PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 26 January at 23:02 - Around 76000 files indexed.
The capture of Constantinople may have seemed like a great defeat, but how can run reign from an Empire in ruin?
- She arranged with Justinian that if she were removed from power, she would move herself and the whole Ostrogothic treasure to Constantinople.
‘We have pleasure inform Your Grace that Holy Synod of our Patriarchate after studying in several meetings question Anglican Orders from Orthodox point view resolved their validity.’ Today, explaining this telegram, we inform Your Grace that the Holy Synod, having as a motive the resolution passed some time ago by the Church of Constantinople, which is the church having the First Throne between the Orthodox Churches, resolved that the consecrations of bishops and ordinations of priests and deacons of the Anglican Episcopal Church are considered by the Orthodox Church as having the same validity which the Orders of the Roman Church have, because there exist all the elements which are considered necessary from an Orthodox point of view for the recognition of the grace of the Holy Orders from Apostolic Succession.
SIGILLION The Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain Gregory by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Most Holy Overseers and supervisors of the community of the Holy‐ named Mountain; abbots, priors, sacristans of the Holy and Stavropegic Monasteries situated there and the remaining Fathers, who are in the Holy Sketes and Cells abiding in the solitary life. Beloved and dearest children in our Lord, may the grace and peace of God be upon you, and our blessing and prayers. Years before during my second time by divine mercy as Patriarch, the Church, beholding the ongoing quarrels and disputes between the most holy Fathers there, published its Patriarchal and synodical decree, abolishing and stopping the immoderate ambition of some, and rejecting the satanically inspired scandals and removing from the midst that which was causing spiritual ruin, thereby treating your God‐beloved conduct and realizing your irreproachable solitary state. [Here the kollyva issue is expounded at length.] Concerning Divine and Holy Communion, you must be sure and know that the pious have the obligation at every Holy Mystagogy to approach and partake of the life‐creating Body, for which reason they are thus summoned by the Priest “With fear of God, faith, and love, draw near.” Also, concerning the precariousness and incompetence of people receiving Communion every day, the Church is entrusted with this and each one is commanded to approach the Holy Communion, whenever one confesses to one’s spiritual father, finds oneself worthy of Holy Communion and receives the permission of one’s spiritual father. But if one proves to be a criminal, one must submit to a penance, carry out the assigned penance with repentance and tears first, then present oneself again to one’s spiritual father to receive permission, and thus become worthy of the Divine and Holy Communion, for which neither is there a predestination of days, but nor must forty days first pass after having received Communion. Since [Communion] is unobstructed and unhindered, and whoever wishes to receive permission from their spiritual father, as one irreproachable, it is permitted for this person to receive Communion every week; however, neither is this a limit, nor is it an Apostolic Canon [i.e., neither is weekly the limited frequency, nor is it demanded for all to commune weekly]. These things we order and advise to everyone, to which you should be firmly rooted, and do not deviate from them, but neither break out into untimely and arrogant quarrels and disputes and satanic convictions, which are the fruit of death and destruction of the soul. Whoever is caught, out of malevolence or an evil mindset, persisting in this spiritually detrimental mindset and is proven to be quarreling about these things and resisting or that he thinks lawfully that memorial services be performed and kollyva presented for the salvation of the souls of the dead only on Saturday and not on any other day, or out of obstinacy and passion he carries out these things and presents them on Sunday, rewarding those who on occasion fall into minor sins, or he is seen saying that we must receive Communion every forty days and neither less nor more frequently than forty days, such a person, whatever his class and rank and age may be, must know that if it becomes known to the Church, he will be required to submit to its legal exasperation and punishment and to experience things which one could not even imagine in one’s dreams. Therefore, pay close attention to everybody, do so willingly and obediently, as we are already writing to advise and request you, and do not choose otherwise. May you be healthy in the Lord. 1819, in the month of August, 7th indiction. + GREGORY V of Constantinople New Rome + POLYCARP of the Holy City of Jerusalem + JOANNICIUS of Caesarea + ATHANASIUS of Nicomedia + GREGORY of Dercae + DOROTHEUS of Adrianople + JEREMIAS of Bizye + CALLINICUS of Siphnus + MELETIUS of Heraclea + MACARIUS of Nicaea + JOSEPH of Thessalonica + ZACHARIAS of Berroea + CALLINICUS of Dydimotechus + PHILOTHEIUS of Varna + DIONYSIUS, Metropolitan of Reos
Historical Contact of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches A review of the relations between the Orthodox Church of the East and the Anglican Church since the time of Theodore of Tarsus By William Chauncey Emhardt Department of Missions and Church Extension of the Episcopal Church New York 1920 EARLY RELATIONS The creation of a department for Church Work among Foreign‐born Americans and their Children under the Presiding Bishop and Council, calls for a careful consideration of the Orthodox Church. It seems most desirable first of all to review briefly the historical contact which has existed between the Church of England and the Orthodox Eastern Church from almost the very beginning. There are, of course, many traditions, unsupported however by historical documents, which indicate that the English Church was of Grecian origin, and that contact between Greece and the British Isles prior to the time of Saint Augustine (A. D. 597) was continuous. The attendance of bishops of the British Church at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), the first historical reference toʹ the Church in England, proves that there was some contact. In 680 A.D., a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus, was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, thus bringing the Greek Church to the Metropolitan See itself. Theodore left deep imprint upon both the civil and the ecclesiastical life of England, unifying the several kingdoms and organizing into a compact body the disjointed churches of the land. To him, more [1/2] than to any other source, we should trace the spirit of national unity and independence in national and religious ambitions that has since characterized the English nation. It is worthy of note that under Theodore the famous Council of Hatfield was held, at which the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Ghost was accepted by the English Church, long before this doctrine was officially recognized in either Spain or Rome. It seems strange that theologians, of either side of the controversy which has grown around this doctrine, have never turned to Theodore as the justifier of the doctrine and as an historical evidence that the British Church, by its acceptance, never intended to depart from the teachings of the East. RELATIONS IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Many centuries must be passed over before we again find Grecian contact in English ecclesiastical life. In 1617, Metrophanes Critopoulos of Veria was sent by the martyr‐patriarch Cyril Lucar to continue his studies at Oxford. Three years later Nicodemus Metaxas of Cephalonia established the first Greek printing press in England. This he later took to Constantinople, where it was immediately destroyed by the Turks. In the year 1653 we find Isaac Basire, a religious exile, trying to establish good feeling among the Greeks toward the suffering Church of England, delighting in spreading among the Greeks at Zante information concerning the Catholic doctrine of our Church. In the same year we find him writing: ʺAt Jerusalem I received much honor, both from the Greeks and Latins. The Greek Patriarch (the better to express his desire of communion with our old Church of England by mee declared unto him) gave mee his bull or patriarchal seal in a blanke (which is their way of credence) besides many [2/3] other respects. As for the Latins they received mee most courteously into their own convent, though I did openly profess myself a priest of the Church of England. After some velitations about the validity of our ordination, they procured mee entrance into the Temple of the Sepulchre, at the rate of a priest, that is, that is half in half less than the lay‐menʹs rate; and at my departure from Jerusalem the popeʹs own vicar (called Commissarius Apostolicus Generalis) gave me his diploma in parchment under his own hand and publick seal, in it stiling mee Sacerdotum Ecclasiae Anglicanae and S.S. Theologiae Doctorem; at which title many marvelled, especilly the Freench Ambassador here (Pera). . . Meanwhile, as I have not been unmindful of our Church, with the true patriarch here, whose usurper noe for a while doth interpose, so will I not be wanting to to embrace all opportunities of propagating the doctrine and repute thereof, stylo veteri; Especilly if I should about it receive commands or instructions from the King (Charles II) (whom God save) only in ordine as Ecclesiastica do I speak this; as for instance, proposall of communion with the Greek Church (salva conscientia et honore) a church very considerable in all those parts. And to such a communion, together with a convenient reformation of some grosser errours, it hath been my constant design to dispose and incline them.ʺ In 1670, the chaplain of the English Embassy at Constantinople at the request of Drs. Pearson, Sancroft and Gunning, made special inquiry concerning the alleged teaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation by the Greeks and recorded his impressions in a publication called Some Account of the Present Greek Churches, published in 1722. His successor, Edward Browne, made a number of official reports concerning the affairs of the Greek Church. In 1669 occurred the noted semi‐official visit of Papas Jeremias Germanus to Oxford. A more important visit was undertaken [3/4] by Joseph Georgirenes, Metropolitan of Samos, who solicited funds for the building of a Greek church, which was erected in the Soho quarter of London in 1677. Over the door there was an inscription recording its setting up in the reign of King Charles the Second, while Dr. Henry Compton was Bishop of London. The cost was borne by the king, the Duke of York, the Bishop of London, and other bishops and nobles. The Greeks do not seem to have kept it long; and after some changes of ownership it was consecrated for Anglican worship in the middle of the nineteenth century under the title and in honor of Saint Mary the Virgin. It was taken down as unsafe at the end of that century and a new building was set up on the site. The Bishop of London, who seemed to be a special patron of the Greeks at this time, undertook the establishment of a Greek College for Greek students, who probably came from Smyrna. An unsigned letter to Archbishop Sancroft seems to indicate that in 1680 twelve Greek students were sent to Oxford. In addition to the Bishop of London, the chief promoter of this movement was Dr. Woodroof, Canon of Christ Church, who succeeded in getting Gloucester Hall, now Worcester College, assigned to the Greeks. There exists in the Archbishopʹs library at Lambeth a printed paper describing the ʺModel of a College to be settled in the university for the education of some youths of the Greek Church.ʺ These twelve students seemed to have been but temporary residents, however, because no official account is given of the permanent residence of Greek students until the year 1698. It is significant to find that in the year 1698, in the copy of the Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, prepared by the World Commissioners for the revision of the liturgy, who were by no means sympathetic with the Greeks, an expression of desire that some explanation of the addition of [4/5] the Filioque, a clause in the Creed, should be given, with the view to ʺmaintaining Catholic Communionʺ as suggested by Dr: Henry Compton. RELATIONS IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY About 1700, Archbishop Philippopolis was granted honorary degrees in both Oxford and Cambridge and was accorded general courtesies. These free relationships had an abrupt termination when, in a letter dated March 2, 1705, the registrar of the Church of Constantinople wrote as follows to Mr. Stephens: ʺThe irregular life of certain priests and laymen of the Eastern Church, living in London, is a matter of great concern to the Church. Wherefore the Church forbids any to go and study at Oxford be they ever so willing.ʺ In 1706, we find the Archbishop of Gotchan in Armenia, receiving liberal contributions from Queen Anne and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York toward the establishment of a printing press for his people. Soon afterward considerable correspondence was established between the dissenting Nonjurors and the Patriarchs of the East. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Wake wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem explaining that the Nonjurors were separatists from the Church of England. The Archbiship significantly ends his letter: ʺita ut in orationibus atque sacrificiis tuis ad sacra Dei altaria mei reminiscaris impensissime rogo.ʺ In 1735, we find the Society for the Promoting of Christian Knowledge recording a gift of books as a present to the Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople. In 1772, the Reverend Dr. King, chaplain to the British Factory at St. Petersburg, after explaining the necessity of the elaborate worship of the Greek Church, in a report, dedicated by permission to King George III says: ʺThe Greek Church as it is at present established in Russia, may be considered in respect of [5/6] its service as a model of the highest antiquity now extant.ʺ About the same time we find the Latitudinarian Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Watson, advising a young woman that she should have no scruples in marrying a Russian, ʺon the subject of religion.ʺ We find early in the nineteenth century, Dr. Waddingham, afterward Dean of Durham, publishing a sympathetic account of The Present Condition and Prospects of the Greek Oriental Church. RELATIONS IN NINETEENTH CENTURY Intimate relations were again resumed at the time of the Greek insurrection in 1821, when many Greeks fled to England to escape the vengeance of the Turks. The flourishing churches in London, Lancaster and Liverpool date from this period. The actual resumption of intercourse between the two Churches dates from 1829 when the American Church was first brought into contact with the Church in the East through the mission of Drs. Robertson and Hill. This was purely an expression of a disinterested desire on the part of the American Church to assist the people of Greece in their effort to recover the educational advantages which had been suppressed by the Turk. The educational work of Dr. Hill at Athens became famous throughout the East. Dr. Hill continued as the head of the school for over fifty years. The next approach by the American Church was made by the Reverend Horatio Southgate, who was sent from this country to investigate the missionary opportunities in Turkey and Persia. In order to avoid any suspicions concerning the motive of the American Church, he again returned in 1840 to assure their ecclesiastical authorities that ʺthe American bishops wished most scrupulously to avoid all effusive intrusion within the jurisdiction of their Episcopal brethren their great desire being to commend and promote a friendly intercourse between the two branches of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the [6/7] hope of mutual advantage.ʺ He returned again in 1844 and although he met with considerable success in his efforts to establish a work for the Church he found that the Church at home was not prepared for such an undertaking and after a few years returned to America. ʺIn the General Convention of 1862, a joint committee was appointed to consider the expediency of opening communication with the Russo‐Greek Church, and to collect authentic information bearing upon the subject. And, in July, 1863, a corresponding committee was appointed in the lower house of the Convocation of Canterbury. Between 1862 and 1867, a number of important pamphlets were issued by the Russo‐Greek committee, under the able editorship of the Reverend Dr. Young, its secretary. After Dr. Young was made Bishop of Florida, the Reverend Charles R. Hale, afterwards Bishop of Cairo, was appointed to succeed him as secretary of the Russo‐Greek committee, and wrote the reports presented to the General Convention of 1871 and 1874. When the Joint Commission on Ecclesiastical Relations replaced with larger powers the Russo‐Greek Committee, he was in 1877 made secretary of the commissions, and wrote the reports up to the year 1895.ʺ The reports of this committee and the pamphlets issued between the years 1862 and 1867 are extremely valuable, showing the care exercised by the Church in those days, in trying to meet a problem that was just beginning to present itself. While negotiations of the American Committee were in process in 1867 an interesting interview was held by Archbishop Alexander Lycurgus of Cyclades, and a number of bishops and clergy of the Church of England. The Archbishop went to England in order to dedicate the orthodox church at
of custody the play ers will find london 1923 Constance atkins Lo n d o n Tra in -S po London 1893tt er s Wagon-Lit SI Mathew Pook Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Aileen Macgregor Book 2 Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI scott myers Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Countess razumosky 35 Orient express 1893 Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Pytor trubosky Barron Von Hoffler Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Professor Demir Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI THROUGH THE ALPS and-see ap proach, in case they lea simulacru d him to th m.
of custody the play ers will find london 1923 Constance atkins Lo n d o n Tra in -S po London 1893tt er s Wagon-Lit SI Mathew Pook Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Aileen Macgregor Book 2 Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI scott myers Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Countess razumosky 35 Orient express 1893 Orient express 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Pytor trubosky Barron Von Hoffler Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Professor Demir Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Constantinople 1893 Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI Wagon-Lit SI THROUGH THE ALPS and-see ap proach, in case they lea simulacru d him to th m.
Project Canterbury The Episcopal and Greek Churches Report of an Unofficial Conference on Unity Between Members of the Episcopal Church in America and His Grace, Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Athens, And His Advisers. October 26, 1918. New York: Department of Missions, 1920 PREFACE THE desire for closer communion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the various branches of the Anglican Church is by no means confined to the Anglican Communion. Many interesting efforts have been made during the past two centuries, a resume of which may be found in the recent publication of the Department of Missions of the Episcopal Church entitled Historical Contact Between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The most significant approaches of recent times have been those between the Anglican and the Russian and the Greek Churches; and of late the Syrian Church of India which claims foundation by the Apostle Saint Thomas. Evdokim, the last Archbishop sent to America by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia in the year 1915, brought with him instructions that he should work for a closer understanding with the Episcopal Church in America. As a result, a series of conferences were held in the Spring of 1916. At these conferences the question of Anglican Orders, the Apostolical Canons and the Seventh Oecumenical Council were discussed. The Russians were willing to accept the conclusions of Professor Sokoloff, as set forth in his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Divinity, approved by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia. In this thesis he proved the historical continuity of Anglican Orders, and the intention to conform to the practice of the ancient Church. He expressed some suspicion concerning the belief of part of the Anglican Church in the nature of the sacraments, but maintained that this could not be of sufficient magnitude to prevent the free operation of the Holy Spirit. The Russian members of the conference, while accepting this conclusion, pointed out that further steps toward inter‐communion could only be made by an oecumenical council. The following is quoted from the above‐mentioned publication: The Apostolical Canons were considered one by one. With explanations on both sides, the two Churches were found to be in substantial agreement. In connection with canon forty‐six, the Archbishop stated that the Russian Church would accept any Anglican Baptism or any other Catholic Baptism. Difficulties concerning the frequent so‐called ʺperiods of fastingʺ were removed by rendering the word ʺfastingʺ as ʺabstinence.ʺ Both Anglicans and Russians agreed that only two fast‐days were enjoined on their members‐‐ Ash‐Wednesday and Good Friday. The Seventh Oecumenical Council was fully discussed. Satisfactory explanations were given by both sides, but no final decision was reached. Before the conference could be reconvened, the Archbishop was summoned to a General Conference of the Orthodox Church at Moscow. During the past year the Syrian Church and the Anglican Church in India have been giving very full and careful consideration to the question of Reunion and it is hoped that some working basis may be speedily established. As a preliminary to this present conference, the writer addressed, with the approval of the members of the conference representing the Episcopal Church, a letter to the Metropolitan which became the basis of discussion. This letter has been published as one of the pamphlets of this series under the title, An Anglican Programme for Reunion. These conferences were followed by a series of other conferences in England which took up the thoughts contained in the American programme, as is shown in the following quotation from the preface to the above‐mentioned letter: At the first conference the American position was reviewed and it was mutually agreed that the present aim of such conference was not for union in the sense of ʺcorporate solidarityʺ based on the restoration of intercommunion, but through clear understanding of each otherʹs position. The general understanding was that there was no real bar to communion between the two Churches and it was desirable that it should be permitted, but that such permission could only be given through the action of a General Council. The third of these series of conferences was held at Oxford. About forty representatives of the Anglican Church attended. The questions of Baptism and Confirmation were considered by this conference. It was shown that, until the eighteenth century, re‐baptism of non‐Orthodox was never practiced. It was then introduced as a protest against the custom in the Latin Church of baptizing, not only living Orthodox, but in many cases, even the dead. Under order of Patriarch Joachim III, it has become the Greek custom not to re‐baptize Anglicans who have been baptized by English priests. In the matter of Confirmation it was shown that in the cases of the Orthodox, the custom of anointing with oil, called Holy Chrism, differs to some extent from our Confirmation. It is regarded as a seal of orthodoxy and should not be viewed as repetition of Confirmation. Even in the Orthodox Church lapsed communicants must receive Chrism again before restoration. The fourth conference was held in the Jerusalem Chapel of Westminster Abbey, under the presidency of the Bishop of Winchester. This discussion was confined to the consideration of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. It is not felt by the Greeks that the number of differences on this point touch doctrinal or even disciplinary principles. The Metropolitan stated that there was no difficulty tin the subject. From what he had seen of Anglican Churches, he was assured as to our practice. He further stated that he was strongly opposed to the practice of ascribing certain virtues and power to particular icons, and that he himself had written strongly against this practice, and that the Holy Synod of Greece had issued directions against it.ʺ Those brought in contact with the Metropolitan of Athens, and those who followed the work of the Commission on Faith and Order can testify to the evident desire of the authorities of the East for closer union with the Anglican Church as soon as conditions permit. This report is submitted because there is much loose thinking and careless utterance on every side concerning the position of the Orthodox Church and the relation of the Episcopal Church to her sister Churches of the East. It seems not merely wise, but necessary, to place before Church people a document showing how the minds of leading thinkers of both Episcopal and Orthodox Churches are approaching this most momentous problem of Intercommunion and Church Unity. THE CONFERENCE BY common agreement, representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church and delegates from the American Branch of the Anglican and Eastern Association and of the Christian Unity Foundation of the Episcopal Church, met in the Bible Room of the Library of the General Theological Seminary, Saturday, October 26, 1918, at ten oʹclock. There were present as representing the Greek Orthodox Church: His Grace, the Most Reverend Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Greece; the Very Reverend Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, D.D., Professor of the University of Athens and Director of the Theological Seminary ʺRizariosʺ; Hamilcar Alivisatos, D.D., Director of the Ecclesiastical Department of the Ministry of Religion and Education, Athens, and Mr. Tsolainos, who acted as interpreter. The Episcopal Church was represented by the Right Reverend Frederick Courtney; the Right Reverend Frederick J. Kinsman, Bishop of Delaware; the Right Reverend James H. Darlington, D.D., Bishop of Harrisburg; the Very Reverend Hughell Fosbroke, Dean of the General Theological Seminary; the Reverend Francis J. Hall, D.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the General Theological Seminary; the Reverend Rockland T. Homans, the Reverend William Chauncey Emhardt, Secretary of the American Branch of the Anglican and Eastern Association and of the Christian Unity Foundation; Robert H. Gardiner, Esquire, Secretary of the Commission for a World Conference on Faith and Order; and Seraphim G. Canoutas, Esquire. The Right Reverend Edward M. Parker, D.D., Bishop of New Hampshire, telegraphed his inability to be present. His Grace the Metropolitan presided over the Greek delegation and Dr. Alivisatos acted as secretary. The Right Reverend Frederick Courtney presided over the American delegation and the Reverend W. C. Emhardt acted as secretary. Bishop Courtney opened the conference with prayer and made the following remarks: ʺOur brethren of the Greek Church, as well as the Anglican, have received copies of the letter to His Grace which our secretary has drawn up; and which lies before us this morning. It is clear to all those who have taken active part in efforts to draw together, that it is of no use any longer to congratulate each other upon points on which we agree, so long as we hold back those things on which we differ. The points on which we agree are not those which have caused the separation, but the things concerning which we differ. So long as we assume that the conditions which separate us now are the same as those which have held us apart, we are in line for removing those things which separate us. We are making the valleys to be filled and the mountains to be brought low and making possible a revival of the spirit of unity. It is in the hope of effecting this that we are gathered together. Doctrinal differences underlie the things that differentiate us from each other. The proper way to begin this conference would be to ask the Greeks what they think of some of the propositions laid down in the letter, beginning first with the question of the Validity of Anglican Orders, and then proceeding to the ʺFilioque Clauseʺ in the Creed and other topics suggested. ʺWill His Grace kindly state what is his view concerning the Validity of Anglican Orders?ʺ The Metropolitan: ʺI am greatly moved indeed, and it is with feelings of great emotion that I come to this conference around the table with such learned theologians of the Episcopal Church. Because it is the first time I have been given the opportunity to express, not only my personal desire, but the desire of my Church, that we may all be one. I understand that this conference is unofficial. Neither our Episcopal brethren, nor the Orthodox, officially represent their Churches. The fact, however, that we have come together in the spirit of prayer and love to discuss these questions, is a clear and eloquent proof that we are on the desired road to unity. I would wish, that in discussing these questions of ecclesiastical importance in the presence of such theological experts, that I were as well equipped for the undertaking as you are. Unfortunately, however, from the day that I graduated from the Theological Seminary at Jerusalem, I have been absorbed in the great question of the day, which has been the salvation of Christians from the sword of the invader of the Orient. ʺUnfortunately, because we have been confronted in the Near East with this problem of paramount importance, we leaders have not had the opportunity to think of these equally important questions. The occupants of three of the ancient thrones of Christendom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, have been constantly confronted with the question of how to save their own fold from extermination. These patriarchates represent a great number of Orthodox and their influence would be of prime importance in any deliberation. But they have not had time to send their bishops to a round‐table conference to deliberate on the questions of doctrine. A general synod, such as is so profitably held in your Church when you come together every three years, would have the same result, if we could hold the same sort of synod in the Near East. A conference similar to the one held by your Church was planned by the Patriarch of Constantinople in September, 1911, but he did not take place, owing to command of the Sultan that the bishops who attended would be subject to penalty of death. ʺIn 1906, when the Olympic games took place in Athens, the Metropolitan of Drama, now of Smyrna, passed through Athens. That was sufficient to cause an imperative demand of the Patriarch of Constantinople that the Metropolitan be punished, and in consequence he was transferred from Drama to Smyrna. From these facts you can see under what conditions the evolution of the Greek Church has been taking place. ʺAs I have stated in former conversations with my brethren of the Episcopal Church, we hope that, by the Grace of God, freedom and liberty will come to our race, and our bishops will be free to attend such conferences as we desire. I assure you that a great spirit of revival will be inaugurated and give proof of the revival of Grecian life of former times. ʺThe question of the freedom of the territory to be occupied in the Near East is not merely a question of the liberty of the people and the individual, but also
Encyclical on Anglican Orders from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922 [The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:] 1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history. 2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination ‐ viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All‐Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry. 3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders. 4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re‐ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches. + Meletios [Metaxakis], Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Oecumenical Patriarch http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
NEW TESTAMENT Presented to Presented by Date – Occasion THE EASTERN - GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT THE EASTERN / GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE BASED ON THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE PATRIARCHAL TEXT NEW TESTAMENT ALSO KNOWN AS THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES With extensive introductory and supplemental material The EOB New Testament is presented in memory of Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos (†2007) Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople And in honor of His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah Primate of the Orthodox Church in America ABBREVIATIONS AND CODES  Indicates words added for clarity and accuracy but which may not be in the Greek text.
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
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 Russian Patriarchate challenges the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet not in a conflict mode.
In Constantinople, a Committee of the Holy Synod was appointed in February, 1920, especially to consider relations with the Anglican Church, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Cyzicus.
PRESIDENT OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA 75 EAST 93rd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028 Telephone: LEhigh 4‐1601 A SECOND SORROWFUL EPISTLE TO THEIR HOLINESSES AND THEIR BEATITUDES, THE PRIMATES OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCHES, THE MOST REVEREND METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS. The People of the Lord residing in his Diocese are entrusted to the Bishop, and he will be required to give account of their souls according to the 39th Apostolic Canon. The 34th Apostolic Canon orders that a Bishop may do ʺthose things only which concern his own Diocese and the territories belonging to it.ʺ There are, however, occasions when events are of such a nature that their influence extends beyond the limits of one Diocese, or indeed those of one or more of the local Churches. Events of such a general, global nature can not be ignored by any Orthodox Bishop, who, as a successor of the Apostles, is charged with the protection of his flock from various temptations. The lightening‐like speed with which ideas may be spread in our times make such care all the more imperative now. In particular, our flock, belonging to the free part of the Church of Russia, is spread out all over the world. What has just been stated, therefore, is most pertinent to it. As a result of this, our Bishops, when meeting in their Councils, cannot confine their discussions to the narrow limits of pastoral and administrative problems arising in their respective Dioceses, but must in addition turn their attention to matters of a general importance to the whole Orthodox World, since the affliction of one Church is as ʺan affliction unto them all, eliciting the compassion of them allʺ (Phil. 4:14‐16; Heb. 10:30). And if the Apostle St. Paul was weak with those who were weak and burning with those who were offended, how then can we Bishops of God remain indifferent to the growth of errors which threaten the salvation of the souls of many of our brothers in Christ? It is in the spirit of such a feeling that we have already once addressed all the Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church with a Sorrowful Epistle. We rejoiced to learn that, in harmony with our appeal, several Metropolitans of the Church of Greece have recently made reports to their Synod calling to its attention the necessity of considering ecumenism a heresy and the advisability of reconsidering the matter of participation in the World Council of Churches. Such healthy reactions against the spreading of ecumenism allow us to hope that the Church of Christ will be spared this new storm which threatens her. Yet, two years have passed since our Sorrowful Epistle was issued, and, alas! although in the Church of Greece we have seen the new statements regarding ecumenism as un‐Orthodox, no Orthodox Church has announced its withdrawal from the World Council of Churches. In the Sorrowful Epistle, we depicted in vivid colors to what extent the organic membership of the Orthodox Church in that Council, based as it is upon purely Protestant principles, is contrary to the very basis of Orthodoxy. In this Epistle, having been authorized by our Council of Bishops, we would further develop and extend our warning, showing that the participants in the ecumenical movement are involved in a profound heresy against the very foundation of the Church. The essence of that movement has been given a clear definition by the statement of the Roman Catholic theologian Ives M. J. Congar. He writes that ʺthis is a movement which prompts the Christian Churches to wish the restoration of the lost unity, and to that end to have a deep understanding of itself and understanding of each other.ʺ He continues, ʺIt is composed of all the feelings, ideas, actions or institutions, meetings or conferences, ceremonies, manifestations and publications which are directed to prepare the reunion in new unity not only of (separate) Christians, but also of the actually existing Churches.ʺ Actually, he continues, ʺthe word ecumenism, which is of Protestant origin, means now a concrete reality: the totality of all the aforementioned upon the basis of a certain attitude and a certain amount of very definite conviction (although not always very clear and certain). It is not a desire or an attempt to unite those who are regarded as separated into one Church which would be regarded as the only true one. It begins at just that point where it is recognized that, at the present state, none of the Christian confessions possesses the fullness of Christianity, but even if one of them is authentic, still, as a confession, it does not contain the whole truth. There are Christian values outside of it belonging not only to Christians who are separated from it in creed, but also to other Churches and other confessions as suchʺ (Chretiens Desunis, Ed. Unam Sanctam, Paris, 1937, pp. XI‐XII). This definition of the ecumenical movement made by a Roman Catholic theologian 35 years ago continues to be quite as exact even now, with the difference that during the intervening years this movement has continued to develop further with a newer and more dangerous scope. In our first Sorrowful Epistle, we wrote in detail on how incompatible with our Ecclesiology was the participation of Orthodox in the World Council of Churches, and presented precisely the nature of the violation against Orthodoxy committed in the participation of our Churches in that council. We demonstrated that the basic principles of that council are incompatible with the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. We, therefore, protested against the acceptance of that resolution at the Geneva Pan‐Orthodox Conference whereby the Orthodox Church was proclaimed an organic member of the World Council of Churches. Alas! These last few years are richly laden with evidence that, in their dialogues with the heterodox, some Orthodox representatives have adopted a purely Protestant ecclesiology which brings in its wake a Protestant approach to questions of the life of the Church, and from which springs forth the now‐ popular modernism. Modernism consists in that bringing‐down, that re‐aligning of the life of the Church according to the principles of current life and human weaknesses. We saw it in the Renovation Movement and in the Living Church in Russia in the twenties. At the first meeting of the founders of the Living Church on May 29, 1922, its aims were determined as a ʺrevision and change of all facets of Church life which are required by the demands of current lifeʺ (The New Church, Prof. B. V. Titlinov, Petrograd‐Moscow, 1923, p. 11). The Living Church was an attempt at a reformation adjusted to the requirements of the conditions of a communist state. Modernism places that compliance with the weaknesses of human nature above the moral and even doctrinal requirements of the Church. In that measure that the world is abandoning Christian principles, modernism debases the level of religious life more and more. Within the Western confessions we see that there has come about an abolition of fasting, a radical shortening and vulgarization of religious services, and, finally, full spiritual devastation, even to the point of exhibiting an indulgent and permissive attitude toward unnatural vices of which St. Paul said it was shameful even to speak. It was just modernism which was the basis of the Pan‐Orthodox Conference of sad memory in Constantinople in 1923, evidently not without some influence of the renovation experiment in Russia. Subsequent to that conference, some Churches, while not adopting all the reforms which were there introduced, adopted the Western calendar, and even, in some cases, the Western Paschalia. This, then, was the first step onto the path of modernism of the Orthodox Church, whereby Her way of life was changed in order to bring it closer to the way of life of heretical communities. In this respect, therefore, the adoption of the Western Calendar was a violation of a principle consistent in the Holy Canons, whereby there is a tendency to spiritually isolate the Faithful from those who teach contrary to the Orthodox Church, and not to encourage closeness with such in our prayer‐life (Titus 3:10; 10th, 45th, and 65th Apostolic Canons; 32nd, 33rd, and 37th Canons of Laodicea, etc.). The unhappy fruit of that reform was the violation of the unity of the life in prayer of Orthodox Christians in various countries. While some of them were celebrating Christmas together with heretics, others still fasted. Sometimes such a division occurred in the same local Church, and sometimes Easter [Pascha] was celebrated according to the Western Paschal reckoning. For the sake, therefore, of being nearer to the heretics, that principle, set forth by the First Ecumenical Council that all Orthodox Christians should simultaneously, with one mouth and one heart, rejoice and glorify the Resurrection of Christ all over the world, is violated. This tendency to introduce reforms, regardless of previous general decisions and practice of the whole Church in violation of the Second Canon of the VI Ecumenical Council, creates only confusion. His Holiness, the Patriarch of Serbia, Gabriel, of blessed memory, expressed this feeling eloquently at the Church Conference held in Moscow in 1948. ʺIn the last decades,ʺ he said, ʺvarious tendencies have appeared in the Orthodox Church which evoke reasonable apprehension for the purity of Her doctrines and for Her dogmatical and canonical Unity. ʺThe convening by the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Pan‐Orthodox Conference and the Conference at Vatopedi, which had as their principal aim the preparing of the Prosynod, violated the unity and cooperation of the Orthodox Churches. On the one hand, the absence of the Church of Russia at these meetings, and, on the other, the hasty and unilateral actions of some of the local Churches and the hasty actions of their representatives have introduced chaos and anomalies into the life of the Eastern Orthodox Church. ʺThe unilateral introduction of the Gregorian Calendar by some of the local Churches while the Old Calendar was kept yet by others, shook the unity of the Church and incited serious dissension within those of them who so lightly introduced the New Calendarʺ (Acts of the Conferences of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalic Orthodox Churches, Moscow, 1949, Vol. II, pp. 447‐448). Recently, Prof. Theodorou, one of the representatives of the Church of Greece at the Conference in Chambesy in 1968, noted that the calendar reform in Greece was hasty and noted further that the Church there suffers even now from the schism it caused (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1969, No. 1, p. 51). It could not escape the sensitive consciences of many sons of the Church that within the calendar reform, the foundation is already laid for a revision of the entire order of Orthodox Church life which has been blessed by the Tradition of many centuries and confirmed by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Already at that Pan‐Orthodox Conference of 1923 at Constantinople, the questions of the second marriage of clergy as well as other matters were raised. And recently, the Greek Archbishop of North and South America, Iakovos, made a statement in favor of a married episcopate (The Hellenic Chronicle, December 23, 1971). The strength of Orthodoxy has always lain in Her maintaining the principles of Church Tradition. Despite this, there are those who are attempting to include in the agenda of a future Great Council not a discussion of the best ways to safeguard those principles, but, on the contrary, ways to bring about a radical revision of the entire way of life in the Church, beginning with the abolition of fasts, second marriages of the clergy, etc., so that Her way of life would be closer to that of the heretical communities. In our first Sorrowful Epistle we have shown in detail the extent to which the principles of the World Council of Churches are contrary to the doctrines of the Orthodox Church, and we protested against the decision taken in Geneva at the Pan‐Orthodox Conference declaring the Orthodox Church to be an organic member of that council. Then we reminded all that, ʺthe poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it is preached outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which is gradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtue of their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians.ʺ Alas! Of late we see the symptoms of such a great development of ecumenism with the participation of the Orthodox, that it has become a serious threat, leading to the utter annihilation of the Orthodox Church by dissolving Her in an ocean of heretical communities.
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)
→ Quartier de Constantinople attribué aux vénitiens.
THE PAN‐HERESY OF ECUMENISM EXISTED AMONG THE ORTHODOX PRIOR TO 1924 In 1666‐1667 the Pan‐Orthodox Synod of Moscow decided to receive Papists by simple confession of Faith, without rebaptism or rechrismation! At the beginning of the 18th century at Arta, Greece, the Holy Mysteries would be administered by Orthodox Priests to Westerners, despite this scandalizing the Orthodox faithful. In 1863 an Anglican clergyman was permitted to commune in Serbia, by the official decision of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In the 1800s, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote that the schisms within Christianity “do not reach the heavens.” In other words, he believed that heresy doesn’t divide Christians from the Kingdom of God! In 1869, at the funeral of Metropolitan Chrysanthus of Smyrna, an Archbishop of the Armenian Monophysites and a Priest of the Anglicans actively participated in the service! In 1875, the Orthodox Archbishop of Patras, Greece, concelebrated with an Anglican priest in the Mystery of Baptism! In 1878 the first Masonic Ecumenical Patriarch, Joachim III, was enthroned. He was Patriarch for two periods (1878‐1884 and 1901‐1912). This Masonic Patriarch Joachim III is the one who performed the Episcopal consecration of Bp. Chrysostom Kavouridis, who in turn was the bishop who consecrated Bp. Matthew of Bresthena. Thus the Matthewites trace their Apostolic Succession in part from this Masonic “Patriarch.” In 1903 and 1912, Patriarch Joachim III blessed the Holy Chrism, which was used by the Matthewites until they blessed their own chrism in 1958! Thus until 1958 they were using the Chrism blessed by a Masonic Patriarch! In 1879 the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided that in times of great necessity, it is permitted to have sacramental communion with the Armenians. In other words, an Orthodox priest can perform the mysteries for Armenian laymen, and an Armenian priest for Orthodox laymen! In 1895 the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VII declared his desire for al Christians to calculate days according to the new calendar! In 1898, Patriarch Gerasimus of Jerusalem permitted the Greeks and Syrians living in Melbourne to receive communion in Anglican parishes! In 1902 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate refers to the heresies of the west as “Churches” and “Branches of Christianity”! Thus it was an official Orthodox declaration that espouses the branch theory heresy! In 1904 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate refers to the heretics as “those who believe in the All‐Holy Trinity, and who honour the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hope in the salvation of God’s grace”! In 1907 at Portsmouth, England, there was a joint doxology of Russian and Anglican clergy! Prior to 1910 the Russian Bishop Innokenty of Alaska, made a pact with the Anglican Bishop Row of America, that the priests belonging to each Church would be permitted to offer the mysteries to the laymen of one another. In other words, for Orthodox priests to commune Anglican laymen, and for Anglican priests to commune Orthodox laymen! In 1910 the Syrian/Antiochian Orthodox Bishop Raphael (Hawaweeny) permitted the Orthodox faithful, in his Encyclical, to accept the mysteries of Baptism, Communion, Confession, Marriage, etc, from Anglicna priests! The same bishop took part in an Anglican Vespers, wearing his mandya and seated on the throne! In 1917 the Greek Orthodox Exarch of America Alexander of Rodostolus took part in an Anglican Vespers. The same hierarch also took part in the ordination of an Anglican bishop in Pensylvania. In 1918, Archbishop Anthimus of Cyprus and Metropolitan Meletius mataxakis of Athens, took part in Anglican services at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London! In 1919, the leaders of the Orthdoxo Churches in America took part in Anglican services at the “General Assembly of Anglican Churches in America”! In 1920 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical patriarchate refers to the heresies as “Churches of God” and advises the adoption of the new calendar! In 1920, Metropolitan Philaret of Didymotichus, while in London, serving as the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Conference of Lambeth, took part in joint services in an Anglican church! In 1920, Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem (he who was receiving the Holy Light), took part in an Anglican liturgy at the Anglican Church of Jerusalem, where he read the Gospel in Greek, wearing his full Hierarchical vestments! In 1921, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury took part in the funeral of Metropolitan Dorotheus of Prussa in London, at which he read the Gospel! In 1022, Archbishop Germanus of Theathyra, the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in London, took part in a Vespers service at Westminster Abbey, wearing his Mandya and holding his pastoral staff! In 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized the mysteries of the “Living Church” which had been anathematized by Patriarch Tikhon of Russia! In 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the Church of Cyprus recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the “Pan‐Orthodox Congress” under Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis proposed the adoption of the new “Revised Julian Calendar.” In December 1923, the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece officially approved the adoption of the New Calendar to take place in March 1924. Among the bishops who signed the decision to adopt the new calendar was Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias, one of the bishops who later consecrated Bishop Matthew of Bresthena in 1935. Thus the Matthewites trace their Apostolic Succession from a bishop who was personally responsible (by his signature) for the adoption of the New Calendar in Greece.
prise de Constantinople par les Turcs (1450).
The Apostolic Succession of the Matthewites Derives From A Freemason and Ecumenist “Patriarch” In his book “Elenchos Kai Anatrope” Mr. Gkoutzidis writes about the various ecclesiological books that were printed by the Zealot Athonite fathers: “At the very same time important documents of an ecclesiological nature are circulated by the Zealot Hieromonks who had departed Mt. Athos, the foremost of which was the then Hieromonk and later Bishop and Archbishop of the G.O.C., Matthew Karpathakis. From among these documents we mention the most important, namely, ‘Apostasias Elenchos,’ ‘Distomos Romphaia’ published in 1934 and ‘Phos tois en Skotei’ published in 1936, which widely shocked the innovative process of Chrysostom Papadopoulos…” From the last of these Athonite books, ‘Phos tois en Skotei’ of 1936, we provide the following quote: “…Therefore, the Official Church of Chrysostom Papadopoulos, recognized by the State, is naked and deprived of the grace and gift of God, because it betrayed the Faith of our Christ by its tolerance and collaboration with atheistic Judeo‐Masonry!!!...” Below is a photocopy of the actual page from which the quote is taken: We agree wholeheartedly with the above quote, that if a bishop enslaves himself to antichristian and satanic Judeo‐Masonry, his mysteries are invalid and his hierarchical status is “naked and deprived of the grace and gift of God.” But unfortunately, “Archbishop” Chrysostom of Athens was not the first, nor was he the last, of these Mason “hierarchs.” Among the masons of high rank also happened to be the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III, the first Masonic “Patriarch” of Constantinople. This information is derived firstly from the official website of the “Grand Lodge of Greece,” as well as from several books published by the Zealot Fathers themselves, many of which refer to Joachim III as “the first Mason Ecumenical Patriarch.” On the Greek version of Wikipedia, in the article regarding Joachim III, we read: “According to the official website of the Grand Lodge of Greece, he was a member of the Masonic Lodge called ‘Progress.’ (Πρόοδος).” And he wasn’t only a Mason, but also an Ecumenist. In the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1904 he asked of the Primates of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches to discuss the following: “a) the meeting and strengthening by concordance and love, of the Holy Orthodox Churches of God, b) the possibility of relation and Christian love and rapprochement of our Churches with the two great branches of Christianity, namely, Catholicism and Protestantism, c) how it is possible for the Orthodox Church to approach the so‐called Old Catholics, who desire a union with us, and d) whether it is possible or not for us to formulate and better adjust our current Calendar.” He also wrote: “It is beloved of God and Evangelical for me to ask of the leadership of the Holy Autocephalous Churches regarding our present and future relations with the two great branches of Christianity, the Western Church and the Protestant Churches. And it is known that every genuine Christian must pray and petition, as is found in the texts of our Church, for the Evangelical Unity, a teaching constituting a pious and heartfelt desire in the Orthodox Faith, for the unity of them and all who believe in Christ…” Further down he writes: “Not without worth is our attention towards the issue of a common calendar, so that we can adequate document things said and written, using the same proposed systems of reform of our Julian Calendar, which has been kept by the Orthodox Church for a long time. [This reform shall take place] either by adopting the Gregorian Calendar, since [the Julian Calendar] is scientifically lacking, whereas this one is more accurate. We must consequently also consider the transformation of our ecclesiastical Paschalion. Regarding this topic, the opinions are divided, as we can see from the resulted specific opinions of our Orthodox people…” Thus, ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ Joachim III was not only a Mason (member of the Lodge called ‘Progress’), but he was also a branch theory Ecumenist (he called Catholicism and Protestantism ‘branches of Christianity’ and he expressed a desire for unity with them). Additionally he was also in favour of the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar, either by the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar or the creation of a new calendar. In any case his purpose is spelled out quite clearly as “common calendar,” meaning a single calendar for Westerns and Orthodox, to better promote their unity. In other words, ‘Patrarch’ Joachim III was the forerunner of ‘Archbishop’ Chrysostom Papadopoulos! He was the ‘Metaxakis’ before Meletius Metaxakis!!! But this very Mason, Ecumenist and very‐well‐would‐have‐been New Calendarist ‘Patriarch’ is the very bishop who consecrated Metropolitan Chrysostom Kavouridis of Florina in 1909, who in turn consecrated Bishop Matthew of Bresthena in 1935! In other words, the Apostolic Succession of the Matthewites derives from a Mason, Ecumenist and Modernist ‘Patriarch’!!! So by what means does Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis and Mr. Eleutherius Gkoutzidis preach to us that supposedly Bishop Matthew offered a “pure” line of Apostolic Succession, whereas all other lines (Russian Church Abroad, etc) are looked upon as “unclean”? What could be more unclean than a consecration derived from a Mason, Ecumenist and Modernist ‘Patriarch’ such as Joachim III??? Such a line of Apostolic Succession is by far as “unclean” as one can possibly get! Yet Bp. Kirykos presents it as some kind of “spotless bastion” of Apostolic Succession! The fact that Joachim III was a Mason is enough to disqualify the validity of this line, without even mentioning the fact he was also a ‘branch‐theory’ believing Ecumenist heretic, and was also in favour of the reformation of the ecclesiastical calendar! But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. This Mason, Ecumenist and Modernist ‘Patriarch’ Joachim III did not only pass on the Apostolic Succession to the Matthewites. He was also the very ‘Patriarch’ who blessed the Holy Chrism in 1903 and again in 1912, the very Holy Chrism that the Matthewites were using until as late as 1958! Thus the Matthewites were rechrismating converts from New Calendarism by anointing them with the Holy Chrism blessed by a Freemason, Ecumenist and Modernist ‘Patriarch’!!! Behold a photograph of ‘Patriarch’ Joachim III and the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate shortly after the blessing of the Holy Chrism on Holy Thursday, 1912: The consecration of Holy Chrism by Patriarch Joachim III in 1912 Now let us again read the quote from “Phos tois en Skotei” published in 1936: “…Therefore, the Official Church of Chrysostom Papadopoulos, recognized by the State, is naked and deprived of the grace and gift of God, because it betrayed the Faith of our Christ by its tolerance and collaboration with atheistic Judeo‐ Masonry!!!...” What does this mean? This means that according to their own ecclesiology, the Matthewites THEMSELVES are “naked and deprived of the grace and gift of God” because they derive not only their Apostolic Succession but even their Holy Chrism from a ‘Patriarch’ who “betrayed the Faith of our Christ by his tolerance and collaboration with atheistic Judeo‐Masonry!!!...” Alas! But let the Matthewites rethink as to whether they truly do have “pure” Apostolic Succession and “valid mysteries” before they dare to judge or doubt the Apostolic Succession and Valid Mysteries of the historic Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and the Acacian hierarchy it founded in Greece.
PAOK, the Panhellenic Athletic Club of Constantinople, founded in 1926 in Thessaloniki by Greek refugees from Anatolia after the end of the Greek-Turkish War (1919-1922), which ended with Greece’s defeat.