PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 28 February at 05:00 - Around 75000 files indexed.
CONCISE SUMMARY of the Soteriological Heresies of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis Bp. Kirykos tells his followers that those who have reacted against his policy regarding the issue of Holy Communion, supposedly teach that believers should eat meat and dairy products in preparation for Communion. But this slander is most ludicrous. He spreads this slander solely in order to cover up his two heretical letters to Fr. Pedro. The aforesaid letters were sent during Great Lent, during which not only is there no consumption of meat, but even oil and wine are not partaken save for Saturdays and Sundays only. Therefore, since the scandal occurred on the Sunday of Orthodoxy and continued further on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Cross (both of which fall in Great Lent), and since Fr. Pedro denounced Bp. Kirykos prior to the commencement of Holy Week, how can Bp. Kirykos’ slander be believed, regarding meat‐eating? In reality, it is Bp. Kirykos himself who blasphemes and preaches heresies without the slightest sign of repentance. Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that Christians should not commune on Sundays, but only on Saturdays. He destroys the Christian Soteriological meaning of Sunday as the day of Salvation and of Eternal Life, and he replaces it with the Saturday of the Jews! (Heresy = Sabbatianism) Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that fasting without oil makes a Christian “worthy” of Communion without any reference to the Mystery of Confession and the teaching of the Church that only God makes man worthy, because without God, no one is worthy. (Heresy = Pelagianism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that continuous Holy Communion was permitted to the early Christians supposedly because they were all ascetics and fasters, and that it was this fasting that made them “worthy to commune,” when in reality the early Christians lived among the world, and even the bishops were married, and they only knew of the fasts of Great Lent and of every Wednesday and Friday, whereas today’s Orthodox Christians have several more fasts (Dormition, Nativity, Apostles, etc). The Holy Apostles in their Canons forbid us to fast on Saturdays. The Synod of Gangra anathematizes those who call meat or marriage unclean or a reason of unworthiness to commune, as is written in the 1st and 2nd canons of that Synod. (Heresy of Bp. Kirykos = Manichaeanism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that if “by economy” he permits someone “lucky” to commune on a Sunday during Great Lent, that such a person must fast strictly on the Saturday prior, without oil, whereas the 64th Apostolic Canon forbids this, and the 55th Canon of the Quinisext Council admonishes the Church of Old Rome, in order for this cacodoxy and cacopraxy to cease. Additionally, St. Photius the Great in his “Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs” calls the act of fasting strictly on the Saturdays of Great Lent “the first heresy of the Westerners” (Heresy of Bp. Kirykos = Frankism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that laymen are unworthy due to the fact they are laymen, and that outside of the fasting periods they must prepare for Communion by fasting for 7 days without meat, 5 days without dairy, 3 days without oil or wine, 1 day without olives and sesame products. He demands this fast upon all laymen, whether married or virgins, whether old or young, and without allowing the spiritual father to judge those who confess to him with either a stricter or easier fast, according to one’s sins. In other words, their only sin causing the necessity for this long fast is the fact that they are laymen! Paradoxically, Bp. Kirykos himself eats eggs, cheese, milk, etc, as late as midnight on a Saturday night and then he serves the Liturgy and Communes on Sunday without feeling “unworthy.” He justifies his hypocrisy by saying “I am permitted to eat whatever I want because I am a Bishop!” Phew! In other words, he believes that his Episcopal dignity makes him “worthy” of communion without having the need to fast even for one day, whereas laymen need to fast for an entire week simply because they are laymen! This system was kept by the Pharisees, and they were condemned by the Lord because they placed heavy burdens on the shoulders of men, while they would not lift the weight of even a single finger. (Heresy = Pharisaism). Heretical is the theory of Bp. Kirykos that the Holy Canons do not apply in our times but that they are only for the Apostolic era. He preaches that back then the Church was “worthy” to commune but that now we are all fallen and because of this the Holy Canons must be interpreted differently, and not in the same context as they were interpreted by the Holy Fathers. In other words, Bp. Kirykos preaches that of one kind was the Apostolic Church, and of another kind are we today, and that “we must return.” In so saying, he forgets that the Lord’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church, and he blasphemes the verse in the Symbol of the Faith in which we confess that also we today, by God’s mercy, belong to the “One, Holy, Catholic and APOSTOLIC Church,” and that there is no such thing as another Church of the Apostolic times and a different Church today, but that there exists ONLY THE ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST, both then and now, with the same requirement to abide by the Holy Canons and to interpret them exactly how the Holy Fathers interpreted them. The only ones who believe in a first “Apostolic Church” and a later fall, and that “we must return,” are the Chiliasts and Ecumenists, these very heretics that Bp. Kirykos supposedly battles, yet he preaches their cacodoxies (Heresies = Chiliasm and Ecumenism).
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.
the Heretical (Mal-Kofts) The Heretical Damned each may have seen something, some ‘truth’ or some horror underlying reality at the moment of their Becoming.
2 3 Orthodox. Well, while you’re thinking let me remind you that the Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical of 1848 also condemned this teaching, which is essentially that of the Lutherans. It is also very close to the Anglican idea of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist – although it is notoriously difficult to say precisely what the Anglicans believe. And you will remember that the Anglicans and Catholics killed each other during the Anglican Reformation precisely because the Catholics had a realistic understanding of the sacrament, whereas the Anglicans, being Protestants, did not. A recent Anglican biography of the first Anglican archbishop, Cranmer, has demonstrated that he was a Zwinglian in his eucharistic theology. Rationalist. You know, I think that you are misrepresenting the Anglican position. Fr. X of the Moscow Theological Academy has told me that the Orthodox teaching coincides with that of the Anglicans, but not with that of the Catholics. Orthodox. Really, you do surprise me! I knew that your Moscow theologians were close to the Anglicans, the spiritual fathers of the ecumenical movement and masters of doctrinal double‐think, but I did not know that they had actually embraced their doctrines! As for the Catholics – what do you find wrong with their eucharistic theology? Rationalist. Don’t you know? The Orthodox reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation! Orthodox. I do not believe that the Orthodox reject transubstantiation. We dislike the word “transubstantiation” because of its connotations of Aristotlean philosophy and medieval scholasticism, but very few people today – even Catholics – use the word in the technically Aristotlean sense. Most people mean by “transubstantiation” simply the doctrine that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which is Orthodox. The Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical write that “the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual Body of the Lord.” They use four words here, including “transubstantiated”, to show that they are equivalent in meaning. In any case, is not the Russian word “presuschestvlenie” a translation of “transubstantiation”? It is important not to quarrel over words if the doctrine the words express is the same. Rationalist. Nevertheless, the doctrine of transubstantiation is Catholic and heretical. Orthodox. If that is so, why has the Orthodox Church never condemned it as heretical? The Orthodox Church has on many occasions condemned the Catholic heresies of the Filioque, papal infallibility, created grace, etc., but never the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Rationalist. It’s still heretical. And I have to say that I find your thinking very western, scholastic, primitive and materialist! Orthodox. Perhaps you’ll find these words of the Lord also “primitive and materialist”: “Unless you eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood, you have no life in you” (John 6.53). And these words of St. John Chrysostom written in his commentary on the Lord’s words: “He hath given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His Flesh, and to embrace Him, and satisfy their love…” 5 Was St. John Chrysostom, the composer of our Liturgy, a western Catholic in his thinking? Rationalist. Don’t be absurd! Orthodox. Well then… Let’s leave the Catholics and Protestants and get back to the Orthodox position. And let me put my understanding of the Orthodox doctrine as concisely as possible: at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that there is no longer the substances of bread and wine, but only of Body and Blood. Rationalist. I accept that so long as you do not mean that there is a physico‐ chemical change in the constitution of the bread and wine? Orthodox. But can there not be a physico‐chemical change?! Are not bread and wine physical substances? Rationalist. Yes. Orthodox. And are not human flesh and blood physico‐chemical substances? Rationalist. Yes… Orthodox. And is not a change from one physico‐chemical substance into another physico‐chemical substance a physico‐chemical change? Rationalist. Here you are demonstrating your western, legalistic, primitive mentality! All Aristotlean syllogisms and empty logic! The Orthodox mind is quite different: it is mystical. You forget that we are talking about a Mystery! Orthodox. Forgive me for offending you. I quite accept that we are talking about a Mystery. But there is a difference between mystery and mystification. If we are going to speak at all, we must speak clearly, with as precise a definition of terms as human speech will allow. The Fathers were not opposed to logic or clarity. Illogicality is no virtue! Rationalist. Alright… But the fact remains that the change is not a physico‐ chemical one, but a supernatural one. It says so in the Liturgy itself! Orthodox. I agree that the change is supernatural in two senses. First, the instantaneous change of one physical substance into another is obviously not something that we find in the ordinary course of nature. Of course, bread and wine are naturally changed into flesh and blood through the process of eating and digestion. But in this case the change is effected, not by eating, but by the word of prayer – and it’s instantaneous. For, as St. Gregory of Nyssa points out, “it is not a matter of the bread becoming the Body of the Word through the natural process of eating: rather it is transmuted immediately into the Body 5 St.
Pedro which by God's Providence unmasked his true self and his heretical views So perhaps Constantina was useful after all, in that she helped unmask Met.
The story told by these Word Bearers have likewise headed scenarios forms part of the wider events underground, determined to complete of warmaster Horus' heretical crusade, theirhereticalworkbyhuntingdown explained in detail later in this book.
Iconically holding a greatsword and commanding the words of their gods these fighters tend to be religious and sometimes even heretical.
Any playwrights found guilty of expressing seditious or heretical opinions, which were in opposition to state could be tortured and sentenced to death for treason or even atheism Catholics were seen as a threat ( and it is likely that Shakespeare was a Catholic) There were spies everywhere - Queen Elizabeth I lived in fear of Catholic Plots and invasion from Catholic realms ( she was right to worry - remember the Spanish Armada!) Thomas Kyd, a fellow playwright was arrested on charges of writing a slanderous play.
INTRODUCTION The Scandal at Karea and the Justified Departure of Fr. Pedro Fr. Pedro was accepted into the G.O.C. Metropolis of Mesogaea (that of Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis) in February, 2009. Fr. Pedro also received rebaptism, rechrismation, and reordination even though he had the form of the triple immersion and was a cleric of another old calendarist synod (of Russian succession), in accordance with the new practice of Bp. Kirykos to baptize everybody entering his synod without checking the manner or form of the first baptism. For one year, Bp. Kirykos himself and the clergy and laity of the metropolis were very pleased in all aspects with Fr. Pedro’s confession and practice. On 15/28 July, 2009, Fr. Pedro was elevated to the rank of spiritual father – confessor, thereby giving him the right to confess and advise the faithful. (In order to verify this event, two photographs of his elevation to the rank of confessor are found in the list of documents on the website.) On 19 September/2 October, 2009, Fr. Pedro was assigned as rector (officiating priest) of the parish of St. Spyridon in Karea, Athens. (In order to verify this fact, the certificate of his appointment as parish priest is found on the list of documents on the website.) In the meantime, Fr. Pedro noticed that in his parish, where he had responsibility before God and men, the Holy Canons were not being followed by the laity. The first anti‐canonical occurrence was that women would enter the holy altar. The second anti‐canonical occurrence was that some women were scandalized when they saw laypeople receiving Communion every Sunday during Lent, even though these laypeople had confessed and prepared themselves in accordance with the guidance of their spiritual father. First Fr. Pedro asked for the help of Bp. Kirykos. But since Bp. Kirykos did not have any concern or give any advice and did not show any interest in his complaint, Fr. Pedro, as spiritual father and officiating priest of the Holy Church [of St. Spyridon to which he had been appointed], asked a layperson of the parish to give some photocopies of the holy canons and patristic teachings regarding women not being permitted to enter the altar, women not being permitted to speak or teach inside the church, and concerning the frequent communion after confession and with a clean conscience as an Orthodox teaching which should not cause even one scandal but rather the devoutness and joy for their brethren in Christ who received the Lord. (The photocopies which the layperson distributed with the blessing of Fr. Pedro can be found among the documents on the website.) As a reaction to the above, on the Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross, Bp. Kirykos sent his FIRST BLASPHEMOUS LETTER to Fr. Pedro, in which Bp. Kirykos preaches at least five heresies. (A scan of this letter is found on the list of documents on the website). After a few days Fr. Pedro asked a lay theologian to telephone Bp. Kirykos and explain to him his doubt concerning the letter. But once Bp. Kirykos was informed that his letter was blasphemous and heretical, Bp. Kirykos began frantically screaming “Stop talking! Stop talking!” The next day Fr. Pedro received the SECOND BLASPHEMOUS LETTER of Bp. Kirykos, in which he dares to call the photocopies from the Rudder and the writings of St. Basil which were handed out at St. Spyridon’s parish as supposedly containing an “unorthodox mindset!” (A scan of this letter by Bp. Kirykos is found on the list of documents on the website). Two days later Fr. Pedro sent his FIRST RESPONSE to Bp. Kirykos, which Bp. Kirykos still has not responded to even though several weeks have passed. (A scan of this letter by Bp. Pedro can be found on the list of documents on the website). Bp. Kirykos invited Fr. Pedro to defend himself at a clerical meeting of the Metropolis but he forbade the presence of Fr. Pedro’s interpreter, Mr. Christos Noukas. This forbiddance is anti‐canonical because Bp. Kirykos cannot invite a priest to defend himself at a meeting without the priest having the means to express his positions (Fr. Pedro is of Brazilian descent and requires a translator to communicate in Greek). Fr. Pedro, seeing then that Bp. Kirykos was using a Caesaro‐Papist tactic, renounced him because of his many heresies and departed to another old calendarist synod in which he finds more seriousness towards the Orthodox dogmas and teachings, while in the person of Bp. Kirykos he saw a very small amount of seriousness, if not complete negligence. (Proof of the authenticity of the above can be found among the documents on the website.)
The Matthewite Bishop Kirykos Kontogiannis Is Himself An “Old Calendarist Ecumenist” Bp. Kirykos Kontogiannis is responsible for the Matthewites separating from communion with the ROCOR in 1976 on the charge of “old calendarist ecumenism.” He is also the one who warred against the theological dialogue between the Matthewites and the Kiousis Synod from 1985 to 2005, again on the charge of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” Bp. Kirykos also even severed communion with the holy Archbishop Andrew (Anestis) of Athens and the remaining Matthewite hierarchs, and created his own personal schism (the “Kirykite” faction), again on the charge that all other Matthewite hierarchs had supposedly fallen into “Old Calendarist Ecumenism.” But now it has been proven that this charge has always been false, because Bp. Kirykos is HIMSELF exactly what he would describe an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Thus it becomes apparent that Bp. Kirykos’ reasons for schism were entirely personal, in order to promote his egotistic self‐esteem, and also as a rage of anger that he did not get elected as Archbishop of Athens instead of Nicholas. There are many proofs that Bp. Kirykos is an Old Calendarist Ecumenist. The main proof is the fact he united with the Romanian Victorite hierarchy, which traces its apostolic succession from Bp. Victor Leu (+1980) who was consecrated in 1949 by three ROCOR hierarchs, whereas Bp. Kirykos believes that the ROCOR was void of grace from 1924 onwards, and claims that anyone who believes the ROCOR had grace during this time is an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Bp. Kirykos received the Romanian hierarchy into communion without re‐consecrating them, without reading a cheirothesia or prayer of absolution, but by a simple recognition! This very act is a clear sign of “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” as Bp. Kirykos himself would describe it. Another proof of Bp. Kirykos’s “Old Calendarist Ecumenism” is his recent official glorification of St. John the Romanian of Hozeva, a priest of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, who was ordained in 1947 by a bishop of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and never severed communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. According to Bp. Kirykos’ own definition, St. John the Romanian was most definitely an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist.” Yet, by glorifying him and consecrating a chapel in his honour, Bp. Kirykos has proven himself to also be an “Old Calendarist Ecumenist,” thereby negating all the reasons for the schisms he has caused in the past. This therefore proves that Bp. Kirykos’ schism (the “Kirykites”) is nothing more than an egotistic parasynagogue. And it cannot be said that Bp. Kirykos was unaware that St. John the Romanian was ordained and belonged to the Jerusalem Patriarchate, because no sound hierarch glorifies a Saint without first reading the Saint’s life! And a copy of St. John the Romanian’s life was found in Bp. Kirykos’ own archive, in one of his recent folders which contained the decision of his Synod to glorify St. John the Romanian. In that book, it is clearly written in Greek that “The Patriarch of Jerusalem approved the ordination and on the 13th of May, 1947, the feastday of St. Glycheria, he was ordained as a hierodeacon by Bishop Irenarchus. On the 14th of September of the same year, he was ordained as a hieromonk and abbot of the Romanian Church in Jordan. His ordination took place in the Church of the All‐ holy Sepulchre.” A scan of the section follows: Below are photographs of Bp. Kirykos’ glorification of St. John the Romanian: Bp. Kirykos believes that the Jerusalem Patriarchate lost grace in 1924, yet at the same time he believes grace was somehow “provided” for the ordination of St. John the Romanian in 1947, and that the latter therefore performed valid mysteries and belonged to the True Church, despite having been a member of the Jerusalem Patriarchate until his very repose! In other words, grace doesn’t exist anywhere until Bp. Kirykos fancies to “grant” it a whole 61 years later! This theory that the Holy Spirit sanctifies only “wherever Kirykos wants” is NOT an example of Orthodox ecclesiology. On the contrary, it is a satanic, egotistic blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not an Ecclesiology, but rather a “Kirykology.” It is an ecclesiological heresy that is not based on the Holy Fathers, but rather on the egotistic whims of a deluded man, Mr. Kirykos Kontogiannis, who for 30 years has prevented the unity of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, and has even caused several schisms (including his current Kirykite schismato‐heretical parasynagogue), supposedly due to saving the Church from “Old Calendarist Ecumenism,” whereas in actual fact among “Old Calendarist Ecumenists” is none other than Bp. Kirykos himself! May God enlighten him to repent, and for his followers to denounce his treacherous schism and work towards the unity of the G.O.C.
CAN FASTING MAKE ONE “WORTHY” TO COMMUNE? In the first paragraph of his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos writes: “... according to the tradition of our Fathers (and that of Bishop Matthew of Bresthena), all Christians, who approach to receive Holy Communion, must be suitably prepared, in order to worthily receive the body and blood of the Lord. This preparation indispensably includes fasting according to one’s strength.” To further prove that he interprets this worthiness as being based on fasting, Metropolitan Kirykos continues further down in reference to his unhistorical understanding about the early Christians: “They fasted in the fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to commune.” Here Bp. Kirykos tries to fool the reader by stating the absolutely false notion that the Holy Fathers (among them St. Matthew of Bresthena) supposedly agree with his unorthodox views. The truth is that not one single Holy Father of the Orthodox Church agrees with Bp. Kirykosʹs views, but in fact, many of them condemn these views as heretical. And as for referring to St. Matthew of Bresthena, this is extremely misleading, which is why Bp. Kirykos was unable to provide a quote. In reality, St. Matthew’s five‐page‐ long treatise on Holy Communion, published in 1933, repeatedly stresses the importance of receiving Holy Communion frequently and does not mention any such pre‐communion fast at all. He only mentions that one must go to confession, and that confession is like a second baptism which washes the soul and prepares it for communion. If St. Matthew really thought a standard week‐long pre‐communion fast for all laymen was paramount, he certainly would have mentioned it somewhere in his writings. But in the hundreds of pages of writings by St. Matthew that have been collected, no mention is made of such a fast. The reason for this is because St. Matthew was a Kollyvas Father just as was his mentor, St. Nectarius of Aegina. Also, the fact St. Matthew left Athos and preached throughout Greece and Asia Minor during his earlier life, is another example of his imitation of the Kollyvades Fathers. As much as Bp. Kirykos would like us to think that the Holy Fathers preach that a Christian, simply by fasting, can somehow “worthily receive the body and blood of the Lord,” the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church actually teach quite clearly that NO ONE is worthy of Holy Communion, except by the grace of God Himself. Whether someone eats oil on a Saturday or doesnʹt eat oil, cannot be the deciding point of a person’s supposed “worthiness.” In fact, even fasting, confession, prayer, and all other things donʹt come to their fulfillment in the human soul until one actually receives Holy Communion. All of these things such as fasting, prayers, prostrations, repentance, etc, do indeed help one quench his passions, but they by no means make him “worthy.” Yes, we confess our sins to the priest. But the sins aren’t loosened from our soul until the priest reads the prayer of pardon, and the sins are still not utterly crushed until He who conquered death enters inside the human soul through the Mystery of Holy Communion. That is why Christ said that His Body and Blood are shed “for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28). Fasting is there to quench our passions and prevent us from sinning, confession is there so that we can recall our sins and repent of them, but it is the Mysteries of the Church that operate on the soul and grant to it the “worthiness” that the human soul can by no means attain by itself. Thus, the Mystery of Pardon loosens the sins, and the Mystery of Holy Communion remits the sins. For of the many Mysteries of the Church, the seven highest mysteries have this very purpose, namely, to remit the sins of mankind by the Divine Economy. Thus, Baptism washes away the sins from the soul, while Chrism heals anything ailing and fills all voids. Thus, Absolution washes away the sins, while Communion heals the soul and body and fills it with the grace of God. Thus, Unction cures the maladies of soul and body, causing the body and soul to no longer be divided but united towards a life in Christ; while Marriage (or Monasticism) confirms the plurality of persons or sense of community that God desired when he said of old “Be fruitful and multiply” (or in the case of Monasticism, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”). Finally, the Mystery of Priesthood is the authority given by Christ for all of these Mysteries to be administered. Certainly, it is an Apostolic Tradition for mankind to be prepared by fasting before receiving any of the above Mysteries, be it Baptism, Chrism, Absolution, Communion, Unction, Marriage or Priesthood. But this act of fasting itself does not make anyone “worthy!” If someone thinks they are “worthy” before approaching Holy Communion, then the Holy Communion would be of no positive affect to them. In actuality, they will consume fire and punishment. For if anyone thinks that their own works make themselves “worthy” before the eyes of God, then surely Christ would have died in vain. Christ’s suffering, passion, death and Resurrection would have been completely unnecessary. As Christ said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick (Matthew 9:12).” If a person truly thinks that by not partaking of oil/wine on Saturday, in order to commune on Sunday, that this has made them “worthy,” then by merely thinking such a thing they have already proved themselves unworthy of Holy Communion. In fact, they are deniers of Christ, deniers of the Cross of Christ, and deniers of their own salvation in Christ. They rather believe in themselves as their own saviors. They are thus no longer Christians but humanists. But is humanism a modern notion, or has it existed before in the history of the Church? In reality, the devil has hurled so many heresies against the Church that he has run out of creativity. Thus, the traps and snares he sets are but fancy recreations of ancient heresies already condemned by the Church. The humanist notions entertained by Bp. Kirykos are actually an offshoot of an ancient heresy known as Pelagianism.
Smith to suspension from the Presbyterian ministry until he renounces and recants his heretical teaching.
Way of the Ascendant One A cultic, heretical branch of the Church of the Ageless One, members actually believe that a prophet, burned alive by the Griffon States inside Mt.