologians,” but will even try their best to rise to the top of entire Synods, even if they are still laymen. Then they will slowly influence the Church to follow their false ideologies, until they climb the ranks of the hierarchy. For instance, this is exactly what the “theologians” Mr. Gkoutzidis and Mr. Kontogiannis did among the Matthewites in the 1970s until today, while this is what the “theologians” Mr. Sarantopoulos and Mr. Sakarellos did among the Florinites. 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ʹRabbi.ʹ A Pharisee lives for titles; “professor” “theologian,” “master,” “confessor,” self‐appointed “president of the pan‐orthodox council,” “only real bishop left in the world,” etc. 8 ʺBut you are not to be called ʹRabbi,ʹ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. The Kingdom of God on earth, namely, the Church, should be a level playing field. No special titles or privileges. All laymen are members of the Royal Priesthood (Βασιλικόν Ιεράτευμα) otherwise known as the “Holy Nation” (Ἔθνος Ἅγιον). The clergy are only those who are chosen from the Royal Priesthood, and elected to be the servants and not the rulers of the people. There are also no such things as “theologians.” Only three theologians exist in the Church, and these are Ss. John, Gregory and Symeon the New. All clergy and laymen who “theologize” should only be followed if their teachings comply with the dogmas and teachings of the Scriptures, Apostolic Canons, Ecumenical Councils, Pan‐Orthodox Councils, Local Councils and Patrology of the Orthodox Church. Even a hundred bishops and a thousand theologians are not infallible, for even entire councils have been rejected by the Church (i.e., the “Robber Synod” under Dioscoros, the false councils of Lyons and Florence, and others). Thus, one bishop and one theologian are also not infallible and should never be treated as such, because even if they theologize correctly one day, they could fall the next day. Even Popes and Patriarchs have fallen. Why, even the highest angel, the bright Lucifer, fell and became the darkest of demons. As Orthodox we know only of one infallible man, and this was our Lord Jesus Christ, who was theology in human form (i.e., Θεός Λόγος σεσαρκωμένος – God the Word in the flesh). Those who truly follow Christ abide in his words and this is exemplified in their actions. By actions we do not mean outward appearance, but inward reality. Those who speak of or seek after outward appearance are Pharisees in their “finest” form. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ʹfather,ʹ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ʹteacher,ʹ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The Pharisee finds it hard to survive in an atmosphere which is God‐centred in its focus. They need the focus to be on themselves! 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. In the Kingdom of God on earth, namely the Church, there is meant to be a revolution of leadership. The greatest in rank is the servant of all. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. In the Kingdom of God, one truly increases his spiritual ‘rank’ by demoting himself, utterly humiliating himself, and making himself the least of all. 13 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in menʹs faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Pharisees make it hard to enter the Kingdom. Their near‐dead souls and bodies block the way to those seeking entrance. 15 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Pharisees are zealous to win people over to their way (consider Saul of Tarsus before Christ converted him). Their errors are magnified and amplified as they are passed onto their followers. 16 ʺWoe to you, blind guides! You say, ʹIf anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.ʹ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ʹIf anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.ʹ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by Godʹs throne and by the one who sits on it. A Pharisee always focuses on human efforts and endeavours, while completely missing divine purpose and intention. 23 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices‐‐mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law‐‐justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. Pharisees are meticulous about carrying out the fine details of their own law (not God’s law). Their ‘spiritual’ labours are measured to the last gram, but they cannot see the heart of the law which beats within a true Christian, for the law has been written on our heart and in our inward‐parts. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. A Pharisee always excels at nit‐picking, while missing the nose on his head! 25 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self‐indulgence. A Pharisee slaps a fresh coat of paint on, to hide the rotten boards. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. True change begins inwardly, and naturally works outward. 27 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead menʹs bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. The grass is mowed and the windows are washed, but beware the killer lurking just behind the curtains! 29 ʺWoe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ʹIf we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.ʹ Pharisees of today like to think that they are not at all like the Pharisees of bygone days. 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Pharisees can’t quite hide who they really are. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 ʺYou snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matt 23:1‐35) The following quotes are from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 7:4‐9, 7:13):
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
Jean-Marie Le Pen then met Father Tikhon, Putin's confessor, and Vladimir Kryuchkov, the former head of the KGB.
These two factors can- proval, and the person so consecrated (Can 1382), (5) A confessor who not be presumed.
w E 18930515 13%
Houghton, of the Church of the Transfiguration, or the ‘Little Church Around the Corner,’ as it is familarly known, is the ‘father confessor’ to great numbers of people.